Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Helgoland]

I'll point to the ass print analogy above: There's no way to make the 'no outright discussion' rule rigorous in any sense of the word. I firmly believe however that we can and will find a modus operandi of discussing while abiding by the spirit of that rule.
Maybe an example would help? Pp 5-7 are a violation, while most of what came afterwards was pretty awesome (and not at all not a discussion, by the way).

[Phmcw]

I'll point to the ass print analogy above: There's no way to make the 'no outright discussion' rule rigorous in any sense of the word. I firmly believe however that we can and will find a modus operandi of discussing while abiding by the spirit of that rule.
Maybe an example would help? Pp 5-7 are a violation, while most of what came afterwards was pretty awesome (and not at all not a discussion, by the way).

The thing is : they followed each other for a reason. Everyone said things in pages 5-7 that they clarified in subsequent pages. I just read it again and a lot of hostility in those pages are caused by misunderstandings cleared later.

[Urist Arrhenius]

I'd also like clarification on what we are using discussion to mean, and why it's a bad thing.

[penguinofhonor]

.

[ArKFallen]

I would like clarification on which page 5-7 we're talking about, because there's really not anything that comes after that from my perspective. Unless you think this current discussion is awesome.

Reply #60 - Reply #104 presumably.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

I mean there were some... controversial opinions expressed there. People being pedantic and, contrary reply #61 entirely confrontational. You really can't talk about this issue without being passionate about it, especially considering that we have a number of (very polite, upstanding, and exceptional) transgender people on Bay12. Bay12 is a relatively calm section of the internet, but i'm very surprised that the reactions were as... 'tame' as they were. Most likely out of fear of a censure from Toady.

EDIT: To further clarify, this is a (relatively) new, heated, and 'controversial' (to some I guess) topic and you attempted to bring the debaters to heel. Needless to say, that would be like telling the Pope not to call a crusade (in a medieval manner of setting of course).

[Helgoland]

Lemme try this once more:

As far as I can tell, previous threads with a similar focus failed because people started bickering. It's a natural consequence of arguing passionately for a controversial statement: At some point, a bite reflex sets in and you attack anyone who objects to your statement. You attack them, not their arguments. The two rules in the OP everyone's been bitching about are meant to inhibit that bite reflex, to force everyone to argue against ideas and not against people. That's why there's a rule against outright (!!!) discussion - you're not supposed to show that what the other person said was wrong, you're supposed to show that the abstract idea that they put forward is incorrect and, if possible, provide a better one to take its place. That's hard to enforce, of course, and meant more as a guideline anyway; but that's why there's the no quoting thing, which is rather easy to enforce and should curb the worst excesses simply by forcing participants to post texts that are at least somewhat independant of what the person they responded to said.



And if that still is not sufficient to show what the OP is meant to do, I guess we can still let this turn into the place where gender discussions go to die.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

I agree entirely with your reasoning. Don't think I am criticizing your intentions. Unfortunately, I think you might be barking up the wrong tree. From what i've seen 99% of all the problems with gender related discussion are caused by someone expressing that gender is male and female and there's no way around that. Unfortunately, these same people also have a... less than diplomatic way of expressing their beliefs. I'm not saying the fault is all theres, not at all, but it seems to me you are trying to deal with the problems post facto rather than cutting the head off beast, so to speak.

Also, don't think i'm taking a side. I'm just saying that sometimes people can easily offend others without realizing it. Usually, the types of posts i'm talking about aren't even technically offensive or roughly put. They generally just leave no room to consider alternatives. The debates that follow are usually what consume the threads, with one side trying to sway that opinion and the other very stoically, and with what appears to be little reconsideration or new argument defend the alternative. I've noticed that it IS generally binary gender arguments that start this. So take that how you will.

In the end I just think these rules are easily circumventable/don't deal with the root problem. Unfortunately, I feel like i've done more to derail this thread by arguing this then actually talking about gender issues, and for I apologize. Indeed, I think I'll leave it at this for now if you don't mind to get past it?

[Helgoland]

Don't feel bad, half this thread so far has been rule discussion - I really should work on my communication skills.

[Urist Arrhenius]

I think the problem is the difference between discussion/debate and ad hominem/arguing/responding to tone. When you say no discussion I think we perceive you as saying "don't respond, state your stance and leave," when what you actually seem to be trying to avoid is not discussion but something else.

[Phmcw]

Helgo, I think no one dare to post anymore because no one really understand your rules.

Also discussing without quoting is rather tedious.

[TD1]

No. People aren't posting because they have nothing they want to say. We are not so tame nor so timid as you would make us out to be, heh.

I do have something to say though. Why all the labels for gender? Trans(abillionthingscangohere)
Why not limit it to male, female, asexual, pansexual, etc. instead of grouping everything under trans*. By my understanding trans applies to transmale/female.

[That Wolf]

I like females, I am a male.
Potato is pretty sexy, especialy during sprouting.
I find these topics always degenerate into a fight because we all have different ideas about gender.
But if you take a potato as an example, potatoes dont care about another potatoes gender, they only care about having enough room to grow, I will state that the extremist Nadine potatoes are turning the Agria into chips. Dont get me started on baked potatoes, just sitting there baked all day. Lazy shits

[Morrigi]

The no quoting thing is obnoxious. The reason these threads spiral out of control is because you have two minority factions with the belief that the other is not only morally wrong, but so morally wrong that insulting the opposition is seen as acceptable to those of like mind to themselves.

More simple rules would be as follows, and yes there's some overlap.

1. Be civil.
2. Don't misrepresent opposing arguments.
3. Don't be an asshole.

I see 2 all the time here and across the rest of the internet, and all it ever does is piss people off. It's not smart, it's not funny, it's just flamebait, and not only flamebait, but flamebait that's popular on places like tumblr, twitter, and 4chan. Shouldn't Bay12 be above that?

[Orange Wizard]

Okay, so I have a question.

Why are gender roles treated as a bad thing?