Code of Conduct Changes - Do better at least for optics

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Making a rule against political discussion is not silencing anyone.

That's like saying pointing a gun at someone and saying you need money isn't robbing someone.

You couldn't have put much thought into that Scrotie, absolutely NOT!

It's more like Target stores making a rule that people are not able to stand outside their doors and preach the gospel.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Here's a bit of my personal philosophy. Change in general is good, not always but usually.

Then why does the affirmative side have the burden of proof in debate? Because there are limited number of ways to make something better, but there are infinite ways to make something worse. Change for change's sake is a path to ruin, because change in general is bad — not always, but usually.

I guess you think that humanity is worse off now than 30,000 years ago then?

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Making a rule against political discussion is not silencing anyone.

That's like saying pointing a gun at someone and saying you need money isn't robbing someone.

You couldn't have put much thought into that Scrotie, absolutely NOT!

It's more like Target stores making a rule that people are not able to stand outside their doors and preach the gospel.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Here's a bit of my personal philosophy. Change in general is good, not always but usually.

Then why does the affirmative side have the burden of proof in debate? Because there are limited number of ways to make something better, but there are infinite ways to make something worse. Change for change's sake is a path to ruin, because change in general is bad — not always, but usually.

I guess you think that humanity is worse off now than 30,000 years ago then?

Well we are much more capable of killing ourselves and everything else on the planet that's for sure.

Times were simpler hunting mammoths with spears.

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Making a rule against political discussion is not silencing anyone.

That's like saying pointing a gun at someone and saying you need money isn't robbing someone.

You couldn't have put much thought into that Scrotie, absolutely NOT!

It's more like Target stores making a rule that people are not able to stand outside their doors and preach the gospel.

The enforcement of that rule is literally silencing someone. Every rule is a threat. So in order for the rule to not be enforced, it has to at least potentially be an empty threat. In my counteranalogy, no one is saying the gun will be shot if no money is given, or that the gun is even loaded. But it doesn't matter. Enforcement isn't required for a rule to silence people; the threat is sufficient.

As to your Target point: I forbid you from responding to me here, whether by post or PM. Of course, you're free to speak your points somewhere else, so by your own logic I would NOT be silencing you, even if i had the authority to enforce such a rule.

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Then why does the affirmative side have the burden of proof in debate? Because there are limited number of ways to make something better, but there are infinite ways to make something worse. Change for change's sake is a path to ruin, because change in general is bad — not always, but usually.

I guess you think that humanity is worse off now than 30,000 years ago then?

I'm not sure my comment applies if given such a prehistoric context. Let's put it this way: the better a thing is, the more likely it is that a change to it is bad. Because good changes tend to be (but are not always) discarded if they don't make the thing better, the more a thing has already been changed, the less likely further changes are to improve it.

This process happens faster than you think. When a new PoE expansion hits, it only takes about two months to reach a stage where 99.99% of proposed changes to the meta builds are detrimental. Invention is mind-bogglingly difficult in a time when the best methods are rapidly shared (e.g. via the Internet); finding positive change is virtually impossible without shutting oneself off to the greater community.

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

I guess you think that humanity is worse off now than 30,000 years ago then?

Well we are much more capable of killing ourselves and everything else on the planet that's for sure.

Times were simpler hunting mammoths with spears.

Were they? I always assumed that there was a good reason why man has so consistently scorned the primal world. I would presume, it is because the primal world is a brutal, traumatizing thing to live in.

I suppose throwing rocks at, or fleeing from aggressing tigers to minimize casualties is technically a simpler thing than building walls, economies, and shared fictions, but that isn’t what you meant, is it?

@TD: What a curious thing to make trivial the hardships and costs paid to advance towards being a stellar species, such as we are upon the brink of. By what logic do you support the blanket claim that change “in general” is good?

"

CanHasPants wrote:

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

I guess you think that humanity is worse off now than 30,000 years ago then?

Well we are much more capable of killing ourselves and everything else on the planet that's for sure.

Times were simpler hunting mammoths with spears.

Were they? I always assumed that there was a good reason why man has so consistently scorned the primal world. I would presume, it is because the primal world is a brutal, traumatizing thing to live in.

I suppose throwing rocks at, or fleeing from aggressing tigers to minimize casualties is technically a simpler thing than building walls, economies, and shared fictions, but that isn’t what you meant, is it?

@TD: What a curious thing to make trivial the hardships and costs paid to advance towards being a stellar species, such as we are upon the brink of. By what logic do you support the blanket claim that change “in general” is good?

No it wasnt. Sure prehistoric life was brutal. But the danger was localized. Same with the ancient world from Egyptians to Roman's who had thier share of atrocities.

However now a handful of people could destroy humanity on a global scale (or at least 95%+) if they wanted.

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

Censorship is an often misunderstood and misused term. When applied by the government and/or public media agencies regarding expression and speech this can be quite alarming.

However Code of Conduct and value based rules at private companies are fairly common if not to preclude from legal complaints or damaging marketing exposure. Sure "it's the right thing to do" comes into play a bit, but in large part ToS and EULA are more protections than steps to silence people. I know it hurts some peoples egos, but in most cases nobody really cares what you think.

Censorship is a specific action and the actor is irrelevant.
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/censorship

Any form of censorship should be met with suspision, since it portrays the people it is protecting as incapable of handling the content being censored.

Which in this case, would be the moderators as evident by the post in this thread by GGG.

Similar to how a country like China adopts the savior role or a company like facebook to protect the "weak incapable people".

Peace,

-Boem-

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

No it wasnt. Sure prehistoric life was brutal. But the danger was localized. Same with the ancient world from Egyptians to Roman's who had thier share of atrocities.

However now a handful of people could destroy humanity on a global scale (or at least 95%+) if they wanted.

A handful of people working in a medication manufactory, connected to a handful of other people in the shipping and distribution channels, can also save millions of lives by spreading a curative medicine that stops a population-slashing disease in its tracks.

Global annihilation is not solely mankind's prerogative - the planet can obliterate huge swaths of the population whenever it feels like doing so, unless we have measures in place to stop it. Yes, we could if we lost our minds render the world uninhabitable for our kind. We're also on the verge of no longer needing this world. Provided we don't cock it up at the last second, in a couple of hundred years we'll have stable extraterran colonies and potentially be on the way to extrasolar colonies. What happens to this miserable ball of slimy rock will no longer be the sole determinant of what becomes of our species.

Not that any of this has any bearing on the C of C changes. But keep it in mind, the next time some anti-tech Luddite yaybo squawks his uneducated squawking about how the advancement of technology will DESTROY US ALL(!!). They're wrong. The advancement of technology is the only thing that will get us out of the giant mess we've managed to back ourselves into.

"

Boem wrote:

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

Censorship is an often misunderstood and misused term. When applied by the government and/or public media agencies regarding expression and speech this can be quite alarming.

However Code of Conduct and value based rules at private companies are fairly common if not to preclude from legal complaints or damaging marketing exposure. Sure "it's the right thing to do" comes into play a bit, but in large part ToS and EULA are more protections than steps to silence people. I know it hurts some peoples egos, but in most cases nobody really cares what you think.

Censorship is a specific action and the actor is irrelevant.
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/censorship

Any form of censorship should be met with suspision, since it portrays the people it is protecting as incapable of handling the content being censored.

Which in this case, would be the moderators as evident by the post in this thread by GGG.

Similar to how a country like China adopts the savior role or a company like facebook to protect the "weak incapable people".

Peace,

-Boem-

Again I mentioned the problems associated with government or public control of discourse.

There is a large difference for private businesses and discretion given to how they want to run their business from a values (and legal) point of view.

For example GGG could allow vile, hate, and racist speech and discussion on thier forums if they wanted, but it then opens them up to potential lawsuits from employees for hostile work environment, or discrimination claims from customers. Not to mention from a business and marketing POV, most normal, well adjusted people, dont want to drown themselevs in a toxic wasteland that it would be. Reddit is bad enough.

Edit: for clarity I think the CoC changes go too far, way too far. Inflammatory is wildly problematic to base discussion concepts on.

"

CanHasPants wrote:

@TD: What a curious thing to make trivial the hardships and costs paid to advance towards being a stellar species, such as we are upon the brink of. By what logic do you support the blanket claim that change “in general” is good?

I never claimed such a thing. I was not making any universal insight of truth or any such nonsense. I said, "Here's a bit of my personal philosophy." It is a reasonable personal philosophy in part because I have a knee jerk reaction to dislike change. What I should do instead is to first think about whether the change is actually good or bad.

Regarding the post where I made that statement, I was originally thinking I would, for fun, contrast our progressive versus conservative values with the apparent situation that the progressive leaning folks seem to have much better accepted this change than the conservative leaning folks who seem to be gnashing their teeth over it. But, after starting I got interrupted or something and cut it off and posted it.

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

Censorship is an often misunderstood and misused term. When applied by the government and/or public media agencies regarding expression and speech this can be quite alarming.

However Code of Conduct and value based rules at private companies are fairly common if not to preclude from legal complaints or damaging marketing exposure. Sure "it's the right thing to do" comes into play a bit, but in large part ToS and EULA are more protections than steps to silence people. I know it hurts some peoples egos, but in most cases nobody really cares what you think.

Censorship is a specific action and the actor is irrelevant.
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/censorship

Any form of censorship should be met with suspision, since it portrays the people it is protecting as incapable of handling the content being censored.

Which in this case, would be the moderators as evident by the post in this thread by GGG.

Similar to how a country like China adopts the savior role or a company like facebook to protect the "weak incapable people".

Peace,

-Boem-

Again I mentioned the problems associated with government or public control of discourse.

There is a large difference for private businesses and discretion given to how they want to run their business from a values (and legal) point of view.

For example GGG could allow vile, hate, and racist speech and discussion on thier forums if they wanted, but it then opens them up to potential lawsuits from employees for hostile work environment, or discrimination claims from customers. Not to mention from a business and marketing POV, most normal, well adjusted people, dont want to drown themselevs in a toxic wasteland that it would be. Reddit is bad enough.

Edit: for clarity I think the CoC changes go too far, way too far. Inflammatory is wildly problematic to base discussion concepts on.

You illustrated my point.

GGG could allow all those things, but they censor it.

That still makes it "censorship", it's not because we agree with it that it somehow get's removed out of the definition of censorship.

Just like how age restrictions work on certain content, which are also censorship.

It's not like china is not allowed to censor for example, wether we agree or disagree with the things censored has nothing to do with calling the act "censorship".

The differentiation you were trying to imply by making a distinction between censorship and a CoC are non existent.
A CoC is a form of censorship, a country enforcing it or a company is irrelevant to calling the action what it is.

Peace,

-Boem-