RationalWiki talk:All things in moderation

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with the Chicken coop.
Moderator.jpg Moderator noticeboard
Welcome, BoN
Use this talk page to contact the mods and report behavioral problems and violations of non-standard sanctions.
The RationalWiki moderators are:


Archives for this page

Am I the Asshole?

Trying to avoid an edit-war with GC, so I think this might be a better place to discuss.

Basically, in the Saloon Bar we have a discussion regarding the "What is a Woman" thing popularized by some of the Right. GC's response is that the definition of "woman" needs to be something that can be used in a social setting, i.e., you can't define "woman" as "having ovaries" because giving non-voluntary medical exams to everyone you meet would get you disinvited to social gatherings. My response was that you don't need to verify if someone is biologically a woman for "woman" to have a meaning, and that while it's not wrong to use a social constructed definition of woman (i.e., anyone who presents as a woman is one) it's also not wrong to use a biological definition (i.e., has the female reproductive bits) regardless of whether or not that can be verified without ending up on a sex-offender registry.

Then I went into the thing about trauma, personality disorders, and LGBT expression, etc etc. GC and a couple others seemed to think it's queerphobia to suggest there's any connection between sexual abuse and LGBT expression because that was an old homophobic canard about homosexuality being a mental illness, but LGBT people seem to have a higher rate of prior sexual abuse compared to non-LGBT, cite 1, cite 2, cite 3. GC and a couple others don't seem to like that.

So my question is, am I the asshole here? Corvette (brawl) 22:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I think this is better placed at the chicken coop. Andrew5 (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
No it’s not. A simple mod opinion should be enough. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 23:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@CorruptUser Again, shit like "biologically a woman is so far off the mark that it boggles the mind why the fuck you're speaking on this topic. You're familiar with biology right? If I asked kept asking you something like "but what if rocks were cosmically animals?", you'd be well within your rights to question my understanding of the topic yes? I get that the STEM fields think pretty highly of themselves, but Jesus fucking Christ do they produce the dumbest fucking takes on social matters, which if you haven't noticed has an entire fucking array of sciences trying to make sense of it. Maybe have some basic fucking understanding of the limits of your knowledge. Maybe that would help!! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
This isn’t the type of thing where a mod can handle. The chicken coop was designed specifically to deal with these types of problems where users are getting into conflicts to resolve them, not necessarily for penalty votes. What has happened was the coop was slowly morphed into that. And then nobody used it. There are too many disputes as of now in ATIM that ought to be moved to the coop and if we want to revive the coop, this is the perfect example given the likeliness to escalate and a possible iban too. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@Andrew5 mobile Andrew, I'm going to put this in the politest possible terms. You aren't a mod, you're wrong, and you're a nosy busybody who needs to just shut up about this matter, since you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Surely, Corrupt User isn’t violating any of our site norms with his edit. I seriously doubt that the mods need to read more than one sentence of CorruptUser’s edit, to realise that his edit is well within the bounds of free speech. If GC objects to it, then he should feel free to criticise it. To edit war, in this aggressive manner, smackers of a gratuitous intolerance. GrammarCommie’s histrionics remain a nuisance. LeucippusSalva veritate 02:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

not this again G Man (talk) 04:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Spoke with GC privately last night. He's a bit more calm in chat than on the forum, though we weren't able to get to much with the main points themselves. Corvette (brawl) 05:11, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Personallly: YTA. Professionally: not our purview. Being a STEMLord isn't against the rules. That said, I will echo GCs comments (albeit in a politer tone) for @CorruptUser to realize that the social sciences operate under a different set of rules than the hard-and-fast STEM sciences. To put it another way, STEM science relies on performing repeatable experiments and understanding cause and consequence (in other words, it's easy to peer review something purely on the notion that it exists; this is why it's relatively easy to debunk say Flat Earth from a STEM perspective). The social sciences on the other hand rely more on analyzing trends and human behavior. They do sometimes overlap (social science for example tends to rely quite a bit on statistical analysis), but you need to be far more careful with post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacies. That's what the sexual abuse/LGBT expression thing is in a nutshell (to address this specifically); things may seem correlated, but the reality is that the cause for the correlation is far deeper tied to society's treatment of LGBT people at the time kinda resulting in sexual abuse being more common for those individuals. Basically, be aware of your own limitations. -- Techpriest (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Also, Andrew this is what ATIM is literally meant for. No ruffled feathers, just a quick question to see if anything needs to be done/anyone needs to be yelled at. -- Techpriest (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Going to be a bit stubborn on this, but I still don't see how using the social definition of "Woman" is the only correct use of "Woman", instead of being one of several correct uses of the term "Woman". Corvette (brawl) 18:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Basically, consider whether or not the definition is being used in a social context or in a scientific context; most people who try to argue this distinction are trying to apply the scientific definition in a social context where it just doesn't fit (this is the crux of what TERFs try to do; they apply the scientific definition of a woman/a female (since in a STEM sense these are identical) to be the sole defining factor of the sociological definition of a woman, which is closer to a set of expectations society places onto you that stem from an odd mixture of societal history and prevalent-ish genetic traits). It's not the "only" correct definition, but in a layman conversation, the scientific definition of a woman is usually not what we're talking about and it tends to be done often in bad faith.
Like, for example, when one talks about letting people use their bathrooms by preferred gender, the main reason we split bathrooms by gender is because in the past, we defined what a woman was largely on a "separate spheres" ideology; it ran on the sociological assumption that to "protect the sancity of the experience of being a man or a woman". This is rather obviously a sociological definition; back then a woman was someone who stayed at home, did the dishes and raised the kids. The biological definition of a woman has very little to do with the argument, unless you're trying to shoehorn in a difference between people who want to sociologically live as a woman versus those who were born a woman. In practice, this supposedly super hard distinction has been flexible/blurred from the start - intersex people tend to go to whatever bathrooms they prefer, I'd say most private homes don't split their bathrooms by gender and disability toilets have always been gender-neutral. Inserting the scientific definition of "a woman" in this discussion has functionally nothing to do with it and is frequently seen as bad faith because of how often TERFs tend to do it. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
The gendered bathroom thing is because we don't want people to feel uncomfortable doing something rather private, and it's foreseeable that a big burly man in the lady's room would scare a woman. Enforcing the North Carolina law would basically violate Griswold v Connecticut; we don't ban contraceptives because the enforcement of the law would require a police officer watching people have sex, ergo we shouldn't have that stupid bathroom law because we don't need a police officer to do a cavity search every time someone wants to poop in a public restroom. Corvette (brawl) 19:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Because women are eternal victims... This isn't socially contingent at all... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 19:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Then why even have gendered bathrooms instead of just one bathroom for everyone? Corvette (brawl) 19:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I think you are reaching the correct conclusion in that gendered bathrooms are rather silly. -- Techpriest (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Non-gendered bathrooms are ok as long as there are 2. Otherwise the bathroom line increases if you just have 1. --Andrew5 (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Nobody is suggesting we only have half the bathrooms, though from a mathematical perspective, everyone using the same room means we do need slightly fewer bathroom stalls. Corvette (brawl) 05:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@Techpriest, It's way off topic, but the "bad faith" bit reminds me of how a sliver of racists will use a very technical definition (at best) of "history" to make arguments like "Native Americans didn't have a history before Europeans came" as colonial apologia knowing full well that their audience is going to read it as the generalizing common meaning. To bring it back on topic, different definitions of powerful terms in different contexts are almost unavoidable, but don't cross the streams! Buck (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Ugh, looks like I pissed off GC. Again. Corvette (brawl) 14:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Noindexing the barchives

At the moment, the Saloon Bar is NOINDEXed (doesn't show up in search engines, this does not affect our internal search engine), probably largely because of how many personal opinions and fights get thrown around there. However, I have been made aware (full disclosure: this is due to an off-site person who wanted content removed from the barchives out of concerns of it landing on their job searches for an incident; this request has been denied as the original comment did not violate any rules - I told them to reach out to the original commenter if they wanted it removed since users are allowed to retract their own comments) that due to a small inconsistency, the archives of the bar are currently not NOINDEXed. I would like some input/possibly a vote to resolve this rather obvious discrepancy. I do not personally care whether or not the barchives or the bar gets added/removed from the NOINDEX tag or not but this is a discrepancy we need to address. -- Techpriest (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Is the editor who made the remark still active here? Is the comment missional? I presume it's not libelous since that would be a different type of complaint. Bongolian (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
If it isn't contributing to social harm or a legal violation, I see no reason to remove it. That being said, if it is removed from the search engines in such a way as to allow for internal review, then that is fine, I suppose. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@Bongolian The editor is no longer active here. The comment is missional. It is not libelous. Person just requested that their association with a horrible person would be removed on the reasoning that they matured since and they don't want it to affect their ability to get a job. In any case that was more of a honesty disclosure; I am largely unconcerned about the users actual complaint, but I don't want it to bite me in the ass later. As for @GrammarCommie, yeah noindex affects nothing there; it just means you can't google the page and find it that way. Entering the page from the barchives or our own search bar would still be possible. -- Techpriest (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
@Techpriest I'm fine with that then. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I would have no problem with such a change. I am not so sure about your comment that "users are allowed to retract their own comments". Looking as CS I see nothing which allows this. I know that our CP days are long past, but I remember that we always held the rule that whatever you said stayed said as we had seen what could happen when users selectively edited the past.
But maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "retract". I'm assuming "delete" but perhaps you mean someone saying, "I was wrong when I said the above".Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
In this case it involved removing a single sentence from a comment that was otherwise unrelated to the main subject of that comment; we allow users to edit their own comments, therefore allowing a user to retract their comment by editing out certain parts is an implied right. To be clear, nobody went around and edited non-offending comments they didn't make themselves. In addition, no edits are suppressed; users can always go back in the history to see what was written. In any case, my hangup isn't so much with the edits, moreso with the noindex, which I appear to have consensus for. I'll look into an implementation after work. -- Techpriest (talk) 12:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)