How is being forced to be civil so outrageous that it’s worth even mentioning?
The fixation on unmoderated freedom of speech is… obsessive. If they make a nice community for people who wanna talk to each other on those terms, good for them. Maybe it’s nice. Maybe it’s a heavily moderated echo chamber. Maybe it’s not for you, that’s fine.
What do you get by standing on the sidelines going “that’s abhorrent! Dear god nooooooooo…”?
It’s weird. You’re being weird. Chill out. Live and let be…
It’s ok to build this kind of stuff. It’s… so, utterly, utterly uncontroversial. Who cares?
"use your real name and just be civil" is great if you're in a position of power, a classic move to shut down people with legitimate grievances and create an echo chamber for privilege, people can build whatever they want, but it doesn't make it not cringe as hell
there's such a deep history of this approach being used to silence minorities in this country
> How is being forced to be civil so outrageous that it’s worth even mentioning?
I take issue with “enforced civility” alongside “real names”.
Fixation on civility promotes tone over content.
For example, this very thread!
Despite my comment having several upvotes, and despite the fact that it did actually spark a curious conversation as per the guidance in the rules, you are the only person that got a chance to respond to me before comments were turned off on my post.
Is it absolutely clear what I was criticizing? Yes. Was I criticizing something that others might agree with or at the very least discuss? Again, yes.
Did it fit into the arbitrary rules of decorum that a handful of individual users decided to enforce in this instance? No.
If you agree with “enforced civility”, do you think that you should have had the ability to post your response? The current set of civility enforcers are of the opinion that nobody on this entire website should be about to respond directly to “Oh god no.” because it so soundly shakes them to their cores that you, as a user, should be protected from seeing or responding to it.
Forced use of real names results in sexism and racism. It enables people to stalk and harass other users in real life. It's just a fundamentally bad idea.
There's room for a range of decisions about 'forced civility', but 'real names' is a bad idea.
I'm not a fan of forcing civility, myself, as the forcing, itself, is uncivil.
But I do feel that it's OK to establish a community/context, where a set of rules governs the decorum, and allow people to either join, or leave. If people don't want to abide by those rules, then it is OK (incumbent, even) for the community to sanction them; but only in the context of that community. I'm not into calling up a troll's workplace, and trying to get them fired. I think it's OK to ban them, though.
They'll vote with their feet. If they like it, they'll stay. If they don't, they'll leave, and it will wither on the vine. Elon Musk is doing exactly that, with the new Twitter. Personally, I don't want to play in that sandlot, but a lot of others, do. I won't go and try to stop them.
I've spent most of my life, in a mutual support community that has a very specific culture and set of rules. We don't have a police force to enforce them, but we also won't change them for any rando that insists that we do so, for their convenience. We've been doing things this way, since before I was born, and will continue to do so, forever (hopefully).
It's like walking into a Jewish Temple, or Islamic Mosque, and saying "I love pork, and it is my right to eat pork. I also want to join your organization, so I insist that you start allowing the eating of pork."
Even worse, in the organization that I'm involved with, there are commercial interests that would like us to change, and we can get some very strange pressures. Sort of like paid pork-eaters, showing up at synagogues, and demanding pork reform.
Just let the dervishes whirl. If it's meant to last, it will. If not, it will become another footnote in history.
It may also change, but that's no guarantee, and I have watched changes destroy good things. Good ol' Chesterton's Fence...
wokwokwok|2 years ago
How is being forced to be civil so outrageous that it’s worth even mentioning?
The fixation on unmoderated freedom of speech is… obsessive. If they make a nice community for people who wanna talk to each other on those terms, good for them. Maybe it’s nice. Maybe it’s a heavily moderated echo chamber. Maybe it’s not for you, that’s fine.
What do you get by standing on the sidelines going “that’s abhorrent! Dear god nooooooooo…”?
It’s weird. You’re being weird. Chill out. Live and let be…
It’s ok to build this kind of stuff. It’s… so, utterly, utterly uncontroversial. Who cares?
thot_experiment|2 years ago
there's such a deep history of this approach being used to silence minorities in this country
braingenious|2 years ago
I take issue with “enforced civility” alongside “real names”.
Fixation on civility promotes tone over content.
For example, this very thread!
Despite my comment having several upvotes, and despite the fact that it did actually spark a curious conversation as per the guidance in the rules, you are the only person that got a chance to respond to me before comments were turned off on my post.
Is it absolutely clear what I was criticizing? Yes. Was I criticizing something that others might agree with or at the very least discuss? Again, yes.
Did it fit into the arbitrary rules of decorum that a handful of individual users decided to enforce in this instance? No.
If you agree with “enforced civility”, do you think that you should have had the ability to post your response? The current set of civility enforcers are of the opinion that nobody on this entire website should be about to respond directly to “Oh god no.” because it so soundly shakes them to their cores that you, as a user, should be protected from seeing or responding to it.
quonn|2 years ago
Because 30 years ago the name of most people would, at best, appear in a local newspaper and they remained anonymous to the wider world.
teddyh|2 years ago
https://geekfeminism.fandom.com/wiki/Who_is_harmed_by_a_%22R...
kybernetikos|2 years ago
There's room for a range of decisions about 'forced civility', but 'real names' is a bad idea.
ChrisMarshallNY|2 years ago
But I do feel that it's OK to establish a community/context, where a set of rules governs the decorum, and allow people to either join, or leave. If people don't want to abide by those rules, then it is OK (incumbent, even) for the community to sanction them; but only in the context of that community. I'm not into calling up a troll's workplace, and trying to get them fired. I think it's OK to ban them, though.
They'll vote with their feet. If they like it, they'll stay. If they don't, they'll leave, and it will wither on the vine. Elon Musk is doing exactly that, with the new Twitter. Personally, I don't want to play in that sandlot, but a lot of others, do. I won't go and try to stop them.
I've spent most of my life, in a mutual support community that has a very specific culture and set of rules. We don't have a police force to enforce them, but we also won't change them for any rando that insists that we do so, for their convenience. We've been doing things this way, since before I was born, and will continue to do so, forever (hopefully).
It's like walking into a Jewish Temple, or Islamic Mosque, and saying "I love pork, and it is my right to eat pork. I also want to join your organization, so I insist that you start allowing the eating of pork."
Even worse, in the organization that I'm involved with, there are commercial interests that would like us to change, and we can get some very strange pressures. Sort of like paid pork-eaters, showing up at synagogues, and demanding pork reform.
Just let the dervishes whirl. If it's meant to last, it will. If not, it will become another footnote in history.
It may also change, but that's no guarantee, and I have watched changes destroy good things. Good ol' Chesterton's Fence...
rs_rs_rs_rs_rs|2 years ago
[deleted]