Random Thread

[alice]

No, they should be banned for their political beliefs. The one off statements are a symptom, not the problem. This isn't some broad, overburocratic mass organization that can become corrupted to the point of danger. This is a couple guys who run a forum allowing fascists to hang around. It's pretty easy to not escalate further.

If you legitimize banning some people simply for their political beliefs, however odious they may seem, you legitimize banning any and all people for their political beliefs, no matter what they are, anywhere and everywhere.

And you also legitimize other people banning you for your beliefs, don't forget. What matters is how you behave, not what you believe.

[Raphael]

Richard W.: Well, when the unusual beliefs or political views in question are Nazi views, then I simply disagree with the House Rules.

No, they should be banned for their political beliefs. The one off statements are a symptom, not the problem. This isn't some broad, overburocratic mass organization that can become corrupted to the point of danger. This is a couple guys who run a forum allowing fascists to hang around. It's pretty easy to not escalate further.

If you legitimize banning some people simply for their political beliefs, however odious they may seem, you legitimize banning any and all people for their political beliefs, no matter what they are, anywhere and everywhere.

And you also legitimize other people banning you for your beliefs, don't forget. What matters is how you behave, not what you believe.

Repeating myself:

Travis' argument that, in theory, zompist might start banning people for being socialists, doesn't make any sense to me because, first, this is zompist we're talking about, and second, if zompist would suddenly do a heel turn and start banning people for being socialists, whether he had or hadn't previously banned people for being fascists wouldn't make a difference anyway.

And, if - wait, make that "when" - some other places on the Internet are run by Nazis, of course I'm likely to get banned there. No matter whether I had previously done anything to legitimize that, or not. And I can't say that I particularly mind.

[Travis B.]

What one can do is set clear guidelines for what expression is acceptable and what is not acceptable and punish those who violate them, particularly repeatedly, rather than judging people based on their inferred privately-held beliefs. One can make rules like that expressing racial prejudice is unacceptable which people can then be held to. Such a rule would be far more objective and just because you can point to definitive actions that violate such rules than merely banning people because you've decided that they are "fascists" independent of what they have actually said or done. BTW, your example of "get out their calipers and complain about racial intelligence" would be an example of something that would violate such a rule.

That's basically the argument for the rule of law. Thing is, while I'm generally in favor of the rule of law in real life, I think that in the context of online spaces, the traditional anti-legalist arguments from Chinese philosophy are more convincing.

While rule of law does have its failures, the key thing is that basing moderation on users' perceived beliefs rather than their actions leads one down the rabbit hole of punishing people for their lack of perceived 'purity'. Purity spirals are a real thing. Yes one may say today "but they're fascists, aren't fascists bad?", but tomorrow it'll be conservatives (aren't they just secret fascists?), then the next it'll be centrists (if they really believed in standing up to the fascists wouldn't they be at least liberals?).

[Raphael]

While rule of law does have its failures, the key thing is that basing moderation on users' perceived beliefs rather than their actions leads one down the rabbit hole of punishing people for their lack of perceived 'purity'. Purity spirals are a real thing. Yes one may say today "but they're fascists, aren't fascists bad?", but tomorrow it'll be conservatives (aren't they just secret fascists?), then the next it'll be centrists (if they really believed in standing up to the fascists wouldn't they be at least liberals?).

In general terms, you have a point. But we're not talking about some abstract platonic ideal of an online space here. We're talking about a specific Board run by zompist. And I trust zompist that he wouldn't do that kind of thing.

[bradrn]

I think that in the context of online spaces, the traditional anti-legalist arguments from Chinese philosophy are more convincing.

What are those arguments?

[bradrn]

Purity spirals are a real thing. Yes one may say today "but they're fascists, aren't fascists bad?", but tomorrow it'll be conservatives (aren't they just secret fascists?), then the next it'll be centrists (if they really believed in standing up to the fascists wouldn't they be at least liberals?).

Already, there exist people who would ask for me to be banned from online spaces because of my pro-Israel views — in fact, some of them would even use that very word ‘fascist’ against me. (I think it should hopefully be clear to everyone here that I am no fascist.)

[Raphael]

I think that in the context of online spaces, the traditional anti-legalist arguments from Chinese philosophy are more convincing.

What are those arguments?

IIRC, that when people know exactly what the official rules are, they might come up with innovative ways to act in as messed-up ways as possible while taking great care to technically stay just barely on the "allowed" side of the line dividing what's allowed from what's forbidden. I think that happens all the time in online spaces.

[Travis B.]

Purity spirals are a real thing. Yes one may say today "but they're fascists, aren't fascists bad?", but tomorrow it'll be conservatives (aren't they just secret fascists?), then the next it'll be centrists (if they really believed in standing up to the fascists wouldn't they be at least liberals?).

Already, there exist people who would ask for me to be banned from online spaces because of my pro-Israel views — in fact, some of them would even use that very word ‘fascist’ against me. (I think it should hopefully be clear to everyone here that I am no fascist.)

Exactly.

[Travis B.]

I think that in the context of online spaces, the traditional anti-legalist arguments from Chinese philosophy are more convincing.

What are those arguments?

IIRC, that when people know exactly what the official rules are, they might come up with innovative ways to act in as messed-up ways as possible while taking great care to technically stay just barely on the "allowed" side of the line dividing what's allowed from what's forbidden. I think that happens all the time in online spaces.

That's why taking a purely legalist line does not work; but that does not mean that moderation should not be based on behavior rather than beliefs.

[Travis B.]

While rule of law does have its failures, the key thing is that basing moderation on users' perceived beliefs rather than their actions leads one down the rabbit hole of punishing people for their lack of perceived 'purity'. Purity spirals are a real thing. Yes one may say today "but they're fascists, aren't fascists bad?", but tomorrow it'll be conservatives (aren't they just secret fascists?), then the next it'll be centrists (if they really believed in standing up to the fascists wouldn't they be at least liberals?).

In general terms, you have a point. But we're not talking about some abstract platonic ideal of an online space here. We're talking about a specific Board run by zompist. And I trust zompist that he wouldn't do that kind of thing.

I was speaking of moderation in general, and more broadly about punishing people for their beliefs rather than their actions overall (including outside online spaces).

[Travis B.]

No, they should be banned for their political beliefs. The one off statements are a symptom, not the problem. This isn't some broad, overburocratic mass organization that can become corrupted to the point of danger. This is a couple guys who run a forum allowing fascists to hang around. It's pretty easy to not escalate further.

If you legitimize banning some people simply for their political beliefs, however odious they may seem, you legitimize banning any and all people for their political beliefs, no matter what they are, anywhere and everywhere.

And you also legitimize other people banning you for your beliefs, don't forget. What matters is how you behave, not what you believe.

Some people here seem to be thinking purely in terms of the Zeeb, but I'm thinking about online spaces in general and, more broadly, society overall. Legitimizing behavior in one place is legitimizing that behavior everywhere. Even if we can trust zompist to not start banning socialists for either being socialists or for not being tankie enough, legitimizing punishing one set of beliefs here means legitimizing punishing people for any sets of beliefs anywhere.

[Raphael]

Some people here seem to be thinking purely in terms of the Zeeb, but I'm thinking about online spaces in general and, more broadly, society overall. Legitimizing behavior in one place is legitimizing that behavior everywhere. Even if we can trust zompist to not start banning socialists for either being socialists or for not being tankie enough, legitimizing punishing one set of beliefs here means legitimizing punishing people for any sets of beliefs anywhere.

Fascists are going to ban socialists no matter what you or me do or don't legitimize.

[zompist]

What one can do is set clear guidelines for what expression is acceptable and what is not acceptable and punish those who violate them, particularly repeatedly, rather than judging people based on their inferred privately-held beliefs. One can make rules like that expressing racial prejudice is unacceptable which people can then be held to. Such a rule would be far more objective and just because you can point to definitive actions that violate such rules than merely banning people because you've decided that they are "fascists" independent of what they have actually said or done.

We do have such rules and that is how banning works here.

As the house rules say:

The mods and I try to follow a process if someone is disruptive: intervene in a thread to tone it down; PM to admonish people; one-day ban; longer ban; permaban. Sometimes the offense is so bad that we accelerate the process. Try not to be a test case for this.

I do ban people for being disruptive, racist, or otherwise violating the rules on this board. I don't read everything, but that's why we have a flagging mechanism.

Linguoboy hasn't been here for awhile, I don't know why.

It's absolutely delusional if anyone thinks that Nort and xxx are dominating the board with their politics. It's pretty obvious that they avoid politics; I'd also say that their actual beliefs are somewhat impenetrable. I don't think Nort is a Trump supporter at all, and as for xxx, Dieu seul le sait.

What matters is how you behave, not what you believe.

Also well and briefly stated. I am not telepathic (thank God, it'd be horrible) and can't examine people's beliefs. Nor can anyone else here. But you can point out and flag bad behavior.

We really do have fascists around— the Trumpists in the US, Orbán, Putin, Marine Le Pen, etc., etc. That is where people should focus their anger and activism. Resistance does not mean slapping the label "fascist" on anyone who disagrees with you on some minor point.

[Travis B.]

What one can do is set clear guidelines for what expression is acceptable and what is not acceptable and punish those who violate them, particularly repeatedly, rather than judging people based on their inferred privately-held beliefs. One can make rules like that expressing racial prejudice is unacceptable which people can then be held to. Such a rule would be far more objective and just because you can point to definitive actions that violate such rules than merely banning people because you've decided that they are "fascists" independent of what they have actually said or done.

We do have such rules and that is how banning works here.

As the house rules say:

The mods and I try to follow a process if someone is disruptive: intervene in a thread to tone it down; PM to admonish people; one-day ban; longer ban; permaban. Sometimes the offense is so bad that we accelerate the process. Try not to be a test case for this.

I do ban people for being disruptive, racist, or otherwise violating the rules on this board. I don't read everything, but that's why we have a flagging mechanism.

I did not mean to suggest that you didn't have such rules already (as I knew such rules already existed); rather I was responding to those suggesting that we go forth and ban people simply for supposed fascist beliefs as opposed to their (relatively minimal) actions.

Linguoboy hasn't been here for awhile, I don't know why.

I really hope he's all right.

It's absolutely delusional if anyone thinks that Nort and xxx are dominating the board with their politics. It's pretty obvious that they avoid politics; I'd also say that their actual beliefs are somewhat impenetrable. I don't think Nort is a Trump supporter at all, and as for xxx, Dieu seul le sait.

I second this. While Nort and xxx occasionally allude to their political beliefs, they mostly stay out of politics, and we should recognize this as such.

What matters is how you behave, not what you believe.

Also well and briefly stated. I am not telepathic (thank God, it'd be horrible) and can't examine people's beliefs. Nor can anyone else here. But you can point out and flag bad behavior.

Pretending to be a telepath and then suggesting that we punish people for the beliefs we claim other people have is a good way to quickly go down the rabbit hole of punishing purported doubleplusungoodthink.

We really do have fascists around— the Trumpists in the US, Orbán, Putin, Marine Le Pen, etc., etc. That is where people should focus their anger and activism. Resistance does not mean slapping the label "fascist" on anyone who disagrees with you on some minor point.

Agreed completely.

[malloc]

Adding to this discussion, there is the well-known Nazi bar problem that comes from tolerating fascists. Admittedly the ZBB has avoided this problem thus far despite its lax moderation policies. Perhaps contemporary reactionaries just aren't terribly interested in language construction. Nonetheless we should consider what kind of message we are sending by tolerating fascism and how it would make marginalized people here feel. Given how normalized the far right has become in wider society, I honestly think we ought to reconsider our policy of principled tolerance.

[Travis B.]

Adding to this discussion, there is the well-known Nazi bar problem that comes from tolerating fascists. Admittedly the ZBB has avoided this problem thus far despite its lax moderation policies. Perhaps contemporary reactionaries just aren't terribly interested in language construction. Nonetheless we should consider what kind of message we are sending by tolerating fascism and how it would make marginalized people here feel.

Would banning Nort and xxx because some allege that they are 'fascists' contribute anything good to the world? Or would it just allow us to smugly tell ourselves that we did 'something' about the fascists, even though it in reality would do nothing about the very real fascists that zompist identified in his comment?

[Man in Space]

There is also the pervasive conceit of NCNC in the conlanging community—“No Cross, No Crown”. In my experience it is deeply baked into the scene; it’s rare for conlanging communities to carry the torch for or against specific political causes (unless they are specialized or niche subcommunities, e.g. r/queerconlangers, but these are not the large generalist communities), by design. We are a diverse and eclectic bunch, after all.

I also note that the gold standard Arabic dictionary used in academia, the one I was assigned to use in college, is the one Hans Wehr put together. I don’t see anybody objecting to that.

[malloc]

I also note that the gold standard Arabic dictionary used in academia, the one I was assigned to use in college, is the one Hans Wehr put together. I don’t see anybody objecting to that.

Perhaps they should. Are there really no Arabic dictionaries not written by Nazis available for use? Honestly this just makes me suspect that the field of Arabic studies is full of fascists or fascist sympathizers.

Would banning Nort and xxx because some allege that they are 'fascists' contribute anything good to the world? Or would it just allow us to smugly tell ourselves that we did 'something' about the fascists, even though it in reality would do nothing about the very real fascists that zompist identified in his comment?

Admittedly, nortaneous and xxx are quite unusual among fascists in that they aren't actively promoting their ideology here or inviting other fascists to this forum. That eliminates the main practical reason for banning fascists. Nonetheless it does leave a bad taste in my mouth for this forum to adopt a neutral position on fascism.

[Raphael]

Would banning Nort and xxx because some allege that they are 'fascists' contribute anything good to the world? Or would it just allow us to smugly tell ourselves that we did 'something' about the fascists, even though it in reality would do nothing about the very real fascists that zompist identified in his comment?

What was that story about the person who threw stranded, IIRC, starfish back into the sea again? Someone told them "You know you can't save them all", and they responded with "I am making a difference for the ones I'm throwing back"?

In any case, it wouldn't be so much about contributing anything good to the world, but about improving the ZBB. Which is a place that I generally quite like and care about.

That said, zompist has stated his position, and I have to accept that, even if I don't like it.

[Travis B.]

Personally I don't care about Nort or xxx's politics as long as they keep them to themselves. I think Nort has things to contribute as a conlanger, and while I find xxx's conlanging to be highly, um, idiosyncratic (for lack of a better word) I am not repelled by it in quite the way some people here are.