Supermallet

That wasn’t even one of the comments/posters I was thinking of. I have most of the really egregious people on ignore but I agree with JasonF, ignoring the outright bigotry of other members eventually makes us the place that tolerates outright bigotry.

slop101

Maybe if enough people ignore these troll/bigots and stop quoting/responding to them, they'll go away. And that's how we can be a place that doesn't tolerate such bigotry. It's just disheartening when I see people who know better respond to that shit, as if you can change a bigot's mind on a forum. It's a cliche, but all they want is that attention. This thread itself is a huge cry for attention.

creekdipper

I don't think it should require you to be deciding "not to err" on the side of not being a white supremacist douche. It ought to be simple enough to just not do that as a natural outgrowth of your character.

Anyway, that's beside the point...as I think you know. You talked about "ratting other people out." That term is usually used to denote identifying someone who is doing something wrong.

Why would you (or anyone) have a problem with a member identifying a rule-breaker who is making the forum an unwelcome place for other viewpoints? That is what your statement implies...that msp or anyone should just overlook blatant rule violations.

It might be instructive to note that people rarely complain about anyone "ratting out" members who express viewpoints contrary to their own. That might just be a coincidence, but only the mods could confirm whether that impression is accurate.

Even your "white supremacist douche" appears to be a dig at certain viewpoints without any credible proof. It's easy to call people names when their viewpoint disagrees with yours; it's a lot harder to back up the justification for such names (even if that behavior were permitted) with actual evidence rather than just opinions.

We see a lot of terms thrown around here: racists, monsters, bigots, zealots, and many more choice terms. And they generally are linked either directly or closely to particular members. What doesn't seem to occur to those doing so is that their opponents might have just as much if not more justification for calling them the same names.

This narrow-minded mindset that "the other side" is completely wrong and "our side" is completely right...therefore, the other side should be ostracized...is what leads to the credible assertion that some just want this forum to be a chamber echoing their own views. And, if they had their way, those expressing strong opposition views to theirs would be banned.

That could easily be done if the owners/adminstrators want the forum to become Conservative DVDTalk, Liberal DVDTalk, or some other exclusive, exclusionary site for a particular viewpoint. But as long as it's an open forum and people mind the rules, it's supposed to be open to all views, even when those views aren't shared by the moderators or when they are in the minority.

creekdipper

Since this is supposed to be an open conversation (although it appears to be mostly a conversation between like-minded individuals all complaining about one side of the political spectrum), I'll add my two cents to some of what's been posted.

There have been supposed examples given of the supposed horrible behavior that should be banned...quotes such as "all Latinos are animals" and "__ called black people apes."

The only problem is that those statements haven't happened. Those are just fictional, strawmen creations.

Posters have accused specific members of making "vile, racist comments," yet, when challenged, cannot produce said comments. And it's ironic that the same accusers are guilty of making the "fuck you" comments, the absolute fabrications, the repeated generalizations, etc...and then say they were "provoked" by the views of others. ?????

You can easily read between the lines of the comments in this thread. There are those who want the forum to be closed to views contrary to their own on some issues. That's what it comes down to. And...let's be honest...the call for doing so comes exclusively from one end of the political spectrum. No one from the other side is calling for views to be banned (and usually not for specific members unless they doing something like threatening others off the board).

That's what this is about and always has been about. For some, the attitude is "I don't like your views and don't want to hear them. And even though I can ignore them, I don't want anyone else to hear them, either. And I won't talk to those members...although I will talk about them plenty and tell others not to talk to them...but that's not good enough. I want them gone." Some have even gone so far as to suggest that they'll leave (hasn't happened) if their demands aren't met. And this is supposed to be discourse?

Let's be totally honest: Everyone here has read and continues to read views expressed by other members which they consider to be bigoted, offensive, and abhorrent. But only one group seems to feel that their view is the only one that should be allowed. If everyone adopted the same approach, no one would ever discuss anything the first moment they encountered views they didn't like.

If you don't like someone, ignore them. Simple. If you don't like their views, ignore them. If you're offended by the fact they don't agree with your "correct" views, ignore them. What do you gain from insulting people who don't insult you back, and then complain that they are "trolling" when they either respond good-naturedly with a joke and a wink or if they express an opposite view?

Better yet, don't ignore other people. Listen to them and counter their views with your own superior views and logic. And don't default to name-calling simply because they don't "listen to logic" (i.e., agree with your views). Just state your case and move on to the next argument.

Just to tie in with the ostensible thread topic, you had at least two members publicly, repeatedly posting that the moderators are "okay with white supremacy." If that's not a slur against the mods, it's hard to see any other possible interpretation. And then you had two other members in this thread agreeing, saying it is "the truth." And I don't think any of those members have disavowed those remarks.

That's a problem. It's not enough for members to falsely accuse others of being "white supremacists." Now moderators have to be included if they allow some unstated affronts to be posted. That's taking things to the next level. I'm not speaking for the mods, but I don't see why myself or others should not be allowed to express the viewpoint that this isn't right, especially since others feel free to express their "disgust" about some nebulous posts.

I'd like to propose this rule: If someone is going to make accusations, either general toward groups of members or against specific members, they should be required to produce quotes as proof of the charges. This might cut down on the "frivolous suits," especially if action was taken against false complaints. (An additional suggestion would be for the posting history of the complainers to be examined to look for any of their own provocations and/or baiting posting leading up to the alleged "offenses"). Single posts that allude to other members, especially when just "piling on" by adding to similar comments without any constructive comments related to the thread, ought to be taken into consideration as "trolling." The tone of comments should be considered. It's not hard to determine when several people are having good-natured banter and when one (or more) people seem to hate/despise other members and are anxious to demonstrate that.

Anyone can say, "We should eliminate vile comments from this forum." But that begs the question: Like what?

(That was four cents worth, but no extra charge for the additional opinions. )

creekdipper

The problem with that statement is that it just speaks in general terms.

Anyone can look at the opposite viewpoint and call it 'bigotry.' That means a discussion forum that allows opposite viewpoints is, by definition, "a place that tolerates outright bigotry."

It's sort of ironic that it appears that those who want to ban opposing views would also decry "bigotry" (they also seem to be those complaining most about "fascism"...even as they want to ban opposing views). I'm sure there are forums which only welcome a narrow set of views for those so inclined to have their opinions reinforced. When I joined back in 2001, this forum was not such a place, and I hope it never becomes such an exclusive forum.

A comment above said that "this thread is just a huge cry for attention." But the sig (used by two different members) didn't appear to be doing just that?

Dan

All of the above are exactly right, and I think others are just too optimistic about the effect of ignoring people. Active users ignoring the bad faith posters just gives the bad faith posters an uncontested platform, free of charge and with a built-in audience, to spread whatever message they intend to spread. The problem, too, is that it's genuinely hard to know who posts in good and bad faith without looking at their posting history for repeated observable behavior, but if you dare bring up their posting history *airhorn* that could be a personal attack.

A mod for RPGnet (a site I don't personally visit) had a good thread about this, basically saying that once a forum has a set of rules in place, there are members that view the rules as a system that needs to be circumvented by staying just within the rules of civility, knowing that if they push just hard enough, someone will respond fiercely ("Fuck you!") and get themselves banned for being uncivil while the bad faith poster gets to stick around. RPGnet's rule #10 is the most hated by bad faith posters: "The staff moderates to the spirit of the rules and the context at hand. Conforming to the rules to the letter is not a magic talisman against moderation if your posts are bad for the forum." They hate it because it means, technically, you can be banned for anything! It's a system that can't be circumvented. DVDTalk has something similar, but it's hard to tell how often it's invoked.

I've voiced my concerns about how moderation tends to go around here, but in the end I DO trust the mods/admins to figure it out for themselves; it's all about what they want this place to be.

Not a bad suggestion. I would expand that to needless ill-defined pejoratives, as is all too common with many posts that generalize against people who happen to actually give a shit about a particular cause.

Just to touch on this really quick: If the active posters ignore them, then it still just gives them free reign to post whatever they want without anyone disagreeing with them, and thus, sets the tone of the forum as they want it. For this type of poster, it's NOT about the interaction at all; they won't go away. It's about planting those seeds via impressions. Similar, but not exactly the same: Ads on websites are rarely about clicks anymore. We've all been conditioned not to click. It's about how many people see the ad. So when someone posts page after page, thread after thread, of racist, sexist, homophobic junk science, they're not always doing it to get a response; they're doing it because they want the site's audience of lurkers and guests (those not logged in and have no ignore function, and those they wouldn't get if it were on their own blog) to SEE it, and to see that fewer and fewer people disagree with them.

In some cases, yes, it's about the attention from other active members. But as I said above, it's more nuanced than that. It's about having the site's built-in audience and reach, and using that to spread hateful rhetoric, ideally unchallenged by the other active users by getting them frustrated enough to just ignore them or leave, and unchallenged by the mods because technically speaking, rules aren't being broken.

No disagreement there.

creekdipper

I agree wholeheartedly with the bolded part but think you've missed an important point: Those same posters generally tend to be the same ones who "respond" with the "Fuck you"'s!

Everyone has a different view of what "civility" means, apparently. It's funny to read comments such as "No matter how polite..." or "no matter how well-spoken..." or "no matter how articulate" (all actual observations) followed by the sentiment that the views still are hateful, vile, bigoted, racist, whatever. In other words, they admit that the posters whose views they find so offensive stay within the bounds of civility yet somehow still seem to think that they themselves have leeway to make any offensive remark in response.

A key point of disagreement is what constitutes "pushing" someone. Any number of intentionally, deliberately provocative posts could be cited about which there would be little disagreement upon the poster's intentions to mock, ridicule, insult, etc. viewpoints shared by millions. Yet those comments rarely get any notice because those views are evidently shared by the majority (and tolerated by the targets as "it goes with the territory"). And yet when the opposite views are expressed as objectively and benignly as possible, somehow that is labeled "pushing."

The point about "posting history" is an excellent one. Posters make all sorts of accusations about others yet cannot produce supporting evidence from posting history. Yet the accusers' posting history often reveals a litany of offenses, both obvious and barely-concealed. And those are actual posts, not imaginary posts or "perceptions."

Keeping this as a general discussion without making specific allusions since, after all, we are discussing with the intention of improving the forum, my observation has been that people who allude to "posting history" in general terms rarely can produce any specifics. Typically, it's a general statement of dislike about "style," "tone," etc. rather than actual words. My reaction to that is "Let's see the actual examples of what you're talking about." I would think that would be the common reaction of all to any accusations being made toward anyone. And "bringing up posting history" is often a euphemism for "addressing the poster, not the post." Whether you label that trolling, provocation, baiting, or something else, it's not conducive to discussion.

Again, all of us can identify posters expressing views and advocating for policies we find absolutely abhorrent and morally indefensible. Does that mean that we should continually attack the posters or try to get those members banned for their opinions? Should we then have a list of the most controversial and argued-about issues (which mirror those in the general population) and announce the "official, approved" DVDTalk platform on those issues, with dissension from those positions being grounds for ostracism or banishment? If that's what people want, they should express that opinion.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the increasingly-common practice of projection. This takes shape in several forms. Sometimes posters "speculate" about what others are really thinking (and we have all done that at one time or another). That's an example of a straw man argument, and it crops up more often these days than ever before. At other times, there is the absolute statement of what a group of individual thinks or says, only stated more emphatically than in the first case. There are no "probably" or "likely" qualifiers; instead, just a direct statement is made as though it actually happened or was said. That's a disturbing trend; it indicates that some viewpoints could vanish completely (from posters leaving or being banned) and their views would still be "debated" in the form of speculative statements. It's like having a debate in which only one person is at the podium. Not much of a challenge...nor very educational.

That may be entertaining (and reinforcing) for some, but it's not a very honest way of conducting discussions. Nor is it what the forum ideals stands for, nor does anyone ever learn anything other than closing off of the mind toward other viewpoints.

dex14

There have been posters who most definitely have been banned for making comments like that. It is not fictional.

creekdipper

I apologize, dex. I wasn't aware of any of those comments having been made, and I was assuming that the allegation was being made about current members.

I do know in at least one case that a current member was falsely accused of calling black people apes, and when challenged to back up that lie, the accuser vamoosed. Haven't seen the Latinos comment. I do see those types of comments often coming in the form of speculation or "role-playing" by the persons who are doing the complaining.

So if others in the distant past have posted such things, I stand corrected. I was referring to falsehoods told about current members.

I have also seen many actual epithets used toward current members by current members along with many more generalizations toward groups to which current members belong. And have not often seen retractions or apologies; rather, there has often been a doubling-down of such remarks along with pats on the back from others...just as with the derogatory general comments directed toward mods. I could back up those observations with specific examples upon request, but I doubt anyone is any more interested in rehashing those unfortunate events than I. Nonetheless, they did happen, some as recently as yesterday.

I'm not trying to participate in the flame wars or "stir things up." I understand that other posters have strong feelings on issues...just as their fellow members do...and debates can get spirited and even heated. And I'm not talking about sarcasm, condescension, ridicule toward ideas, etc. which are part and parcel of internet discussion boards, whether in fun or not. I'm talking about the repeated personal comments and direct illusions that are an "open secret" toward members of one particular political/social/religious persuasion...even though those members don't always agree with each other on some issues, either. And I'm not alone in those observations.

Is it unreasonable to expect members to address the post and not the poster? That's the Prime Directive. If that one simple rule were followed, that would solve 99% of the disputes/derailment/off-topic rabbit trails/arguments, etc. that take place, and the forum would be a better place for all. That's what should be the goal of all, right? Most of us have been guilty of making unnecessary comments that skirt the spirit if not the law of posting.

Again, just discussing this in the Feedback Forum, not as criticism toward moderation or seeking for anyone to be banned/suspended/reprimanded, but just seeking a more congenial atmosphere. And asking that if people can't get bear to read certain views, they simply avoid reading those views (or quotes if others choose to converse and discuss those views). I'm never seen an easier venue if one wants to avoid specific posters or views, and I encourage people to use the both the official "ignore" function and the internal ignore function if that's their preference. I would also encourage those who take advantage of those options to refrain from then talking about those whom they are ignoring and particularly to refrain from stating speculations about what those ignored members are "really" thinking. My thought is this: Either engage or ignore, but don't try to have it both ways. If it's not worth your time to talk to someone, it shouldn't be worth your time to talk about them. Talk about their views all you want (although ignoring them means that you never have to have your observations closely scrutinized), but restrain yourself when tempted to talk about their character, families, personal backgrounds, or other characteristics unrelated to the topic.

kefrank

The assertion in this thread though is that comments like that have been reported to the moderators with the "report this post" feature and nothing was done about it. Do you know of cases like that? I really don't know either way if that's happened, so I'm genuinely curious about it.

hdnmickey

Sorry for not responding to this sooner. I had a busy day yesterday. And I wanted my response to all of this not to be rushed (which also will hopefully result in with fewer typos ).

First off I wanted to address the use of the signature in question.

Like Jason, my intention was not to attack any particular moderator, or even the moderators themselves. Specially it was, and still would be, a reaction to what I view as a lack of control over how this place has become dominated by a few individuals that continually spew bigoted garbage that actually affects many of the members here that are either non-white, non-Christian, not straight, or some combo of all three.

During my relatively short time here I've only ever seen one long term member (DVDP) suspended for making racist statements, but sadly, there are been far worse things posted since. Many them in the form of vile cartoons or memes.

I don't think I'm alone in believing that if the mods were to take the same kind of action more often, things may change eventually though posters waking up to what they are posting or the mods making the suspension permanent.

Anyway, since I didn't get to respond sooner, many of my thoughts have layered been posted. Hopefully these posts have been seen by the right people and will be taken seriously given they seem to have been posted with the intent of saving the forum by people that would rather not go down the road of apathy and virtually just walk away.


All of the above posts are spot on. Many people have taken the mods suggestions and have stopped engaging the trolls. Technically not the ignore function since it's worthless until everybody ignores them. But as described above it has only given the same posters more freedom because often the only result is their garbage going unchallenged. Speaking only for myself, when I begrudgingly went along with the the 'no engage' policy, I was thinking the mods would be calling out their garbage so those doing what they asked would see an the improvement they executed when they complied with the request.

To make matters worse, the few that still do engage them get nothing but "who me?" obfuscation when they do point out their vile garbage and explain why it's unacceptable to the rest of the community. And as described above, it all eventually reaches and apex and the result is people like Jason getting banned when they finally have enough and throw a rock back. The DVDTalk version of the NFL refs that always throw out the guy that reacts rather than the one that had been taking cheap shots all game.

Anyway, I for one will be watching and hoping this feedback will result in some real change. If not, ironically, this place will possibly become the 'echo chamber' the trolls were claiming it would be if their bigotry as not allowed. I imagine I'm not alone in saying that I will take the walk away route before long if nothing changes. And as I have posted before, I've seen it happen to other similar politics sub-forums when people got fed up with it during the Bush/Obama years, and to end the exodus, they quickly shut down the sub-forum to stop the hemorrhaging.

Like so many others I would like to thank the mods for what they do. None of this comes from a place where they you guys are not respected. In fact, it comes from a place of caring about and not wanting to become totally apathetic towards the site in general.

kefrank

To JasonF, Dan, Supermallet, slop101, and hdnmickey:

It seems like it would be helpful to the moderators if you linked to a few examples of the problematic posts you're talking about, so that a rule can be extracted for the moderators to enforce, because ultimately the moderators' job is to enforce the rules. Do you guys think this rule that I proposed would help?:
no generalizations about entire people groups, including ethnicities, religions, socio-economic status, etc

I'm in 100% agreement that statements made by posters like, "Mexicans are rapists" should absolutely not be allowed. But I don't think the mods should be expected to police derived or interpreted bigotry. When someone is arguing an ideological position about immigration, the mods should not have the latitude to summarily dismiss an argued position as bigotry and hand down punishment, in my opinion. It's a tricky balance to be sure.

creekdipper

Would you include examples such as a statement implying (with no other plausible interpretation) that Republican senators are praying for another school shooting to take place?* Or stating that an entire Christian denomination is racist and misogynist?** Or would those targets be too narrow in scope to be considered generalizations?

*Real post
**Real post

What about the oft-seen "white straight Christian men" quadruple-overreach when followed by a blanket allegation? Or is that too broad to be considered since it smears so many groups at once and manages to include race, religion, sexual preferences, and gender all in one tidy little package?

Similarly, would "pro-lifers" or "evangelical Christians" fall under the rule? We see "Trump supporters" and even "Republicans" often labeled with the same epithets, but those presumably can include a multitude of separate identities.

I think that some members agree that can't-miss, no-doubt-about-it attacks should be off-limits And that mods shouldn't be expected to be mind-readers. On the other hand, there are precedents for using possible perceptions as a basis for action, so that ship has already sailed.

I find it interesting that the we long-time forum members got along quite well with each other in a "friendly adversary" relationship for so long, and it does beg the question of what circumstances changed and how civility, integrity, thoughtfulness, and fun could be restored. And which members actually desire that to happen.

You are sincerely offering suggestions for improving the forum, and if you feel this post is detracting from your efforts, PM me and I'll delete it. The intent isn't to interfere but to point out that everyone has to be on board to make it work (or the mods are going to really have to get heavy-handed).

kefrank

I'm not a mod, but I would argue that already violates the "no party generalizations" rule. Did you report the post so that the mods could decide?

That would violate the spirit of the rule I proposed, in my opinion. That said, an article linking to evidence of racism within a particular Christian denomination (or strain of Judaism or any other religion for that matter) with commentary on the racism, would not violate the rule. As the party generalizations rule states:

creekdipper

If it were possible, I'd your suggestion of linking to actual, demonstrable examples 1000%.

I think you should have the floor as you seem to have the ears of the friends, Romans, and countrymen right now.

davidh777

This is a good point. Some of the cartoons are really nasty, and if they're challenged, the response is "You're free to post your own cartoon." Meaning it's not a platform for discussion but a soapbox to throw anything out there.

Supermallet

The mods know who the shitty posters are. Many of their posts have been reported over the years, and some recently too. I think we all have enough context to discuss any potential new rules or reinforcing old ones.

Sonic

-------------

Supermallet for Super-Mod!

hdnmickey

Sorry I didn't get back to this sooner again. I've been doing a lot of wrapping things up so we can go on our first of mutliple summer vacations starting tomorrow. So that means this could be my last post on this topic for about a week. I very rarely try to post here from anything other than a computer with a full size keyboard. My posts have enough typos in them without trying to do it all on a tiny smartphone.

How about a blatent exmaple of radically twisting the legit concern of violence by the racial majority upon the minority into "white-bashing"?

https://forum.dvdtalk.com/13362321-post585.html

And I believe I'm far from alone when I call that part of a major trend. One that goes back far longer than I've been here given the results to searches I have done on various topics.

I mean no offense by this, but it seems like you have missed the other aspect that me an others were posting about earlier. That it's mostly an issue limited to a handfull of posters. Given that, I doubt the rest would be better off by even more rules that the mods would have a hard time keeping defined and monitored.

High level bootom line - The forum has a problem with a few that believe they get to play the
'Do as we say, not as we do' game when it comes to civil doscourse. And as I know you have noted, much of it has to do with believing they can be as conscending and out-right rude as possible and expect people not to respond in kind.

If you are inteested in my full personal take on this, and why I have fully tunred on the "do not engage' button with a few, send me a PM and I'll send you the links and the rationale when I get back.

Supermallet

kefrank

I'm assuming you've seen my personal feelings about the exchange that post is from, posted in that thread. In the context of enforceable rules, it seems to me what was done there could be considered pretty disgusting thread-crapping and I concur it's an example of the kind of thing that ultimately inhibits meaningful discussion on the forum.

No offense taken. My original proposal of that rule earlier in the thread was to address a broader issue that I believe exists in the political forum. I was simply asking if that potential rule might also help address the specific concern you and others expressed. Point taken about "more rules isn't necessarily the answer" though. So few people follow the existing rules and most seem to have a weird aversion to reporting posts.

I agree for the most part. I do think for the mods it has to be about objectively maintaining civil discourse and not getting mixed in with specific ideological positions, which can be a pretty difficult balance to maintain.

JasonF

And I think it's perfectly OK for the mods to say "I reject ideological positions such as white supremacy," even if that's not "objective."

kefrank

I don't entirely disagree, but the reason it's a difficult balance to maintain is because there's a slippery slope. It's easy to ban someone who says, "black people should be exterminated" for being a white supremacist. But should a mod be banning someone who makes an ideological argument for stronger border security because the mod decides to infer that the poster really "just doesn't want more brown people polluting the population"? It's the implicit stuff that poses a problem, but in my opinion, most of the tactics used to push forth those kinds of views implicitly are tactics that are against the more objective rules (thread-crapping, trolling, antagonizing, etc) and should be handled accordingly.

JasonF

I'm fine with the mods saying "Hmmm, this is a close call, I'll err on the side of not banning this person." But we've got posters who consistently traffic in racist tropes, usually with a sly wink and a fig leaf of plausible deniability. I don't think we need to take someone at face value when they call black people apes and, when called on it, say "What!? I was just quoting Starship Troopers!"

kefrank

I think we are mostly, if not entirely, in agreement.