This is actually why I have not suggested simply removing the content without asking - it allows for some discussion and no one feels like they were attacked. Every person is given opportunity to correct there mistakes because - as I've said - we're all human and fallible.
Nandrew said:I agree with the general notion that our membership could do with fewer bad faith assumptions among people who are trying to do positive work.
So far, the evidence in this thread does not support your (positive) assertion. Anecdotal evidence does not support your assertion. The study that started this thread has been retracted and no longer supports your assertion.
Proving a negativeWhen the assertion to prove is a negative claim, the burden takes the form of a negative proof, proof of impossibility, or mere evidence of absence. If this negative assertion is in response to a claim made by another party in a debate, asserting the falsehood of the positive claim shifts the burden of proof from the party making the first claim to the one asserting its falsehood, as the position "I do not believe that X is true" is different from the explicit denial "I believe that X is false"
Nandrew said:@garethf Though I find myself suggesting that MGSA is ill-equipped for an empathic approach, I do find the general concept worthy.In particular, it would reduce so many misunderstandings and problems if we all took more responsibility for how we expressed ourselves -- focusing on empathic expression is generally a pro-social move (because in short, it means that we're accepting a burden in the conversation instead of asking others to adjust to us), and though it can be hard work, I've definitely seen it do beautiful things.I would be quite surprised, actually, if a large portion of the socially-conscious people here got to where they are without benefitting from their fair share of patient, compassionate (and *carefully worded!*) conversations from friends (or even strangers) who reached beyond weaknesses instead of treating them like something to bludgeon.But I think that in a large group setting, particularly one as uncontrolled as a forum, our hopes for rational arguments and all of their benefits start to diminish for the general case I outlined (for it to work, the majority would have to be successfully rational and in unison, something which generally cannot be expected to happen beyond a critical mass of individuals). And while my number one piece of advice would typically be "let's be more patient, understanding, and critically aware of the situation" (thanks for the quote pull, Francois! ;) ), I still feel that this is actually a bit pie-in-the-sky for what we have right now.I really, really hope that it will happen, and I'd feel sad if people's general takeaway is that it ought not be attempted (I don't want to be on the side of the fence that says "no empathy!", even unintentionally) but I think that mass empathy is very, very difficult to achieve effectively.My solution would be to encourage pro-social steps that may be easier in a group setting (the current idea being "deference") to help people codify more accessible behaviours. With enough of these in place, we could see broad empathy emerge more organically, because we'll encourage lots of little rituals which contribute *towards* empathy: listening more, talking less. Slowing down. Actively seeking opinions. Recognising one's own limits. Etc etc.If we can get enough of these things in place for the long term, we may one day find ourselves with a community that makes @theFuntastic look trollish in comparison, and get him kicked off the forums for abrasive and antisocial behaviour. <3
Kobusvdwalt9 said:@dammit Holy shit. That was great thanks.
brondin said:1. How are the new forum rules coming along? It seems like it's been a while since we received an update on that front.
brondin said:2. Would it be worthwhile to start a sort of Q&A thread about feminism and various other social issues? It could be helpful to centralise 101 discussion instead of having it derail every other thread that tries to deal with intermediate/advanced level social stuff.
rc_collins said:Firstly, I am a coloured male. I am giving you notice that unless you want a situation on your hands you will remove the tag of hate speech on my post. I also received a ban warning. I came here from the carte blanch tv show and this is how I am welcomed? Is this how you treat differing views to that feminist drivel. Hate speech?
Based on their advice, I suggest asking the following questions if you want to engage with Jack:Are you trying to convince him? If so, you need to be someone he’s willing to be convinced by. Zoe mentions you’d either have to be a friend he has some investment in or an authority figure he respects. If you’re a rando on the internet, it likely won’t happen.Are you trying to reach proto-Jack before this rhetoric takes hold? Then perhaps Jack need not be part of the equation. Maybe write something on a different platform, try to reach that audience on your own turf, and perhaps offer them links to what you write. Siphon them away from Jack. Cultivate your own space and your own audience.Where is the conversation taking place? If you’re on a forum with good moderation that will clamp down on anything that starts to get threatening, then maybe engaging can yield a fruitful discussion. But, then, that’s not using Jack to reach his audience, that’s once again talking to someone who might still be salvageable - if he were beyond reason he’d already be banned. If people are going full-on Angry Jack and no authority is intervening, maybe that community is already lost. Either volunteer as a mod, advocate for a change in policy, or invite people to a different community.
dammit said:The maker of the 6 videos posted an update on Tumblr following a conversation he had with Zoe and Anita after his videos went up....Storify: https://storify.com/garaden/debunking-misinformation
Asbestos said:dammit said:The maker of the 6 videos posted an update on Tumblr following a conversation he had with Zoe and Anita after his videos went up....Storify: https://storify.com/garaden/debunking-misinformation
Do you mean Lindsay Ellis? I can't find any dialogue between Innuendo Studios and Anita Sarkeesian in either the Tumblr post or the Storify.