Goals of Forum and Comment Moderation on MD

[Tepidness]

Who really cares whether it is a mental illness or not. There is nothing wrong with having properly diagnosed and/or treated mental illnesses, you can even live a mostly normal life to my knowledge. I also don't why this issue is so centered around hate speech, can't we all just use petty insults like calling people assholes or morons and get on with our day?

 

[Yautja]

@Tepidness

Who really cares whether it is a mental illness or not. There is nothing wrong with having properly diagnosed and/or treated mental illnesses, you can even live a mostly normal life to my knowledge.

That's exactly my view. Thing is people don't like being told they're ill, especially when it's a big part of their identity.

I also don't why this issue is so centered around hate speech

Because that's a magic word people can use to get what they want.

@Hexxy
You

Some people really just want to be bigoted and use hate speech without repercussions, this thread has shown.

Excuse me, some people.

I've stated many times now that I both don't care and also don't want to debate or argue because it doesn't get anyone here anywhere.

Then either stop responding or don't say people are committing hate speech and subsequently refuse to substantiate that claim.

You're going to walk out this thread still thinking I'm an authoritarian with a victim complex and nothing to back anything up, and I'm going to walk out glad I'm not putting any effort into this because it'll be wasted anyway.

Except for your own words and admissions.

 

[walesgrey]

@yautja
Well done, you literally just said what I did, while retroactively adjusting your claim from "gender dysphoria is a mental illness" to "gender dysphoria is a mental dysfunction". Gender dysphoria is a dysfunction, that can arise from a variety of factors. Insisting that it and gender-nonconformity are a mental illness - with all the baggage and social stigmata that mental illness comes with in contemporary society - is probably one of the leading factors in the pathology of that disorder.

To put this in the context of speech, meaning, and affect: if you give someone a nickname with a patently negative meaning, and they ask you to not use it, and you keep using it despite their objection long past the point of comedy, that isn't exactly upstanding positive behavior. Using it further past that point is malicious.

@Kierlak
It may surprise you to discover that words exist within a social framework that attaches textual, subtextual, and contrextual meanings to words and actions! In particular, words related to specific terminology (e.g. words used as a term for a specific medical/psychological diagnosis) have specific meanings within that specific context! So, as someone who values speech as much as you do ought be inclined to use words not only accurately, but also precisely, such that you strike your intended meanings - textual, subtextual, and contextual.

@tepidness
That's what I want to know, really.

Spoiler

The latter part of your post, at least. The specific terminology matters because words have meanings.

 

[Kierlak]

@Bainhardt

No it..... it isn't nebulous at all. Hate speech is a clearly defined thing.

Is that why people try and label the most laughable things as 'hate speech' and get away with it? In this very thread even.

It even has a Wikipedia page

Oh shit, it has a wiki page!! Well that's ironclad, right there.

There have been lawsuits over hate speech and whether or not it is legal; countries around the world have varying legislation regarding the circumstantial legality of hate speech. Do you think those people are making it up as they go??

Yes, they very much are 'making it up as they go'. The UK in particular is a laughing stock in this regard.

@walesgrey

So, as someone who values speech as much as you do ought be inclined to use words not only accurately, but also precisely, such that you strike your intended meanings - textual, subtextual, and contextual.

If someone has an illness of the mind, it's perfectly acceptable to call it a mental illness.

 

[walesgrey]

@Kierlak
I don't understand your argument here - what part of what they posted are you taking umbrage with, and why?

 

[Yautja]

@walesgrey

Point of Order: gender dysphoria is not a mental illness... The closest you could reasonably assert is that it is a mental disorder

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder :A mental disorder, also called a mental illness[2] or psychiatric disorder, is a behavioral or mental pattern that causes significant distress or impairment of personal functioning.
https://medlineplus.gov/mentaldisorders.html : A mental illness is a condition that affects a person's thinking, feeling or mood
https://www.nami.org/learn-more/mental-health-conditions : Mental disorders (or mental illnesses) are conditions that affect your thinking, feeling, mood, and behavior.

while retroactively adjusting your claim from "gender dysphoria is a mental illness" to "gender dysphoria is a mental dysfunction".

No, I said GD is a mental illness and that the nit-picking you did doesn't differentiate and that trying to pretend otherwise doesn't help anyone.

Insisting that it and gender-nonconformity are a mental illness - with all the baggage and social stigmata that comes with - is probably one of the leading factors in the pathology of that disorder.

No one ever got better by pretending they weren't sick. The statistics and accompanying illnesses do not lie. If anyone has dropped that baggage on them it's people like you who try to insist that other people mean mental illness as an insult.

To put this in the context of speech, meaning, and affect: if you give someone a nickname with a patently negative meaning, and they ask you to not use it, and you keep using it despite their objection long past the point of comedy, that isn't exactly upstanding positive behavior. Using it further past that point is malicious.

And that's literally what I meant, thanks for making my point for me.

 

[Bainhardt]

@Kierlak "I don't believe hate speech is real, so it isn't" is what I'm getting out of what you have chosen to respond with.
I believe you are incorrect. The MangaDex staff have also indicated they believe people like you are incorrect by implementing a restriction on hate speech, although I will not insist on this claim as I do not speak for or represent them beyond interpreting their rules and guidelines.

If you don't think you have it in you to follow the rules of a space, you would do everyone a favor by choosing not to enter that space. This applies whether it's something as broad as obeying the laws of a country or obeying common courtesy when inside somebody else's home.

I genuinely struggle to explain what I am trying to say any more plainly than this: You cannot change the rules of MangaDex, because you are not a moderator or founder or someone who is involved in such decision making processes. If you take this amount of issue with a rule that could be reasonably expected to appear on any sensible website hoping to conduct welcoming community communications, I do not think you should remain here.

 

[walesgrey]

@yautja
In fairness, I did type "mental dysfunction" when I meant "mental disorder", mea culpa. And yes, there is a difference between a mental disorder and a mental illness - if you're not capable of anything further than linking layperson's examples from encyclopedias then I don't think this conversation will have any sort of real merit other than you stubbornly stamping your foot and insisting that you're correct. GD is a disorder that arises from an admixture of influences - be they a culture's gender roles/expected behavior of a specific gender, the enforcement of those roles/expectations, personal image, etc. - acting on a non-conforming individual. The APA is on record as saying that gender-non-conformity is not a mental disorder but that the dysphoria that many non-conforming people experience is a legitimate disorder, one that's best treated with a combination of psychotherapy and HRT. I'm not sure where you've gotten the idea that I'm somehow advocating people "ignore illness" given that I said as much in a previous post.

And even if there wasn't a medical distinction between the words "illness" and "disorder", there's certainly a huge cultural distinction between those words. I'm sure you can find an encyclopedia entry for the notion that words have meanings beyond their specific textual meanings, and that using some words in some contexts can have wildly different meanings, affects, and implications beyond what a careless speaker intends.

I don't understand the implication of your last sentence though, could you explain how exactly you think you're being misnamed?

e: @Bainhardt The rule pretty much comes down to "be excellent to each other", yeah?

 

[Bainhardt]

@walesgrey
I guess that's one way of reading it, though it also explains that hate speech will not be tolerated without name-dropping it specifically:

...To that end, please avoid racist, sexist, and religious discrimination or other terminology where the intended outcome is to be offensive."

Racial slurs, sexual slurs, and religious discrimination absolutely won't be tolerated, full stop. That's non-negotiable and it always will be. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to expect people to treat one another with respect and basic courtesy.

And people act like this is asking for too much. Yikes.

 

[Kierlak]

@Bainhardt

"I don't believe hate speech is real, so it isn't" is what I'm getting out of what you have chosen to respond with.

That's because you are dead set on ignoring what we say, and because you are clearly pro-censorship, like a few others on here.

 

[walesgrey]

@Kierlak
As someone late to whatever argument this is, what exactly are you arguing about or asking for here?

 

[Bainhardt]

@Kierlak I will do you the favor of admitting outright that yes, I wholeheartedly agree with "censorship," despite that you very probably misuse that word. I cannot tell, as you once again choose not to explain any of the things you come forward to say. But if your point is whether or not I accept MangaDex's authority to determine what is permissible on their website, I do. You may quote me on that.

Instead, you continue to needle specific lines from my posts and contribute very, very little worthwhile discussion of your own. You may pick at and try to dismantle my explanations and my arguments all that you like, but I maintain that you will still gain no ground on the actual issue at hand; I believe there is no foreseeable circumstance in which a ban on hate speech will be removed from the rules of this website.

I hope that in the time I spend on this website moving forward, I will never have to report a comment that you have made, as that will indicate that you can, in fact, conduct yourself in accordance with very fundamental rules of civility. But if you find that you cannot, I have already explained in a previous post what I think you should do.

 

[Choco_Pudding]

The fact that the clarification post on the general conduct rules devolved into a 6 page argument almost instantly is pretty sad...
This is exactly why the mangadex community needs clear rules and good moderation. I feel like some of the people commenting (at least on what I read) can still be asses a lot of the time without violating any of these rules, but given the backlash these healthy community basics are already getting, I don't think I'll really complain as long as I'm not personally getting called names.
Thanks as always for the work the mangadex team does in keeping this site running smoothly!

 

[Lithe]

I suppose the ability to merely ignore posts you don't like (even without the block function) is becoming rare nowadays.

 

[ninjadork]

@Bainhardt Then use the block function and stop wasting bandwidth with your silly sophistry. I'm not interested in wasting time with pedants playing to the crowd, and you clearly consider others to be beneath your notice unless it serves your convenience.

@walesgrey This whole back and forth basically boils down to the criteria used for mods shutting people down. Kierlak and I (correct me if I'm wrong, Kier) are sick of watching communities, internet or otherwise, destroyed by people insisting that preserving emotional comfort and elevating social status are more important than honest discourse. Bainhardt and a few others whose names I can't recall right now are of the opinion that, in addition to the usual jackassery, certain opinions that are "offensive" to specific identity groups also consist of intolerable jackassery and should be silenced.

I'm trying to be as neutral as possible, but I'm probably failing, so apologies.

 

[DANDAN_THE_DANDAN]

Oh wow has this site update devolved into a debate about authothorian mods, gender dysphoria, and snowflake hate speeches.

While you're all pulling your hairs out, I'm gonna place my input.



@Zephyrus

@CoolOtamegane has a point.
https://mangadex.org/thread/57810/4/#post_424136

Also, you should worry more about the snowflake SJWs who takes even the most minor of things, that aren't even an issue to begin with, to large-scale arguments rather than people who think mods aren't doing the right thing.

I'd argue that a society is solid because its citizens listen to their government in exchange for safety and order. In here, people should listen to the mods to prevent a circlejerk from spawning randomly.

I'm not saying that the mods are always correct; critics should always be delivered to where they need to be the most; I'm saying that arguing won't do a thing.



And to everyone who's against censorship, why don't you just pick what to censor instead of tearing it all down? That way everyone's happy.

For example, I think that everyone agrees that saying the N word is bad and it should be censored.

See? Isn't that easy?

What if there are disagreements? Like maybe a manga discussing about LGBT topics?

Well censor hate against LGBT in that comment section but not everywhere else. Problem solved.

TL;DR
Keep your own problems locked in your own world by collectively agreeing to selectively censor certain topics only for certain discussions.

Censorship is a tool, not a threat. It just have to be used wisely and properly; without exploitation and with full responsibility of the community as a whole.

Sure, the mods would have a hard time finding out what the people wants to censor in a certain comment section, but this does look promising to begin with.

Look forward to the replies...

 

[Bainhardt]

@ninjadork You bet your ass I'm of that opinion! I will repeat it as often as needs being said.
If you want 4chan rules, go to 4chan; this is a different website, and one I believe is served much better by having people treat each other with respect.

That aside, I have no reason to block you, as your posts have all been very respectful and civil, even if I do not entirely agree with your views.

 

[walesgrey]

@lithe
Even if a user blocks someone, the original post is still visible to random passers-by. Sites with hostile userbases tend to suffer from problems with maintaining a healthy community.

@ninjadork
I'm not sure how enforcing a basic code of conduct is "insisting that preserving emotional comfort and elevating social status", other than establishing a set of rules designed to allow a community to function socially while remaining open and inviting to new members/contributors. Well, that's not exactly true. In any community, particularly in a community where participation is 100% voluntary, rules are in place to "preserve emotional comfort" to a certain degree after all. To me, the worst that I could see happening from this rule is that people who only participate in conversations to insult, belittle, or put down other people would be prohibited from doing so. That such a prohibition would also catch those too lazy or too invested in maintaining their appearance of "edginess" to consider their language beyond their own ego would be a net positive from my perspective.

The paradox of tolerance is a known phenomena, I'd reccomend reading Karl Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies for a more coherent argument as to why rules are needed to cultivate a healthy community, and that tolerance should not extend indefinitely to cover all kinds of intolerance.

I'm not going to even touch the implicit, unintentional assertion that allowing people to use hateful language would enable "honest discourse" moreso than a flat prohibition on it would, particularly on the subject of manga. That's a bit of a stretch, yeah?

 

[Cuck]

Fellas you gettin too political for a manga website, just talk about traps and waifus as you should be, come on now.

Futa gang rise up

 

[dancingoncrocodiles]

so much discussion about words. theres no need for a precise definition of hate speech, just use some common sense. like if a comment would make people from some group feel unwelcome at this site, then thats obviously not ok!

also im sure lgbtq people read the same manga as everyone else. so hate comments shouldnt be okay aanywhere unless the manga in question is trash to begin with 😉