3 ms·

This is also at core the problem with the current movements against "making moderation political." Moderation is inherently ideological for the same reasons; th

This is also at core the problem with the current movements against "making moderation political." Moderation is inherently ideological for the same reasons; there is no neutral position from which to do it because it involves making decisions about what may be included. A specific moderation policy may be terrible but "it's political" can't be the reason, because it applies to all of them. Same thing with "correct" dialects of english, norms around hospitality, civility, showing respect etc. You can establish what is most common and demand people adhere to it, but that doesn't make it neutral.

Natsu 4y ago
That's one way to frame the issue, but the other side of it would be that they want moderation to be more inclusive so as not to further other somewhat less than half the population and worsen the political divide. It isn't neutral in either direction, of course, and is part of a growing push-back against the sort of ideology that rejects all names for and criticism of itself.
marcusverus 4y ago
You're intentionally muddying the waters by conflating common-sense rules like "you can't say the-n-word", with the kind of political moderation that's problematic ("you can't share articles about lab leak theory"). If speech is political enough that you're not sure if it's political, it's political.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  I mean first off you don't have any particularly privileged insight into my intentions so let's just stick to what I am saying here today alright? But that said, "muddying the waters" is a particular view of it but yes I am pointing out that they are qualitatively the same. What is or isn't common sense is a value judgement you make based off of experiences and your estimation of who shares them and to what degree. It's not inherently neutral. The two examples you mention are excellent demonstrations! 80 years ago that sort of language would have been expected, 50 it would have been tolerated, now it isn't. Because of changing political reality, which moderation polices are a part of.
- bapqpa 4y ago
  > You're intentionally muddying the waters by conflating common-sense rules like "you can't say the-n-word", Now try implementing that policy on a rap forum. One person's "common sense" is another person's nonsense.
woooooo 4y ago
Yeah, we all have biases, and fish don't know they're in water.. but is an attempt to be unbiased so much to ask?
- 082349872349872 4y ago
  attempts are laudable, but ... towards which "neutral"? (this is where a closed forum, like a mailing list, has an easier time: one can aim for "what is generally acceptable among the known readership". To Kill A Mockingbird has a wonderful illustration of code switching, but was recently unacceptable to quote on a forum dealing with under- and over-class biases, both explicit and implicit, exactly because it literally used the n-word, and not only did it use it, but needed to do so, demonstrating the lines between in- and out-group usage. When it came to forum policy, the distinction between use and mention was lost.) cf https://www.tatler.com/article/nancy-mitford-u-and-non-u-language https://www.tatler.com/article/nancy-mitford-u-and-non-u-lan...

Natsu 4y ago

That's one way to frame the issue, but the other side of it would be that they want moderation to be more inclusive so as not to further other somewhat less than half the population and worsen the political divide. It isn't neutral in either direction, of course, and is part of a growing push-back against the sort of ideology that rejects all names for and criticism of itself.

marcusverus 4y ago

You're intentionally muddying the waters by conflating common-sense rules like "you can't say the-n-word", with the kind of political moderation that's problematic ("you can't share articles about lab leak theory"). If speech is political enough that you're not sure if it's political, it's political.

giraffe_lady 4y ago
I mean first off you don't have any particularly privileged insight into my intentions so let's just stick to what I am saying here today alright? But that said, "muddying the waters" is a particular view of it but yes I am pointing out that they are qualitatively the same. What is or isn't common sense is a value judgement you make based off of experiences and your estimation of who shares them and to what degree. It's not inherently neutral. The two examples you mention are excellent demonstrations! 80 years ago that sort of language would have been expected, 50 it would have been tolerated, now it isn't. Because of changing political reality, which moderation polices are a part of.
bapqpa 4y ago
> You're intentionally muddying the waters by conflating common-sense rules like "you can't say the-n-word", Now try implementing that policy on a rap forum. One person's "common sense" is another person's nonsense.

woooooo 4y ago

Yeah, we all have biases, and fish don't know they're in water.. but is an attempt to be unbiased so much to ask?

082349872349872 4y ago
attempts are laudable, but ... towards which "neutral"? (this is where a closed forum, like a mailing list, has an easier time: one can aim for "what is generally acceptable among the known readership". To Kill A Mockingbird has a wonderful illustration of code switching, but was recently unacceptable to quote on a forum dealing with under- and over-class biases, both explicit and implicit, exactly because it literally used the n-word, and not only did it use it, but needed to do so, demonstrating the lines between in- and out-group usage. When it came to forum policy, the distinction between use and mention was lost.) cf https://www.tatler.com/article/nancy-mitford-u-and-non-u-language https://www.tatler.com/article/nancy-mitford-u-and-non-u-lan...