Seeking Constructive Dialogue on Mod Removals: Stereotyping Doesn't Help angielski

This post is about the current arguements taking place in the post called “Nexus Mods Fine With Bigots Leaving Over Removed Starfield ‘Pronoun’ Mod”

If the primary objective here is to engage in constructive dialogue, then name-calling and overgeneralization serve no purpose and only fuel the fire. The issue at hand has been conflated to be about political affiliations like Republican vs. Democrat, when that’s not the core point of discussion at all. We’re here to debate the merits and drawbacks of mod removal, not to stereotype one another based on our political leanings or otherwise.

The aim of this post is to encourage a constructive and respectful discussion around mod removals in gaming communities. Name-calling, political labeling, and overgeneralization serve only to fuel divisiveness and distract from the main issue. Rather than resorting to stereotypes or making sweeping statements about each other’s viewpoints, let’s aim to engage in a balanced and open dialogue that acknowledges the complexities of the subject matter. We all have strong feelings about this topic, but constructive conversations require that we steer clear of actions that deepen divisions.

gk99, (edited )

Calling people the things they literally are is not name-calling. For example, conservatives tried to overthrow our government, tried to overthrow our democracy, and have been sending elementary schools in my town bomb threats for weeks. It’s not name calling to say they’re terrorists.

Edit: To clarify, the bomb threats are because a librarian joked about having a “woke agenda.” These are the same types of people.

librechad,

Thanks for proving my point.

NewNewAccount,

Does it bother you when people mention their preferred pronouns? Even a little bit?

librechad, (edited )

Not at all. I believe that people should have freedom of choice for how they want to play their games. Everyone has a different escape from reality.

I understand that Nexus Mods have the right to choose what they want to host, that’s not the point. I believe that the moderators of the site need to choose what really crosses the line. The mod itself is harmless. Do you agree with hosting the Kill All Children mod for Skyrim still? If so, why?

Voroxpete,

If the reality you want to escape from is that “sometimes people use pronouns that are different from the ones I think they should use”, you’re an intolerant bigot.

If someone made a mod to remove black people from the game because “sometimes I want to escape from the reality that black people exist” it would be entirely justified to call that person a racist. This is no different.

librechad,

I’d like to clarify that my argument is centered around the role of platform moderation and how they determine what content crosses ethical or moral lines. While you’ve offered an extreme example with the hypothetical mod that removes black people, the comparison doesn’t precisely align with the mod under discussion.

I used the ‘Kill All Children’ mod for Skyrim as an example to point out inconsistencies in moderation decisions. The objective is to question where the line should be drawn and who gets to draw it, not to endorse intolerant or bigoted views.

Voroxpete,

No, I haven’t offered an extreme example. I’ve offered an identical example. Escaping from the reality that black people exist, and escaping from the reality that people can in fact just choose their own pronouns are not meaningfully different in any way. In both cases someone is trying to erase from their personal reality the existence of an entire group of people, in a way that is targeted on specific lines of bigotry.

If you’re not willing to acknowledge that simple fact then you’re not ready to have this conservation.

That’s why there is a meaningful difference between this and the kill all children mod. While tasteless and gross, there’s never been any meaningful indication that the people installing kill all children actually want to see children, as a class of people, erased from existence. They’re engaged in some extremely unpleasant roleplaying, but barring the rare exceptions that will exist in any sufficient sample size they’re not actively expressing views about the real world through this choice. OTOH the pronoun removal mod is very much about expressing a desire to, at best, refuse to acknowledge the existence of a group of people, and far more likely a desire that said group not exist at all. And if you don’t believe that desire exists in a not insignificant number of people then I beg you to look outside your window for once in your life.

We can draw a moral line between these two things by applying Popper’s paradox of tolerance; the only thing a tolerant society cannot tolerate is intolerance. There is a clear moral justification for the suppression of expression when it is an expression of intolerance. That is the moral principle that Nexus are applying here (whether they are conscious of it or not).

Not only can you be a defender of free speech and still support the suppression of intolerant speech; it is in fact absolutely necessary to do so. If tolerated, the intolerant will use their freedom of speech to destroy everyone else’s while pushing their intolerant ideals. It is therefore - paradoxically - impossible to support free speech while supporting the free speech of bigots. To be true champions of free speech we must be intolerant of the intolerant.

librechad, (edited )

In response to the point you’ve raised, the issue of platform moderation does involve a complex balance between allowing diversity of opinion and restricting what is considered harmful or intolerant. However, it’s crucial to note that not all forms of censorship or moderation are created equal.

Your argument posits that the ‘Kill All Children’ mod and the pronoun-removal mod are qualitatively different, based on the intent or impact behind them. The latter, you say, has real-world implications, as it aims to negate the existence of a specific group, while the former is seen as “extremely unpleasant role-playing” that isn’t necessarily a call for real-world action against children.

Yet, the stance seems to be rooted in the assumption that everyone who would use the pronoun-removal mod does so with malicious intent to deny the existence of non-binary or transgender people. While that might be true for some, it could also simply be a matter of personal preference for others, without carrying any ideological baggage.

The use of Popper’s paradox of tolerance in this discussion is intriguing but might oversimplify the complexities involved in moderating a digital platform. While intolerance shouldn’t be tolerated, determining what constitutes ‘intolerance’ is often subjective and open to interpretation. Therefore, it’s crucial for platform moderators to engage in transparent and reasoned decision-making processes when determining what is allowed and what is not.

Your last point suggests that it’s not just permissible but necessary to restrict the free speech of those considered intolerant to protect free speech for all. However, this approach can easily lead to a slippery slope where the definition of ‘intolerance’ becomes malleable, potentially leading to an erosion of the very free speech rights that the policy aims to protect.

The issue is not straightforward, and the boundaries of what should or shouldn’t be tolerated in an online community are often fluid. Thus, there remains a need for a nuanced conversation around these topics, which goes beyond labelling something as intolerant and calling for its suppression.

Voroxpete,

While that might be true for some, it could also simply be a matter of personal preference for others, without carrying any ideological baggage.

Give me one single scenario in which a person needs to remove the option to select your characters pronouns, without that decision carrying, as you put it, ideological baggage.

Just one. I’ll wait.

librechad,

A scenario that comes to mind is one where a player simply wants to streamline their game experience, eliminating any elements they perceive as non-essential to their gameplay. This wouldn’t necessarily imply ideological baggage; it could simply be an attempt to customize the game to better suit their individual preferences. However, I acknowledge that the topic is complex and there’s a lot to consider in the broader conversation about platform moderation.

Voroxpete,

The pronoun selector already prefills the “default” option. There is literally nothing to streamline by removing it. Try again.

librechad,

Fair point about the default option being prefilled. However, the idea of what ‘streamlining’ means can differ among individuals. Some might want to remove elements they find non-essential, even if those elements are prefilled. It’s about catering to one’s own idea of what the game should be. Why should the interpretation of ‘streamlining’ be limited to your understanding?

MrZee,

Oh, now I see. It was never about the pronouns, it’s just about streamlining the user experience. How could I have been so stupid, thinking that the only intent behind this mod was bigoty, when in reality it was innocent streamlining.

…

Dude, the dog whistle isn’t subtle. Could you stop?

librechad, (edited )

My aim is to discuss what types of content should be removed and why. The mod’s creator did include comments that violate guidelines, so its removal is justified on that basis. However, dismissing the topic as a ‘dog whistle’ doesn’t help us explore the larger questions around platform moderation and community standards.

MrZee,

If you wanted to discuss that, your first step would be to look for Nexusmods moderation policy and read it. Or if they don’t have one published to note that fact.

Then start a post discussing that moderation policy and asking how moderation should be done.

Instead you started your post by focusing on the removal of a particular bigoted mod, which of course makes it a needlessly charged discussion if you’re looking for purely rational discussion about how moderation decisions are made. Then you keep making these absurd arguments — like claiming this mod may have just been about streamlining. This looks like trolling. And it talks like trolling. You claim I’m missing the point. I don’t think I am. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck… it’s probably a maga troll that’s “just asking questions”.

librechad, (edited )

While I acknowledge that the discussion started with the example of a specific mod, the intent was to use that as a jumping-off point for broader questions about moderation. However, I concede that the charged nature of that particular mod has perhaps overshadowed the broader discussion I was aiming for. I did review Nexus Mods guidelines, and the mod in question was rightly removed based on them. The idea was to prompt thought about how these policies are crafted and applied across a range of content. The mention of ‘streamlining’ was intended to explore the various motivations behind mod creation, not to justify this specific mod’s existence. I assure you, this is not an attempt at trolling but rather an effort to foster a meaningful conversation about platform governance.

stopthatgirl7, (edited )
!deleted7120 avatar

I feel like the person posting that in the first place was not really acting in good faith - with as highly politicized as the topic is, and with how much people genuinely care about it given the way people’s rights to just live have been so quickly taken away, posting that was basically lobbing a grenade to watch what happens. It couldn’t just be an innocuous post because by nature of what it was, it wasn’t innocuous, and there was no way to not know that. People were going to get angry and the comment section was, very predictably, both here and in the Starfield comm it was cross posted to, going to turn into a dumpster fire. It felt like, to me, that the OP had an ax to grind, and that came out in their replies to people who were upset. It was by nature an incendiary post, and got incendiary reactions.

librechad, (edited )

The recent exchange surrounding that post has raised serious concerns about the quality of discourse on this platform. Rather than engaging in reasoned debate to dissect the complexities of the issue, many participants seem to resort to inflammatory rhetoric. This unfortunate trend undermines the very purpose of a discussion forum and has led me to reconsider my continued participation here.

ugo,

It is meaningless to engage in bad faith discussions. Are you aware of the paradox of tolerance? Tolerating intolerance only serves the purposes of the intolerant, while the tolerant get pushed aside (which could mean anything from disenfranchisement to death)

Therefore, the tolerant must be intolerant towards intolerance.

There exists no good faith or tolerant argument in which removing pronouns makes sense, it is at its base a message of intolerance.

There are no complexities and no discussions to be had, you are either intolerant yourself, or naïve, if you think this is a topic that can be discussed.

librechad,

The intent of my original post was not to advocate for intolerance, but to question how moderation decisions are made, especially when there appears to be inconsistency. In doing so, I hoped to promote reasoned debate on that specific issue, not to engage in bad faith discussions.

While I understand that certain topics may be inherently fraught, the objective was to consider how platform moderation intersects with issues of free choice and community standards. That said, if the prevailing consensus is that some subjects are too divisive for productive discourse, then that too is a topic worth discussing.

CaptainEffort,

I’m kind of curious to here about Nexus’ inconsistency. As far as I can tell they’ve been pretty consistent if the mod gets their attention. There was a Spider-Man mod that removed a pride flag, and Nexus removed that too. That feels consistent to me.

goat,

damn nexus really just said “fuck you enbies” :(

Voroxbob,

The pronoun mod took away pronoun choices. It was created by an obvious transphobe, and Nexus got rid of it because they have no patience for obvious transphobes.

Voroxpete, (edited )

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nr, nr, nr.” By 1968 you can’t say “nr”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nr, nr.”

  • Republican strategist Lee Atwater.

Atwater’s point here is that dogwhistles work, and they’ve been a core strategy of regressive bigots for decades.

Today’s hateful bigots understand that they can’t openly say “I want to legislate trans people out of existence, even if that means they all die.” So they engage in layers of abstraction, and wrap their abstractions up in leftist talking points. They claim to be defenders of “free speech” even as they support laws that empty out libraries of books, remove shows from television or make discussion of anything LGBTQ related impossible online.

So to you, the innocent rube, removing a pronoun selection from a game might not sound like an attack on trans people, but it very much is. The mod was a rallying cry, a call to fellow bigots to express themselves while pointedly saying to every trans person watching “You are not safe. We are here, we hate you, and we want to erase your existence.”

The existence of the pronoun selector impacted them in absolutely no way, shape, or form. There was nothing to be gained from its removal other than the statement it made, the proud declaration of their hatred encoded in a language of abstraction that made it visible only to their allies and their targets.

And the fact that they can get away with this; the fact that they can openly torment their chosen victims while the average idiot pats them on the head and calls them a “victim of censorship”… That’s their favourite part.

librechad,

I understand the concept of dog whistles and the historical usage of coded language to advance certain agendas. My primary concern here is not the mod itself, but rather how moderation decisions are made and the criteria used. If we can’t openly discuss these topics, it’s hard to determine what is or isn’t acceptable. I’m not advocating for intolerance; I’m advocating for clarity in community guidelines.

Pxtl, (edited )
@Pxtl@lemmy.ca avatar

There cannot and should not be balanced and open discussion on this issue. You cannot “polite” your way into finding a way to say that non-binary people are not legitimate.

This is paradox-of-tolerance stuff. Maintaining an inclusive community requires being intolerant of intolerance.

The existence of non-binary people does not hurt you.

Insisting on finding ways to deny that they exist hurts them.

So no, there will be no polite disagreement.

Fuck the chuds.

librechad, (edited )

While the concerns you’ve raised resonate with many, it’s worth remembering JFK’s words, ‘Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.’ As a society, we must consider the nuance that exists in any debate, even one as sensitive as this. Open discussion should serve as a mechanism to understand what defines intolerance and how to appropriately combat it, rather than shutting down dialogue altogether.

DLSchichtl,

No, just shut up and go be a bigot somewhere else, fucking cockholster.

librechad,

Very constructive response.

DLSchichtl,

Construct deez nuts, cousin fucker

librechad,

Uncle fucker, you got me.

InEnduringGrowStrong,
@InEnduringGrowStrong@sh.itjust.works avatar

There’s very little constructive discussion to be had about this, if any.
Civility is one thing, but there’s not really anything to debate here. What complexities?

The mod’s only function was to hide an options menu. Its only purpose is to hide the fact that other people might wanna choose something else than the default, it literally did nothing else.
It didn’t add any option.

If it added any option at all, like to replace pronouns in dialogues with your character’s name or anything that’d be something else but it’s not.

I doubt that mod was made in good faith, but I don’t really care either way to be honest.
I’m not triggered by that mod’s existence, nor by its removal because it’s all mostly outage bait.
That other poster knew that was going to be a dumpster fire before they hit the button to post.
I honestly doubt this one is meant to do any better.

librechad,

I understand your perspective on the mod and its likely intent. My original aim was not to discuss the mod per se, but to explore how moderation decisions are made. If we can’t have an open debate, it becomes difficult to understand where we draw the line on what is or isn’t acceptable content.

Ganbat,

It should be pretty simple here.

“Does it serve any purpose other than excluding people? No? Remove it.”

librechad,

Shouldn’t users have the liberty to tailor their gaming experiences according to their personal preferences, especially in a game known for its moddability? It’s also important to note that not everyone who might use such a mod is necessarily doing so with the intent of exclusion.

Ganbat,

“Why should it be removed?”
Because it hurts real people.

“But shouldn’t people be able to modify the game as they want?”
Sure, they can do it themselves, but no one has to host content that causes real-world harm.

“But why draw the line at this mod?”
See answer 1.

Ya know, I love it when people like you use “civil discussion” as a mask, because it’s always the most transparent thing ever. Your real goals are always on your sleeve, but you just keep pushing the same things over and over again so that, in the end, you can say “Look, I was civil, they weren’t!”

Do you know what gives you away? It’s the way no answer you ever receive is satisfactory. It’s never enough. And it’s usually cyclical, too, which is exactly the behavior you’ve displayed here.

librechad,

First, the mod in question is not adding a new feature to the game but removing an existing one, a fundamental difference when discussing user agency in customization. If someone finds this feature unappealing or unnecessary, they might opt for its removal via the mod, thus tailoring the game to their preferences. This is in the spirit of game moddability, which celebrates personalization.

Second, the concept that ‘no answer I ever receive is satisfactory’ misconstrues the purpose of engaging in discourse. Discussion is not a box to be checked off but a mechanism for deeper understanding. If the answers received were universally satisfactory, the discourse would be stagnant, wouldn’t it?

Lastly, if a mod does not align with one’s values, the solution is straightforward: do not download it. The presence of such a mod doesn’t mandate its use. Assigning a single motive to all users of a mod is not just an oversimplification but also an assumption that does not stand up to scrutiny. Therefore, as we engage in this dialogue, let’s not make broad generalizations but aim for a nuanced understanding.

MrZee,

Claim whatever motivations you want, but reading through this series of comments does a great job of showing everyone your real motivation. You are not here for rational discussion of moderation policy. Your trying to argue that bigoted materials should be allowed.

I can’t stop looking at this train wreck. But ima try.

librechad,

You do you G, ain’t gonna force my views down your throat.

good_girl, (edited )
@good_girl@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

This is such a stupid ass post. Nobody has to put up with the shitty viewpoints pushed by the mod or from people that would use the mod. Nobody owes you civility if you reveal you hold similar views or are okay with those views being pushed. Do not tolerate intolerance.

Fuck off, the topic has been hot in politics for ages, if you’re still against trans people and fighting back against “pronouns” you’ve made your choice and know where you stand.

librechad,

I understand that the topic at hand is emotionally charged and has been the subject of intense political debate. However, it appears that my original intent might have been misunderstood. I’m not advocating for or against the mod in question.

Instead, my focus is on the criteria that platform moderators use to decide what content should or should not be allowed. This discussion is not about endorsing intolerance but about understanding how these moderation decisions are made. I believe that it is possible to discuss this aspect without necessarily taking a stance on the mod’s content itself.

good_girl, (edited )
@good_girl@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

The topic begins and ends at “Intolerance is not tolerated”, further discussion would be a thinly veiled attempt at justifying displays of intolerance.

librechad,

I appreciate your input, but I’m puzzled as to why you chose to comment on a post explicitly seeking constructive dialogue if you’re not interested in having a nuanced discussion. My original question aimed to understand the criteria behind platform moderation decisions. I believe it’s an issue that can be discussed without necessarily endorsing or disavowing the content of the mod in question. Would you be open to discussing that aspect?

good_girl, (edited )
@good_girl@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

nUaNcED dIscuSSioN

Gross dude, the criteria is whatever the site says it is, in this case it was a mod with bigoted intention. What nuance is there to this discussion? Do you want to discuss what level of bigotry should be accepted? Homosexuals are off limits but trans people are fair game? Is that the nuance you want to address?

further discussion would be a thinly veiled attempt at justifying displays of intolerance.

librechad,

While I’ve already acknowledged that the mod in question was rightly removed due to bigoted comments in its description, that’s not the focal point of my inquiry. What I’m driving at is the more general issue of content moderation and what warrants removal. I’m not asking for any form of bigotry to be permitted; I’m questioning how we, as a community, decide what crosses the line. It’s curious that you label my pursuit of a nuanced dialogue as ‘gross,’ especially given the content you freely share. It seems our standards for what is acceptable differ considerably.

good_girl, (edited )
@good_girl@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

I’m questioning how we, as a community, decide what crosses the line.

thinly veiled attempt at justifying displays of intolerance

librechad, (edited )

Your accusation of a ‘thinly veiled attempt at justifying displays of intolerance’ ignores my stated objective: to foster a conversation about how platforms decide what content to remove. I’ve already acknowledged the mod’s removal was warranted due to its author’s bigoted comments. My interest lies in examining the broader principles behind such decisions.

However, as Mark Twain once said, ‘Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.’ It seems we’re unlikely to engage in the meaningful dialogue I was hoping for, so perhaps it’s best to leave it at that.

good_girl,
@good_girl@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

‘Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.’

I love how unabashedly unaware you are of yourself.

BumpingFuglies,

Personally, I think it’s absurd to remove a mod that harms nobody. As a nonbinary person, I was ecstatic to see “they/them” as a pronoun choice, but I understand that having to choose pronouns can be triggering for some people, just as much as not having the option can be triggering for others. Why not let people play the game the way they want? Isn’t that the appeal of a Bethesda game, after all?

I’m pretty sure Nexus Mods admins have the ability to lock comments on a mod - why not just do that for controversial mods like this one? People who want it could still use it, just without the hatred and vitriol that might otherwise be in the comments.

librechad,

I completely agree with your perspective. The essence of a Bethesda game, and many other sandbox-style games, is the freedom to tailor the experience to one’s own preferences. Removing a mod that is essentially harmless takes away from that freedom and raises questions about the influence of ideological stances in the moderation process.

As you suggested, locking the comments could serve as a reasonable compromise. It would allow those who wish to use the mod to do so, while mitigating the potential for inflammatory discussions. This way, the community retains its diversity of choice without being subjected to a single viewpoint.

Kolanaki, (edited )
!deleted6508 avatar

From what people who had seen the mod page were saying when this all started blowing up, was that it was removed not for what the mod did, but for what the author of the mod put in the mod description page (basically full of racist, sexist, homo and transphobic bullshit), which was a violation of their rules. Plenty of other mods that remove the pronouns option still exist on Nexus, but without the bigotry clearly laid down in their descriptions.

librechad, (edited )

If it’s indeed the case that the mod was removed due to the author’s statements in the mod description, then the removal is justifiable based on those grounds. This would then be less about the content of the mod itself and more about adherence to platform guidelines. It also highlights the importance of understanding the complete context behind moderation decisions, rather than focusing solely on the mod’s functionality.

BumpingFuglies,

Ah, I didn’t realize. That is definitely good justification for removing the mod.

Voroxpete,

OK, I’ve read all your comments throughout this thread - I’ve responded to quite a few of them - and now I’m going to say this, and sign off.

Even assuming - as I have tried very hard to do so far - that you’re asking these questions in good faith, there’s very simple reason why no one wants to engage with you, why you’re getting down votes and tired, dismissive answers… this is a settled issue.

There is no meaningful or useful new debate to be had here. You’re turning up in the middle of a PhD physics lecture demanding to have a discussion about whether the Earth orbits the sun. We’ve been there, we had that argument, and the fact that you’re not willing to educate yourself sufficiently on the subject does not mean that you get to throw it out to the floor for fresh discussion as if there’s anything to be gained from that.

That’s why no one wants to have a thrilling intellectual debate with you about this. Because it’s boring, it’s old, and you have not raised a single new or interesting point in this entire thread. And while you’re treating this as intellectual exercise, real people’s lives are being destroyed by the bigots that you are - knowingly or unknowingly - carrying water for.

If all this is news to you, if you thought you were somehow at the forefront of cutting edge intellectual discussion here, then please take this as an opportunity to do some learning and growing. Spend some time listening to marginalized voices. Ask questions - respectfully and without making demands of people’s time - instead of asking for debate.

If you really do mean all this in good faith then I wish you the best and I hope to see you grow and learn from the experience, for your own sake as much as anyone else’s. We all have to start somewhere.

librechad, (edited )

The intent of my posts was not to reopen settled debates, but to explore the principles that underlie how moderation decisions are made on platforms that host user-generated content. I believe this is a worthy subject of inquiry because it can affect various communities in different ways. While you see this issue as settled, the modding community is ever-evolving, and new scenarios that challenge established norms will likely continue to arise. I assure you that my intent is to engage in good faith, and I am open to learning from this experience. If you choose not to engage further, I respect your decision.

Voroxpete,

You’re coming at this from the angle that this is some strange new reality that the world has never encountered before, but it truly isn’t. This is not an “evolving new situation”, we’re not on the bold frontiers of strange new norms. It’s just bigotry. Bigotry isn’t new, it’s as old as mankind.

There’s a reason we’re all citing philosophical principles laid down in the 1940’s, almost like the world suddenly had a pressing need to reckon with the true cost of allowing violent intolerance to grow unchecked… Maybe some recent event prompted that?

The fact that bigots are communicating their bigotry through mods for videogames now doesn’t change what bigotry is, or how we fight it. This shit is older than any of us here, and the tools and principles are well established.

And the fact that bigots will frame their bigotry in dog whistles with just enough ambiguity that people like you can say “Maybe this was completely innocent” isn’t an accident, it’s by design. That quote from Lee Atwater I shared earlier? He’s talking about the politics of the early 1970s. Most of us weren’t alive then. Again, this is nothing new. The only change is that right now their target is trans people, because they always point their hate at the target society is least willing to defend. Pick off the weak from the herd.

If you’re trying to better understand how this stuff works, I respect that. Just because things have been understood for a long time, doesn’t mean everyone knows them. I didn’t start out magically knowing this stuff either. In my college days I styled myself as a free speech absolutist, someone who would on sheer magnificent principle defend the rights of a Nazi to be a Nazi. I learned better when I actually met and talked to the people that my “principles” were actively harming. So yes, I get it, and if you’re here to learn I commend that.

But please, don’t frame it as a debate. “Should we tolerate the free speech of bigots” is only a debate for the bigots, because like any guilty party they will never stop trying to relitigate their case. They can only benefit from this “debate” and the rest of us can only lose.

They will say things like “You’re just as bad as us if you censor us” to which we say “No, we are not, because our refusal to engage comes from clear moral principles, while yours comes from hatred.”

They will say “If you censor us, where do you draw the line?” to which we say “At the limits of your intolerance. We will tolerate, within reason, everything that is not an expression of bigotry and hatred.”

They will say “You cannot judge our intent or know our souls. How can you assign blame to our actions?” to which we say “We will judge you by your actions. The drunk driver doesn’t mean to cause harm, but we still criminalize the behaviour because it is harmful. If you do not intend to be a bigot, but you choose to actively express bigotry, we will hold you accountable for your actions all the same. A racist prank is still racist. Saying ‘Just kidding’ doesn’t undo the harm spread by your words. It is on you to learn these things and be better.”

They will say “But you could get it wrong. What if you misjudge the innocent?” to which we say “This could apply to any action of society. The innocent are convicted of crimes they did not commit, but this does undermine the value of having laws, it only reinforces that we must apply those laws as carefully and as justly as possible, that we must never forget the human cost of these decisions. It does not invalidate the decisions.”

They will find every angle, seek every accommodation, because they have nothing to lose by trying. They will never stop, and we can only let their arguments fall on deaf ears.

I’m not saying that there is absolutely no room for discussion to be had within this realm. There is always room for discussion in any subject. But you need to be mindful of the difference between “I think our models of climate change could be improved in this specific way…” vs “Is climate science real?” You won’t get any traction by arriving at a school and trying to dig up the foundations. Educate yourself on the fundamentals, and from there you can seek out specific areas where meaningful argument can be made, without needlessly relitigating core principles.

librechad,

Your detailed response outlines a nuanced stance on the issue, framing it within a long historical context. However, I believe that framing the issue as ‘already resolved’ dismisses the evolving complexities of online moderation, and how it intersects with the fluid nature of speech and social norms.

  1. Historical Precedence: While it’s true that bigotry has existed throughout human history, how we engage with it has evolved, especially in the digital era. To suggest that the ‘tools and principles are well-established’ may not fully capture the complexity of online spaces where interaction occurs asynchronously, across cultures, and without the benefit of vocal tone or facial expression.
  2. Freedom of Speech: You critique the notion of debating whether we should ‘tolerate the free speech of bigots.’ However, even well-intended moderation can have a chilling effect on speech. How do we prevent the slippery slope where the bounds of acceptable speech continually narrow?
  3. Intent vs Impact: You suggest judging people solely by their actions, but this discounts the complex interplay between intent and interpretation. Who gets to define what constitutes bigotry in a statement open to multiple interpretations?
  4. Potential for Misjudgment: You accept that innocent people could be wrongly accused but say that this doesn’t invalidate the act of moderation. While true, this doesn’t address the ethical dilemma of sacrificing individual fairness for collective security.
  5. The Role of Debate: The dismissal of debate as a tool available only to bigots undermines the basis of democratic society. Even well-established principles benefit from regular scrutiny. Shouldn’t we always strive to challenge our existing models to account for new variables?
  6. Moral High Ground: Your argument assumes a moral high ground, positioning any differing opinion as inherently stemming from hatred or ignorance. This approach precludes constructive discussion and leaves no room for the reevaluation of norms and rules.

In sum, I respect your position but believe that it does not leave room for the complexities and nuances of this discussion. Insinuating that only ‘bigots’ would want to engage in a debate about freedom of speech and platform moderation is reductive and does not further a meaningful conversation about how we navigate these tricky waters.

magnor,
@magnor@lemmy.magnor.ovh avatar

There is no name calling involved in calling a bigot a bigot. The whole “polite discussion” thing is at best a thin veneer of respectability slapped on an obvious dog whistle.

Free speech does not mean freedom of consequence and it is well within Nexus Mods’s rights to not tolerate transphobia on their platform. I would even call that the bare minimum, actually.

If OP really wants honest and constructive discourse they should come out and actually express an opinion instead of hiding behind the fallacy of having “constructive” Interactions about whether or not fascism is ok.

librechad,

While I appreciate your perspective, it seems there’s a misunderstanding. I’m not advocating for bigotry or hiding behind ‘polite discussion’ as a shield for harmful views. My interest is in the broader context of what content is so problematic that it requires removal and under what guidelines. Free speech indeed comes with consequences, which is why it’s important to examine those guidelines and their consistent application. This is not about condoning transphobia or any form of bigotry; it’s about discussing the thresholds and criteria that platforms like Nexus Mods use to make their moderation decisions. Understanding these mechanisms is essential for any community that wishes to maintain both openness and respect.

magnor, (edited )
@magnor@lemmy.magnor.ovh avatar

You talk about the “complexities of the subject matter”. There are none. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for the aforementioned mod. It was only created as a dog whistle and a beacon for bigots. Rational discussion cannot and should not be had when one party is not acting in good faith. I see no legitimate reason to dispute that ban, do you ?

  • Wszystkie
  • Subskrybowane
  • Moderowane
  • Ulubione
  • •
  • test1
  • Spoleczenstwo
  • lieratura
  • muzyka
  • rowery
  • sport
  • Blogi
  • Technologia
  • Pozytywnie
  • nauka
  • FromSilesiaToPolesia
  • fediversum
  • motoryzacja
  • niusy
  • slask
  • informasi
  • Gaming
  • esport
  • games@sh.itjust.works
  • Psychologia
  • tech
  • giereczkowo
  • ERP
  • krakow
  • antywykop
  • Cyfryzacja
  • zebynieucieklo
  • kino
  • warnersteve
  • Wszystkie magazyny
    •