4 ms·

I think what you are failing to understand is that merely offending people is not punishable by censorship in a liberal society. "I may not agree with what you

I think what you are failing to understand is that merely offending people is not punishable by censorship in a liberal society. "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I antagonized no one, merely provided an observation. Flamebait is not an objective term, anyone can claim anything is flamebait if enough people agree. Indeed, I was flaming no one, it was only used as a smear against me to justify censoring me and there is no greater insult to free inquiry than that. As long as you condone the censoring of my comment based on what you perceive is poor tact, you oppose the foundational principles upon which our modern liberal society is built. As long as HN maintains the flag on my comment, they too oppose those same principles.

DoreenMichele 8y ago
No, I'm not failing to understand that. If I weren't a big proponent of free speech and inclusion, I wouldn't be bothering to engage you. Just ignoring your complaint is the easiest answer here. I'm not required to stick my neck out. I'm not a mod. I can just flag and downvote and move on and that's the cover my own butt option that most people will take, which tends to help keep such things intractable because if the flags and downvotes worked to convince you to do something different, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Opening with an assertion on your part that I am failing to understand is borderline personal attack and disrespects the fact that I am choosing to talk with you and give some of my time and energy to you. Above, you say there is no need to insult your social skills. Now you turn around and insult my intelligence and character. In other words, you are taking a position that I need to be civil and respectful and work hard to not inadvertently insult you, but you don't have to do the same, for me or generally. Expecting the same of you is framed as censorship and as a moral defect on the part of people who don't agree with you and are expressing that fact, whether with words or downvotes or flags. They aren't allowed to express their disagreement because that's censorship of you in your eyes. I'm a woman. I'm quite open about that. This is an overwhelmingly male forum. I routinely deal with downvotes and such because I'm a demographic outlier. I am unwilling to be broken. I am unwilling to be cowed and trained to not give my actual point of view in order to be able to stay. Staying on such terms strikes me as pointless. This disposition has helped get me thrown off of several other forums. But I've worked hard at trying to figure out how to respect others while expressing myself here. I've worked hard at figuring out better ways to express what I want to say so I'm actually heard and not presumed to be some man-hating feminazi with an axe to grind. For a long time, it was a hard row to hoe. So I'm very sympathetic to people who are frustrated with trying to participate here and feeling mistreated. So I occasionally try to talk to folks who are having trouble fitting in to try to say "Hey, I get it, it's frustrating and a sucky experience. But there are things you can do on your end to make this work better." And that's my reason for engaging you. But now I'm being lumped in with "those people" who are silencing you, never mind that I'm giving you ample opportunity to talk here. At this point, I'm feeling pretty darn disrespected and like I'm a fool, "as usual", and feeling like only an idiot would reach out to someone under such circumstances and it's no wonder your comments get so many downvotes and flags, because ugh this is feeling like all down side for me. So I will likely be bowing out of the discussion because I'm aggravated and it doesn't look productive to me. That's not a personal attack.
pvg 8y ago
You aren't owed a full airing of and engagement with your views in the venue and on the topic and terms of your choosing. Neither is anyone else - this 'foundational principle of our modern liberal society' isn't there to uniquely oppress you. Indeed, I was flaming no one That's not what 'flaimbait' means.
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  You aren't owed a full airing of and engagement with your views in the venue and on the topic and terms of your choosing. This was something I wrestled with for a long time, in part because I've had a lot of great personal relationships in which hashing everything out and making sure both sides get really heard, etc, is the norm. And it simply doesn't work on a public forum. Another thing I did for a long time was just reply to everyone who replied to me. I felt that was the polite and respectful thing to do. In meat space, it is unconscionably rude to refuse to reply to someone who has addressed you directly. But this isn't meat space and in practice it often winds up looking pigheaded, obtuse, fighty and like one is refusing to back down when you do this on the internet, in part due to lack of voice tone, facial expression, etc.
  - comesee 8y ago
    Hi Doreen, I simply stated "what you failed to understand" because you posed the theory that I was either a troll or "failing to understand" (your words) that my post offended people. Yes I've admitted that the content of my post may have offended some people. The issue I'm raising is that that shouldn't matter. What matters is if I was using openly rude, disrespectful, or antagonistic behavior. My original comment did none of that and was in good faith and was meant to provide an interesting sociological take on a current event. I don't want a megaphone or a soap box for the random scientific studies I reference on this forum. I simply do not want to be censored for citing data with which people disagree. If I was intentionally being rude or disrespectful then I would understand the censorship, since that is verbal assault, but that is not the case here. I will not self-censor for the sake of upvotes. I'm a respectful adult who believes in liberalism, free inquiry, and civil discussion, no other conditions need apply. If the HN mods disagree then it can't be honestly claimed that this a forum that stands for free inquiry and civil discussion.

DoreenMichele 8y ago

No, I'm not failing to understand that. If I weren't a big proponent of free speech and inclusion, I wouldn't be bothering to engage you. Just ignoring your complaint is the easiest answer here. I'm not required to stick my neck out. I'm not a mod. I can just flag and downvote and move on and that's the cover my own butt option that most people will take, which tends to help keep such things intractable because if the flags and downvotes worked to convince you to do something different, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Opening with an assertion on your part that I am failing to understand is borderline personal attack and disrespects the fact that I am choosing to talk with you and give some of my time and energy to you. Above, you say there is no need to insult your social skills. Now you turn around and insult my intelligence and character. In other words, you are taking a position that I need to be civil and respectful and work hard to not inadvertently insult you, but you don't have to do the same, for me or generally. Expecting the same of you is framed as censorship and as a moral defect on the part of people who don't agree with you and are expressing that fact, whether with words or downvotes or flags. They aren't allowed to express their disagreement because that's censorship of you in your eyes. I'm a woman. I'm quite open about that. This is an overwhelmingly male forum. I routinely deal with downvotes and such because I'm a demographic outlier. I am unwilling to be broken. I am unwilling to be cowed and trained to not give my actual point of view in order to be able to stay. Staying on such terms strikes me as pointless. This disposition has helped get me thrown off of several other forums. But I've worked hard at trying to figure out how to respect others while expressing myself here. I've worked hard at figuring out better ways to express what I want to say so I'm actually heard and not presumed to be some man-hating feminazi with an axe to grind. For a long time, it was a hard row to hoe. So I'm very sympathetic to people who are frustrated with trying to participate here and feeling mistreated. So I occasionally try to talk to folks who are having trouble fitting in to try to say "Hey, I get it, it's frustrating and a sucky experience. But there are things you can do on your end to make this work better." And that's my reason for engaging you. But now I'm being lumped in with "those people" who are silencing you, never mind that I'm giving you ample opportunity to talk here. At this point, I'm feeling pretty darn disrespected and like I'm a fool, "as usual", and feeling like only an idiot would reach out to someone under such circumstances and it's no wonder your comments get so many downvotes and flags, because ugh this is feeling like all down side for me. So I will likely be bowing out of the discussion because I'm aggravated and it doesn't look productive to me. That's not a personal attack.

pvg 8y ago

You aren't owed a full airing of and engagement with your views in the venue and on the topic and terms of your choosing. Neither is anyone else - this 'foundational principle of our modern liberal society' isn't there to uniquely oppress you. Indeed, I was flaming no one That's not what 'flaimbait' means.

DoreenMichele 8y ago
You aren't owed a full airing of and engagement with your views in the venue and on the topic and terms of your choosing. This was something I wrestled with for a long time, in part because I've had a lot of great personal relationships in which hashing everything out and making sure both sides get really heard, etc, is the norm. And it simply doesn't work on a public forum. Another thing I did for a long time was just reply to everyone who replied to me. I felt that was the polite and respectful thing to do. In meat space, it is unconscionably rude to refuse to reply to someone who has addressed you directly. But this isn't meat space and in practice it often winds up looking pigheaded, obtuse, fighty and like one is refusing to back down when you do this on the internet, in part due to lack of voice tone, facial expression, etc.
- comesee 8y ago
  Hi Doreen, I simply stated "what you failed to understand" because you posed the theory that I was either a troll or "failing to understand" (your words) that my post offended people. Yes I've admitted that the content of my post may have offended some people. The issue I'm raising is that that shouldn't matter. What matters is if I was using openly rude, disrespectful, or antagonistic behavior. My original comment did none of that and was in good faith and was meant to provide an interesting sociological take on a current event. I don't want a megaphone or a soap box for the random scientific studies I reference on this forum. I simply do not want to be censored for citing data with which people disagree. If I was intentionally being rude or disrespectful then I would understand the censorship, since that is verbal assault, but that is not the case here. I will not self-censor for the sake of upvotes. I'm a respectful adult who believes in liberalism, free inquiry, and civil discussion, no other conditions need apply. If the HN mods disagree then it can't be honestly claimed that this a forum that stands for free inquiry and civil discussion.