#Political Discussions

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

hushed ferry
#

There seems to be little clarification in the rules on the topic of political discussions allowed on the server, which creates some issues in VC and general chat regarding appropriate/permitted topics.

I think there should be a rule added that clarifies the importance of avoiding political/polarizing topics, since it’s already pretty much an unspoken rule of the server.

willow rover
#

yes the mods will most likely revise it, not sure when it'll happen but we'll try to do it asap

final prawn
#

and also feel free to report any inappropriate messages or activity!

willow rover
#

the rules have been updated, let us know if you need more clarification

steep heath
# willow rover the rules have been updated, let us know if you need more clarification

One concern I have is where the line actually is. I know this'll probably be seen as "oh she's lineskating" or "reading too much into it" but stay with me here. I'm saying it as I'm obviously one such person who tends to run into these topics, just my nature.

So the big one: What is controversial for a westerner may not be for an easterner, and vice versa. How is that determined here?

Like, for example, I discuss my Jewishness semi-regularly if only to share my culture, but this is often controversial, no? Easterners tend to not see us much (and don't really care), some Americans tend to have weird ideas about me, so on, so forth.

A sociolinguistic tangent: When discussing language, it'll almost always be political in some way, since you're discussing what the status quo is. You'll inevitably find some sort of idpol type stuff when someone's trying to express themselves. That or maybe pragmatics will come up (what's acceptable for older or younger people?), so on, so forth. The social dynamics are different and will inevitably find politics.

If we're going off an "if someone squeals it's shut down" ethos, in what way would this be done other than how it is now? If two people are discussing civilly and someone comes in, what then?

spark quarry
#

I think that you’re right, inherently, politics comes with learning languages due to interest in culture. So we have two pathways we could go: remove any political conversation or find another way to moderate conversation.

Our priority is to keep conversation respectful and our enforcement should mainly be to ensure that the server remains safe and welcoming to all users. If we see something that doesn’t align, it is up to mod discretion whether or not to action.

steep heath
# spark quarry I think that you’re right, inherently, politics comes with learning languages du...

I think removing political conversation is a fool's errand, as what is political is extremely open to interpretation.

Say, for instance, that one is far-left. Under Marxist theory, most things are political: Socialising is a political process as politics influences every part of our lives. From a conservative perspective, on the other hand, politics is an arena reserved to a political building. Both of these are reasonable positions one can have. There is a trend online of people seeing minorities talking about an everyday problem or something as political as well. It's to the point that, at least in my circles, that it's a joke...hell, here, I've regularly seen people going "I'm tired of woke" and stuff like that. To be clear, my view is not necessarily the Marxist one, but I think it has a point in that many things are political even though one may not think they are. It is also relative: Air can become political if the earth's oxygen supply is reduced and becomes a commodity one has to buy. There's a book about this!

Now to speak from an educator's perspective: For language learners looking to take an exam, it is essential for them to know how to have a political conversation in their target language, as it is extremely common for this to come up. IELTS and CEFR both ask for opinions on hot-button issues. Whether you think it is right or not, this is useful for gauging a learner's critical thinking in the language and thus their ability to make a point. Political conversations happen all the time.

To me, I don't think the problem is actually the political discussion, but that some conversations that make one uncomfortable are being called "political". Of course, conflicts can happen - that's life and it's why moderation exists.

In some servers I've run in the past, we've had "Debate Hall" channels with slowmodes, designed to force people to construct arguments and engage with things critically. This is really, really good for multiple reasons:

  • If a user actively exists the channel to try and keep going, you can give a fiercer punishment
  • Quality of conversation goes up
  • You get a hole to throw users in when they're trying to have a "controversial" discussion, and the "NO POLITICS IN MY BACKYARD" people can dig their heads in the sand
  • Dogpiling becomes extremely difficult.
  • This brings the discussions closer to what an exam provider would be looking for.
    I personally recommend a timer of about 3 minutes. To the average internet user's attention span wanes after around 1, and 3 minutes is enough for a B2 user to read and type a decent response.
#

The "Debate Hall" channels typically don't see widespread use, but it is nice to foster a culture where one can take someone else there to have a conversation. As a moderator you would need to direct people there, but it's worth it if you want something elaborate.

spark quarry
#

Aka why we are not removing all political discussion lol. But we have tried a debate channel - it didn’t work

steep heath
#

Aye, aye.

#

Perhaps it's a chat moderation problem, then. I have noticed that it sometimes takes a minute for a staff member to get in

spark quarry
#

Yes, all of us are volunteers who may not be around 24/7. Pinging mods will help us when those cases occur.

steep heath
#

I think it's better to go with "Maintain good vibes" as that would probably identify the actual issue

steep heath
#

I have moderated extremely large servers in the past and know how difficult it is

#

We all have lives beyond a computer screen

spark quarry
#

Not saying you are, just a reminder to those who happen to read this channel. Hopefully the new rule will dissuade people from jumping in and causing issues but it’s up to the mod who sees it whether or not a conversation isn’t appropriate for this server.

steep heath
#

There's a very stern "no" to all of it

#

(and despite that, conversation has still happened...)

#

Like, is the problem "politics," whatever it may mean, or something else? Look at it carefully.

#

That's all I have to say, anyway. Thanks for hearing me out, and have a good rest of your day.

spark quarry
#

Thanks for your feedback. I’d argue that if anyone wants to talk politics, there are servers that are better for it. If the only conversation that is going involves politics and is respectful, then 🤷‍♀️. However if people are actively trying to learn a language and political conversation is disrupting it or making others uncomfortable, then that’s not fair to people who joined the server just to learn it (which is this server’s purpose). We have seen what the server is like with and without this rule before and it is easier to point to a sign that says no politics when things get rowdy. This is to help our moderators’ sanity and allow for them to help keep the server welcoming for all.

steep heath
#

Forgive the minor question, as something just caught my attention:
"if people are actively trying to learn a language and political conversation is disrupting it..."
Context notwithstanding, but these are not necessarily mutually exclusive things, not just for the point regarding exams beforehand, but also because one may want to learn political vocabulary. It's not uncommon - reading a news article or watching a news report requires some, as does Business English/Chinese. Business being inextricable from politics aside...

Again, I must ask whether it's "politics" that is actually the problem here, or disruptive or irrelevant negative conversation itself.

willow rover
#

In a Chinese-English server, the most common controversial/political discussion surrounds China vs. Taiwan. It's way too common and often results in heated discussions because these are obviously issues people are passionate about given their heritage. Thus this is the top topic that would not be allowed in the server. However it's difficult to catch everything every person says, and mods really only step in if we are actively reading chat or we are pinged to resolve problems. The main goal is to discourage controversial/political discussions as much as possible, if you for any reason has to make a statement, maybe think twice about it and then hope nobody in chat reads you and oppose you so the message gets washed away and no mods see it capooshrug

And then (language) history discussions- if politics are stated here I usually assume it's stated as a "fact" to provide context, not necessarily the center of discussion or learning. Again the goal is to keep chat peaceful.

twin bane
#

I hear the messaging that it comes down to mod discretion and to how the discussion is progressing , not the topic being discussed itself. I also think that the “if someone squeals we shut it down “ approach is too ham-fisted . The issue I have is that on paper, the wording of the rule is that no “controversial topics, especially politics” are allowed, which reflects little room for mod interpretation, which is how I imagine someone new to the server and/or who has not read this thread would read it.

Language learning is a political endeavor in and of itself, and those aspects are actually not talked about enough
I’ve heard very interesting discussions on the decreasing usage and potential loss of 方言which ties into politics - choosing to call them dialects, languages, or topolects in English is also political and people should be able to discuss why. Folks talk about what accent is “标准” which is a concept that has political and historical underpinnings that are worth discussing. Talking about my experiences as a heritage speaker and as a Chinese American in the US gets political. People ask me about the price of eggs where I live all the time- that’s also political. The wording in the rules needs to change to avoid any misunderstanding and unnecessary self-censorship that inhibits learning and meaningful discussion.

hushed ferry
#

idk I’m personally just tired of people talking about Taiwan when I type in traditional characters, or creating these discussions where it’s a bunch of 小粉紅 against me, so I definitely think this rule is essential and it basically ties back to rule 4 of being respectful/making sure people consent to these discussions (the mod already clarified they’re only concerned if they’re pinged or you’re reported). just my thoughts~

#

feel free to disagree, I think it’s a nuanced discussion (welcoming other opinions)

fierce pewter
hushed ferry
fierce pewter
#

u can just find another vc.we sacrificed freedom of speech because someppl dont like that topic.but what about a ppl say i dont like iphone mac or mcdonald.Would it make ppl uncomfortable？Should we ban it?ppl always have different opnions and they dont know where others lines are？

#

i dont support that throw the baby out with the bath water

hushed ferry
# fierce pewter u can just find another vc.we sacrificed freedom of speech because someppl dont ...

Everyone should feel welcome here. If your mindset is “find another vc”, don’t use a public vc. Use a private vc and lock it, where you can talk with your friends while avoiding making other people potentially upset. The mod already clarified that there’s only a need for them to intervene if you’re reported or they’re pinged, which won’t happen as long as you know everyone is comfortable

fierce pewter
#

so if somebody talk i dont like mcdonald , it’s worse than KFC.and someone feels uncomfortable.Should he create a private vc?

hushed ferry
#

This is obviously not related at all to the actual controversial topics that could upset people

fierce pewter
#

U dont like ppl talk political topics.and someppl dont like talk who is better between mc and kfc.is it have sth problem？

hushed ferry
#

And then compare that to the amount of people that could be upset talking about Taiwan/China or US politics

fierce pewter
#

a mount of ppl love mc in CN mainland.

#

So how many people are the standard? Have you counted them?

#

What proportion does this part of people account for?

hushed ferry
#

Lmao

#

Saying “I think McDonalds is better than KFC” has no political element

#

None at all

#

And then compare that to the actual reasons people get upset

fierce pewter
#

They are all uncomfortable, but you haven't counted the proportion.

hushed ferry
fierce pewter
#

i mean mc and kfc who’s better will
make someone uncomfortable.i m not saying it is about political topics

hushed ferry
#

So even talking about mcdonalds and kfc is pointless

fierce pewter
#

这是feedback对吧？因为部分人不喜欢某一部分的政治话题，就禁止所有政治讨论。被通过了。那是否意味着，一部份人不喜欢别人讨论麦当劳肯德基谁更好，也要被禁止呢？

#

在结果上来看，这都让一部份人不舒服，即使我们不知道有多少人

#

因为我不喜欢，所以我要禁止他们所有.所以我会在这里说我不支持这个观点

#

如果你觉得我说的不对，你可以举个例子说为什么因为某一个人不喜欢某种话题可以禁止所有相关讨论，而不是在没有统计的前提下通过主观臆测就说中台问题会让更多人不舒服。

#

我也可以说讨论麦当劳和肯德基谁更好也会让很多一部分人不舒服，但这没有意义。这只是“我说”

hushed ferry
# fierce pewter 这是feedback对吧？因为部分人不喜欢某一部分的政治话题，就禁止所有政治讨论。被通过了。那是否意味着，一部份人不喜欢别人讨论麦当劳肯德基谁更好，也要被禁止呢...

像麥當勞或 KFC 哪個比較好，這種話題跟政治一點關係都沒有，沒有人應該對這樣的話題有意見。
我覺得如果你想跟你的朋友聊這種話題，你不能覺得所有人也都要跟著聊。我覺得你拿麥當勞當例子，跟大部分的問題沒什麼關係

#

就是我的看法

twin bane
hushed ferry
#

lol

fierce pewter
#

我的意思是，这和政治话题都导致了别人不舒服。结果上是一样的。就像你提出这个feedback，根本原因你认为导致了你和其他人不舒服。

twin bane
fierce pewter
#

政治问题，引起争议。麦当劳肯德基谁差，引起争议。然后争议导致了部份人不舒服。

hushed ferry
# twin bane Not really

If you know who you’re talking to and you’re friends with them, yes there is. Is there a gray area of appropriate and inappropriate topics, sure. That’s true for everything ever, but the point is making sure you’re aware of who you’re talking to

#

and ensuring that everyone is consenting to a conversation about a controversial topic

fierce pewter
#

像你前面说的，你说有小粉红攻击你，alr，但仅仅因为政治话题，让小粉红找到理由攻击你，就应该ban所有政治话题吗？我觉得重点在于攻击，而不是政治话题

#

btw，我支持你说的应划分界限

hushed ferry
#

I think it’s good to just be aware, and I think that’s the point of the rule

hushed ferry
fierce pewter
#

人总是多元的，就像我这几天遇到很多争论，有因为经济学的，有因为硬件的，有因为kfc的品控是否做的合格的，甚至于，一个英文短语如何更地道的翻译成中文，都会有激烈的争论，你不能保证什么时候会产生，难道我们在讨论美食，diy硬件，经济学的时候就要去private吗，人们永远不知道什么时候会突然触碰到别人的红线，讨论就有可能争论。

#

it’s alr

hushed ferry
#

因為我覺得這個規則是有必要的，但是不太清楚

fierce pewter
#

true dude

#

就像我回复你的第一句话，你知道其实这与政治讨论无关的，这已经和第4条重复了。如果你仅仅因为粉红跟你开战的而不舒服的话，那我想这个帖子可以不用开的，因为先前已经有规则了，你只需要report就好了

#

而你后面反驳我的观点是说，你觉得政治讨论会让很多人都不舒服。这和我一开始回复你的第一条内容说的是不一样的。

twin bane
#

The wording of the rule needs to change . That has been my point from the beginning and I agree with wukong’s characterization that as written, it is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Case in point, I don’t find any of the topics I raised anecdotal or semantic but instead I think they are essential and deeply political and therefore prohibited by the rule as written . I don’t think we disagree that unpleasant behavior should be dealt with . I just think the rule should reflect what the actual approach is, or else it’s easily misunderstood and enforced unfairly.

The wording would better reflect the opinions stated in this thread if it said we recognize that discussion of social and political matters can be an integral part of learning and practicing language, and discussions thereof are allowed unless in the case of emergence of disrespect or harassment as provided in rule four, or in the case of the Taiwanese Independence topic given its inflammatory nature (If the Taiwanese independence topic is a hard no for the mods then just put it into the rules… ).

I also think it would be fair to caveat that VC discussion of politics controversial topics should be conducted in custom and/or private channels. Even in private VC controversial discussion topics should be prefaced with a warning. If as a rule we prohibit politics this server isn’t really about language learning and cultural exchange . It’s about one-dimensionalizing language to sanitize it of the sociopolitical issues that surround it and which are the everyday reality of the people whose language it is.

fierce pewter
#

所以我的意思就是，我不支持不舒服就要ban所有，因为每个人都有自己感到不舒服的点。首先我觉得这个限制了言论自由，其次就是目前来看感到不舒服的人只有你一个或者几个，但这个server有50k ppl。

hushed ferry
# twin bane The wording of the rule needs to change . That has been my point from the beginn...

Again, no one, especially from Taiwan or identified with certain identified, should feel unequally pressured, maligned, or uncomfortable from server discussions. You can separate cultural exchange and language learning from politics. People do it all the time here. Language learning is obviously informed and influenced by political factors, but calling politics as absolutely essential language learning a bit problematic

#

Because then you bring into question, what narratives on the server are being shared? Are they one-sided or bias? Are they factually based? Will this topic make people aligned with certain identities uncomfortable? Language learners are less likely to recognize these factors or consider them when language learning

#

I think WuKong’s logic makes a bit more sense

twin bane
hushed ferry
#

My point here is that talking about heavily controversial topics inherently creates arguments. Arguments do not help with language learning

#

And I can agree that maybe some clarity is required to better understand the nuance of permissible topics, but that’s a point WuKong already made

twin bane
#

Are you saying the wording is fine? We don’t disagree that problematic behavior like harassment/badgering should be dealt with. My problem is with how the rule is written.

hushed ferry
#

And that people shouldn’t be expected to debate, argue, or defend themselves on the server

hushed ferry
#

看得懂我的意思嗎？

twin bane
#

I’ve taken into account that the mod and you both said it’s the Taiwanese independence topic that is the problem , so I said just to explicitly ban it

I’ve been in on conversation about SA, DV, the line for what is controversial is not clear due to cultural reasons . It makes far more sense to say it’s fine to talk about these things as long as you are civil and give prior warning , which are points I’ve already made .

fierce pewter
twin bane
hushed ferry
#

Just to keep that in mind

hushed ferry
#

Which I also said previously

#

I think we’ve just been going in a bit of a circle lol

#

So maybe modifying the rule to say “No discussion of controversial topics (especially politics), unless with explicit consent of those in the discussion”, but this also assumes that this is only in VC, where General Chat has many many more people lurking/unaware of the prior chat history

#

Curious to hear your thoughts

twin bane
#

Nope. Start with “it’s allowed” , and whittle down from there . I’m not sure if you’re reading my replies. It is not feasible presume to be able to litigate what a “controversial topic” is, except in the case of the Taiwanese independence.

hushed ferry
twin bane
#

I disagree

#

I think I’ve said all I can though

hushed ferry
#

Yea, it seems like there’s a difference in perspective if we can’t agree on this point. Mods seem to agree with my points, and maybe they can further clarify examples that are not allowed topics in the future

twin bane
#

I don’t see any example of an objectively controversial topic besides the Taiwanese independence

hushed ferry
#

I think these can easily be seen as having multiple sides and being very divisive

willow rover
#

hi, I've read all the feedback and I'll try to address them thoroughly, but keep in mind that I am speaking from my moderating experience and may be different from other mods (but just slightly)

willow rover
#
  1. The wording is too harsh. The reason that it is stated as a hard no is because we want to keep the rules short and easy to understand for the newcomers, so we can discourage controversial/political discussions as much as possible. We don't want to suggest that it'll be ok as long as it's XYZ (even though people who read the previous chat will know that mods will let it slide if the discussion is respectful and no mods are present to stop it)
  2. What is considered controversial is arbitrary and subjective. This is true, and tbh i'm not quite sure how to solve the problem of everybody having different standards / creating a fair scale for controversy level. One thing I am sure is that China vs. Taiwan discussion is banned because it's simply too sensitive for a lot of people (me included). In the announcement when i said "up to the mods discern", this is what i was referring to. Whether the topic on hand is controversial and/or disruptive depends on the mods judgement.
  3. Politics is essential to language and cultural exchange. This is also true, and i believe i have addressed this in a previous message. Let's use Parachute's example about dialects, the politics and history effected what people/the gov decided as the "standard". In such case, stating some policy as a historical fact and providing context for learning is not considered a controversial discussion, because your goal is to learn about the language's history and not debating whether the policy was right or wrong.
#
  1. The ban violates freedom of speech. I'm sorry that you feel this way but this is not the intention. If you are arguing about freedom of speech, then you should understand that you only have such freedom if you do not violate another person's freedom. As you all have said, this goes back to rule 4 about respecting each other. If you share different opinions, then i hope you can all agree to disagree, perhaps state your boundaries, then move on. However i know that stating boundaries and saying "i'm not comfortable with the convo rn" is difficult, which is why we have report rooms open, and i also hope that you don't intentionally provoke or continue speaking about a topic that you know people might not be comfortable about. This is the whole goal of the rule/"ban", to prevent heated debates or arguments from starting. I've also seen many people being 陰陽怪氣, circling around the topic but not stepping on it so they don't get banned, making everyone uncomfortable and puts the mods in a difficult position as well
  2. The wording should be changed to "It's allowed, but these topics [...] are not." I'll think about this, it kind of goes back to point 1 that i made. Potential problem is similar to point 2. What if the topics listed in the rules becomes an argument? Someone saying "xxx should/shouldn't be allowed because yyy was there". idk, it gets a bit tiring thinking about the technical. The best revision I can do right now is "Discussions of controversial topics, especially politics, is strongly discouraged, and will be punished if it becomes an argument." Again point 1 i'd like to keep it as short as possible because people do not read
#

i should say again- i'm explaining my mod pov here, but if you got questions or rebuttals (and especially suggestions to reword the rule) please feel free, i'm very open

hushed ferry
#

I still like the original wording. Thank you for all the work you did in reading our messages!

#

And all the other Chinese language servers have the same wording in place, so hopefully this discussion can die down with time

willow rover
#

yw, it's my job as a mod. i really appreciate the feedback from you all, especially point 2 and 3 are very valid so i hope my explanation helps clear something up. revision of the rule is possible but not guaranteed, in the mean time i'll try my best to explain things and make another announcement if i have to

willow rover
hushed ferry
worldly latch
#

*Apologies, i just sent a comment, please ignore that

final prawn
#

I never really thought about it in regard to VC since I never use it, but I think the main reason it became such a simple no decision was, in the end you would just end up with two people (maybe not even original parties) debating in bad faith endlessly or with a million misunderstandings.. and usually in a question or learning channel and flooding out everything else

#

I like the idea of a slow mode channel for it, might allow for more thoughtful discussion of things, but still hard to regulate behavior of so many new people constantly coming in -- and seem to skip reading anything before leaping in

twin bane
# willow rover yw, it's my job as a mod. i really appreciate the feedback from you all, especia...

Thank you for taking the time to review the thread and give such thorough responses . I like your revision better than what’s currently there, but I have a bone to pick with the word “discouraged”. I strongly believe it’s essential to discuss political context of a langauge you are learning , and the experiences of the people the language belongs to . I don’t agree with boiling it down to just climbing up an HSK scale the way I often see it on the server, and a full outright banning political discussion reinforces and formalizes that tendency. Everyone who is learning putonghua on this server should be exposed to conversations that illuminate the fact they contribute to the normalization of putonghua as standard- that’s not to say not to learn it, or that a standard is not necessary. but it’s important to be literate in the inherently political nature of language learning endeavors . The language/topolect/dialect topic seems like neutral territory, but it’s not neutral for people for whom the phenomenon of putonghua’s proliferation is just one sign of political changes in their society that affect them in major ways. Discussing the political meaning of language learning isn’t done enough. “Discouraged” sends the wrong message imo.

willow rover
#

i understand your point and i think it's novel, but i don't think it aligns with the server goal very well because encouraging this kind of discussion is opposite of the original goal of this no-politics rule, even though what you described would be educational for many people. perhaps "debates are discouraged" would be a better wording, instead of saying "discussions"? however i don't want to give too much wiggle room for people disrupting the chat and saying "i'm not debating im just sharing my opinions in a discussion"
I'd really appreciate it if you can suggest another way to reword the rule, or summarize your argument in one sentence, then the mods can reference it when revising the rule

hushed ferry
# twin bane Thank you for taking the time to review the thread and give such thorough respon...

To bounce off your point though, no one here talks about politics as a means of language exchange though. When people talk about US politics, for instance, it’s happening across a barrier and it either becomes an echo chamber or bursts into a full-fledged bad faith argument. I think there are inherently divisive topics on this server, and it disrupts the language-learning focus here. My main point is that you can learn the language and engage in meaningful cultural interactions where politics is removed from the discussion. Language learning should not be inflated to just be discussions about politics. I think we’ve already seen less arguments across the server after this rule was added, far less compared to the time I’ve been here. Anything related to Chinese politics or American politics is always gonna be open to scrutiny from one person or another, and there is no way to avoid it other than discouraging the discussion

#

Just because you’re comfortable with certain discussions, doesn’t mean you should assume everyone else feels the same way (I’m not saying literally “you”, I mean like in general)

final prawn
#

I feel like conversations like that don't work well in such a large group setting, because then everybody wants to chime in with their own personal take on it or minor corrections, on either side.. because nobody can speak for all people or their country.
I'm fine with some of that stuff being mentioned but then you need sources and neutrality, let people research it on their own if they want more, or take it to DMs, and not just somebody who is trying to proliferate their viewpoint in an auditorium

hushed ferry
#

If you make friends here and you decide to ask them questions about politics in DMs, that great and I think that’s better than discussing it in a large group setting