Politics and Society Moderation Discussion Only Fans Thread
Hello everyone. I've closed the previous mod thread, and opened this to capture all issues related to moderation policies and actions going forward. I'll kick it off by reposting my intro post from the other thread. Again, I'm happy to be here and look forward to hearing from you.
Browser
Hello everyone.
I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to serve as a moderator in Politics and Society. I asked for this position because I believe we are experiencing a polarization in our politics and society unseen since the 1960s. We may well be at a juncture from which we will either make great progress or suffer great setbacks in regards to our democratic foundations and civil rights over the next few years. So I believe it is important to maintain a forum for discussing these important topics. When the other mods had to step back a bit due to their real life time obligations, I asked to join the mod team to help keep the forum going.
I have not followed this forum in the past, though I have been reading through threads the last few days and made a few posts. This has allowed me to get a sense of the initial impression the forum likely makes on new readers who are deciding if our forum is a place they would like to visit regularly and participate in. While I see some familiar names from the live poker forum, many of you I have not had any interaction with to date. I have no preconceived notions of anyone's posting behavior and will essentially start from a clean slate.
I will shortly post more about my modding approach and give my initial impressions of the forum based on my observations over the last several days. I will be soliciting your input on things you like about the forum that you want to remain, and things you don't like that you would like me to change. Your candid input and feedback is very important to me. Especially, please don't hesitate to let me know if you think a policy or a proposal is a bad idea. I'd rather hear it before it goes into effect than after.
My overall modding principle is simple: Be Nice. Disagreement need not be disrespectful, and everyone must be treated with respect. Calling a poster derogatory names or hurling snarky insults never usefully advances a discussion. It just bogs things down and turns off many would be participants. And it's not nice. Don't do it.
My goal is to have a forum where people with a wide variety of opinions along the political spectrum enjoy expressing and debating their views in a spirited manner, free from insults, bigotry and denigrating comments. If you enjoy discussing these important and often polarizing issues in a passionate, yet respectful manner, I look forward to getting to know you and working with you to create a forum people will enjoy visiting and contributing to. You can be as committed, determined and relentless as you like in advocating for your position. Be persuasive, thought provoking and challenging. But be nice.
I want to thank tame_deuces and King Spew for their support in bringing me onboard and for all the time and effort they have put into making the forum better. While I am taking over most of the day to day modding responsibilities, both are retaining their mod status and superpowers, and will be supporting the forum as their availability permits. And I personally welcome their continued advice and feedback.
Again, I am happy to be here and look forward to getting to know you.
Browser
I think you should be allowed to discuss if it is a mental illness in some. If the suicide rates are high it is a mental illness . I am not saying your saying this but we need to get past the sigma of Mental Illness
Ah, the sigma of mental illness. I assume you mean lower case sigma, so that would be the standard deviation (rather than upper case, which would be the sum and make no sense in this context), in which case this might be a good place to start:
It wasnt just the dsm-5 that was considered, even though it is often used as the standard for mental health disorders. And interestingly posters in the past have cited earlier versions of the dsm when making their case that transgender people do have a mental illness.
The fact the the creators of the DSM can't seem to get their own story straight on what is and what is not a mental illness is another reason why it shouldn't be taken as the final authority.
The fact the the creators of the DSM can't seem to get their own story straight on what is and what is not a mental illness is another reason why it shouldn't be taken as the final authority.
In fields like medicine and psychiatry, I don't think any diagnostic manual can be a final, never-to-be-changed, authority. But on the flip side, inconsistency between the current version and prior versions of a diagnostic manual isn't some sort of indictment of the current version. If you compared two versions of a diagnostic manual for blood cancers, one version of which was written in 1930 and one version of which was written in 2020, they would be different, but I'm quite confident that you would be better off relying on the more current version.
In fields like medicine and psychiatry, I don't think any diagnostic manual can be a final, never-to-be-changed, authority. But on the flip side, inconsistency between the current version and prior versions of a diagnostic manual isn't some sort of indictment of the current version. If you compared two versions of a diagnostic manual for blood cancers, one version of which was written in 1930 and one version of which was written in 2020,
Sure. No argument there.
The problem is using the DSM to make rules about what can and cannot be said in a political forum when 1) it's not settled science 2) the APA isn't immune from ideological or political influence and 3) there isn't even a biological/neurological basis for gender-- at least not how it's being currently conceived.
I wouldn't have much of a problem if we wanted to take the latest hematologic oncology manual as absolute truth and not allow any divergence from it, as hematologic oncologists (not being witch doctors) aren't going to be susceptible to the same sort of ideological influence that psychiatrists are, and blood cancer is at least a real thing.
It's not just the DSM. There is a consensus amongst psychiatrists, psychologists, and other doctors (as evidenced by their professional organizations) that being transgender isn't a mental illness. Those claiming that being trans in and of itself is a mental illness do so to delegitimize their trans identity. This 1) isn't supported as just explained, and 2) is hurtful to trans people.
Discussions in this Politics forum about trans issues should start from a place of accepting that trans people really exist as trans people.
lol @ deleting those posts. I was actually correcting Meisner so not sure why my post would get zapped.
Nice try by you and Meisner to simply move the is transgender a mental illness debate from other threads to here. For the purposes of this forum ,that discussion is closed. Stop posting about it.
I was just responding to his post. I'm not trying to do anything and please don't accuse me of doing anything other than having an allegiance to truth and rationality.
It's not clear why we shouldn't rely on the best available science when we make rules, even if the science doesn't meet whatever arbitrary standard of absolute certainty you're demanding here. The burden of proof is squarely on you if you want to delegitimize transgender people.
Browser are you going to just not let me respond to this?
If you're going to just keep deleting my responses probably best to ban me
*I guess deleting Trolly's post is another option
Browser are you going to just not let me respond to this?
If you're going to just keep deleting my responses probably best to ban me
That's right. I deleted the quoted post as well. There is no burden on you or anyone to prove or disprove the science about whether transgenderism is a mental illness or not. There are other sites people can go to and have that debate. The policy of this forum is that debate is closed.
So you, and others need to stop posting about it. I certainly dont want to ban you over this. Just stop debating it.
I have no particularly strong view on this issue specifically, but I'm curious why you'd outright ban discussion of a viewpoint that, at least as it seems to me, is well within the current Overton window.
Nice try by you and Meisner to simply move the is transgender a mental illness debate from other threads to here. For the purposes of this forum ,that discussion is closed. Stop posting about it.
So it's cool for gangsta to make an asinine comment that is complete bullcrap, but no one here is allowed to call him out on that? So, you unhinged too?
I doubt Browser Unhinged is anymore developed than the plot of Ganstaman Unhinged.
I have no particularly strong view on this issue specifically, but I'm curious why you'd outright ban discussion of a viewpoint that, at least as it seems to me, is well within the current Overton window.
Sometimes the judge bangs his gavel and tells you to shut up. Show contempt at your own peril.
Don't make me take back my like of your suggestion to ban you.
I have no particularly strong view on this issue specifically, but I'm curious why you'd outright ban discussion of a viewpoint that, at least as it seems to me, is well within the current Overton window.
Im certainly no expert on the Overton window but my understanding was he developed it as a tool for examining a range of political policies. There is no prohibition in the forum for discussing the various political policies being proposed or put into law by various states related to transgender people, such as bathroom access, discussion of transgender in schools, participation in sports, protection from discrimination in the work place, etc. it seems like those are actual political policies that would fall within the Overton window and they are open for discussion.
Im certainly no expert on the Overton window but my understanding was he developed it as a tool for examining a range of political policies. There is no prohibition in the forum for discussing the various political policies being proposed or put into law by various states related to transgender people, such as bathroom access, discussion of transgender in schools, participation in sports, protection from discrimination in the work place, e
I think what you describe was the genesis of the term, but the contemporary usage I have seen would more accurately be described as "the range of political opinions and viewpoints deemed acceptable to discuss and debate". As an extreme example "Nazis were good", would be deemed squarely outside the Overton window.
Happy to be corrected on this, that is just my understanding of the term, which I inferred from seeing it used in various contexts, and it's the sense in which I was using it.
OK. I have incorporated the new guidelines for posting on transgender topics into the stickied thread about forum guidelines. I am posting them below as well. I gave serious and careful consideration to all sides of this issue. Some will be very unhappy with the policy and choose to leave the forum rather than have to adhere to the guidelines. That's fine. No one here is going to try and change someones beliefs, and there are numerous place
Explain your interest in this issue, where it comes from, how you arrived at your views and why you are convinced that no views other than yours are acceptable.
Amazes me that we go these extremes but allow antisemitic views and blatant personal insults but like you said you don't need to be here and once again stigmatizing mental health
It's not just the DSM. There is a consensus amongst psychiatrists, psychologists, and other doctors (as evidenced by their professional organizations) that being transgender isn't a mental illness. Those claiming that being trans in and of itself is a mental illness do so to delegitimize their trans identity. This 1) isn't supported as just explained, and 2) is hurtful to trans people.
Discussions in this Politics forum about trans issues sh
I only remember seeing one person saying all trans people are mentally ill, and no one saying they don't really exist.
Chez giving anything his imprimatur immediately makes me question it.
Thank you
