The illiberalism of hypersensitivity

[ArsSkeptica]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by azurnoir (a host of the General Discussion forum).

I would like to take a moment to share some observations about what is apparently a sensitive topic. The topic is so sensitive, however, that I feel I must preamble the [censored] [censored] out [censored] lest superior persons and others of highly refined sensibilities take this in the wrong spirit.

Point the first: I would like to express my appreciation for the people who conceived of, put into operation, and continue to maintain both with effort and money, this website.

Point the second: I acknowledge that this is your sandbox. You make the rules. For any who disagree, the highway is two doors down and to the left. Those who feel they are not afforded ample enough opportunity here to speak freely are perfectly free to go and design their own forum, fund it, maintain it, and market it so that they're not just standing on a soapbox pontificating to their cats.

Point the third: fair is fair. I actually quite like the jury system established here. It's as fair a policy as any to be found elsewhere, and far superior to most.

That said, I must also make clear that I am aware of this rule pertaining to posts in General Discussion.

Threads complaining about Democratic Underground or its members; threads complaining about jury decisions, locked threads, suspensions, bannings, or the like; and threads intended to disrupt or negatively influence the normal workings of Democratic Underground and its community moderating system are not permitted.

As I am aware of this rule, I should point out that I, by no means, intend this post as a complaint about jury decisions, even the one against one of my sillier retorts, or about locked threads, or suspensions, bannings, or "the like," whatever the like may be. This post is also not intended to disrupt or negatively influence the normal workings of DU and (even or!) it's community moderating system.

On the contrary, what I mean to do is prompt a discussion as to an issue that certainly plays a role in politics, the distinctions between liberal and illiberal approaches to the manner and mode of one's speech. I mean this as a "food for thought" post, and remain entirely open to the possibility that someone or many someones with whom I may or may not disagree may (or may not) support their case in a manner persuasive to me and/or others. As such, I hope this is received in the spirit of a community service.

Naturally, a post like this is triggered by some event(s). I recently noted that someone (not me) referred to, I'll assume, center-left Dems as *ahem* (quoting here, not lobbing the pejorative myself) "Vichy Democrats." It seems this offended some of highly refined refinement. As for me, I had a post hidden because I told someone in a manner I thought was clearly figurative to "go play in traffic." I'm okay with the post being hidden. I'm not complaining about that. I would, however, like to point out what I feel is abundantly ironic in such a way as, I hope, to cause some pondering and discussion.

My post was reported because, "This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate."

For the sake of consistency, I'll assume "or" is equally well served by "and/or." And, once again, I accept the "punishment," the system in place, the will of the jury, etc., &c, usw.

So here's my points to ponder, none of which I mean to be exculpatory in my own case.

What post here is not intended to be disruptive? A great many posts on a great many issues, one might assume, are intended to "disrupt" the status quo, perhaps even solely among DU readers/participants. Such posts are intended to disrupt a previous mode of thinking in favor of a different mode of thinking. Naturally, I don't mean trolling for trolling's sake. I simply refer to the very nature of political discourse and persuasive speech. My general hope when I click into DU is THAT I be disrupted.

Okay, that was the easy one. I would like to think that, at least in spirit, most of us would agree thus far, even if others might be able to make a far better case.

But what is hurtful? I would absolutely like to know what other participants here find hurtful. Personally, what I find hurtful are intellectually dishonest attempts to derail valid and pertinent discussion. Healthy and lively debate between opposing parties constitutes the very sinews of our republic, else, without that "social contract" connective tissue, we would merely have authority vested in the hands of one set of demagogues (clarification: I mean in government, not the admins of DU) at the expense of, well, everybody else. I find badgering repetition of the same tired question, a feeble attempt to simply bludgeon one's opposition into silence, if not submission, hurtful, not just to the public good, but to my own feelings. To be on the receiving end of such treatment is to be othered, shamed, silenced. I find ad hominem attacks, thinly veiled or otherwise, but in this case of the thinly-veiled variety, to be hurtful. Once again, it's an intellectually dishonest strategem solely intended to silence opposition.

Am I safe in guessing that a great many of us would find that behavior, if conducted by a right-wing demagogue to be an example of illiberalism?

I think all of the above observations on hurtfulness apply equally to rudeness. Or am I mistaken in thinking that attempting to shut down discussion with heavy-handed (and ham-fisted) rhetorical shenanigans instead of dealing honestly with an opposing view in the spirit of genuine rational discussion is rude?

And again re: insensitivity. One's words in the heat of the moment may be insensitive. Hell, that's a badge I generally wear proudly, right next to my Cynic's badge, and my Chocolate Starfish badge. Where, however, is the sensitivity in attempting to shame and silence one's opponent in civil discourse?

I must confess, the "over the top" distinction eludes me. It strikes me as an utterly subjective quality. To that extent, I defer entirely to the will of juries regarding my, or anyone else's, comments. It seems rather like a "luck of the draw" event. It's entirely possible, for instance, that a jury may have (didn't, but may have) unanimously decided that "Vichy Democrat" was fair game. It was just a matter of chance that the randomly selected jurors ruled the way they did. Personally, subjectively, what I find "over the top" is, once again, heavy-handed attempts at shaming and silencing, especially using transparently absurd ploys like, "are you even qualified to have an opinion?" further exacerbated by badgering. Who here would be permitted to have opinions on anything were expertise evidenced by elected/appointed position in government or advanced degrees and narrow specialization in [insert field here field] required before permission is granted by other commenters in the self-appointed role of Those Who Know Better?

Last but not least, "otherwise inappropriate" is a lovely catch-all wastebasket term that is far more palatable than implications of whimsy.

By my reckoning, so many posts and responses here and elsewhere would be subject to silencing if each were viewed through the connotations of the terms as I understand them that the Internet would be a veritable cricket farm were everyone to silence all the logical fallacies, all the intellectual dishonesty, all the petty demagoguery.

So, was telling someone to "go play in traffic" truly in breach of those terms. I concede. The jury ruled fairly (enough). But were I to have "alerted" the comment that prompted my dismissive retort, how seriously would that have been taken? In my defense, and I do remain unapologetic for the comment, I at least assumed enough of the person to whom I responded in that manner that they weren't so intellectually impaired as to actually go play in traffic.

I have learned my lesson, however. When faced with such brazenly dishonest rhetorical tactics, I shall either exercise my power to ignore, or simply proceed to call out their illiberal attempt at silencing opposition for what it is and suggest something far, far worse than playing in traffic, to wit, that maybe they'd perhaps be in better, and like-minded company, at The Blaze or someplace of that ilk.

Now that I've got that off my chest, what say you? That's actually the important part. How do you feel and what do you think when faced with that kind of shaming and silencing behavior? Do you or do you not find that form of discourse to be illiberal?

Postscript: as I'm uncertain as to whether this post is of the permitted speech variety, I should note that once I'm done preaching to my cats I can just as readily cross-post to my own blog/soapbox where I might catch the odd one or two views, or maybe at the other blog, where, over time, I'm fairly certain hundreds will view and have an opportunity to reply.

With sincere best wishes to all. Fight the good fight.

[LittleBlue]

1. The internet is trending away from, as you say, "illiberal" sites

where discussion is heavily restricted.

Personally I do find the jury system too easy to abuse. It should be much more limited to keep intellectual restriction to a minimum.

[Warpy]

2. Thank you. Just thank you.

Word jumpers and other outrage trolls have ruined a lot of discussion groups and websites out there.

I don't want this to be one of them.

[Scootaloo]

3. If you open up the "alert abuse" link on the bottom of a post, it gives you four options

This discussion thread is off-topic, or violates the Statement of Purpose for this forum

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

This post includes a copyright violation.

This person's avatar image or signature line is inappropriate.

You told another poster to "Go play in traffic or bother someone else if you don't have anything to contribute."

In any context, that's a dick thing to say. So you were alerted on and four other people figured, yeah, that's a dick thing to say. it's not "hypersensitivity," it's that you said something dickish. Try to not do that. especially when you're only a handful of posts in.

[azurnoir]

4. Locking Meta wordy meta but still meta