We need a better way to argue in controversial, serious, sensitive topics.

[Speevy]

When I started posting at Resetera, the first thing I noticed was how polite and happy everyone was. Perhaps they were just happy to have a new forum. It was a chance at a new start with new moderators and administrators, and indeed the moderators and administrators continue to be very friendly and the users continue to conduct friendly, civil discussions on the whole. There is a wide range of interests and opinions and people treat the topics and users with respect and dignity in just about every topic.

However, there are a few select news items that are garnering negative, toxic commentary on a consistent basis. It's not that the user base is peopled by horrid individuals. It's just that these topics are so personal that people start forgetting their manners in favor of what they perceive as rational opinions. So one of two conclusions exists. Either we don't need such people, or we need a better framing device for our arguments.

Why? Well, after two paragraphs or beating around the bush, I'll say it. The way we discuss important issues like sexual harassment could use improvement. I'll bet there is not one of these topics about a celebrity being accused of this in which there isn't also red text somewhere. "Warned for victim blaming." "Warned for comparing women to this and such." "Warned for attempts to minimize the accounts of women."

These topics are so consistently catching bad arguments that it can't be an accident. I refuse to believe that there are so many horrible people posting here. So what's left is that we just don't really know how to disagree in these topics. People don't know what a civil argument looks like. People don't know how to strongly differ from everyone without themselves sounding overtly sexist, misogynistic, callous, or otherwise dismissive to a serious issue that affects people from all walks of life.

Am I wrong here? Is this something that is getting better? I only see it staying the same or getting worse.

I apologize if this topic isn't allowed. I'm not making commentary on moderation, just with the types of posts I've seen in certain topics, which I think it important to reflect on from time to time. Please close this topic if it's not something you feel belongs here. Thank you.

 

[Yoshichan]

Week 1 was fantastic, afterwards it became a mess. Never have I been attacked from other posters as much as on this forum, mostly because I've expressed myself as strongly dis/liking something (movie/vg-related).

I've noticed the increase of strawmanning and an absurt amounts of gish galluping in peoples way of argumenting lately. It's so frustrating.

 

[Deleted member 176]

I think the problem is that things like victim blaming are so integrated into our society that people do it without realizing its a problem, and then get defensive when the behavior is pointed out to them as wrong. It's more of a problem about being open to being criticized than anything else. The warnings are fine, but I can see how harsh language from other posters could increase the likelihood that the warned poster defensively doubles down on their opinion.

As a society we're not really equipped to properly talk about women's issues, which is one of the reasons it's so important that all these conversations are happening now.

 

[Storm Chamber]

Evilore wasn't the only problem Neogaf had.

 

[RockTiddies]

the red-text was cool at first, but it's starting to become this weird signal or venue for a specific mod's opinion on certain subjects IMO anyways.

 

[LionPride]

There are people who say dumb things without knowing they are dumb

There are people who think that everyone should know things and if they don't they're terrible instead of just ignorant

People say shit without thinking

Or they think they have to respond, which they don't

 

[DonShula]

Some folks can't empathize, for whatever reason, and speak from ignorance when they can't relate. Instead of seeking to understand, they drop in and spew their hot take.

 

[Randomly Generated]

One problem with those threads is the same problem that every "discussion" thread has: a bunch of posters read the title, and maybe the OP, and then barrel into a ten page discussion to make a point without reading the rest of the thread. They end up making points that have already been discussed and this just derails the thread. If you look at the Aziz thread right now, "Why didn't she leave?" is a bad question once, but it's especially bad five times, and people grow increasingly frustrated having to answer it.

But I think victim blaming is so common that there's not much anyone here can do about it. The problem is a lot of guys approach these sexual assault discussions by defaulting into the position of the guy (What if I was accused? What if I misread social cues? etc) and not the victim.

 

[Ein]

Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, or excuse these things... it's really not that hard.

And on that note, there are literally thousands of places on the internet that will welcome all of that. So don't come here with those views and act like you're some persecuted party that can't voice their opinion.

 

[MegaMan]

I'd say a bigger problem in those topics is people constantly bringing up neogaf when they know they're going to be critised for speaking bullshit, as if it's some kind of shield.

 

[Deleted member 8593]

Some people simply argue in bad faith or are too lazy to even read the OP and then play the victim card when they get called out on their bullshit.

Like take the Aziz Ansari thread that had several people questioning the woman's behaviour (i.e. why didn't she leave?) when it was plenty clear in the very detailed account of her experience. At a certain point we just have to accept that some people are lazy or assholes and that their participation in discussions is neither worthwhile nor welcome.

 

[Z-Beat]

Well, that's part of why they're controversial/sensitive topics. It's fairly easy for some people to accidentally walk off the deep end and say something that will more than likely cause a dogpile and a warning. You're not getting rid of those entirely. You can minimize it (which is probably why we have a warning system instead of jumping straight into bans) but it won't go away entirely. There are no arguments that are 100% one-sided, regardless of how messed up the other end of the argument is. Otherwise they probably wouldn't be arguments (or at least not controversial subjects) at all.

 

[Zelas]

No. I've got a point to make about "people" and you're not going to stop me from feeling righteous about it. Oh you decided to make a well thought post with with nuance and specifics? Well throw that shit in the trash because "people" say otherwise!

 

[Koo]

There seems to be a 'right' side of every discussion and if you aren't 100% saying the 'right' things then nobody wants to hear it. Like walking on eggshells. But I guess that's life in general and not specific to this forum. Everyone wants to be reminded that their view is correct. So it's not something you can really do anything about.

 

[qwilman]

I feel like this is part of a larger issue that what little good-faith argumentation we had was destroyed over the last few years by a combination of willful ignorance and a deliberate attempt to poison the well of discourse by people with agendas that were either insidious or irresponsible. The bat has been lowered so far that we've basically completely lost sarcasm and irony has tools for illustrating points and most discussions get stalled out by just repeating entry-level discussion ad nauseum so that no actual progress ever gets made.

 

[-Pyromaniac-]

If someone says something I deem offensive I try to give them the benefit of the doubt depending on the context that they just may not be the greatest at articulating their point. I try to glean what they might be trying to say vs what they said. It's easy to blame the person being an idiot and say it's them that need to improve but I think both sides need to improve. The ones framing their arguments poorly need to work on articulating their points better, and the other side needs to not assume they are heinous assholes and just posting reactionary replies like "really!?! Jesus Christ" or something. edit: or to the point below, if someone drops a shitty hot take of some kind it's pretty easy to ignore it completely.

I personally don't think there is anything terrible going on though. This is what happens when a lot of people are discussing controversial topics. It's unavoidable. As long as someone isn't calling everyone niggers or outright calling the women slutbags or hailing hitler or wanting a country to not exist anymore, or wishing death on various people, or whatever it is depending on which controversial topic we're referring to, I say let everyone go at it. Trying to control the flow of those kinds of topics are impossible to do in good faith because it's a losing battle. It will eventually lead to forcing a certain kind of person on this forum and I know I wouldn't want that. I want all types.

 

[Deleted member 176]

No. I've got a point to make about "people" and you're not going to stop me from feeling righteous about it. Oh you decided to make a well thought post with with nuance and specifics? Well throw that shit in the trash because "people" say otherwise!

Click to shrink...

For anyone who needed an example, this is what a lot of posters are talking about re: bad faith, dropping hot takes.

 

[scotdar]

The red label is a big issue for me. I had one of those verified accounts and it lasted one day. I posted I thought someone was being dramatic and got the big red warning for using inappropriate language. Supposed to a professional account representing a company and I get labeled for the word dramatic. I had the account permabanned right there. The moderation here clearly has a side and an agenda. I dunno if it's current politics in the US but their is no discussion it's either with us or against us. There is no point to any of the sexual harassment threads. They are all just fuck him what a dirtbag. You say anything else and your against it and going to get modded or banned. People can't even try and rationally explain their perspective the only perspective allowed is rage.

 

[Volimar]

I'm glad you made this topic because I've noticed the same. I've said it before but on GAF there seemed to be a habit of someone saying something stupid or contrary, getting called out by an individual, and then immediately being dogpiled for sometimes pages of replies. It usually ended with the person who made the initial remark getting a very questionable ban. The use of warnings here at least stops a lot of the bad bans, but the dogpiling continues. It's as if it isn't enough for someone to be told they said something wrong, but everyone has to tell them that they did something wrong. How else can they feel morally justified if they can't beat it into someone?


This is supposed to be a discussion forum but lately it's a lot less discussing with than arguing and yelling at. Instead of people saying "I don't agree with that and here's why," they basically say "you're wrong and here's why you're an idiot for thinking that way" or even just "Wtf is wrong with you?"

I wish people would take the time to look at what someone is saying without taking it to the extreme polar opposite when it's not what they think. Everyone is busy ascribing secret intentions to others' posts instead of just taking them at their word.

We're still in the formative stages of what Resetera can become so I feel like we're fighting for the soul of the site. It shouldn't be this hard to have mature discussions about even controversial topics while maintaining civility and empathy for your fellow posters.

 

[Rum Diet]

Some people simply argue in bad faith or are too lazy to even read the OP and then play the victim card when they get called out on their bullshit.

Like take the Aziz Ansari thread that had several people questioning the woman's behaviour (i.e. why didn't she leave?) when it was plenty clear in the very detailed account of her experience. At a certain point we just have to accept that some people are lazy or assholes and that their participation in discussions is neither worthwhile nor welcome.

Click to shrink...

When everything is assumed to be "in bad faith" how are you even supposed to have a conversation? You can just shut anyone or anything down with that damn line "in bad faith".

I see it around here a ton. At this point it's just a stupid tactic

 

[Graciaus]

That's never going to happen. You have to remember how this place was even formed and who mainly populates it. You either agree on a subject or it's better not to post.

 

[TinfoilHatsROn]

No. I've got a point to make about "people" and you're not going to stop me from feeling righteous about it. Oh you decided to make a well thought post with with nuance and specifics? Well throw that shit in the trash because "people" say otherwise!

Click to shrink...

Did you mean to provide an example for OP? Cause that's exactly the 'No OP Reading-strawmanning' post they talk about.

 

[Neutra]

The vibe here is "oh, you're bringing some nuance into this incredibly complex issue we're debating? That means you're actually on the other side and are my enemy (you nazi)."

 

[Kinthey]

When everything is assumed to be "in bad faith" how are you even supposed to have a conversation? You can just shut anyone or anything down with that damn line "in bad faith".

I see it around here a ton. At this point it's just a stupid tactic

Click to shrink...

I've noticed this as well and it feels a bit like a catch-all. No doubt that there are people who don't enter an argument sincerely but it feels it has become the go to assumption.

 

[Deleted member 198]

I think the Logan Paul thread was the worst I've seen this kind of stuff before. People get so angry that they start attacking and making assumptions about his ex, and anyone who thought that was super shitty and off topic was attacked as a Logan Paul sympathizer.
There's also a couple of users who can't ever seem to properly discuss anything comic book film related because they take it so personal they immediately strawman everyone with "lol steaks" and shit.

 

[Dekim]

Reset is literally 95% of GAF's former audience transplanted onto a new forum. All the problems that GAF had easily migrated here. Sure, the first few weeks were nice; it was the honeymoon period after all. But some of the problems that made GAF terrible to read and hard to engage with is rearing its head in Reset.

edit: "Bad faith" sees to be the new popular term to throw around. It is so nebulous that you can accuse anyone of engaging in "bad faith" to try to shut them down.

 

[Squarehard]

The red label is a big issue for me. I had one of those verified accounts and it lasted one day. I posted I thought someone was being dramatic and got the big red warning for using inappropriate language. Supposed to a professional account representing a company and I get labeled for the word dramatic. I had the account permabanned right there. The moderation here clearly has a side and an agenda. I dunno if it's current politics in the US but their is no discussion it's either with us or against us. There is no point to any of the sexual harassment threads. They are all just fuck him what a dirtbag. You say anything else and your against it and going to get modded or banned. People can't even try and rationally explain their perspective the only perspective allowed is rage.

Click to shrink...

Are you talking about the before time or here?

 

[Crayon]

There are people who say dumb things without knowing they are dumb

There are people who think that everyone should know things and if they don't they're terrible instead of just ignorant

People say shit without thinking

Or they think they have to respond, which they don't

Click to shrink...

1, 2, 3, 4.

Four truths!

 

[Demolition_Human]

Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, or excuse these things... it's really not that hard.

And on that note, there are literally thousands of places on the internet that will welcome all of that. So don't come here with those views and act like you're some persecuted party that can't voice their opinion.

Click to shrink...

This.

 

[Daysean]

The red label is a big issue for me. I had one of those verified accounts and it lasted one day. I posted I thought someone was being dramatic and got the big red warning for using inappropriate language. Supposed to a professional account representing a company and I get labeled for the word dramatic. I had the account permabanned right there. The moderation here clearly has a side and an agenda. I dunno if it's current politics in the US but their is no discussion it's either with us or against us. There is no point to any of the sexual harassment threads. They are all just fuck him what a dirtbag. You say anything else and your against it and going to get modded or banned. People can't even try and rationally explain their perspective the only perspective allowed is rage.

Click to shrink...

"Permabanned right there"
"the moderation here"
???

 

[Rum Diet]

I've noticed this as well and it feels a bit like a catch-all. No doubt that there are people who don't enter an argument sincerely but it feels it has become the go to assumption.

Click to shrink...

It's the dumbest thing i've ever seen and it destroys conversation in this place. When your opinion doesn't line up with the majority thinking it's automatically "bad faith" or "disingenuous". Every.Single.Thread. has this.

 

[siddx]

Evilore wasn't the only problem Neogaf had.

Click to shrink...

100% this. Some of the people who made gaf a hostile and unpleasant place at times are not only alive and well here, but seemingly emboldened.

 

[Deleted member 198]

Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, or excuse these things... it's really not that hard.

And on that note, there are literally thousands of places on the internet that will welcome all of that. So don't come here with those views and act like you're some persecuted party that can't voice their opinion.

Click to shrink...

This reads exactly like what most here seem to be taking an issue with.

 

[Jombie]

It's why I've largely stayed out of topics mentioned in the OP. It quickly devolves into a cesspool of accusations and useless broad statements.

 

[-PXG-]

I think the issue is that people attach themselves a little too closely to their opinions. Those opinions become an identity of sorts. Those identities attract groups of people and in turn form cliques with a shared mindset. If you happen to have any dissent, disagree or oppose that opinion, you're immediately seen as threatening their identity. They take your opposition as a personal attack. You not siding with them is an attempt to invalidate who they are. That's when drama, passive aggressive, snarky and even mean spirited comments come out.

 

[YellowMoose]

You're not wrong. Nuanced conversations are practically vilified here.

 

[megalowho]

It's on members to willingly improve their posting game and forum etiquette. Not to go all self-help on the forum but I came across The Four Agreements a few years ago and it's been simple, effective advice that's easily applied to online interactions. I like to think it's made me a better poster over the years, perhaps it will ring true for others as well:

 

[Deleted member 8593]

When everything is assumed to be "in bad faith" how are you even supposed to have a conversation? You can just shut anyone or anything down with that damn line "in bad faith".

I see it around here a ton. At this point it's just a stupid tactic

Click to shrink...

I was intentionally specific with my example. Those accusations don't come from nowhere and there's only so long someone can hide behind the veil of ignorance. If you ignore things that are plainly laid out or misconstrue arguments, you're gonna get that accusation levelled at you.

 

[TinfoilHatsROn]

This reads exactly like what most here seem to be taking an issue with.

Click to shrink...

I mean you don't seem to know what OP is talking about either. Or what this thread was supposed to be about.

Edit: Well you tried OP but instead of engaging with you, these posters came in to complain about their problems with the site. Oh well.

 

[MegaMan]

It's the dumbest thing i've ever seen and it destroys conversation in this place. When your opinion doesn't line up with the majority thinking it's automatically "bad faith" or "disingenuous". Every.Single.Thread. has this.

Click to shrink...

Opinions are only deemed disingenuous when the person arguing is purposely ignoring info/trying to avoid critism by complaining how "mean" GAF was but continue the "us conservatives" victim complex

 

[Ein]

This reads exactly like what most here seem to be taking an issue with.

Click to shrink...

People have a problem with exhibiting basic
Human decency?

 

[scotdar]

Are you talking about the before time or here?

Click to shrink...

Here I don't think GAF had verified accounts I posted there for years but always kept that part private. When this started I thought hey why not try and be more open and share what I can. The whole fresh start thing, lol, total mistake.

 

[El Bombastico]

Sorry OP, but I don't see anything wrong with calling people out on their bullshit. Far too many other places are either too afraid to do so and/or give out wrist slaps as punishments.

If you want to argue sexist, racist shit and get away with it (or worse, be applauded for it) 4chan and reddit are that way.

Basically. The insularity is suffocating. Granted I understand the interest in keeping barbarians from the gate but the nonstop nagging is way too heavy handed. Good moderation should be able to let a conversation/discussion play out instead of sweeping in immediately to declare whose guilty of what.

Click to shrink...

What good is going to exactly come out of people victim blaming a harassment victim and/or dog-whistling racist statements?

I would REALLY like to know.

 

[PhoenixDark]

That's never going to happen. You have to remember how this place was even formed and who mainly populates it. You either agree on a subject or it's better not to post.

Click to shrink...

Basically. The insularity is suffocating. Granted I understand the interest in keeping barbarians from the gate but the nonstop nagging is way too heavy handed. Good moderation should be able to let a conversation/discussion play out instead of sweeping in immediately to declare whose guilty of what.

 

[Deleted member 198]

People have a problem with exhibiting basic
Human decency?

Click to shrink...

My dude, I know that you know life is always going to be much more nuanced than that. It's always going to be important to have conversation with anyone who you disagree with because getting a better understanding of where others come from, why the feel that way, and so forth can not only make you a better person, but it can help them out too.

 

[Silent]

Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, or excuse these things... it's really not that hard.

And on that note, there are literally thousands of places on the internet that will welcome all of that. So don't come here with those views and act like you're some persecuted party that can't voice their opinion.

Click to shrink...

I feel like people here are quick to label others as racist, sexist, and homophobic. There is certainly the mentality that if you don't whole-heartedly agree with one side, it means you're completely against them. That sort of thinking is not healthy in my opinion. The moderation here also has strong opinions, and it is reflected in their warnings and bans.

 

[entremet]

It seems moderation is mostly based on old GAF moderation for these topics. Meaning, it's authoritative, yet rarely drives the discussion. I don't think we've figured out how to deal with these. Most of the moderation techniques are based on discipline, slapping the hands, instead of creating an atmosphere of safety.

It's very hard to moderate such an active forum, so I don't expect perfection here, but the old style is clearly not working.

 

[SRG01]

The problem is that arguing in bad faith exists everywhere on the internet. It's endemic to 21st century communication.

The solution? There really isn't one, unless there is a tidal wave of change.

 

[Deleted member 176]

When everything is assumed to be "in bad faith" how are you even supposed to have a conversation? You can just shut anyone or anything down with that damn line "in bad faith".

I see it around here a ton. At this point it's just a stupid tactic

Click to shrink...

I think the point is that you're acknowledging the conversation is no longer worth having, at least not with that person. It's like when Jake Tapper cut off Stephen Miller.

 

[moonknight93]

Sorry OP, but I don't see anything wrong with calling people out on their bullshit. .

Click to shrink...

See, this is the problem. The arrogance in thinking that your opinion is the right one and the others are talking bullshit.

A discussion with only one way of thinking allowed is not a discussion. And not necessarily people who are against condemning other people based only on allegations are sexist.