Ok, it's time to update the rules

submitted by grixitperson[M] from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I don't really understand what your point is because I already agreed that it's disgusting. You didn't actually address my criticism of the proposed rule which was that even abhorrent speech should be allowed on a debate forum.

If you think GC should be able to say things that TRAs find abhorrent, TRAs should be able to say things that GC finds abhorrent. You don't get to have a different set of rules for both sides. You don't get to criticise the pro-censorship stance of the trans rights movement and then turn around censor things you personally find disgusting (I also find it disgusting, just to reiterate that again).

Free speech and anti censorship have long been values of the left. Maybe people are starting to forget that now with how the mainstream left has started to burn and ban books and silence, bully, harass and deplatform everyone who diverges from the acceptable narrative, but this is not a traditional leftist value. And if you believe in free speech and anti censorship then you don't get to pick and choose when you apply this value and when you don't (if your values aren't consistently applied then they're not your values) or make exceptions for yourself or justify why it's different for your side or 'yeah but x actually IS abhorrent, unlike y'. That's not how it works.

It's a debate forum. You're going to be uncomfortable sometimes. And further, it's better to let them say it and let people see what they're really like, anyway.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

My point is that I agree with u/houseplant lol

Why exactly should abhorrent speech be allowed on a debate forum? Particularly when the specific “abhorrent speech” has nothing to do with the subject? GC is not comparable to Nazis. The issues between trans people and people who aren’t trans has nothing to do with Nazis in any way. Slurs are abhorrent speech, but we ban some slurs/offensive terms, and even without it specifically saying not to use other slurs, we know not to use them. We ban terms that aren’t even slurs, just because gc or qt don’t like the term.

I didn’t say qt shouldn’t call themselves women, argue that TW are female, or advocate for transing children, even though I find all of those abhorrent. I understand that both sides may say things the other finds offensive, the Nazi comparison is crossing a line and we have people who participate in this sub who are Roma and Jewish and some who may come from other races/cultures who were victims of the Holocaust.

QT can chime in on this post, it wasn’t directed solely at GC. If we compare them to anything that’s inaccurate, irrelevant to the topic and offensive to them, and they brought it up, I wouldn’t protest.

You keep saying it’s a debate forum- I’m well aware. The thing is, we need rules in place that make both sides want to participate. That’s why I said what I said about pronouns in my comment, and that’s why Im saying that the Nazi comparison is too much and shouldn’t be used here. every time it is used, it derails the post and that’s what we focus on instead of the topic and it is offending people who very well could have had family affected by the Holocaust.

I agree that letting people see what they’re really like is beneficial to gc, I’m just saying I see how explosive the comparison gets, every time it comes up it leads to both sides attacking and saying rude things (I’m obviously guilty of this myself). It just seems better to stop allowing it. Every single rule here could be argued to go against free speech, so unless you are pushing for no rules at all, everyone just says whatever they want, it doesn’t make much sense to oppose the idea of a “no Nazi/Holocaust comparison” rule, but not the other ones that restrict the language we can use Imo

Eta- I doubt this will become a rule, I’m just saying I agree that it should. These types of comparisons are just a way for qt to avoid addressing the actual topic of discussion, aside from it being offensive

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (5 children)

Technically it’s already a rule

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I knew you’d come back lol didn’t think it would be the same day

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You’re right it is a rule, my point is just that in order for the debate to remain active, both sides have to compromise. Both sides have to feel the environment is balanced enough that we are willing to participate. Removing any type of restriction guarantees the sub dies out. The Nazi issue always causes drama and even on Reddit we had people who come from the ethnicities and communities that were victimized by Nazis speak out against it. I argued there frequently that the racist comparisons about black people shouldn’t be allowed, so I guess I think I’m trying to support people who may feel similarly about the Nazi comparisons (I also just think it’s going too far, but my thing is more about trying to support the people who are the same ethnicities as the victims in particular, along with it just being an offensive analogy )

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

It technically isn’t where I am.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What isn’t?

Eta- I get you. You mean it’s not the same day where you are?

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 4 fun1 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Yes

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

My point is that I agree with u/houseplant lol

Okay, I guess I made the mistake of thinking that by replying to me you were addressing my comment rather than just seconding the person I was responding to. My bad.

Why exactly should abhorrent speech be allowed on a debate forum?

I explained why in detail in my last comment.

Slurs are abhorrent speech, but we ban some slurs/offensive terms

I don't agree with that either.

If we compare them to anything that’s inaccurate, irrelevant to the topic and offensive to them, and they brought it up, I wouldn’t protest.

So transwomen objecting to being referred to as 'male' on the grounds that's it's offensive or inaccurate (to them) is fine with you? Or would you say, well no, because it's not actually offensive and inaccurate? And then turn around and not be okay with QT vetoing the things that YOU want to police because THEY don't find them offensive and inaccurate? Consistently apply your values. Don't just apply them to others.

The thing is, we need rules in place that make both sides want to participate.

What about people who won't participate because their arguments are censored? I won't participate if I can't call a transwoman a male, for example.

Every single rule here could be argued to go against free speech, so unless you are pushing for no rules at all, everyone just says whatever they want, it doesn’t make much sense to oppose the idea of a “no Nazi/Holocaust comparison” rule, but not the other ones that restrict the language we can use Imo

I already gave some examples of things I think should be off limits in my first comment. Inciting violence, doxxing, rape or death threats against other participants, etc. But other than that, yes, I don't think rules that restrict what language we can use have any business being put in place, for reasons I have already outlined in detail.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Transwomen objecting to being called male is not the same as someone who is not a Nazi not wanting to be called a Nazi. TW being male (or not for some qt) is very obviously related to what we are here to debate- that’s why I said inaccurate and irrelevant as well as offensive. If gc wanted to line up trans people and gas them, obviously the comparison to Nazis would be applicable and relevant.

If qt said they didn’t want to be compared to totalitarian governments, fascists or dictators just because they want to compel speech, and it became a rule, I’d avoid using that comparison. I’m not applying different values, I’m saying yes offense is expected- but the offense should be restricted to things that are actually related to what we are discussing. GC should be prepared to see misogynistic comments (to an extent, especially since qt often don’t see the misogyny in their words), we should be prepared to see all manner of things that qt don’t realize are misogynistic, and qt should be prepared to hear gc people make biologically accurate statements about them, and say that women deserve their own spaces- that’s a huge part of the very thing we all come here to debate over. Nazism is not related, and despite the many times it’s been thrown at us, nobody has ever made a compelling argument for claiming it’s comparable. I think even qt can see why and how gc referring to TW as male is relevant to the sub.

I wasn’t saying that gc shouldn’t call TW male in my original comment, maybe I worded that poorly, I apologize. I was saying that I think us calling TW participants he/him is going to make them not want to participate.

I get that you don’t want to restrict any type of speech unless it incites real life harm- but I only get that now. Because previously the only thing you focused on was the Nazi comparison, you didn’t make a case for no restrictions acro the board, you specifically spoke out about the Nazi stuff. I respect the argument of us all being allowed or say whatever we want- except if you want the sub to survive, if you want there to actually be qt/trans people willing to regularly participate and engage, we have no choice but to restrict some language. That’s just how it is. If we have free reign to call them Tims, tifs, or t****ies, they won’t come here. We already don’t have many qt members with the restrictions we currently have in place.