Ship of Fools: extreme views

Thread: extreme views Board: The Styx / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=003442

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I think we should have a conversation about the direction of hosting on the boards. Eutychus wrote this in a non-hostly capacity and I believe this is a problematic attitude.

quote:
And again, I refuse to lump any group together, be it Republicans, rapists, or EDL supporters, as an indiscriminate mass, or immediately assign motives to people who turn up here with non-conforming views.

Posters sign up as individuals. If they start trying to act as representatives of a constituency, they'll soon fall foul of the commandment against crusading.

I suggest that there have always been lines between acceptable and unacceptable views - and that someone who comes here trying to justify rape or racism should rightfully be shut down as quickly as possible. Either they should be given shore leave or the plank.

There is considerable leeway for hosts and admins within the 10 Commandments, but I think suggesting that an extreme view is acceptable providing that the person posting is not crusading (what actually does that mean? is crusading simply a pattern of continuously repeating the same tedious view in order to try to persuade others?) is practically unworkable.

What if someone is here for a while, engages in various topics and then says something which justifies rape? Is he posting "as a rapist"? Is he pushing an "ism" or is he being a jerk? Or is it just a minority view which we all need to listen to quietly and nod politely?

If that means we need to re-evaluate what we as a community think are acceptable and unacceptable views, then we should. Saying that there are no unacceptable views is extremely dangerous in my opinion.

[ 29. July 2017, 09:52: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Saying that there are no unacceptable views is extremely dangerous in my opinion.

And who, precisely, is saying any such thing?

As I just said on the thread in question, there are views which I find reprehensible, but what I [or you] personally find reprehensible is an entirely separate issue to the rules and practices of this debate space and how they are enforced.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

I think Eutychus's post was entirely reasonable, and your response on the thread was not, especially questioning his capacity as a host in purgatory.

His post was not about the acceptability of views. It was about not deciding you know exactly what a person thinks just because they a part of a group. That's called not being judgemental.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And who, precisely, is saying any such thing?

As I just said on the thread in question, there are views which I find reprehensible, but what I [or you] personally find reprehensible is an entirely separate issue to the rules and practices of this debate space and how they are enforced.

This response was from this question

quote:
What would you do if a neo-Nazi showed up here and posted flat-out racist things in Purgatory? Would you object? If I called that person a racist would you tell me I was over the line? Would you expect all of the people of color on the Ship to allow such things to be said of them and be polite about it? Neo-Nazis are not less human than I am, but their views should not be countenanced.

Ruth obviously knows you are a host and was asking you what you'd do as a host. And you replied, saying what you'd do as a host.

Therefore it seems strange for you to suggest that the answer you gave wasn't somehow about what you'd do as a host. And your responses to me were written in terms of you as a host.

So it isn't really credible to now suggest they are about something else.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I think Eutychus's post was entirely reasonable, and your response on the thread was not, especially questioning his capacity as a host in purgatory.

His post was not about the acceptability of views. It was about not deciding you know exactly what a person thinks just because they a part of a group. That's called not being judgemental.

Well both my view and yours are acceptable on this website, apparently. However you telling me that I can't talk about the suitablity of someone as a host on this website given what they've written about what they'd do as a host on this website isn't.

You maybe need to straighten out your argument.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Well both my view and yours are acceptable on this website, apparently.

There's no "apparently". Just read the introductory text for Purgatory.

quote:
All views are welcome – orthodox, unorthodox, radical or just plain bizarre – so long as you can stand being challenged

Some views are going to be challenged much more vigorously than others. And, some views are more difficult to express without being a jerk. But, we try to judge on how people behave here rather than what they believe.

quote:
However you telling me that I can't talk about the suitablity of someone as a host on this website given what they've written about what they'd do as a host on this website isn't.

Since you identified a post where Eutychus was posting in a non-hostly capacity I'm not sure where you're getting your "written about what they'd do as a host" from.

You can, of course, talk about hosting decisions (it's what the Styx is for). But, ultimately the decision about whether someone is suitable as a host isn't your decision to make. And, you don't get to decide that someone is unsuitable and their hostly decisions can be disregarded (though, again, in this instance it doesn't appear to be something posted in a hostly capacity that you're disagreeing with).

Those of us who do have the responsibility of deciding who is and isn't suitable as a host are not planning on changing the hostly line-up any time soon.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And you replied, saying what you'd do as a host

Yes, and I stand by my answer. Which does not say what you allege.

quote:
And your responses to me were written in terms of you as a host.

When intervening on a thread in my capacity as host, this is explicitly stated by the

hosting/

/hosting

tags.

When answering the hypothetical "what I would do as a host", I made it clear what I would do in my capacity as a host.

You don't seem to be able to draw the distinction between my personal convictions on a given issue and my approach to hosting in general, which includes accommodating views other than my own provided they comply with the 10 Commandments - something which I am not alone in assessing, by the way.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

goperry is (rightly, imo) pointing out that questioning a shipmate's ability to host, when they are posting as a shipmate on a Purg thread, was a clear breach of protocol, and quite possibly a breach of decent fistful of the 10Cs - though that is for the Admins to decide.

You've been here long enough to know that things like this are brought to Styx first. That you are here subsequently is beside the point.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Since you identified a post where Eutychus was posting in a non-hostly capacity I'm not sure where you're getting your "written about what they'd do as a host" from.

It was from the context of the conversation, which was about what he'd do as a host in a particular circumstance. I don't think one needs to use host tags to highlight when one is discussing how one would act as a host for it to be relevant to a discussion in Styx. But I suppose that's up to you to decide.

quote:
You can, of course, talk about hosting decisions (it's what the Styx is for). But, ultimately the decision about whether someone is suitable as a host isn't your decision to make. And, you don't get to decide that someone is unsuitable and their hostly decisions can be disregarded (though, again, in this instance it doesn't appear to be something posted in a hostly capacity that you're disagreeing with).

I absolutely wasn't talking about a specific hostly decision. And I appreciate it isn't my call to make.

How about not hedging and how about we actually have a discussion about this? I think it is an important issue.

quote:
Those of us who do have the responsibility of deciding who is and isn't suitable as a host are not planning on changing the hostly line-up any time soon.

Not at all relevant. The discussion should be about how this website is hosted going forwards, and as we're all consenting to the way that hosts actually host, then I think it is reasonable for us to have a discussion about that.

And styx seems to be a reasonable place to have that discussion.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
goperry is (rightly, imo) pointing out that questioning a shipmate's ability to host, when they are posting as a shipmate on a Purg thread, was a clear breach of protocol, and quite possibly a breach of decent fistful of the 10Cs - though that is for the Admins to decide.

Fine, I accept whatever punishment the management decide. But I still think the conversation is important and I still believe what I said there.

quote:
You've been here long enough to know that things like this are brought to Styx first. That you are here subsequently is beside the point.

Maybe you need to talk to Alan Cresswell because he seems to think that given host tags were not used then there is nothing to discuss in Styx.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

When answering the hypothetical "what I would do as a host", I made it clear what I would do in my capacity as a host.

So.. why isn't that then relevant for a discussion here?

quote:
You don't seem to be able to draw the distinction between my personal convictions on a given issue and my approach to hosting in general, which includes accommodating views other than my own provided they comply with the 10 Commandments - something which I am not alone in assessing, by the way.

I don't see any difference between what you say you'd do as a host and what you say you'd do as a host when you use the host tags, no.

I'm probably unusual around here but I tend to accept that when people say they'd do something, I believe that they are actually saying what they would actually do.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Maybe you need to talk to Alan Cresswell because he seems to think that given host tags were not used then there is nothing to discuss in Styx.

Which is why he's discussing it in Styx.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Which is why he's discussing it in Styx.

He's discussing the fact that the point I'm disagreeing with wasn't a hostly decision (I never said it was) and that the decision about host suitability isn't my call (I never said it was).

Neither of which are addressing the concern, which is about unacceptable views and the way that they are hosted by the management going forwards.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
hosted by the management going forwards.

This was an unfortunate turn of phrase which has two meanings. I meant the way that the management deal with unacceptable views going forward (ie the way that they are host-ed, dealt with by hosts), not that the management actively host extreme views.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

You maybe need to straighten out your argument.

Yup, as usual the flaw is with other people, not in your understanding.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

Actually, they was probably too personal. I apologise. But...
- I don't see in Eutychus's post the strange interpretation you've gleaned.
- Your response in purgatory was entirely inappropriate.

These aren't arguments. They're statements.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Yup, as usual the flaw is with other people, not in your understanding.

OK, yeah, the flaw is that I think some views are unacceptable on this website and that we should have a discussion about where that line is.

If that's unacceptable, I happily await the plank.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Which is why he's discussing it in Styx.
He's discussing the fact that the point I'm disagreeing with wasn't a hostly decision (I never said it was) and that the decision about host suitability isn't my call (I never said it was).

Neither of which are addressing the concern, which is about unacceptable views and the way that they are hosted by the management going forwards.

Maybe you'd like to comment on the first part of my earlier post then.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Just read the introductory text for Purgatory.

quote:
All views are welcome – orthodox, unorthodox, radical or just plain bizarre – so long as you can stand being challenged
Some views are going to be challenged much more vigorously than others. And, some views are more difficult to express without being a jerk. But, we try to judge on how people behave here rather than what they believe.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Actually, they was probably too personal. I apologise. But...
- I don't see in Eutychus's post the strange interpretation you've gleaned.
- Your response in purgatory was entirely inappropriate.

These aren't arguments. They're statements.

OK, so explain to me how you understand what he has written about neo-Nazis, rapists and EDL racists.

Imagine I'm a neo-Nazi and I come on here with some sig that identifies myself as such. I understand from Eutychus that until that person posts something in breach of commandment 1, nothing happens. So - at what point is what I say in breach of commandment 1?

If I identify as a rapist (not sure why I would do that, but anyway) and I say something which doesn't completely condemn rape, is that acceptable? Or if I make some joke which downplays the rape?

I suggest that there is a line, and self-identification as a rapist or a neo-Nazi is beyond that line. No posting or other delay necessary. That's the line that has been used in the past, that to me is the line going forward.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Just read the introductory text for Purgatory.

quote:
All views are welcome – orthodox, unorthodox, radical or just plain bizarre – so long as you can stand being challenged
Some views are going to be challenged much more vigorously than others. And, some views are more difficult to express without being a jerk. But, we try to judge on how people behave here rather than what they believe.

I don't think this really addresses the issue. If I was a neo-Nazi and I contribute to various threads and then come out with something that is well argued, but racist, how is that against Commandment 1?

If so, how is saying something about Jews jerky when saying the same thing about gays isn't?

Consider the statements "Mixed marriages between Jews and blacks are wrong because they're against nature and scripture"

Racist, maybe. Being a jerk perhaps? How about if it was followed with some other closely argued case?

Now how about the statement "Gay marriages between two men are wrong because they're against nature and scripture"

In the latter example, the discussion would get moved to DH. What happens to the former example?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

It would end up in Hell. Very quickly.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I'm not going to speculate on hypothetical situations. I expect that if a neo-Nazi joined here they would struggle to express their opinions in a manner that is acceptable, and would quite rapidly clock up a bunch of warnings and eventually get banned for something they post. What that will be, and how we will handle it, is going to depend on the individual and what they post.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It would end up in Hell. Very quickly.

So you seem to be agreeing that a racist neo-Nazi view isn't necessarily breaking C1.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK, so explain to me how you understand what he has written about neo-Nazis, rapists and EDL racists.

I did.

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
His post was not about the acceptability of views. It was about not deciding you know exactly what a person thinks just because they a part of a group. That's called not being judgemental.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

There have been a number of shipmates warned for crusading, so I think that idea is actually clear.

If someone were to post that they felt Adolf Hitler wasn't such a bad person after all, they would be challenged on that by a range of others. They would be expected to respond to these challenges.

The chances are, it would end up in Hell. If they were to continue posting just about how badly done by Adolf was, they would be in danger of getting warned for crusading. If they otherwise contrbuted well to the ship, this particular view would be ignored as an abberation.

The experience of the hosts and admins is that people tend to show their true colours in discussion. So yes, it is possible for a shipmate to hold an extreme position and stay on board. It is not possible for a shipmate to be a jerk with their position and stay on board.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It would end up in Hell. Very quickly.
So you seem to be agreeing that a racist neo-Nazi view isn't necessarily breaking C1.

It might appear that way to you.

As a Host, I don't have the authority to call a C1 violation. I would flag the post for Adminly scrutiny. I might even lock the thread, pending the result. I'd certainly keep a very close eye on it if it came into the infernal realms. It's not all chocolate and capricious decision-making...

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Fwiw I believe that C5 ought to be observed more closely. Outside Hell that is. To save you looking it up it reads:

5. Don't easily offend, don't be easily offended

Disagreement is normal here. Try not to nurse hurt feelings, and, conversely, if you know you've stuffed it up, cop to it without excuse. We've all had to at some point.

A bit of humility never goes amiss.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So you seem to be agreeing that a racist neo-Nazi view isn't necessarily breaking C1.

It would depend on how this view is expressed.

Moo

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So you seem to be agreeing that a racist neo-Nazi view isn't necessarily breaking C1.
It would depend on how this view is expressed.

Moo

Sort of. If a racist came here and politely said they thought the races were different and should be separate, but they didn't hate; I think they would not last long and they would definitely find little support here.
The same cannot be said for all attitudes that have a hate component. Cf Thunderbunk's recent Styx thread.
The Ship is not perfect and balanced in its application of things.
That said, I think the hosts most often balance well the daft things they are allowed to say as Shipmates *and the rules they must enforce as Hosts. Though, there have been failures in application and there will continue to be. Nothing is perfect.

*and they do!

Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :

I wonder if mr cheesy is suggesting that one's deeply-held views of necessity inform (though not always in immediately obvious ways) all one's statements. Therefore, if one is a committed racist, one's racism will affect one's politics (and by extension, one's political statements and arguments), one's churchmanship (and one's statements about that), one's friendships, etc. etc.

The problems with this understanding (if that's indeed what mr cheesy is suggesting) are (at least) twofold. First, what we deal with in this forum is not always what's actually in people's heads and hearts; we deal with attempts to express these things in written language, and those expressions (and others' understandings of them) vary in their accuracy, completeness, etc. Second, people's psychological innards are far too complicated, layered, and variable to expect that one's racism, however deeply and sincerely held, will consistently turn up in every reaction, subsequently-acquired experience, and principle.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
Second, people's psychological innards are far too complicated, layered, and variable to expect that one's racism, however deeply and sincerely held, will consistently turn up in every reaction, subsequently-acquired experience, and principle.

Though I would strongly,* debate the complexity of a vast number of humans, one can have an abhorrent view and be otherwise an agreeable person. Though, mr. cheesy's example was Nazi and, AIUI, the membership by-laws require more general douchbaggery.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

Not sure why I feel compelled to say the same thing as Alan, but I do so like to see my own words posted.

We do not expect Hosts to be Thought Police in the manner that mr cheesy seems to be hoping. Certainly we have quite a few active members with some truly awful ideas that they try to regularly express. Being able to metabolize and counter awful ideas is infinitely more useful than simply banning them. People get planked for operating outside of what we are capable of processing.

mr cheesy, how would you define the boundary of your concept of "extreme views"? Or are you suggesting that "we would just know"?

Further, do you expect each individual Host in the entire Crew to act in complete isolation, such that each and every Host must professes identical sets of Right Thinking?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
You don't seem to be able to draw the distinction between my personal convictions on a given issue and my approach to hosting in general, which includes accommodating views other than my own provided they comply with the 10 Commandments - something which I am not alone in assessing, by the way.
I don't see any difference between what you say you'd do as a host and what you say you'd do as a host when you use the host tags, no.

At the risk of repeating myself: you don't seem to be able to draw the distinction between my personal convictions on a given issue and my approach to hosting.

For the avoidance of doubt, "my personal convictions on a given issue" means "what I think about neo-nazism, or Brexit, or homosexuality, or wheelie bins, or intentionality, or Constantinianism".

To my mind, a good host applies our 10Cs, Guidelines, and customs irrespective of their personal views.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:

mr cheesy, how would you define the boundary of your concept of "extreme views"? Or are you suggesting that "we would just know"?

Exactly the point I'm trying to discuss. But if the consensus of the management is that there is no view which is too extreme (and only the way it is debated that is the problem), there isn't much point in discussing where the line is.

As I said, I believe this is a change and not a good one.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

It isn't a change. We have had posters argue racist views in the past (of the level of 'Black people are less intelligent on average'). They were planked for being jerks, but the racism wasn't in itself the plank factor.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Remember Myrrh, who denied the Srebrenica massacre?

Planked, yes, but not specifically because of her views on Serbian war crimes.

[ 29. July 2017, 17:13: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:

mr cheesy, how would you define the boundary of your concept of "extreme views"? Or are you suggesting that "we would just know"?
Exactly the point I'm trying to discuss. But if the consensus of the management is that there is no view which is too extreme (and only the way it is debated that is the problem), there isn't much point in discussing where the line is.

As I said, I believe this is a change and not a good one.

Emphasis mine.

Nice avoidance strategy.

But now my curiosity is aroused. What exactly constitutes the problem here for you? The fact that some posters might hold extreme views, or the fact that some posters might express extreme views?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Remember Myrrh, who denied the Srebrenica massacre?

Planked, yes, but not specifically because of her views on Serbian war crimes.

Suspended because she breached various Commandments and ignored a Host warning. A way was left open for he to come back but she chose not to.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

BTW, since I agree in principle with Eutychus (OP), if cause is found by the Admins for ditching him, I'd be out as well.

But I don't think they will. We don't do guilt by association here. Innocent until proven guilty. Speaking as, in many ways, an atypical evangelical, I'm quite glad about that.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

I think there's another element that hasn't been mentioned. It's the tension between being a discussion forum and being a community.

Sometimes it seems that the Ship has become entirely a forum for discussion, and the community element has been lost. To my mind, the main difference between hosts and admins is not their relative seniority, but that the job of the hosts, even in purgatory, to foster community.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
mr cheesy, how would you define the boundary of your concept of "extreme views"? Or are you suggesting that "we would just know"?
Exactly the point I'm trying to discuss.

You miss my point.

There is no clear boundary of "extreme views", and we would waste all of our time arguing over an imaginary distinction and trying to justify our arbitrary decisions. It's idiotic.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0