IPD
08-26-2018, 08:49 AM
I guess I feel I've got to get this off my chest. Unfortunately 3sgto, you're one of the few places that hasn't tried to completely silence me yet--so you get to listen to it. :jaded:
There has been a distinct shift in the past decade towards restriction of speech. I'm not going to make this political, so please don't take it that way. I just want to juxtapose what "now" is like vs even say, 2008 or 2005. I've seen firsthand how facts can potentially be rewarded with censorship. It's this way on games, forums, discussions, etc. How pointed arguments against a dubious rationale/logic are met with silencing, and other personal insult ad-hominem posts are met with indifference. How defending oneself against an unjust or unevenly/unfairly applied moderation standard is pointless--those who initiated the actions have already made their minds up.
I myself--in my younger days--had some friction with other members online in the 3/s community. What Alan or others did in response to it was not unjustified--which I can say in retrospect. The great 3sdie censorship aside, actions such as this were done after considerable vitriol (probably on both sides) had been exchanged.
But times have changed I feel. Now it appears that in many places we have to "color inside the lines". Lines which are arbitrary and can unfortunately fall within a political agenda or point of view. And it's not just things that happen to myself that I notice. Conor Daly recently lost a NASCAR sponsorship because of his FATHER using the N-word 30 years ago. There is never an appropriate time to refer to the n-word as anything other than "the n-word"--and even then only as a matter of historical fact. Yet at what point are we going to collectively realize that this is the kind of ex-post-facto punity that--had we dug hard enough--we could undoubtedly find about everyone or his/her ancestors.
It makes no difference if it's a private matter or a public one. Private matters are subject to the subjectiveness and idiom of the empowered individual--which is why recanting an initial, fallacious judgment will never happen. Public matters are subject to mob mentality, and due to the lack of research that many invest into any given situation--fanning the flames is all that happens. There's a knee-jerk math that equates certain views to undesirable labels for those who hold them. For example
Opposing illegal immigration = racist
Opposing Islam for failing to respect human rights = islamophobe
And the list goes on and on. Literally every pet-position currently en-vogue has a derogatory label for those who don't automatically support said position. But these are just the outward labels. Being labeled and nothing more--while tragic--would be an improvement over the current state of affairs. Instead what we have is a toxic brew of self-congratulatory circular-logic. What happens is shockingly more sinister. Person "A" states an opinion which opposes the rationale behind the prevailing, popular views...is seen by a moderator or administrator, "B" who has an agenda/views that align to the prevailing view. Said moderator then (consciously or not) labels the person "A" with a label. Person "B" then sees this label as sufficient justification for any and all punitive acts against person "A", and will always view person "A" through this concocted lens henceforth. It is so malicious of a label that anything person "A" posts about a completely different topic--no matter if it would normally be a position person "B" supports--will be opposed...and simply because of said label. This may even extend to person "B" adopting an even more skewed political view/stance on many issues simply by virtue of wishing to be opposed to everything person "A" stands for.
Which brings me to the point of this post; there isn't "air" anymore. Discussion isn't something we celebrate. It's now seen as a sign of conflict, and therefore bad. The problem with that view is--communication isn't just key; it's everything. Have you ever seen a marriage that survives in the face of poor or no communication? Or most friendships? Communication provides a means to understanding differing points of view and a means to begin building a consensus--which is key for any democracy, quorum, etc. Sometimes that communication isn't pleasant--but that doesn't invalidate the necessity. Nor does it mean that unpleasantness or personal dispute with what is being said justifies silencing others.
So I guess in closing what I'd like to say is that diverse views are to be celebrated--even ones we don't necessarily agree with. That said, I'm deeply concerned that we (meaning western nations) collectively, are creating an echo-chamber around every facet of life. I'm troubled that we appear to be wishing draconian punishments on any/all who oppose the predominant views in society (eg. we want that person to lose his job/house/family/friends/life/etc). How can we celebrate diversity when we seek to snuff it out? Diversity--SHOULD--mean various walks of life, backgrounds and views...not just what I jokingly refer to as "plumbing" (gender) and "tan" (skin color). And the apparent shift from the mainstream political arena to private lives which intersect with conflicts of views...is disturbing. The enforced echo chamber without means a quasi-echo-chamber within; those views in the minority can now only be heard/shared in private. And unfortunately that means neither side of any discussion can balance their own views against facts presented by the other side.
Thanks for listening.
There has been a distinct shift in the past decade towards restriction of speech. I'm not going to make this political, so please don't take it that way. I just want to juxtapose what "now" is like vs even say, 2008 or 2005. I've seen firsthand how facts can potentially be rewarded with censorship. It's this way on games, forums, discussions, etc. How pointed arguments against a dubious rationale/logic are met with silencing, and other personal insult ad-hominem posts are met with indifference. How defending oneself against an unjust or unevenly/unfairly applied moderation standard is pointless--those who initiated the actions have already made their minds up.
I myself--in my younger days--had some friction with other members online in the 3/s community. What Alan or others did in response to it was not unjustified--which I can say in retrospect. The great 3sdie censorship aside, actions such as this were done after considerable vitriol (probably on both sides) had been exchanged.
But times have changed I feel. Now it appears that in many places we have to "color inside the lines". Lines which are arbitrary and can unfortunately fall within a political agenda or point of view. And it's not just things that happen to myself that I notice. Conor Daly recently lost a NASCAR sponsorship because of his FATHER using the N-word 30 years ago. There is never an appropriate time to refer to the n-word as anything other than "the n-word"--and even then only as a matter of historical fact. Yet at what point are we going to collectively realize that this is the kind of ex-post-facto punity that--had we dug hard enough--we could undoubtedly find about everyone or his/her ancestors.
It makes no difference if it's a private matter or a public one. Private matters are subject to the subjectiveness and idiom of the empowered individual--which is why recanting an initial, fallacious judgment will never happen. Public matters are subject to mob mentality, and due to the lack of research that many invest into any given situation--fanning the flames is all that happens. There's a knee-jerk math that equates certain views to undesirable labels for those who hold them. For example
Opposing illegal immigration = racist
Opposing Islam for failing to respect human rights = islamophobe
And the list goes on and on. Literally every pet-position currently en-vogue has a derogatory label for those who don't automatically support said position. But these are just the outward labels. Being labeled and nothing more--while tragic--would be an improvement over the current state of affairs. Instead what we have is a toxic brew of self-congratulatory circular-logic. What happens is shockingly more sinister. Person "A" states an opinion which opposes the rationale behind the prevailing, popular views...is seen by a moderator or administrator, "B" who has an agenda/views that align to the prevailing view. Said moderator then (consciously or not) labels the person "A" with a label. Person "B" then sees this label as sufficient justification for any and all punitive acts against person "A", and will always view person "A" through this concocted lens henceforth. It is so malicious of a label that anything person "A" posts about a completely different topic--no matter if it would normally be a position person "B" supports--will be opposed...and simply because of said label. This may even extend to person "B" adopting an even more skewed political view/stance on many issues simply by virtue of wishing to be opposed to everything person "A" stands for.
Which brings me to the point of this post; there isn't "air" anymore. Discussion isn't something we celebrate. It's now seen as a sign of conflict, and therefore bad. The problem with that view is--communication isn't just key; it's everything. Have you ever seen a marriage that survives in the face of poor or no communication? Or most friendships? Communication provides a means to understanding differing points of view and a means to begin building a consensus--which is key for any democracy, quorum, etc. Sometimes that communication isn't pleasant--but that doesn't invalidate the necessity. Nor does it mean that unpleasantness or personal dispute with what is being said justifies silencing others.
So I guess in closing what I'd like to say is that diverse views are to be celebrated--even ones we don't necessarily agree with. That said, I'm deeply concerned that we (meaning western nations) collectively, are creating an echo-chamber around every facet of life. I'm troubled that we appear to be wishing draconian punishments on any/all who oppose the predominant views in society (eg. we want that person to lose his job/house/family/friends/life/etc). How can we celebrate diversity when we seek to snuff it out? Diversity--SHOULD--mean various walks of life, backgrounds and views...not just what I jokingly refer to as "plumbing" (gender) and "tan" (skin color). And the apparent shift from the mainstream political arena to private lives which intersect with conflicts of views...is disturbing. The enforced echo chamber without means a quasi-echo-chamber within; those views in the minority can now only be heard/shared in private. And unfortunately that means neither side of any discussion can balance their own views against facts presented by the other side.
Thanks for listening.