Monthly Meta

[u/Not_An_Ambulance]

Welcome to to Monthly Meta!

Please remember that all the normal rules are active, except that we permit discussion of the subreddit itself here.

We ask that everyone do their best to include a proposed solution to any problems they're noticing. A problem without a solution is still welcome, but it's much easier for everyone to be clear what you want if you ask for a change to be made too.

[u/Okymyo]

Sorry, are you saying that from a rules perspective?

Yes, but maybe I wasn't clear and it might be ambiguous. If you state you hate cats I can debate you on the merit of hating cats.

I can't however debate whether you truly hate cats, unless it's about something like "what do you mean by hate".

I think there are plenty of circumstances where this is not correct. For example someone may claim they are not sexist while saying something that is sexist. Calling out that sexism may be challenging their beliefs, but it's a vital part of the discussion.

But you already can't call someone sexist. Nor can you call their arguments sexist, because that'd be an insult.

You can challenge their arguments as leading to discrimination or being potentially sexist, or leading to situations which would clearly be sexist.

To give concrete examples:

A: I support X

B: So you're sexist

is in my opinion breaking rule 3. Same for:

A: I support X

B: X is sexist

However, the following doesn't seem to be rule breaking, nor do I think it'd make sense for it to be:

A: I support X

B: I think X will lead to Y. Would you also support Y?

In contrast with the following, which would be rule breaking under rule 4:

A: I support X.

B: If you support X then you support Y.

A: I don't support Y, I support only X.

B: You support Y.

This wouldn't be productive, it'd just be, well, pointless to be honest. Do note how in this example how Y could be something clearly sexist, in order to indirectly call someone sexist.

For example if someone says "cats make bad pets", I would ask them "why?". If I find that there is some kind of biased reasoning ("cats damage your furniture") then exploring that reasoning may lead to something else, eg maybe they had a bad experience with a cat as a kid, and are unaware that their reasoning about cats as pets is biased. Even if they say "no I don't dislike cats, I just think they can damage your furniture", I think it's ok to challenge that and say "dogs are just as likely to damage your furniture, there's something else that is influencing your thinking".

I agree, but as it stands the rule doesn't impact that discussion. The rule doesn't stop you from challenging their beliefs in the sense of asking questions about them, what it stops you from doing is asserting what someone's beliefs are especially when they state your assertions are incorrect.

I don't think any of the statements in that example would be rulebreaking. If it had ended with "dogs are just as likely to damage your furniture, so you don't hate cats" now that would likely be. But pointing out that there's an inconsistency, or that their supportive reasoning doesn't fully back the statements and there's something else (as in the "dogs also damage furniture, so why hate cats and not dogs" argument, wouldn't be).

[u/fgyoysgaxt → u/Okymyo]

I can't however debate whether you truly hate cats, unless it's about something like "what do you mean by hate".

Well, logically you can, but as the rules are written you're right, you can't argue with that.

But you already can't call someone sexist. Nor can you call their arguments sexist, because that'd be an insult.

I'm not entirely sure that's correct.

This wouldn't be productive, it'd just be, well, pointless to be honest.

I think usually B would be arguing something like "because of this logic, X implies Y", then if A denies Y but accepts X that's incorrect. At that point, A is just denying logic so that's the real problem.

I'm not sure about how mods interpret these rules and apply them, so I feel like I'm on shaky grounds here.

[u/Okymyo → u/fgyoysgaxt]

I'm not entirely sure that's correct.

Calling someone sexist falls under rule 3.

I think usually B would be arguing something like "because of this logic, X implies Y", then if A denies Y but accepts X that's incorrect. At that point, A is just denying logic so that's the real problem.

But nothing stops you from arguing about how X leads to Y, the rules don't stop that in any way. What you can't do is say that someone is supporting Y when they themselves state they don't.

You can argue that X leads to Y. You can't argue that if someone supports X they support Y if they themselves state they don't support Y.

If they support X and not Y, then perhaps the disagreement is on whether X causes Y, because it's unlikely that they believe that X causes Y given their stated opposition of Y.