Forum Federato

@wjmaggos @chris

Possible tangent, but one problem I see with any of the moderation strategies is that the definition of the word "harassment" is far too subjective.

As far as I understand, something is harassment if the reader feels harassed by it. A speaker has no control over what the reader feels, and therefore cannot with any certainty avoid "harassing" anyone who could possibly see the message.

This leads to a strong chilling effect on speech, which is easy to see in practice in any space with a strict "no harassment" policy. Again, you might be okay with that, but it's hardly an open marketplace of ideas.

If we're going to set rules, they need to be more prescriptive and less reactive.

@wjmaggos @chris @admin

Heavily moderated servers (and corporate social media) buy the illusion of civility at the cost of conformity of thought. If you are okay with having your thoughts suppressed, or if you already think in lockstep with the censors, you're probably fine with that. But if you're an independent thinker, that kind of thought-censorship is infinitely worse than enduring a few f-bombs.

(I say "illusion of civility" because many admins of heavily-moderated instances are totally cool with any level of hate, as long as it's directed at the "right" people)

@admin

Nah, I'm too white. It's only 11.5"

@chris @wjmaggos

@wjmaggos @chris No, but I can relate to the struggle.

I actually always thought that I should grow up in a wealthy family, with a trust fund so I wouldn't have to work. I actually always thought I should have a 13" penis and be married to a porn star. I actually always thought that people around me should be rational and accept reality.

All of those things are true in my fantasies. Unfortunately, I live in the real world where they're not.

@wjmaggos @chris Another possible solution: Maybe people could stop being so fragile that any difference of opinion is taken as a personal attack and labeled as "harassment" or "hate".

I've never blocked an instance. As a rule, I don't even block people, except possibly as spam control. But maybe I've just got thicker skin than they grow on the kids these days. It comes from being born before zero tolerance and participation trophies.

@wjmaggos You're a hypocrite.

@wjmaggos

If you actually want third parties to be viable, you have to support them NOW, even if you don't think they can win this election or the next one. It's not about $CURRENT_ELECTION. It's about momentum and popular sentiment (something the left is far better at, historically). You can't just sit around waiting for ranked choice to come along before suddenly switching to a third party.

I feel stupid for even saying this, but why would the two entrenched plurality parties EVER allow a meaningful change to the election system, if they know that they've got your full support under the current system?

william.maggos You're deflecting with a false dichotomy. I present a valid criticism of the Dems, and you, like a good TDS patient, decided to make it about Trump.

I know this will blow your mind (or more likely, will be dismissed without a thought), but it's possible to be critical of a political party without throwing in your lot with a different party.

If you honestly think Bernie is the future of liberalism†, then you should NOT be supporting the current party that has shut him out twice. That you support them anyway only proves you can't see past the this "us-vs-them" dichotomy.

The real irony is when you talk about wanting some kind of ranked-choice voting system (which I agree with). But while your words say you want real choice beyond the two parties, your actions - siding with an evil party because you think the other is worse - continue to reinforce the power of the plurality system.

† I don't; I think the party has saved itself twice, because socialism is a recipe for widespread poverty, economic disaster, and more social inequality than even the most TDS-addled SJWs imagine in their darkest nigtmares. World history agrees with me.