Probably the best solution is if it is brought back is to have a zero tolerance, not to heated discussions but personal insults and people being called racists etc... Then the people who fall foul should be banned for life and it will pretty soon all work fine.
a space where you're not allowed to call out racism, what could go wrong?
There’s a massive difference in suggesting that something posted is racist and calling the poster a racist. How you put things makes a huge difference.
Probably the best solution is if it is brought back is to have a zero tolerance, not to heated discussions but personal insults and people being called racists etc... Then the people who fall foul should be banned for life and it will pretty soon all work fine.
a space where you're not allowed to call out racism, what could go wrong?
There’s a massive difference in suggesting that something posted is racist and calling the poster a racist. How you put things makes a huge difference.
Is there a difference? Especially if they double down.
Perhaps the solution is to treat the House of Commoners threads in the same way the real HoC treats debate and how respectful exchanges are maintained by having pretty much zero tolerance to playing the man not the ball. Of course we don’t have a Speaker refereeing all the time but if Stig decides in retrospect that a red card is warranted then that’s a red card for life.
Perhaps the solution is to treat the House of Commoners threads in the same way the real HoC treats debate and how respectful exchanges are maintained by having pretty much zero tolerance to playing the man not the ball. Of course we don’t have a Speaker refereeing all the time but if Stig decides in retrospect that a red card is warranted then that’s a red card for life.
a good idea, i like the idea of calling each other honourable members.
Probably the best solution is if it is brought back is to have a zero tolerance, not to heated discussions but personal insults and people being called racists etc... Then the people who fall foul should be banned for life and it will pretty soon all work fine.
So don’t ban the racists but ban the people who call them out for being racist?
Probably the best solution is if it is brought back is to have a zero tolerance, not to heated discussions but personal insults and people being called racists etc... Then the people who fall foul should be banned for life and it will pretty soon all work fine.
So don’t ban the racists but ban the people who call them out for being racist?
Because people are called out for being racist it doesn't mean they are racist. Disect what they are saying and say why that is racist by all means.
Probably the best solution is if it is brought back is to have a zero tolerance, not to heated discussions but personal insults and people being called racists etc... Then the people who fall foul should be banned for life and it will pretty soon all work fine.
So don’t ban the racists but ban the people who call them out for being racist?
Or rather, the people who use "that's racist" to shut down arguments.
Probably the best solution is if it is brought back is to have a zero tolerance, not to heated discussions but personal insults and people being called racists etc... Then the people who fall foul should be banned for life and it will pretty soon all work fine.
So don’t ban the racists but ban the people who call them out for being racist?
The counter argument to a “perceived” racist comment or an explanation as to why it’s racist would be the way forward here. It’s when the debate degrades into personal comments that everything falls over. If you can’t articulate your own views without personal attacks then perhaps the HoC’s isn’t for you in the first place.
The racist card gets overplayed. One poster went so far as to say everyone who voted Brexit is a racist. Call out racism whenever it appears that's the right thing to do. But some on here try and look for it where it doesn't exist.
Honestly, all you'd need to do is ban q_a and reopen it, and it'd basically be fine. Everyone else seems to have some grounding in reality. I make no apology for everything I've said to or about q_a down the years.
The notion that the HOC attracts 'extremists from both sides' is ludicrous! Apart from q_a I wouldn't call anyone an extremist on either side. SELR and I would be (and in my case, HAVE BEEN) thoroughly ostracised from true-tankie spaces, because we fraternise with and even concede the point to those on other parts of the political spectrum.
Probably the best solution is if it is brought back is to have a zero tolerance, not to heated discussions but personal insults and people being called racists etc... Then the people who fall foul should be banned for life and it will pretty soon all work fine.
So don’t ban the racists but ban the people who call them out for being racist?
this is exactly what a lot of people want. A big part of the problem is people think being called a racist is worse than actual racism - because racism doesn't affect them, being called a racist does.
The racist card gets overplayed. One poster went so far as to say everyone who voted Brexit is a racist. Call out racism whenever it appears that's the right thing to do. But some on here try and look for it where it doesn't exist.
and some actively try to ignore where it does. What would you want - a space where racism is called out, or a space where it isn't?
Probably the best solution is if it is brought back is to have a zero tolerance, not to heated discussions but personal insults and people being called racists etc... Then the people who fall foul should be banned for life and it will pretty soon all work fine.
So don’t ban the racists but ban the people who call them out for being racist?
this is exactly what a lot of people want. A big part of the problem is people think being called a racist is worse than actual racism - because racism doesn't affect them, being called a racist does.
The racist card gets overplayed. One poster went so far as to say everyone who voted Brexit is a racist. Call out racism whenever it appears that's the right thing to do. But some on here try and look for it where it doesn't exist.
and some actively try to ignore where it does. What would you want - a space where racism is called out, or a space where it isn't?
Blackpool's got it spot on. You've accused me of antisemitism 3-4 times and I'm Jewish.
I seem to remember the HOC page started when a number of threads, and one in particular went very toxic indeed. I come to this page partly to get away from the pit of shit that politics has become and bathe in the refreshingly unimportant spring that is football fandom and anything that keeps the trolling and insulting away from the main site gets my vote.
Probably the best solution is if it is brought back is to have a zero tolerance, not to heated discussions but personal insults and people being called racists etc... Then the people who fall foul should be banned for life and it will pretty soon all work fine.
So don’t ban the racists but ban the people who call them out for being racist?
this is exactly what a lot of people want. A big part of the problem is people think being called a racist is worse than actual racism - because racism doesn't affect them, being called a racist does.
The racist card gets overplayed. One poster went so far as to say everyone who voted Brexit is a racist. Call out racism whenever it appears that's the right thing to do. But some on here try and look for it where it doesn't exist.
and some actively try to ignore where it does. What would you want - a space where racism is called out, or a space where it isn't?
Blackpool's got it spot on. You've accused me of antisemitism 3-4 times and I'm Jewish.
And he accused Leroy Ambrose of casual racism - and we all know that Leroy is black. Isn't he?
I seem to remember the HOC page started when a number of threads, and one in particular went very toxic indeed. I come to this page partly to get away from the pit of shit that politics has become and bathe in the refreshingly unimportant spring that is football fandom and anything that keeps the trolling and insulting away from the main site gets my vote.
When I say vote, it is not intended to imply any political affiliation or endorsement, you understand.
Probably the best solution is if it is brought back is to have a zero tolerance, not to heated discussions but personal insults and people being called racists etc... Then the people who fall foul should be banned for life and it will pretty soon all work fine.
Your idea sounded great until you said people couldn't call out racism...
Am sure you don't mean that flagging racism gets you banned, eh!
The HoC can get quite bad but as far as online politics goes, I think it's actually still pretty good! Much better than Twitter, Facebook, etc.
Personally, I've always wondered why I have such a different reaction to opinions online vs in real life.
When I hear an opinion in real life that I disagree with, my brain says: 'That's interesting. Fair enough.'
But when I read an opinion online that I disagree with, it says: 'How can you possibly think that!?'
A few week ago I was reading a book called Chatter by Ethan Cross (recommend), and it references a study that found when you hear/see people speak in real life, you are picking up thousands of cues like facial expressions, vocal intonations, body language, etc. and all of these things trigger empathy in your brain, and make you more receptive and your reaction more human.
The study found that with online discussion you get none of these cues, it's just words on a screen and so there's no empathy. So the discussions can naturally get quite toxic.
I'm not sure what the solution is, perhaps personally it's imagining what my response would be if I heard an opinion in real life as opposed to reading it.
Probably the best solution is if it is brought back is to have a zero tolerance, not to heated discussions but personal insults and people being called racists etc... Then the people who fall foul should be banned for life and it will pretty soon all work fine.
So don’t ban the racists but ban the people who call them out for being racist?
The counter argument to a “perceived” racist comment or an explanation as to why it’s racist would be the way forward here. It’s when the debate degrades into personal comments that everything falls over. If you can’t articulate your own views without personal attacks then perhaps the HoC’s isn’t for you in the first place.
I've done this many times, but have dopiled on, and veiled threats made to me of violent repercussions by the "racism is overplayed" crowd - one even implied i was an israeli state actor lmao. It's a two way street to stop discussions decending into that kind of nonsense (as some honourable members are trying to do here).
The HoC can get quite bad but as far as online politics goes, I think it's actually still pretty good! Much better than Twitter, Facebook, etc.
Personally, I've always wondered why I have such a different reaction to opinions online vs in real life.
When I hear an opinion in real life that I disagree with, my brain says: 'That's interesting. Fair enough.'
But when I read an opinion online that I disagree with, it says: 'How can you possibly think that!?'
A few week ago I was reading a book called Chatter by Ethan Cross (recommend), and it references a study that found when you hear/see people speak in real life, you are picking up thousands of cues like facial expressions, vocal intonations, body language, etc. and all of these things trigger empathy in your brain, and make you more receptive and your reaction more human.
The study found that with online discussion you get none of these cues, it's just words on a screen and so there's no empathy. So the discussions can naturally get quite toxic.
I'm not sure what the solution is, perhaps personally it's imagining what my response would be if I heard an opinion in real life as opposed to reading it.
There are also studies that show there are clear differences between people who relate to what they hear and people who relate to what they see. Some people comprehend stuff better by listening; others prefer a visual example.
If, when you're talking to someone, you can work out which 'type' they are, it can have a profound effect on how productive and interesting a conversation you can have. For example, if you're talking to someone who concentrates on the listening aspect of receiving information, you should use phrases like "I hear what you're saying...", or "that sounds interesting...", because these will resonate. And if you're talking to someone who likes to picture things, you should use phrases like "I see what you mean...", or "that looks like an interesting idea".
On a written forum, it's very hard to discern the difference between people and therefore a two-way conversation is harder and there are fewer cues on which to determine whether your interlocutor is a "hearing" person or a "visual" one.
Probably the best solution is if it is brought back is to have a zero tolerance, not to heated discussions but personal insults and people being called racists etc... Then the people who fall foul should be banned for life and it will pretty soon all work fine.
Your idea sounded great until you said people couldn't call out racism...
Am sure you don't mean that flagging racism gets you banned, eh!
The way to flag racism is to raise it with a mod and get the person banned. That way there are checks and balances as to whether it is what the person is being accused of. Just calling people anti semetic or racist is often what Shooters identifies as playing the man not the ball.
Probably the best solution is if it is brought back is to have a zero tolerance, not to heated discussions but personal insults and people being called racists etc... Then the people who fall foul should be banned for life and it will pretty soon all work fine.
Your idea sounded great until you said people couldn't call out racism...
Am sure you don't mean that flagging racism gets you banned, eh!
I'm guessing he didn't mean that, but unfortunately it is a bit binary - you have to be able to call out racism, just because it makes members uncomfortable because it maybe shines a light on their own thinking and actions doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. Dismissing complaints of racism with "the racism card" is in itself an action that minimises racism to something of a game and an inflammatory and condescending remark in itself that drives the discussion to become toxic. What's worse is when the person complaining is actually from that ethnic minority - because then it really is minimising racism.
Comments
One poster went so far as to say everyone who voted Brexit is a racist.
Call out racism whenever it appears that's the right thing to do.
But some on here try and look for it where it doesn't exist.
The notion that the HOC attracts 'extremists from both sides' is ludicrous! Apart from q_a I wouldn't call anyone an extremist on either side. SELR and I would be (and in my case, HAVE BEEN) thoroughly ostracised from true-tankie spaces, because we fraternise with and even concede the point to those on other parts of the political spectrum.
and some actively try to ignore where it does. What would you want - a space where racism is called out, or a space where it isn't?
Am sure you don't mean that flagging racism gets you banned, eh!
Personally, I've always wondered why I have such a different reaction to opinions online vs in real life.
When I hear an opinion in real life that I disagree with, my brain says: 'That's interesting. Fair enough.'
But when I read an opinion online that I disagree with, it says: 'How can you possibly think that!?'
A few week ago I was reading a book called Chatter by Ethan Cross (recommend), and it references a study that found when you hear/see people speak in real life, you are picking up thousands of cues like facial expressions, vocal intonations, body language, etc. and all of these things trigger empathy in your brain, and make you more receptive and your reaction more human.
The study found that with online discussion you get none of these cues, it's just words on a screen and so there's no empathy. So the discussions can naturally get quite toxic.
I'm not sure what the solution is, perhaps personally it's imagining what my response would be if I heard an opinion in real life as opposed to reading it.
If, when you're talking to someone, you can work out which 'type' they are, it can have a profound effect on how productive and interesting a conversation you can have. For example, if you're talking to someone who concentrates on the listening aspect of receiving information, you should use phrases like "I hear what you're saying...", or "that sounds interesting...", because these will resonate. And if you're talking to someone who likes to picture things, you should use phrases like "I see what you mean...", or "that looks like an interesting idea".
On a written forum, it's very hard to discern the difference between people and therefore a two-way conversation is harder and there are fewer cues on which to determine whether your interlocutor is a "hearing" person or a "visual" one.