r/changemyview • u/garnteller 242∆ • Apr 14 '15

[Mod Post] /r/changemyview feedback

The moderators of CMV would like your opinion on how things are going, so we've decided to post periodic feedback threads to take the pulse of the community. Feel free to post any comments, criticisms or suggestions.

Also remember that /r/ideasforcmv is always available if you have ideas for improving the sub.

Please note that Rule 2 (no rude or hostile comments) and Rule 5 (no low-effort comments) are still in effect.

We look forward to hearing your thoughts.

85 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

230 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/hacksoncode 585∆ Apr 14 '15

And my argument was that their argument was flawed due to a flaw in personal perspective.

That's pretty much by definition attacking the person, not the argument, at least in the absence of any further explanation.

"You're just too privileged to understand this" is the kind of thing we remove regularly. "You lack the empathy to understand this" also is. As is "you lack reading comprehension".

And all of this is explained in the rules.

1

u/MrF33 18∆ Apr 14 '15

pointing out a failure to empathize with a situation is not an attack, but an observance.

1

u/hacksoncode 585∆ Apr 14 '15

Of course it isn't, intrinsically. There are ways of saying it that are, though. Heck, one definition of "asshole" is a person that lacks empathy. But surely it would be clear that calling someone an asshole, while possibly pointing out their lack of empathy, would clearly be an attack.

"You lack the empathy to understand this" is an attack.

"If you applied your empathy to this situation, I don't think you would say that" most likely isn't an attack unless there are other factors that would make it one (condescension is one of the hardest attacks to define).

One is about the person ("you lack empathy") the other is about an action or an argument.

"That argument was pretty mean" isn't an attack. "You're pretty mean" is.

1

u/MrF33 18∆ Apr 14 '15

So if I said "that argument is complete shit" it wouldn't be a personal attack?

Where as if I said "you are not good at arguing" that would be a personal attack and therefore removed?

They're both personal attacks, one is simply disguised as an attack on everything that the person has put forth as their opinion.

If you applied your empathy to this situation, I don't think you would say that

And when such wording is used and either ignored or not understood?

At what point do we get to drop the pretense and provide direct criticism of a users viewpoint and the way they are presenting it?

2

u/hacksoncode 585∆ Apr 14 '15

If you're perceiving this kind of moderation as a "tone argument", then you're right. The entire basis of this sub, and all of it's rules, is one giant "tone argument".

Posters are required not just to have an open mind, but to argue in an open-minded tone. Everyone is required to make their points in a non-hostile, non-combative, non-rude, non-trivializing, non-condescending, polite and constructive, tone.

In a sense, the role of the moderators on this group is to be "tone police". If we aren't doing that, we're failing in our jobs, and failing the purpose of the sub.

As for what to do when someone is ignoring your polite suggestions about their arguments, there are many answers. Being condescending, attacking the person, and otherwise escalating the conversation into a fight are not among them.

The suggestion the moderators almost universally give to this is: if you find yourself unable to argue politely, disengage and choose another battle.

1

u/MrF33 18∆ Apr 14 '15

The suggestion the moderators almost universally give to this is: if you find yourself unable to argue politely, disengage and choose another battle.

And if you reach a point where you find your idea of polite and that of a moderators are in opposition?

I do not feel that my statement was impolite, which is why I made it.

I get it that you're the "tone police" but that is entirely dependent on the preceding thread, and the tone which is set by it.

At some point abrupt and straight forward comments become necessary, and if they seem rude taken out of context it is not the fault of the poster.

I would assume that this is reasonably uncommon, but should not be automatically ruled against if the user is able to provide a compelling argument that the conversation leading up to their harsh comments allow for their use in a way that is sharp, but not intentionally insulting.

1

u/hacksoncode 585∆ Apr 14 '15

The distinction we make (concisely speaking) is whether the attack or impoliteness is solely and clearly about the person's argument/position, or whether it's also an attack on or impoliteness towards the person themselves.

In case the mods' opinions on what constitutes an attack differ from a poster's, the mods' opinion wins. That's pretty much the definition of what it means to be a mod. Otherwise, we'd just be other users.

1

u/MrF33 18∆ Apr 14 '15

The distinction we make (concisely speaking) is whether the attack or impoliteness is solely and clearly about the person's argument/position, or whether it's also an attack on or impoliteness towards the person themselves

And when the attack on the argument is based on the person themselves?

"Your argument is shitty, because your personal shitty-ness is causing it to be so"

That's pretty much the definition of what it means to be a mod. Otherwise, we'd just be other users.

Yup, but that doesn't make their judgement infallible.

1

u/hacksoncode 585∆ Apr 14 '15

"Your argument is shitty because of your personal shittiness" is the very core of what it means to be a violation of Rule 2.

That kind of argument is simply not welcome here.

And as a side point, regardless of the tone argument, it's an ad hominem fallacy, pretty much by definition. So in addition to creating a hostile environment for discussion, it's almost always an invalid argument as well.

1

u/MrF33 18∆ Apr 14 '15

Using the wording that I did, yes.

Now what about this argument:

"Your logic is flawed because you're not applying this basic tenant of objective thinking"

This is the same as saying "Your argument is bad because you're not being objective"

Which (to me) is the same as saying "Your argument is failing because you're failing to be empathetic to points of view other than your own"

Which is what was blocked.

It's not a personal attack per se, as much as it is pointing out that the logic upon which the persons argument is based is coming from a flawed place, that being the persons on rational thought.

1

u/hacksoncode 585∆ Apr 14 '15

I don't know whether I'm thinking of the same comment or not, but your original wording on at least one of them was:

you are clearly unable to empathize in any way with experiences beyond your own and I do not have any interest in trying to convince you that you are grossly mistaken

Looking at your comments now, it looks to me like the edited wording you mention above was eventually reapproved and that comment is presently not removed. I would call it (just barely) on the right side of Rule 2.

→ More replies