To be clear, Iâm not commenting on the more complex questions discussed elsewhere in the thread, such as whether or when itâs appropriate to speculate about someoneâs psychology. But I do want to flag that mental illness is often stigmatised and we should probably be especially sensitive and compassionate when discussing it.
As a reminder, the ban affects the user, not the account. During their ban period, the user will not be permitted to rejoin the Forum under another account name. If they return to the Forum, weâll expect a higher standard of norm-following.
You can reach out to forum-moderation@effectivealtruism.org with any questions. You can appeal the decision here.
I find it notable that this announcement would be at â1 if not for my strong upvote. The suspended user doubled-down on misgendering Torres after being asked to correct it. Are people complaining about the strong norm against intentional misgendering, or is the downvoting reflective of some sort of belief in a âTorres exceptionâ to that norm?
And I canât believe it needs saying, but a âTorres exceptionâ is not a good idea here. Even completely disregarding Torresâ own feelings there are a lot of people who are not Emile Torres which those lines of attack stigmatise.
Also when, the fundamental complaint about someone is that they repeatedly make uncharitable and probably false claims about peopleâs true motivations and engage in odd personal attacks on people they might legitimately be unimpressed by, adding a drive-by pop-diagnosis of a mental health condition and a nasty observation on their gender identity doesnât strengthen that observation, it just sets off the irony meter...
Weâre issuing SuperDuperForecasting a one-month ban for breaking strong Forum norms in several comments (1,2). Specifically:
Intentionally misgendering someone (see more about how a moderator thinks about this here).
Engaging in unnecessary rudeness and offensiveness.
To be clear, Iâm not commenting on the more complex questions discussed elsewhere in the thread, such as whether or when itâs appropriate to speculate about someoneâs psychology. But I do want to flag that mental illness is often stigmatised and we should probably be especially sensitive and compassionate when discussing it.
As a reminder, the ban affects the user, not the account. During their ban period, the user will not be permitted to rejoin the Forum under another account name. If they return to the Forum, weâll expect a higher standard of norm-following.
You can reach out to forum-moderation@effectivealtruism.org with any questions. You can appeal the decision here.
I find it notable that this announcement would be at â1 if not for my strong upvote. The suspended user doubled-down on misgendering Torres after being asked to correct it. Are people complaining about the strong norm against intentional misgendering, or is the downvoting reflective of some sort of belief in a âTorres exceptionâ to that norm?
And I canât believe it needs saying, but a âTorres exceptionâ is not a good idea here. Even completely disregarding Torresâ own feelings there are a lot of people who are not Emile Torres which those lines of attack stigmatise.
Also when, the fundamental complaint about someone is that they repeatedly make uncharitable and probably false claims about peopleâs true motivations and engage in odd personal attacks on people they might legitimately be unimpressed by, adding a drive-by pop-diagnosis of a mental health condition and a nasty observation on their gender identity doesnât strengthen that observation, it just sets off the irony meter...