#17

The people banned from that thread were (a) well known troll, and (b) someone who signed up specifically to post in that thread, who was essentially also a troll, and likely with an axe to grind about how outspoken the band have been in the past about this subject.

Even taking aside that I don’t particularly believe this place is an echo chamber, it’s just a lot to see a staunch “free speech defender” (never a great starting point imho, but again let’s take that aside) take the side of two pieces of internet trash and people come out on side of that?

Like I said, it just felt very very weird given the context. There was no nuanced discussion shut down.

#18

Personally I’d rather people weren’t banned so quickly just for having an opinion that differs from the consensus - sometimes i’ll come to that conclusion easier by hearing the wrong opinions rather than just being straight out told I have to agree with the right ones…

6 Likes
#19

Are there any examples of this outside of very obvious trolling in threads such as the one under discussion this time?

#20

Pretty much every serious discussion that happens on dis. I’m not saying I often disagree with the consensus. I’d just personally prefer to hear both sides more, however ridiculous that other side may be. I think more debate would be healthy and I wonder how often regular posters feel they can’t speak up on certain subjects.

2 Likes
#21

That’s fair, I understand your point. With regards to banning…I think in his case I was in agreement with it because he was a new user who appeared to join just to make that point. Hard to have faith in someone when that’s the case.

@meowington Also agree with your post in general. In terms of individual points:

  • I’ve seen it said on here that the way SA is framed in public debate is actually still behind most other forms of crime (e.g. people don’t really question allegations of physical assault). That said… allegations of SA do appear to dominate the public sphere, I would guess a prominent reason for this is that people are only just starting to feel believed/supported?

  • Think we’re both in agreement about chances of false accusations. And I do see why “trial by public shaming” doesn’t sit comfortably for many people…but I think it’s individual to each case. For example - the two accusors of MJ chose public awareness as their vehicle for making him accountable to his actions. Others will chose a private route of going to the police. Essentially I think it’s up to them. I think it’s also worth saying that, even after considering the minute chances of this being a false accusation, several things make it seem even more likely (his bullshit statement, for example) so I don’t really have any personal reservations about raising it in public

#22

I answered this in the other thread but I see this was started ages back so hopefully I’ve addressed this now @whiterussian

Response to posts derailing sensitive topics (Content Warning)

1 Like
#23

Yeah but opinions such as the ones displayed in that thread have more impact that just showing another side to the debate. Seeing that as a survivor of SA could bring back memories/experience of all the bullshit that comes with making an accusation.

#24

I don’t think I’ve ever seen this unless they’ve been obviously trolling, ie here.

But the guy who wasn’t trolling (and who, by his own admission, wasn’t a lurker), and who did attempt a serious discussion around the topic, wasn’t banned and people did engage with him despite disagreeing with him.

1 Like
#25

I absolutely agree with banning KR and Hoader was full of bullshit obviously, but imho not a downright troll. To the post with the many likes that you’re refereing to, this is like 80% of it:

I fucking hate «devil’s advocate» type rhetorics but didn’t get that vibe from this. This specific post addressed literally what we’re discussing in here; how quick we should be to ban people etc.

3 Likes
#26

He’s not a troll. I have spoken with him via DM.

1 Like
#27

Yeah and I don’t think the poster in question should be banned…but I completely disagree with his point about “innocent until proven guilty” model and I guess I was sad to see so many DiSsers appear to applaud it (though I accept your point about a like not being an endorsement)

1 Like
#28

Fair enough. Signing up to a board specifically to post stuff like that in a sensitive thread absolutely screams troll to me, so I think we’ll have to differ on this.

Again, this guy wasn’t banned, people did engage with him etc etc. I think it’s really hard to argue either of the people banned contributed anything nor sought to do so.

#29

But it’s a perfectly valid opinion that’s not ban-worthy.

4 Likes
#30

If you mean Hoader it felt to me like he was very much on MJ’s side, presumably on account of the previous claims against him he mentioned, but yes, he definitely had an axe to grind about what had happened to him.

#31

I’m aware he wasn’t banned but those of us who liked the post were told off quite aggressively

1 Like
#32

That wasn’t my intention and I’m sorry it felt that way.

1 Like
#33

Thank ypu for accepting my opinion

#34

Presented as Ben did…no, it isn’t, though hopefully threads like this and Theo can stop the original topics going off on a tangent in future.

KR and Hoarder were different, though. When Hoader was challenged that his viewpoint wasn’t supportive of victims he doubled down, and started using phrases like “virtue signalling”. Not the actions of someone acting in good faith, imo

#35

It wasn’t only you, someone said «everyone who liked this needs to go on a course» or something. Wtf

1 Like
#36

No one is debating whether or not those trolls should have been banned.

But other people offering different opinions were being called to be banned or to shut the thread down and then the next day, anyone who liked that post is being called out as being deplorable is just bullshit imo.

7 Likes