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
Browser,
There are 2 regs in this forum who have posted in this thread in support of your new rules - chez and spaceman bryce. There are many more regs who have objected to those rules, for one reason or another.
As a general point, and not related to this issue specifically - if one of your proposed rules or policies meets with widespread dissatisfaction, would you consider reversing your stance, or do you consider your position of authority
There is nothing to reverse is a very simple statement saying 2p2 follows science. Treating it otherwise is treating it falsely.
The whole thing is basically ridiculous semantic window dressing. Anyone who has gender dysphoria is mentally ill but since not all trans people have gender dysphoria then not all trans people are mentally ill. Ok. No problem there. It's semantics but who cares?
The actual issue is holding the DSM as sacrosanct and demanding that our speech conform to that of a politicized professional organization.
Nope, you misunderstand. Try some speech you think is otherwise compelled. I guarantee its allowed.
The rule is perfect. It stands.
The funny thing is that the WHO didn't stop classifying being transgender as a mental disorder until 2019-- which is 5 years ago now.
We should probably update what is and isn't allowed in the climate thread based on the current reports from the UN as well.
Probably really instead of even having discussion all of the threads can just be UN reports.
It is a classification system.
Professional organizations have also apparently decided that summer squash is categorized as a food. My extremely strong opinion that since yellow squash is yucky that means it isn't a food simply doesn't matter.
Declaring someone who does not have a mental illness actually does is a form of attack that has historically been used against gay people and transgender people as a way to marginalize them. Why would we need to provide job protections to transgender people since they are mentally ill anyway? It must be OK to ban schools from discussing transgender issues because they are all mentally ill, right? Labelling an entire group of people as men
And so this is really a rule about mental illness and the stigmas associated. I know Nash would appreciate it from the poker players. He spent all of his time in confinement arguing he was sane:
I spent times of the order of five to eight months in hospitals in New Jersey, always on an involuntary basis and always attempting a legal argument for release.
Now we take this type of attack seriously and it can't be used against intellectuals we disagree with to discredit their worth and work.
Both the DSM and the WHO's ICD have been published for over 70 years so I dont think it really matters what came before them. It appears that in most countries medical professionals tend to use one or another. The DSM in the US and the ICD in other countries.
For almost 60 years being transgender was considered a disorder, but 12 years ago, after activists moved on from gay marriage, all of a sudden the APA becomes enlightened with new insight that reveals transgender is not a disorder but rather an incongruence.
The activists had no impact on this change right? It was pure, detached science. What was the scientific breakthrough again?
It is a classification system.
Professional organizations have also apparently decided that summer squash is categorized as a food. My extremely strong opinion that since yellow squash is yucky that means it isn't a food simply doesn't matter.
That isn't anywhere close to what I meant. When you say "get to decide" it implies that the authority is just present in the natural order of things. What I think you probably meant is that these are the organizations that a consensus of professionals in the field look to for theses matters (or something like that). I guess you could say that the consensus has given the organizations the right to decide, but that seems circular to me.
For almost 60 years being transgender was considered a disorder, but 12 years ago, after activists moved on from gay marriage, all of a sudden the APA becomes enlightened with new insight that reveals transgender is not a disorder but rather an incongruence.
The activists had no impact on this change right? It was pure, detached science. What was the scientific breakthrough again?
Congratulations, you almost managed to make a post that was detached from naked bible bashing. Almost. You faltered at the end.
Someone broke from his yogi character.
Congratulations, you almost managed to make a post that was detached from naked bible bashing. Almost. You faltered at the end.
When you have WPATH declaring eunuch a gender, then I think it's pretty clear that the activists have at least taken over some of the hen houses ..so he doesn't seem to be wrong. But those are our hen houses now so we have to listen to them..
That isn't anywhere close to what I meant. When you say "get to decide" it implies that the authority is just present in the natural order of things. What I think you probably meant is that these are the organizations that a consensus of professionals in the field look to for theses matters (or something like that). I guess you could say that the consensus has given the organizations the right to decide, but that seems circular to me.
Sometimes the rules work that way. At a trial, juries decide the facts and the credibility of witnesses, including experts.
However, if opposing experts agree on an expert opinion of a fact, like a brain injury is permanent, the jury isn't allowed to determine the injury isn't permanent.
The need for expertise and agreement by opposing experts allows the judge to tell the jury they must accept that certain fact as true.
We find ourselves in a similar situation.
For almost 60 years being transgender was considered a disorder, but 12 years ago, after activists moved on from gay marriage, all of a sudden the APA becomes enlightened with new insight that reveals transgender is not a disorder but rather an incongruence.
The activists had no impact on this change right? It was pure, detached science. What was the scientific breakthrough again?
You are doing it again. I know a chick, worked at my buddy's restaurant. She likes to be called they. Its almost perfectly identifiable as she just like the trend. Thats how transgender she is. super promiscuous. not seemingly dysphoric at all.
You mean to say thats a mental disorder and not just like 'shes wacked'. LIke you mean it literally a clinical disorder? Rather its less of a lasting trend than a henna tattoo.
I think you might say 'well i don't consider that trans'. And if thats your answer then your entire point is semantic.
All the new rule means is that its not stated by the medical authority that trans means mental disorder. You can still even argue it is to some extent. But science does not declare it as such and 2p2 upholds that science doesn't declare it.
You are doing it again. I know a chick, worked at my buddy's restaurant. She likes to be called they. Its almost perfectly identifiable as she just like the trend. Thats how transgender she is. super promiscuous. not seemingly dysphoric at all.
You mean to say thats a mental disorder and not just like 'shes wacked'. LIke you mean it literally a clinical disorder? Rather its less of a lasting trend than a henna tattoo.
I think you mig
I don’t use terms like “mental disorder” because I reject the psychiatric view of the mind. It is shallow and false. If the position of psychiatry were that they are mostly ignorant of what is going on with the mind, and they can only offer bandaids, then my opinion would be different. They should not be viewed as an authority on the mind.
Sometimes the rules work that way. At a trial, juries decide the facts and the credibility of witnesses, including experts.
However, if opposing experts agree on an expert opinion of a fact, like a brain injury is permanent, the jury isn't allowed to determine the injury isn't permanent.
The need for expertise and agreement by opposing experts allows the judge to tell the jury they must accept that certain fact as true.
We find ourselves
JJJ authority worship post # 697
Right, and the spirit of the rule is that people are not to use the authority to claim that all trans are mentally ill.
In this sense it is loosely ok to say 'tranny peoples are whacked' (you are probably not going to last long if you go off on this etc). But to say 'that person has a mental illness because , they are trans, and by the definition of the mental authority trans people are mentally ill, therefore that person is mentally ill.' The rule states you can't assert the latter.
...and its because science.
You are doing it again. I know a chick, worked at my buddy's restaurant. She likes to be called they. Its almost perfectly identifiable as she just like the trend. Thats how transgender she is. super promiscuous. not seemingly dysphoric at all.
Why are you deliberately misgendering them, in that case? And what does promiscuity have to do with anything, do you comment on cis straight men who are promiscuous and use that to cast doubt on the sincerity of their gender identity? And if you don't know that it is spelled "dysmorphic" maybe you aren't the best one to judge whether they feel this way or not.
