I do want conservatives on here

[CFordUNC]

Ignore doesn't solve the problem of trolls ruining things for everyone. In fact, in some ways, it might make it worse.

This relates to another post of mine on this thread, but let's go with it again. Suppose there are 10 new posters. Troll after troll doing their thing, espousing conservative BS. You throw them all on ignore. Now serious poster #10 comes along, and his views are generally aligned with the others. Except his are thought-out, considered and he can defend them. Will he get the chance, or will people throw him on ignore when he starts talking favorably about something Trump did..

I think that's one reason why you are reluctant to put people on ignore. And that system of hearing someone out and then choosing to ignore them can work. But it can also easily and possibly imperceptibly deteriorate into hasty judgment.

I'm not saying that it's a bad thing to do. I'm saying that it doesn't necessarily solve the problem with trolls. It perhaps solves one problem, while opening another. This is also not to say that banning is preferable, though at least banning has the virtue of procedural fairness. Before people are banned, they are usually warned, and they are given a chance to explain themselves, and it's only after they have failed numerous tests that they get banned. Almost always, people who get banned do so by choice, and in fact it might even be their intention. The ignore solution has no such safeguards. Anyone can click the button and boom! it's done.

Those are all great points. I think it's especially important to accentuate what you said about how posters were usually only banned after multiple warnings. There were plenty of MAGA posters on the old board who were given tons of leeway to post things that were obviously meant to bait and inflame- riverheel being a prime example- and they were only ultimately banned after failing to heed repeated warnings. I have never seen a single poster (besides the weird guy who has a million different alias) banned without multiple attempts at warning the poster. Hell, I got a couple of (very well-deserved) warnings from the mods via PM to knock it off- and I always knocked it off.

 

[heel79]

I don't remember you ever discussing that on the ZZLP. Maybe it was on the ZZL? In any event, I am not trying to get this place off to a good start. I'm just being me.

The other thing to appreciate that people who are besieged by trolls will come to see the world as trolls versus non-trolls. When 9 out of every 10 conservative poster user names is a troll account, then it's not unreasonable for people to view poster #10 in that light. It's not fair to poster #10, but message boards can't really work any other way. You just can't expect people to keep an open mind about every new person, in the face of experience in which almost all of those people turn out to be worthless as posters.

So are there people quick to judge? Too quick. Sure. At least part of the blame needs to go to the trolls who ruin things for the rest of us.

This was 2019 so I assume zzlp. Maybe not but it was what I would call the zzlp gang that went after me in that issue. I mean to me it was easy. Honor the mother or some person who had never met victim. I have never thought of myself as particularly thin-skinned, often joking that I grew another layer each year as an editor. I do believe - and this is on me- I took things more personal because I was not anonymous. There was a lot of stuff, especially early on. That I was too dumb to be editor or whatever. Also I think my job colored how I viewed the moderation and tolerance for other opinions. Part of my job was not only to tolerate dissent but to welcome it and display it.

 

[superrific]

This was 2019 so I assume zzlp. Maybe not but it was what I would call the zzlp gang that went after me in that issue. I mean to me it was easy. Honor the mother or some person who had never met victim. I have never thought of myself as particularly thin-skinned, often joking that I grew another layer each year as an editor. I do believe - and this is on me- I took things more personal because I was not anonymous. There was a lot of stuff, especially early on. That I was too dumb to be editor or whatever. Also I think my job colored how I viewed the moderation and tolerance for other opinions. Part of my job was not only to tolerate dissent but to welcome it and display it.

Well, it's not quite that easy, is it? My wife's nephew is trans. His mom refuses to acknowledge it and always refers to her by her male name given at birth. They don't talk much any more, because the trans person finds it invalidating and upsetting.

So I guess we have to ask about the purpose of an obituary. Is it to honor the mom, or the dead person? I don't think framing it as "a person who had never met the victim" is helpful. It might be better to ask whether those people were trying to represent his interests, to make sure that an important part of his identity wasn't being erased by his intolerant mom.

Again, the point here isn't to jump on you for what you did. I just think that accepting the mom's characterization and printing the obit to her desires isn't always going to do right by the person who died. And maybe that's not important, given that the person is dead -- though my understanding of an obit is that it's not supposed to take a dump on the deceased.

 

[heel79]

Well, it's not quite that easy, is it? My wife's nephew is trans. His mom refuses to acknowledge it and always refers to her by her male name given at birth. They don't talk much any more, because the trans person finds it invalidating and upsetting.

So I guess we have to ask about the purpose of an obituary. Is it to honor the mom, or the dead person? I don't think framing it as "a person who had never met the victim" is helpful. It might be better to ask whether those people were trying to represent his interests, to make sure that an important part of his identity wasn't being erased by his intolerant mom.

Again, the point here isn't to jump on you for what you did. I just think that accepting the mom's characterization and printing the obit to her desires isn't always going to do right by the person who died. And maybe that's not important, given that the person is dead -- though my understanding of an obit is that it's not supposed to take a dump on the deceased.

Just for clarity the obit the family pays for and controls. So that was not my call. My voice was to add to the pain of a grieving family or try to make happy someone who I was sure then and now knew nothing of this person. I believe now that putting the victim in the category of trans woman murdered furthered their interests. They were also dishonest. Finally, as noted previously, at that time I did not view this person as trans but as a transvestite. I know now that has changed. I said earlier but it did not get much reax that when this happened a former reporter called me and reminded me of when we had retroactively changed he to she in a story when we became aware the person identified as a she. We did this on our own. I don't think anyone noticed. The point being, I was not dug into a hard line position

 

[Lando]

This was 2019 so I assume zzlp. Maybe not but it was what I would call the zzlp gang that went after me in that issue. I mean to me it was easy. Honor the mother or some person who had never met victim. I have never thought of myself as particularly thin-skinned, often joking that I grew another layer each year as an editor. I do believe - and this is on me- I took things more personal because I was not anonymous. There was a lot of stuff, especially early on. That I was too dumb to be editor or whatever. Also I think my job colored how I viewed the moderation and tolerance for other opinions. Part of my job was not only to tolerate dissent but to welcome it and display it.

You got called out by the HRC because your interactions with them involved you explaining that being trans was like a cat pretending to be a dog. It denied the existance of trans people altogether and brought animals into the equation which ends up being dehumanizing. It's the trans equivalent of "Gay marriage? What's next, people marrying their turtles?" Can you see why the HRC assumed your motivations were less than noble given that you felt the need to explain to them that someone being trans was like one animal pretending it was a different animal?

I've had beliefs that I now regret. I went to high school with five hundred kids, one of whom wasn't white. If you dropped 20 year old me in a thread about DEI I would blow that thing up with ignorance. I didn't burst from the womb a champion of gay rights, and I'm certain that I have views right now that down the road will be regrettable. When I do step in it (and getting into that kind of spat with a major civil rights group qualifies as stepping in it) I can't pretend that the only reason people get mad at me is unfairness, political bias, or whatever other grievance bubbles to the top of my mind that day. You stepped in it and the board largely let it slide, which makes the grievance about unfairness irksome.

 

[heel79]

You got called out by the HRC because your interactions with them involved you explaining that being trans was like a cat pretending to be a dog. It denied the existance of trans people altogether and brought animals into the equation which ends up being dehumanizing. It's the trans equivalent of "Gay marriage? What's next, people marrying their turtles?" Can you see why the HRC assumed your motivations were less than noble given that you felt the need to explain to them that someone being trans was like one animal pretending it was a different animal?

I've had beliefs that I now regret. I went to high school with five hundred kids, one of whom wasn't white. If you dropped 20 year old me in a thread about DEI I would blow that thing up with ignorance. I didn't burst from the womb a champion of gay rights, and I'm certain that I have views right now that down the road will be regrettable. When I do step in it (and getting into that kind of spat with a major civil rights group qualifies as stepping in it) I can't pretend that the only reason people get mad at me is unfairness, political bias, or whatever other grievance bubbles to the top of my mind that day. You stepped in it and the board largely let it slide, which makes the grievance about unfairness irksome.

I know what happened. You don't. You know what they published. They refused to let it go. I went about it thoughtfully and with an open mind, calling the sheriff and the family. Their intent was to create a circus. As I said at that time I did not think a person with a penis was a trans woman. I could have used an analogy of forks and spoons and wish I had. What would you have done with the info I provided? I am curious.

 

[superrific]

I believe now that putting the victim in the category of trans woman murdered furthered their interests.

Of course it did. That doesn't make them wrong. I think Lando makes some worthwhile points in general, but training them on your actions doesn't seem helpful or justified.

My last point, which is speculative but illustrative of the problems we face in public discourse. It wouldn't surprise me if you didn't react all that well to a Human Rights Campaign person showing up and impliedly calling you a violator of human rights. I don't think most people would respond all that well to it. At the same time, the HRC is probably used to dealing with thoughtless people in your position, people who aren't trying to understand or discuss but rather to dismiss. So your explanation was viewed in light of their past experience. It's like the problem of poster #10.

This is what happens when a nation's political discourse (and social discourse) gets taken over and consumed by bad-faith actors. Pretty soon everyone is being accused of being bad-faith, and that drives the good-faith people away so that we're left with mostly bad-faith BS. It's hard to operate respectfully when you are expecting to be dealing with a bad-faith actor, especially when the probability says that the suspected bad-faith is actually bad-faith.

 

[superrific]

I could have used an analogy of forks and spoons and wish I had. What would you have done with the info I provided? I am curious.

I think it would be best to avoid the analogy altogether, in this instance.

 

[Lando]

As I said at that time I did not think a person with a penis was a trans woman.

Do you think such a thing can exist now?

 

[heel79]

Of course it did. That doesn't make them wrong. I think Lando makes some worthwhile points in general, but training them on your actions doesn't seem helpful or justified.

My last point, which is speculative but illustrative of the problems we face in public discourse. It wouldn't surprise me if you didn't react all that well to a Human Rights Campaign person showing up and impliedly calling you a violator of human rights. I don't think most people would respond all that well to it. At the same time, the HRC is probably used to dealing with thoughtless people in your position, people who aren't trying to understand or discuss but rather to dismiss. So your explanation was viewed in light of their past experience. It's like the problem of poster #10.

This is what happens when a nation's political discourse (and social discourse) gets taken over and consumed by bad-faith actors. Pretty soon everyone is being accused of being bad-faith, and that drives the good-faith people away so that we're left with mostly bad-faith BS. It's hard to operate respectfully when you are expecting to be dealing with a bad-faith actor, especially when the probability says that the suspected bad-faith is actually bad-faith.

What lando doesn't know is that I responded civilly several times, did my calls to sheriff and family. And they would not take no. I got at least two phone calls and they were threatening to go to CNN. Bring protesters etc. As I indicated I refused to talk to them without my publisher hearing what I said because I did not trust them. Did I act perfectly? No. I think my behavior was far superior to theirs.

 

[heel79]

Do you think such a thing can exist now?

I don't fully understand but I think that is accepted and I would honor it. Would you have agreed with HRC or the mother? What would you have done?

 

[superrific]

No. I think my behavior was far superior to theirs.

Of course you do. Maybe you're right. I'm just asking you to consider that maybe they acted as they did because of their past experiences with people who look like you, talk like you, use analogies as you did -- but who aren't you. That experience doesn't make them right in doing what they did. It just means that life is difficult. We don't always have time to give deep, respectful, empathetic consideration to our interlocutors' motivations, nor the inclination given that we are frequently not rewarded when we do. And thus do we get standoffs where both sides go away thinking the other is just terrible.

That's not, of course, to say that "both sides" is always a useful intellectual construct. Sometimes it is. I have no problem both-siding the conflict in Gaza, for instance. I think it's the only sensible way to look at the situation. I'm NOT both-siding this situation because, as we have mentioned before, I wasn't there. I'm just saying, as a general matter, we should try to be more generous in assessing people's motivations, while recognizing the practical barriers to doing so. Life is full of challenges.

 

[superrific]

I don't fully understand but I think that is accepted and I would honor it. Would you have agreed with HRC or the mother? What would you have done?

This is where it gets tricky. Here's, I think, the right answer to that question:

I know what I would have done, in the abstact. I don't know what I would have done as the editor, given that I've never been an editor and I can't possibly account for all the variables that would go into your decision. I doubt you could account for them all, either. A lot of our knowledge, especially knowledge obtained by experience, is what philosophers call "tacit." It's not reducible into communicable language. If you were able to describe even half of the factors that went into your decision-making, I think you'd be doing pretty well.

So I think the answer to the question is "I don't know," and that cuts both ways. It means that I would be wrong to judge you. But it also means that the question is ill-posed. Just because I don't have an answer doesn't mean that there wouldn't have been something better to do. It means that it's a conversation better had with someone who has experience as an editor.

I really think the lesson that we should take from all of this is that it's hard to give people the benefit of the doubt, especially in today's climate, but we really should do so when possible. I'm not talking about whether you did or didn't. Either way, we should -- well, not to those who have conclusively shown that they don't deserve it, but that category of people is, I think, smaller than maybe we think.

 

[Lando]

I don't fully understand but I think that is accepted and I would honor it. Would you have agreed with HRC or the mother? What would you have done?

I probably would have just run what the mother asked. I might've been wrong for that, but I'm guessing that's what I would've done. What I like to think I wouldn't have done is try to argue about the existence of trans people with them. Not whether or not this particular person was trans, but trans people in general. That was the screw up that got a national organization to name you.

 

[superrific]

I probably would have just run what the mother asked. I might've been wrong for that, but I'm guessing that's what I would've done. What I like to think I wouldn't have done is try to argue about the existence of trans people with them. Not whether or not this particular person was trans, but trans people in general. That was the screw up that got a national organization to name you.

That seems a fair point.

 

[heel79]

I probably would have just run what the mother asked. I might've been wrong for that, but I'm guessing that's what I would've done. What I like to think I wouldn't have done is try to argue about the existence of trans people with them. Not whether or not this particular person was trans, but trans people in general. That was the screw up that got a national organization to name you.

Fair enough. I thought these folks got way outside the lines quickly. Not nice people. The director then I am sure was UNC grad. I spoke to ii think 3 people. It occupied more time than I had to give it.

 

[nycfan]

 

[GQNC]

If at any point Kamala Harris announces that only white men are worthy of consideration for her VP, then yeah it’d be the exact same and worthy of criticism. I highly doubt she comes out and says that like Biden did in the past.

Democrats just don’t get it. You can literally choose the exact same folks you would’ve chosen anyways and check whatever DEI boxes you want. But just don’t announce to the world that you’re only picking them because of race and gender, because it undermines them.

I’m no expert, but would you not think Republicans and Democrats might have differing motivations behind announcing (or not) a group association reasoning behind a candidate selection? Pew Research indicates that 84% of black women in the US are Democrats. Making sure that that group is aware that their support is valued might be a good move for a Democratic presidential candidate, without facing a party backlash. The rest of the party knows that black women ARE important to Democrats winning races. What Republicans think of said Democratic presidential candidate stating this reasoning is of little importance to Democrats.

If a Republican candidate would name a black women running mate and make a similar statement, the blow back from white voters could easily be greater than the gain from picking up votes from black women.

IOW, maybe the Democrats DO get it.

 

[Lando]

Completely unrelated to the rabbit hole I dragged this down, the talk of bias reminds me of something that came up on a baseball forum years ago. Some people were negative about everything. Some people were positive about everything. Neither group really relied on facts, but the negative group would catch a lot more crap for it. When that was complained about the guy who ran the site was very open about why: mindless optimism is just easier to tolerate. If it's not going to be a reasonable discussion then the happy stuff was at least easier to stomach.

The same thing happens on political boards. Fact free nonsense from the other side grates at people and is rightly called out. Fact free nonsense from the same side is easier to stomach and is less likely to be called out. How often does anyone call out something they agree with for being fact free? You know why you believe the same thing, so there isn't a need for someone to explain it to you. When there are more of one side on a forum, the opposing side feels like they get jumped and they don't see it happening to the other side. That's not moderating or anything nefarious, it's just basic human nature.

 

[altmin]

Completely unrelated to the rabbit hole I dragged this down, the talk of bias reminds me of something that came up on a baseball forum years ago. Some people were negative about everything. Some people were positive about everything. Neither group really relied on facts, but the negative group would catch a lot more crap for it. When that was complained about the guy who ran the site was very open about why: mindless optimism is just easier to tolerate. If it's not going to be a reasonable discussion then the happy stuff was at least easier to stomach.

The same thing happens on political boards. Fact free nonsense from the other side grates at people and is rightly called out. Fact free nonsense from the same side is easier to stomach and is less likely to be called out. How often does anyone call out something they agree with for being fact free? You know why you believe the same thing, so there isn't a need for someone to explain it to you. When there are more of one side on a forum, the opposing side feels like they get jumped and they don't see it happening to the other side. That's not moderating or anything nefarious, it's just basic human nature.

don't get me started on negative vs positive on a sports board. Two terms I would ban in a heart beat "soft" and "sunshine pumper."