Actual Discussion

894 readers

4 users here now

Are you tired of going into controversial threads and having people not discuss things, circlejerking, or using emotional responses in place of logic? Us too.

Welcome to Actual Discussion!

DO:

Be civil. This doesn't mean you shouldn't challenge people, just don't be a dick.
Upvote interesting or well-articulated points, even if you may not agree.
Be prepared to back up any claims you make with an unbiased source.
Be willing to be wrong and append your initial post to show a changed view.
Admit when you are incorrect or spoke poorly. Upvote when you see others correct themselves or change their mind.
Feel free to be a "Devil's Advocate". You do not have to believe either side of an issue in order to generate solid points.
Discuss hot-button issues.
Add humour, and be creative! Dry writing isn't super fun to read or discuss.

DO NOT:

Call people names or label people. We fight ideas, not people here.
Ask for sources, and then not respond to the person providing them.
Mindlessly downvote people you disagree with. We only downvote people that do not add to the discussion.
Be a bot, spam, or engage in self-promotion.
Duplicate posts from within the last month unless new information is surfaced on the topic.
Strawman.
Expect that personal experience or morals are a substitute for proof.
Exaggerate. Not everyone slightly to the right of you is a Nazi, and not everyone left of you is a Tankie.
Copy an entire article in your post body. It's just messy. Link to it, summarize, and add your thoughts.

For more casual conversation instead of competitive ranked conversation, try: !casualconversation@piefed.social

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

AceTKen@lemmy.ca

jet@hackertalks.com

(WEEKLY) Lemmy's Aggressive Banning Issue (infosec.pub)

submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by AceTKen@lemmy.ca to c/actual_discussion@lemmy.ca

67 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Reminder: This post is from the Community Actual Discussion. We try to use voting for elevating constructive, or lowering unproductive, posts and comments here. When disagreeing, replies detailing your views are highly encouraged as no-discussion downvotes don't help anyone learn anything valuable. For other rules, please see this pinned thread. Thanks!

We’re back! Instead of putting a neutral topic in the introduction, I'm placing a bit of opinion on an issue to see if it helps spur discussion. We are also actively seeking moderators and people who enjoy discussion (and understand that being wrong is an important part of being a better person)! Send me a message if you’d like to help out.

This week, I'd like to discuss something that's been a bit of an issue for me personally.

Lemmy (and Reddit before it) appears to have a problem with overly-aggressive bannings for perceived slights. In the topic linked above there were people permanently banning users from multiple communities (any they moderate - dozens in some cases) for single downvotes, 4 downvotes across a ten-month period, and bannings because a moderator thought they maybe sorta kinda read that a user may have had a negative thought about their pet issue.

I've personally been banned from Communities (and sent some pretty vile PMs) for posting in our weekly threads here playing devil's advocate where I state hard questions that I do not necessarily feel are correct. They think they've discovered some secret agenda by finding posts I've made here and use them as "receipts" in order to dismiss anything they think they're reading that may be contrary to their opinion. Any context provided for the post falls on deaf ears.

I'm someone who operates on the idea of "If you can not defend an opinion from scrutiny, you should probably not hold that opinion."

To quote myself:

It’s pretty tragic that people can't handle opposing opinions. I think the activist nature of Lemmy is kind of a self-destructive spiral and people need to learn how to live with each other again. But I guess that’s the issue with modern social media as a whole… Nobody has any idea how to convince anyone else, only to yell at them louder.

Some Starters (and don’t feel you have to speak on all or any of them if you don’t care to):

Are niche Communities correct for banning anyone who downvotes?
Do downvotes represent a "disagree" button for you (this Community notwithstanding)?
Most importantly, what would it take to change this?
Does it help build the Community? What about the platform as a whole?
Is there a way to build a "safe space" without building an echo chamber online? Is that even a valuable thing to build?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Well, it's what I've been using it for and my debate teacher before me, so that's not a correct statement. You can see here for how it's considered a valuable tool in a discussion or educational context. It's also used in a legal context quite frequently.

That's different from fostering discussion. Discussion is open ended. Devils Advocate is fundamentally about substantiating the opposite argument. I didn't say it lacked value all together. I'm saying you're using it in the wrong context, and the results are downvotes and non-engagement from your audience. Especially if they believe you're sincere.

You're conflating Socratic reasoning with devils advocacy and citing an anecdotal experience as evidence. Socratic reasoning explores limitations of ideas. Devils advocate argues for the sake of argument as a form of apologetic exercise.

If you want to discuss censorship of dissenting opinions that's a valid discussion that you are severely undermining by mislabeling your arguments as devils advocacy.

If you argue against something that is incorrect, you are not playing the devils advocate; by definition.

[–] AceTKen@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Not sure if I agree with that. I'm not basing my use of devil's advocate on classical debate models. I would, in fact, argue that those aren't relevant in modern society for the most part.

In our rules, I state:

DO: Be a “Devil’s Advocate” if there’s no opposition and you can see some arguments for the other side you’d like to see addressed. You do not have to believe either side of an issue in order to generate solid points on a view.

Elsewhere I've spoken about something I feel devil's advocate helps with - namely that you can be right for the wrong reasons and wrong for the right reasons. There are tons of examples. You do not have to disagree with someone in order to point out that their reasoning sucks.

This is an absolutely garbage example, but it's one from my real life. My mother-in-law is an atheist, as am I. When I asked her how she arrived there, her reasoning was (in full, and apologies to anyone reading this stupid shit) "Religion is gay."

Now... I agree with her about there not being a God, but not her reasoning. Asking clarifying DA questions and having her answer her own questions helped her express her actual opinion and not just... the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard in a religious discussion. I do the same here when someone expresses something that leaves major chunks in their argument or opinion, even if I agree.

Asking strong questions to fill gaps in my opinions and belief structure are also called a "Steelman" (opposite of a strawman) which are of incredible value in logic courses.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

The semantics of "devils advocate" aside, what I'm saying is, if the audience doesn't like what you're saying, they're going to rightfully downvote/ban you. I genuinely think that those are valid and valuable options for both the community and you as a speaker.

Is business communications we learned about "rhetoric" in terms of ethos, logos, and pathos. Socratic reasoning, Devils advocate, etc... those are all logic based communications. But you have no pathos(credibility), cuz they don't know you, and the emotional appear (ethos) is likely not in your favour.

I got downvoted yesterday for speculating the direction AI is going. People don't like AI so they downvote me cuz they don't want it to be true. Wrong audience for that discussion.

On reddit I got banned from r/WNBA, cuz I commented on a post that went to /all, saying gameplay with CC in it was fundamentally more interesting to watch (and that without her it was boring -that's probs what caught be mod hammer). Wrong audience for that discussion.

If you want to go into a community and change their views on a consensus they've formed, than you need more than just logos. It usually takes a known community member (pathos) appealing to the community intrinsically (ethos) to shift these kinds of community consensus.

Perhaps that's not where you're coming from with this topic. But I'm here to push back on the allegation there is a banning issue. IMO downvotes and bans are good things. 50% when I'm downvoted I'm saying something wrong... the other half I'm talking to the wrong people.