I want to address something that happened here recently.
-
That is not the argument being made in the OP.
The argument being made is, that if the poster asks you to stop talking in the discussion section of a thread, you should do it. The poster makes that decision for everyone in the discussion section. I don't think that's reasonable.
You can even set aside server rules, and just consider respectful discourse. I don't think that is respectful discourse, feels oppressive to me.
@bit
If it was their thread, i.e., they started it, then I do think it is their right, socially speaking, to ask someone to kindly fuck off.
The polite thing to do is take the conversation elsewhere.I am afraid that this is actually a common experience for women and people of color - they start a discussion with a particular tone and direction, and then some white guy strides in and changes the tone, the topic, and holds forth with gusto and indifference.
So yeah, it's right
-
@bit
If it was their thread, i.e., they started it, then I do think it is their right, socially speaking, to ask someone to kindly fuck off.
The polite thing to do is take the conversation elsewhere.I am afraid that this is actually a common experience for women and people of color - they start a discussion with a particular tone and direction, and then some white guy strides in and changes the tone, the topic, and holds forth with gusto and indifference.
So yeah, it's right
Even socially speaking, in a group, person A starts a topic, they don't get any special privilege for it. If person A then asks person B to stop talking part in the discussion for no valid reason, person A is the one being rude. I, and everyone else in the group, have the right to decide if we want to listen to person B.
This is what users here sign up for, knowingly or otherwise, open discussion with, hopefully, neutral moderation from the server staff, not posters.
-
Even socially speaking, in a group, person A starts a topic, they don't get any special privilege for it. If person A then asks person B to stop talking part in the discussion for no valid reason, person A is the one being rude. I, and everyone else in the group, have the right to decide if we want to listen to person B.
This is what users here sign up for, knowingly or otherwise, open discussion with, hopefully, neutral moderation from the server staff, not posters.
@bit
No, sorry, but you are wrong.Etiquette is clearly that they DO have a special privilege for the topic, and this counts whether it is face to face, in emails, or chat, or anywhere else. If you want a different tone or topic, then you start your own. What you describe is "topic hijacking" and is, as I said, a very common experience that women and PoC have.
To that point, Kim, are we still within bounds, or shall we take this elsewhere?
-
I want to address something that happened here recently. I wasn't involved, though I did know the people who were. The bristly situation was not an isolated occurrence on this platform.
My main takeaway from that kerfuffle is that no one here owes anyone else a conversation. "But why can't we have a discussion; isn't that the point of this place?" has real "Debate me, Bro" vibes. It's not a discussion without mutual agreement.
This has nothing to do with the point(s) being made. If, at any time, you have been asked to leave by the person who started the thread, you have to leave the thread. You don't have the right to keep engaging after someone tells you to stop. Full stop. If you feel like you were possibly misunderstood, and want to clarify, you'll have to do that in a separate post of your own: "I was part of a discussion today, and here's the point I was trying to make . . ." That's fine, because it's your space, not someone else's. It's a bit like being in your own home instead of at someone else's front door.
The rules of discourse apply in this online space just like they do in any physical space. If someone doesn't want to argue with you, they don't have to, most especially in their own home.
@kimlockhartga
Just to agree overtly with what you are saying, and openly acknowledge that you are right -
@bit
No, sorry, but you are wrong.Etiquette is clearly that they DO have a special privilege for the topic, and this counts whether it is face to face, in emails, or chat, or anywhere else. If you want a different tone or topic, then you start your own. What you describe is "topic hijacking" and is, as I said, a very common experience that women and PoC have.
To that point, Kim, are we still within bounds, or shall we take this elsewhere?
The first sentence back there doesn't capture what I meant to say. It's very broad, when I meant to be specific.
So first to correct what I said. There are indeed, online and IRL, some privileges the respected topic starter should enjoy.
However, removing someone from a discussion with no valid reason, isn't one of them.
-
The first sentence back there doesn't capture what I meant to say. It's very broad, when I meant to be specific.
So first to correct what I said. There are indeed, online and IRL, some privileges the respected topic starter should enjoy.
However, removing someone from a discussion with no valid reason, isn't one of them.
Ok, but the topic author generally gets to decide what is a valid reason.
Like Kim said, if you disagree and still want to talk, then you take it elsewhere and explain there. -
Ok, but the topic author generally gets to decide what is a valid reason.
Like Kim said, if you disagree and still want to talk, then you take it elsewhere and explain there.The topic author gets to decide what is a valid reason to them(the author) not others. It's a lack of respect for everyone else's viewpoints and agency to try and impose it.
Should a majority of support develop, which determining, both online and IRL, comes with its own challenges sure but, then I could see enough ethical weight to justify it. Not before.
-
The topic author gets to decide what is a valid reason to them(the author) not others. It's a lack of respect for everyone else's viewpoints and agency to try and impose it.
Should a majority of support develop, which determining, both online and IRL, comes with its own challenges sure but, then I could see enough ethical weight to justify it. Not before.
@bit
It's their party, and they can cry if they want to, so to speak.If the topic originator says that this is not the direction or tone they want, for whatever reason, it is up to the rest to go hold the discussion elsewhere.
Like Kim can tell us that this is not the discussion she wants, then the two of us should take it private, or go start our own public thread.
-
@bit
It's their party, and they can cry if they want to, so to speak.If the topic originator says that this is not the direction or tone they want, for whatever reason, it is up to the rest to go hold the discussion elsewhere.
Like Kim can tell us that this is not the discussion she wants, then the two of us should take it private, or go start our own public thread.
Look, we're merely discussing this on moral grounds at this point. Technically there is nothing to argue about, I expect we both know how mastodon works.
You want to see more moral weight on some perceived right a poster gets to, "for whatever reason", remove someone from a discussion, over respecting everyone else in that discussion, then there is no way we are going to agree.
This is the core, it's not going to change, we can just conclude this little chat.
-
Look, we're merely discussing this on moral grounds at this point. Technically there is nothing to argue about, I expect we both know how mastodon works.
You want to see more moral weight on some perceived right a poster gets to, "for whatever reason", remove someone from a discussion, over respecting everyone else in that discussion, then there is no way we are going to agree.
This is the core, it's not going to change, we can just conclude this little chat.
@bit
Right, this is about interpersonal transaction, not technical features.We may be at an impasse, but let me add one more thing.
The OP is not denying anyone the right to voice their opinion in the way in which they desire, they are merely requesting that those people do so elsewhere. The discussion thread is like the OPs home, and they have a moral right to ask that one takes the football discussion elsewhere.
On IRC, the OP used to just kick one out for that
