Improperly Issued a Warning for Trolling

[Augarundus]

I was issued a warning for trolling in a thread regarding the resignation of police officers in a small town in Missouri when I said that I believed that the black community is safer for their having resigned.

I think this view is serious, fairly common (especially amongst black political activists), and argumentatively tenable. The fact that it's a controversial view is not warrant enough for my being warned.

Could I please have a justification for issuing this warning or have it revoked?

[Farnhamia]

In that post it was the tone and the use of the word "thugs." You might have expressed your opinion without being as openly provocative about it as you were.

Second opinion flag raised.

[Augarundus]

In that post it was the tone and the use of the word "thugs." You might have expressed your opinion without being as openly provocative about it as you were.

Second opinion flag raised.

It's unclear to me why calling police "thugs" is trolling. People routinely call Russian soldiers in Eastern Ukraine or ISIS members "thugs" and they aren't similarly issued warnings. The term conveys a value judgment, but that alone isn't warrant enough for a warning. It's obvious that the two cases I've provided were extreme (Russians and ISIS), but the fact that there's an inconsistent policy here implies that the basis for your moderation policies presuppose certain political conclusions. EDIT: Moreover, I hold the controversial opinion of supporting Russia's actions in Ukraine and believing that the US is to blame. Regardless of the truth or falsehood of my belief, it should seem equally offensive to me that people call Russian soldiers thugs as it is to most users that I call American police "thugs". There seems to be some asymmetry here, though, in the way that censorship is applied on the forums.

I'm not sure why I should avoid expressing my opinion or avoid expressing it in these terms simply because they're controversial. The fact that this policy is applied so inconsistently (such that any implicit and provocative negative value judgment of US troops or police warrants a warning, but any implicit and provocative negative value judgment of [Russian soldiers, ISIS, Israel, etc.] does not) leads me to believe that only certain provocative opinions/language are being censored, and the standards are inherently political.

[Pope Joan]

There was no explanation given whatsoever. This was heavy handed, and unjustified. It goes against the spirit of honest and open debate.

[Augarundus]

I feel as though this report is relevant to this thread as well. At issue here is whether or not political language should be sanitized for the sake of avoiding giving offense. In that thread, I accused veterans of being morally blameworthy for their participation in the US military. This is obviously a controversial view, and I used language that people might find provocative, saying that soldiers are minimally participatory in theft and possibly participatory in murder (note that I did not say that "all soldiers are murderers"; I qualified my view - reasonably - because I am presenting an argument).

In the thread that my OP here is meant to address, I claimed that cops are "thuggish" and that their resignation probably improved the safety of blacks in Missouri. This is obviously another controversial view, but it's not as though it's unheard of, and it's also not trolling.

If anything which could provoke a potentially angry response counts as "flamebaiting" or "trolling", then we've ultimately established truly untenable standards for censorship, because these standards depend entirely on the subjective feelings of moderators and posters whose views are always colored by an implicit political bias. A thread condemning US troops will provoke an angry response from those who support US troops, and a thread supporting US troops will provoke an angry response from those who condemn US troops.

I obviously recognize that censorship has a place on these forums, because there are certain views (e.g. Neo-Nazism) that we as a community have decided should not be given an outlet. But there are other views (criticism of the military, of police, of the state, etc.) that reasonable people can disagree about, and that most people here do think should be represented and debated.

Second, I obviously believe that certain language should be censored, but, again, I don't think that's what is at issue here. We shouldn't call other posters "faggots" or "niggers", because this contributes nothing to an actual discussion (though there are discussions, like one currently in NSG, about the appropriate context to use the term "nigger", and this is an academically productive debate). But there are times when certain language is productive, though it may provoke an angry response.

Take the common libertarian argument that "taxation is theft" - I'm not here to argue that this is a correct moral view, and it's one that most people on NSG will probably disagree with. It is provocative, and certain people who are emotionally invested in the legitimacy of taxation (who think that taxation is a good thing) might even take offense to this view. But the fact of the matter is that:

A) It's a legitimate perspective for public discussion.

and

B) It's use of language isn't primarily offensive - it aims to convey an underlying point.

To sanitize this language by insisting on euphemisms ("taxation is the forceful seizure of private property through the implicit or explicit threat of retaliatory coercion", though even this conveys numerous underlying value judgments people may take issue with) is not only unreasonable, but an extremely dangerous precedent for moderators to take for a few reasons:

1) It imposes an unreasonable burden upon those who do not share the prevailing view on an issue to sanitize and qualify their language, which not only makes defending this perspective more difficult (because one cannot speak freely without the need to explicate in every thread the meaning of one's rhetorical choices), but also deprives this perspective of any emotionally expressive speech, which presents the opposition with an unfair advantage in any discussion (because it forces them to cede the "moral highground" by giving up necessary rhetorical tools).

2) It establishes an arbitrary standard for censorship that appeals to the political tendencies of moderators, rather than to universal community standards. As I've pointed out in my previous posts, efforts to sanitize language by removing value-laden terms from the discussion are not neutral: they are almost always imposed based on the political proclivities of the censors. Take, for instance, the punishment of calling American troops/cops "thugs", whereas calling Russian troops/cops "thugs" is very common. This is not to say that this view is right or wrong, but that censorship presupposes a certain political standpoint which colors decisions about how to apply that censorship. This, in turn, discourages academically productive discussion by suppressing controversial viewpoints (or by cultivating an environment in which those viewpoints are self-suppressed).


Again, I am not defending the view that censorship is always and everywhere a bad thing, or that we can regulate the use of inflammatory language appropriately. My argument is that we need clear, objective standards for what sort of "provocative" rhetoric actually constitutes trolling, and that these standards should be applied as consistently an neutrally as possible. I believe that the current two reports against me betray an underlying bias that perverts the decisions of moderation and may harm the intellectual dynamism of NSG. To warn or censor posters for the use of value-laden language simply because it may provoke anger is first of all prima facia bad (because it will lead to self-censorship and deprive us of the ability to speak freely and accurately represent our views - certain types of "inflammatory" language are productive when they do not seek primarily to give offense but to convey an underlying argument, as in the case "Cops are thugs"; this actually expresses a real position which can be contested by providing reasons why cops are not, in fact, thugs), but is also practically unsustainable, because its institution will (and already has) favor those who defend conventional viewpoints while punishing those who hold controversial ones.

[Frisbeeteria]

I've looked at this per Farnhamia's request, and I can see the case for trolling. I can also see the case that it doesn't cross the line. It's kind of a tossup, as is often the case in judgment calls.

All that said, I'm going to reverse the ruling. I agree with Farn that the use of intemperate language (thugs, in this case) raises the possibility of trolling intent, but it's not sufficient for a warning. As always, this is case-specific. It's not a blanket permission to start calling everyone disagreeable "a bunch of thugs".