Please consider not allowing anti-mask threads here at MR

Status
Not open for further replies.
Flat earthers too. They should be helped to see the curve.
The OP is on the side of truth. If people want to discuss masks then they should discuss design of masks and how to wear them (today waitress brought my lunch with mask not covering her nose. We were sitting outside btw).
There is no point in people arguing about masks being dangerous because that's simply nonsense.
 
ericgtr12 said:
This is not a topic that should be up for debate and while I get it has turned political and there are differing opinions, one thing that all medical experts agree on is wearing masks will save lives. The spread of misinformation can cost lives, please consider adding this to your rules.
Click to expand...
I fully realise that this thread was started in opposition to the one I started about the evidence for Asymptomatic transmission of SARS-CoV-2. That thread is not about wearing masks or not wearing masks. It is about the idea that governments are implementing policy changes based on little to no evidence. Like I have said, where mandated, I will wear a mask. I am not advocating for people to not wear masks.

Thank you very much.
[automerge]1595343389[/automerge]
ericgtr12 said:
So if one were to start a thread promoting their local chapter of the KKK for a local cross burning that would be acceptable?
Click to expand...
That would fall under MR's rules against hate speech. While I don't agree with the idea that hate-speech should be illegal or censored, I fully respect MR to dictate what goes on or off their website.
 
maflynn said:
But it is, and while I count myself as one who advocates the use of a mask, I think it sets a dangerous precedent to disallow any dissenting opinions.

I for one believe its in our best interest to permit a discussion where we permit everyone's opinions, even those that we disagree with.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I just want to understand where we draw the line. I asked this question previously and didn't get an answer from staff here but I'll ask again and try to draw the right parallel:

If one were to start a thread about their local chapter of the KKK to discuss a local cross burning, no racist terms or threatening language, would that be acceptable?
 
ericgtr12 said:
Fair enough, I just want to understand where we draw the line. I asked this question previously and didn't get an answer from staff here but I'll ask again and try to draw the right parallel:

If one were to start a thread about their local chapter of the KKK to discuss a local cross burning, no racist terms or threatening language, would that be acceptable?
Click to expand...
So in that vein should stories related to anti-semitism be banned as well? Are you saying topical events, even those that depict humans at their worst shouldn't be discussed here?
 
ericgtr12 said:
If one were to start a thread about their local chapter of the KKK to discuss a local cross burning, no racist terms or threatening language, would that be acceptable?
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with the mask discussions and will only derail this topic

Here is the hate speech rule:
Hate speech and group slurs. Discrimination, abuse, threats or prejudice against a particular group, for example based on race, gender, religion or sexual orientation, in a way that a reasonable person would find offensive.
Click to expand...
 
maflynn said:
I for one believe its in our best interest to permit a discussion where we permit everyone's opinions, even those that we disagree with.
Click to expand...

That begs the question: how do you differentiate between an opinion and a harmful falsehood?

This isn't something MR can solve. Heck FB and Twitter and Reddit and pretty much the entire internet is struggling with this question. I don't think you can differentiate between the two, and thus the difference is irrelevant.

We all agree that falsely yelling "FIRE!" in a movie theater is dangerous, not protected speech, should be censored, and has not led to a slippery slope of many bad things. It's a harmful falsehood.

Does saying "In my opinion, this theater is on FIRE" make it any better? Classifying it as an opinion doesn't make it any less dangerous.

I feel the mask thing is the same. Saying "masks don't work" and "in my opinion, masks don't work" are equally bad. The former is an falsehood, the latter is an opinion; they're both equally harmful.

Some have weaponized this idea that "opinions" are automatically protected speech no matter what. But it's bull. The content/context matters, whether it's in the form of an opinion or not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
maflynn said:
This has nothing to do with the mask discussions and will only derail this topic

Here is the hate speech rule:
Click to expand...
There's an interesting discussion to be had where your ideas actively harm others. I'm not saying we have to decide today, but the fact is anti-mask rhetoric puts people at risk.

It's like on car pages where they ban pictures of them speeding or pictures or driving shots.

Anti-mask and anti-vax opinions put the public in risk. Threads should not contain opinions which put people in harm's way.
 
ericgtr12 said:
Fair enough, I just want to understand where we draw the line. I asked this question previously and didn't get an answer from staff here but I'll ask again and try to draw the right parallel:

If one were to start a thread about their local chapter of the KKK to discuss a local cross burning, no racist terms or threatening language, would that be acceptable?
Click to expand...

Lots of people pull out the slippery slope argument, but it's usually wrong. There is no connection that censoring X will necessarily lead to censoring Y. The mods (and people in general) are perfectly capable of making case-by-case decisions. We don't need to explicitly define where the line is in order to judge whether something is "over the line" or not. It's a sort of, "I'll know it when I see it" situation. There is no evidence that it will result in some extreme result down the line.

As an example, there is no clearly defined rule of when a stick (harmless commonplace thing) becomes a spear (dangerous weapon). But when shown pictures of objects or people using those objects, we are all perfectly capable of saying "yea that's over the line it's a spear" or "nah that's just a stick."
 
oneMadRssn said:
Yes, I support this.
Click to expand...
Honestly, it's not my board, and people here do an excellent job, but if it were me, PRSI would exist but only for Apple stories which involve politics. So, things like encryption. Members can't create new threads, they can only reply to existing ones from MacRumors itself.

I wouldn't even call it PRSI, I would call it something like "Controversial News Stories"
 
AustinIllini said:
Honestly, it's not my board, and people here do an excellent job, but if it were me, PRSI would exist but only for Apple stories which involve politics. So, things like encryption. Members can't create new threads, they can only reply to existing ones from MacRumors itself.

I wouldn't even call it PRSI, I would call it something like "Controversial News Stories"
Click to expand...
I know it's a bit off topic but PRSI is a necessary evil for this site. Where would people discuss masks or even the Coronavirus, or when Tim Cook meets with a president, etc.? In many ways MR is their own worst enemy with such strict rules but as a result any discussion that may get political, no matter how minor it may be, gets siloed.
 
oneMadRssn said:
That begs the question: how do you differentiate between an opinion and a harmful falsehood?

This isn't something MR can solve. Heck FB and Twitter and Reddit and pretty much the entire internet is struggling with this question. I don't think you can differentiate between the two, and thus the difference is irrelevant.

We all agree that falsely yelling "FIRE!" in a movie theater is dangerous, not protected speech, should be censored, and has not led to a slippery slope of many bad things. It's a harmful falsehood.

Does saying "In my opinion, this theater is on FIRE" make it any better? Classifying it as an opinion doesn't make it any less dangerous.

I feel the mask thing is the same. Saying "masks don't work" and "in my opinion, masks don't work" are equally bad. The former is an falsehood, the latter is an opinion; they're both equally harmful.

Some (let's be honest, it's mostly the conservative right) have weaponized this idea that "opinions" are automatically protected speech no matter what. But it's bull. The content/context matters, whether it's in the form of an opinion or not.
Click to expand...
If someone posts: "smoking is not harmful, I've been smoking all my life and I'm healthy". Should that expression be banned, or should that opinion masquerading as fact be demolished with a mountain of evidence to the contrary? To me, the latter.

Similarly if some posts: "mask don't work, or imo, masks don't work", it's the same thing getting the same response.

The example about the movie theater doesn't make sense in this context.
 
ericgtr12 said:
I know it's a bit off topic but PRSI is a necessary evil for this site. Where would people discuss masks or even the Coronavirus, or when Tim Cook meets with a president, etc.? In many ways MR is their own worst enemy with such strict rules but as a result any discussion that may get political, no matter how minor it may be, gets siloed.
Click to expand...
It would be just as easy to delete political posts/threads as it is to move them to another subforum.

The difference is that by having a subforum for this, MR is inviting more of those kinds of posts/threads and implicitly endorsing them.
[automerge]1595351923[/automerge]
I7guy said:
If someone posts: "smoking is not harmful, I've been smoking all my life and I'm healthy". Should that expression be banned, or should that opinion masquerading as fact be demolished with a mountain of evidence to the contrary? To me, the latter.
Click to expand...

I'd say no, it shouldn't be banned.

I7guy said:
Similarly if some posts: "mask don't work, or imo, masks don't work", it's the same thing getting the same response.
Click to expand...
I disagree, it's not the same thing. The relative risks and dangers are very different, the context in terms of current events are very different.

Just because something is dangerous does not automatically make the speech censorable, and just because something is an opinion does not automatically make the speech protected. I think the right thing to do is to weigh the risks, dangers, context and make a case-by-case decision.
 
Last edited:
oneMadRssn said:
It would be just as easy to delete political posts/threads as it is to move them to another subforum.

The difference is that by having a subforum for this, MR is inviting more of those kinds of posts/threads and implicitly endorsing them.
[automerge]1595351923[/automerge]


I'd say no, it shouldn't be banned.


I disagree, it's not the same thing. The relative risks and dangers are very different, the context in terms of current events are very different.

Just because something is dangerous does not automatically make the speech censorable, and just because something is an opinion does not automatically make the speech protected. I think the right thing to do is to weigh the risks, dangers, context and make a case-by-case decision.
Click to expand...
I'm not calling this free speech, because this is a private enterprise.

However, imo, saying masks don't work is a discussion to be had, not a one-sided discussion, period, full stop...where any disagreement gets moderated. Because in the end it may turn out to be masks made no difference, or masks were more effective than anybody could envision. Either way cutting off that discussion would not be the right policy statement.
 
Interesting subject. My thoughts are everyone is entitled to their opinion. Whether we agree or not. At least respect their opinion. I have my opinion on the matter and whether you agree with it or not at least respect it. I will always respect you even if you don't agree with me.

I am a staunch believer in mask. I was an EMT for 15 years and have seen what can happen when not worn with a disease such as we are currently dealing with.
 
JustAnExpat said:
I'm supportive of getting rid of PRSI.
Click to expand...

Why are folks so put out of joint about PRSI? One flick of a switch on your profile and it's gone. Vanished. No where to be seen.

Is it really to much to ask they if you don't like something and you have the ability, to just turn it off?

I used to live in PRSI. Then I realized what a cess pool it was. I left MR for almost a year. Soon after coming back (I was a druggie and it sucked me back in), they introduced the block feature.

Life has been so much better since I enabled that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top