Is Countertrolling a Troll The Answer

[sprjus4]

So...general racism and homophobia are tolerable...

Depends on your definition of 'tolerable'.  If you mean that racist and homophobic beliefs should be 'excused or forgiven', then no.  But if you mean that racist and homophobic beliefs should be 'tolerated or endured', then yes.

Nah.  Racists and homophobes need to be reformed, which is the opposite of tolerated.

Good luck doing that through a forum 

[kphoger]

Good luck doing that through a forum 

All but impossible on a platform like Facebook.  But, here on a forum like this, where civilized conversation is encouraged, it's possible.  I know my own opinions have been informed by the conversations on here in the past.

But the solution is not to prohibit one side of the argument from making its voice heard.

If you disagree with somebody, bring them in and ask them tough questions.  Hold their feet to the fire.  Make them defend their positions.  If somebody has got a bad or offensive idea, prove it wrong.  Engage it.  Debate it.  Stand up for what you believe in.  Don't be scared to take somebody on.  Don't feel like you got to shut your ears off because you're too fragile and somebody might offend your sensibilities.  Go at them if they're not making any sense.  Use your logic and reason and words.

[hbelkins]

Meanwhile, |Beltway|, long-term member and still 32nd in total posts (currently), left the forum 2½ years ago because he felt the moderation practices had made it an unwelcoming place for someone with his political beliefs.

Well, that, and the fact that he felt that the mods were taking the side of another poster over him when they got into some heated discussions over road projects in the Virginia and North Carolina region. He felt like he got chased off. He communicated with me to tell me he'd gotten warnings and post restrictions and he was chafing under them.

This bugged me. Scott Kozel is one of the senior members of this community/hobby/interest. He had a seminal Web site and was, and remains, highly knowledgeable about the topic. He's one of about 20 or 25 people that I would consider to be at the top of the hierarchy in this niche -- and that includes a number of people with whom I've had some personal and philosophical disagreements over the years. If there's no place for him here, then is there a place for anyone?

Good luck doing that through a forum 

All but impossible on a platform like Facebook.  But, here on a forum like this, where civilized conversation is encouraged, it's possible.  I know my own opinions have been informed by the conversations on here in the past.

But the solution is not to prohibit one side of the argument from making its voice heard.

If you disagree with somebody, bring them in and ask them tough questions.  Hold their feet to the fire.  Make them defend their positions.  If somebody has got a bad or offensive idea, prove it wrong.  Engage it.  Debate it.  Stand up for what you believe in.  Don't be scared to take somebody on.  Don't feel like you got to shut your ears off because you're too fragile and somebody might offend your sensibilities.  Go at them if they're not making any sense.  Use your logic and reason and words.

It's impossible on any forum that restricts conduct and content.

[Roadgeekteen]

Meanwhile, |Beltway|, long-term member and still 32nd in total posts (currently), left the forum 2½ years ago because he felt the moderation practices had made it an unwelcoming place for someone with his political beliefs.

There are tons of hardcore conservatives on the forum. Just don't bring up politics and it won't become an issue.

[kphoger]

In general, I adopt the position of classical liberalism, which is that all speech should be protected unless it actually incites harmful behavior toward someone.  However, in a forum setting like this, I agree that speech that inflicts emotional harm upon someone should also be disallowed.

But I think part of the problem is that, as classical liberalism has striven to exalt the individual, to erode the tendency of individuals finding their value and sense of self from higher structures, we have reached a point in our society in which a person's sexual orientation is considered more a part of his or her identity than a person's religious convictions.  Religious identity is viewed in our modern society as something that is tacked on to one's core self, whereas sexual identity is considered to be an integral part of one's core self.  This, fundamentally, is why speech that disparages homosexuality is condemned as hate speech, while speech that disparages an established religious doctrine against homosexuality is not likewise condemned:  offending one's sexuality is considered an attack on one's identity, whereas offending one's religion is simply not.  Ironically, then, a core value of classical liberalism ends up working against itself.

After all, there have been plenty of remarks on this forum against religion in general and Evangelical Christianity specifically, and I suspect none of them has been the subject of moderator censure.  As a religious person, I see this as a double standard, because I consider my own identity to be defined by my religion above all else.

[Roadgeekteen]

In general, I adopt the position of classical liberalism, which is that all speech should be protected unless it actually incites harmful behavior toward someone.  However, in a forum setting like this, I agree that speech that inflicts emotional harm upon someone should also be disallowed.

But I think part of the problem is that, as classical liberalism has striven to exalt the individual, to erode the tendency of individuals finding their value and sense of self from higher structures, we have reached a point in our society in which a person's sexual orientation is considered more a part of his or her identity than a person's religious convictions.  Religious identity is viewed in our modern society as something that is tacked on to one's core self, whereas sexual identity is considered to be an integral part of one's core self.  This, fundamentally, is why speech that disparages homosexuality is condemned as hate speech, while speech that disparages an established religious doctrine against homosexuality is not likewise condemned:  offending one's sexuality is considered an attack on one's identity, whereas offending one's religion is simply not.  Ironically, then, a core value of classical liberalism ends up working against itself.

After all, there have been plenty of remarks on this forum against religion in general and Evangelical Christianity specifically, and I suspect none of them has been the subject of moderator censure.  As a religious person, I see this as a double standard, because I consider my own identity to be defined by my religion above all else.

I consider myself to be a slightly religious person. I accept religion as long as it does not encourage hate against other groups of people.

[CoreySamson]

After all, there have been plenty of remarks on this forum against religion in general and Evangelical Christianity specifically, and I suspect none of them has been the subject of moderator censure.  As a religious person, I see this as a double standard, because I consider my own identity to be defined by my religion above all else.

I consider myself to be a slightly religious person. I accept religion as long as it does not encourage hate against other groups of people.

So you don't accept Islam and some forms of atheism? (unless we are trying to redefine what "hate" is)

And I agree with kphoger; my relationship with God is what defines me more than anything else.

[kphoger]

So you don't accept Islam and some forms of atheism? (unless we are trying to redefine what "hate" is)

Let's not go there.  I've avoided the "redefine what hate is" issue in order to keep the conversation civilized and fairly neutral.  No need to throw a grenade into the thread.

[hotdogPi]

Religion is something you can change at any time. It's a choice.

Gender identity, on the other hand, is not a choice. There have been studies where it's now possible to tell whether someone is going to be gay or want to change genders from a very young age, even though it won't show for over ten years later. It's how the body is wired.

[roadman65]

Meanwhile, |Beltway|, long-term member and still 32nd in total posts (currently), left the forum 2½ years ago because he felt the moderation practices had made it an unwelcoming place for someone with his political beliefs.

There are tons of hardcore conservatives on the forum. Just don't bring up politics and it won't become an issue.

Yes please stay away from religion and politics as it's not a good thing on here.

[kphoger]

Religion is something you can change at any time. It's a choice.

Gender identity, on the other hand, is not a choice. There have been studies where it's now possible to tell whether someone is going to be gay or want to change genders from a very young age, even though it won't show for over ten years later. It's how the body is wired.

That doesn't actually contradict what I said.

Society has transitioned away from understanding our identity in terms of family structure and religion–things on a community level–toward understanding our identity in terms of things on an individual level.  The very notion that religion is a choice that can be changed at any time reveals an understanding of religion that is distinctly a modern Western understanding.  It is not universal today, and it was not a part of Western culture until the Age of Enlightenment and the rise of classical liberalism.  The assertion that a person's identity is defined primarily by his or her genetics is one that I disagree with at a fundamental level.  As I said, I view my identity in terms of my religion above all else–including my race, sex, or anything else determined by my DNA.  So, even if you are correct that religion is a choice and sexuality or gender identity is hardwired, that still doesn't necessarily make derogatory comments about one's religion any less hateful or personal.

[Roadgeekteen]

After all, there have been plenty of remarks on this forum against religion in general and Evangelical Christianity specifically, and I suspect none of them has been the subject of moderator censure.  As a religious person, I see this as a double standard, because I consider my own identity to be defined by my religion above all else.

I consider myself to be a slightly religious person. I accept religion as long as it does not encourage hate against other groups of people.

So you don't accept Islam and some forms of atheism? (unless we are trying to redefine what "hate" is)

And I agree with kphoger; my relationship with God is what defines me more than anything else.

I accept Islam, as long as they don't use their religious beliefs to influence politics or try to force their beliefs on others. Same with atheism, even.

[hotdogPi]

or try to force their beliefs on others

Every religion does this.

Count how many religions are mentioned in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionary

[Roadgeekteen]

or try to force their beliefs on others

Every religion does this.

Most churches and religious places I know of do not do active recruiting among athiests. The only religious groups that try to force you to believe what they believe are the weird door to door cults like Jehovah's Witnesses.

[Takumi]

I knew I’d have to answer for this eventually…

First off, biproads was never hacked. It just got very low viewership and retention of posters because it didn’t really have a reason to exist. I was way too online at that point and wanted to be angry for no reason at all, so naturally being a mod there sounded like a power trip I was glad to take. Just weeks later, I found myself in a new job I hated with practically no free time to post anywhere, including here. The biproads forum ended a couple months later due to lack of interest on everyone else’s part, too.

I quickly became ashamed of myself, and even more so as months turned into years. I assumed that I became persona non grata here because of the way I conducted myself until Alps messaged me and said I was missed in the chat room. I started showing up to the chat room infrequently for quite a while, sometimes wondering if I would be greeted with pitchforks and torches if I showed myself in the main forum again. I DMed Scott with regrets about my conduct years ago, and he didn’t remember what I was talking about. With that reassurance, I was able to comfortably return to the forum and haven’t spoken out about this until now. I have grown a great deal since then and I’m glad to have made peace with the mods here.

I’m not sure I see anything in your post that’s worthy of answering for, unless you’re admitting you sabotaged it somehow.

[Roadgeekteen]

Meanwhile, |Beltway|, long-term member and still 32nd in total posts (currently), left the forum 2½ years ago because he felt the moderation practices had made it an unwelcoming place for someone with his political beliefs.

Well, that, and the fact that he felt that the mods were taking the side of another poster over him when they got into some heated discussions over road projects in the Virginia and North Carolina region. He felt like he got chased off. He communicated with me to tell me he'd gotten warnings and post restrictions and he was chafing under them.

This bugged me. Scott Kozel is one of the senior members of this community/hobby/interest. He had a seminal Web site and was, and remains, highly knowledgeable about the topic. He's one of about 20 or 25 people that I would consider to be at the top of the hierarchy in this niche -- and that includes a number of people with whom I've had some personal and philosophical disagreements over the years. If there's no place for him here, then is there a place for anyone?

Good luck doing that through a forum 

All but impossible on a platform like Facebook.  But, here on a forum like this, where civilized conversation is encouraged, it's possible.  I know my own opinions have been informed by the conversations on here in the past.

But the solution is not to prohibit one side of the argument from making its voice heard.

If you disagree with somebody, bring them in and ask them tough questions.  Hold their feet to the fire.  Make them defend their positions.  If somebody has got a bad or offensive idea, prove it wrong.  Engage it.  Debate it.  Stand up for what you believe in.  Don't be scared to take somebody on.  Don't feel like you got to shut your ears off because you're too fragile and somebody might offend your sensibilities.  Go at them if they're not making any sense.  Use your logic and reason and words.

It's impossible on any forum that restricts conduct and content.

You shouldn't be able to bend rules because you are a senior member of the community. Everyone should follow by the same rules, no matter if you joined the forum in 2009 or 2022.

[hotdogPi]

Regarding Beltway specifically, there was an incident where a moderator took the very unusual action of editing one of Beltway's posts rather than a purple text post as a reply or deleting the post entirely. The post in question used a nickname for Ralph Northam, the Democratic governor of Virginia at the time.

[CoreySamson]

After all, there have been plenty of remarks on this forum against religion in general and Evangelical Christianity specifically, and I suspect none of them has been the subject of moderator censure.  As a religious person, I see this as a double standard, because I consider my own identity to be defined by my religion above all else.

I consider myself to be a slightly religious person. I accept religion as long as it does not encourage hate against other groups of people.

So you don't accept Islam and some forms of atheism? (unless we are trying to redefine what "hate" is)

And I agree with kphoger; my relationship with God is what defines me more than anything else.

I accept Islam, as long as they don't use their religious beliefs to influence politics or try to force their beliefs on others. Same with atheism, even.

Ok, thanks. I was just interested to see what your opinion on that was.

[Scott5114]

So...general racism and homophobia are tolerable...

Depends on your definition of 'tolerable'.  If you mean that racist and homophobic beliefs should be 'excused or forgiven', then no.  But if you mean that racist and homophobic beliefs should be 'tolerated or endured', then yes.

Here's the difference between us–I don't believe someone should have to tolerate and endure racist and homophobic beliefs when they're on this forum. They are here to read all about roads and the various aspects of Limon, Colorado, not have their identity as a person slandered. They probably get enough of that elsewhere.

Given that there's absolutely no need to be racist or homophobic when talking about roads, there's really no good reason to let it stand. Other than rah, rah, free speech, but then that's never been absolute (and doesn't legally apply to a privately-owned group like AARoads anyway).

(I also think it's likely that you may not appreciate the difference between something like making fun of you for the state you live in, and being a member of a protected class. If someone were to make fun of me for being from Oklahoma, I'd probably laugh along with them and make fun of Oklahoma too. If someone were to make fun of me for my sexual orientation, or were to make fun of my wife for being Native American, that hits a lot different because both of those are both things people have been killed over. So far as I know there's never been a large swath of people saying "The only good Oklahoman is a dead Oklahoman.")

[Scott5114]

After all, there have been plenty of remarks on this forum against religion in general and Evangelical Christianity specifically, and I suspect none of them has been the subject of moderator censure.  As a religious person, I see this as a double standard, because I consider my own identity to be defined by my religion above all else.

Not being religious myself, this is a known blind spot for me. If you feel like a post is going too far, feel free to report it, and I'll take a look at it (and so will the other mods, who may be more competent on the matter).

[Molandfreak]

Religion is something you can change at any time. It's a choice.

Gender identity, on the other hand, is not a choice. There have been studies where it's now possible to tell whether someone is going to be gay or want to change genders from a very young age, even though it won't show for over ten years later. It's how the body is wired.

It's not really that simple, either. Many religions consider you a member for life if you're born into it. If you have a Jewish mother for example, you're automatically eligible for Israeli citizenship if you wish to move there, regardless of what your actual beliefs are.

[Molandfreak]

I knew I'd have to answer for this eventually...

First off, biproads was never hacked. It just got very low viewership and retention of posters because it didn't really have a reason to exist. I was way too online at that point and wanted to be angry for no reason at all, so naturally being a mod there sounded like a power trip I was glad to take. Just weeks later, I found myself in a new job I hated with practically no free time to post anywhere, including here. The biproads forum ended a couple months later due to lack of interest on everyone else's part, too.

I quickly became ashamed of myself, and even more so as months turned into years. I assumed that I became persona non grata here because of the way I conducted myself until Alps messaged me and said I was missed in the chat room. I started showing up to the chat room infrequently for quite a while, sometimes wondering if I would be greeted with pitchforks and torches if I showed myself in the main forum again. I DMed Scott with regrets about my conduct years ago, and he didn't remember what I was talking about. With that reassurance, I was able to comfortably return to the forum and haven't spoken out about this until now. I have grown a great deal since then and I'm glad to have made peace with the mods here.

I'm not sure I see anything in your post that's worthy of answering for, unless you're admitting you sabotaged it somehow.

Just my behavior in general around that time. I was just being a dolt for no good reason, and my involvement in biproads was the culmination of all that. But I'm aware now that I was actually my own worst critic and people barely remember anything I did at the time.

[kalvado]

I talked to a next level troll today.
A high school assignment - compare 2 different approaches to a certain societal issue, two documents, showing opposite directions.
OK, great assignment. Bill of Rights vs forum rules School Code of Conduct.

[hbelkins]

Here's the difference between us–I don't believe someone should have to tolerate and endure racist and homophobic beliefs when they're on this forum. They are here to read all about roads and the various aspects of Limon, Colorado, not have their identity as a person slandered. They probably get enough of that elsewhere.

Given that there's absolutely no need to be racist or homophobic when talking about roads, there's really no good reason to let it stand. Other than rah, rah, free speech, but then that's never been absolute (and doesn't legally apply to a privately-owned group like AARoads anyway).

Robert Moses would like a word from the hereafter. 

[Scott5114]

Robert Moses would like a word from the hereafter. 

There's no need to be racist when talking about roads, but Robert Moses did it anyway.