Anyone interested in a steel manning thread?

[MargotBamborough]

Thanks to @BonfireLadyfor introducing me to this concept.

The way I see it working is that someone starts a thread on a topic relating to trans rights vs women's rights. We could either agree the topic beforehand, or let the person responsible for starting the thread choose a topic.

Two or three posters with gender critical beliefs should play the role of someone with the opposite beliefs, and try to get really into character, imagining what arguments this person would make in response to the subject matter.

So for example, we could have a strident trans activist like Owen Jones, for example, a trans person, and someone who is coming at this from a "be kind" perspective.

Everyone who has not been allocated one of these roles should continue to argue from their own viewpoint, whatever it might be.

To make it more interesting, the thread starter could allocate people their roles by private message and everyone could change their username just for the thread so we don't know who is who.

Anyone game?

I'll have to watch for now, I probably wont be able to log in again till the evening so don't go allocating me a role yet!
Also remember that if you want to change your username for a thread, its easier to do it before you joint the thread. Mumsnet changed how the site works to help stop people accidentally outing themselves.

@Thelnebriati I don't anticipate it starting right away. This thread is just really to gauge interest and if enough people want to do it we can start it at a time that works for everyone who wants to be involved!

Good tip about the name changing. I hope this isn't against the Talk Guidelines or anything.

No afaikt; Mumsnet made the change themselves because some users don't want to have a thread linked to their main account, or use different names for different topics. Its having multiple accounts that's against the guidelines.

go on then. Don't know if I can handle all the name changing tbh, though! I tend to forget midthread ...

@ArabellaScott I think if you change your name before you post in the thread for the first time, the default setting is that you continue to post under that username in that thread.

So you could change your name to FlyingSpaghettiMonster immediately before posting in the steel manning thread, and then after you make your first post you go back into your settings and change back to ArabellaScott and you will continue to be FlyingSpaghettiMonster in that thread but ArabellaScott everywhere else, if that makes sense.

I know that sometimes old threads I have posted in get reactivated and if I post in them again it is under whatever username I was using when I first commented on the thread.

Yes. But I guarantee I am still likely to fuck it up. Happy to try, though.

Yep, count me in too!
Great idea about allocating roles privately in advance.
Instead of changing username perhaps the intro to the thread has a summary of who will play each "character"?
I guess we'll have one thread to kick it off and see how it goes as a format?

I think it would be better not to know who is playing each "character", hence the name changing.

Do you think it would be better to make it clear in the OP that this is a steel manning thread, or just quietly start it and see what happens?

If the thread isn't specifically labelled as a steel manning thread then only people playing the roles plus anyone else who has seen this thread and worked out that that is the thread will know from the outset that some posters aren't presenting their own genuine point of view. It might make the debate more interesting but would there be any issue with that?

I'm not sure if this can really work in practice. I don't think a gc feminist can really get into the mindset and motivations of an OJ. I rather fear that trying to play a role, however sincerely intentioned, will result in some sort of caricature.

I wouldn't pretend to be a specific person. I'm happy to try and make the best possible argument on a subject, though.

Sure, I'm in. I'd prefer any such threads to be explicitly labelled as steel manning ones.

Haa this is a funny idea...
Sometimes I actually wonder if some of the responses from the gender identity believers on here are actually gender critical people in disguise/pretending because their comments help the GC side so comprehensively.

Ok I'm up for it! I'd be good at pretending to be a fully fledged GI believer because I've heard so much of the rhetoric, mantras, myths and bad logic (thanks Twitter).

If the thread isn't specifically labelled as a steel manning thread then only people playing the roles plus anyone else who has seen this thread and worked out that that is the thread will know from the outset that some posters aren't presenting their own genuine point of view. It might make the debate more interesting but would there be any issue with that?

Yes, it would be dishonest.

This sounds like a fun idea. I think I could do a better job than most of the TRAs I see on Twitter or on here.

Yes, I think it's best to be straightforward about being a steel manning thread. And in fact, that perhaps goes for the name changing, too.

I understand the idea, and it might be a fun/informative thing to do in a real life group.

I don't think it's remotely a good idea to do on MN.

Sounds interesting!

I seem to be out of step with posters I generally respect.

My prediction is that such threads will both be taken down and used as evidence against us.

I think this might be a good idea in a closed forum but on MN it would be portrayed as a misrepresentation.

It not being flagged would be a problem. I'm quite happy to debate someone who is openly playing devils advocate but it is annoying to discover someone is arguing against you purely as an academic exercise.

I think we have enough visitors here making duplicitous posts without the regulars adding to them.

Yes thinking about it I can see your point, @ErrolTheDragon

Yes, I could do a wonderful one as a "I'm as GC as they come" scold.

I would love to try and get into the mindset of someone like Owen Jones though.

OK, point taken about such a thread causing issues if we weren't upfront about it.

What if we labelled it as such upfront but didn't disclose the identities of the posters playing characters?

Couldn't the thread be set up as a debate between certain named people only. Two teams, one for, one against a notion. A bit like the Oxford Union. If it is made clear in the opening post what people really believe and then what 'side' they have been given to argue.

I was just thinking that if everything was clearly laid out, then it would all be above board.

Maybe just those people should reply until the debate is over and then it could be opened to the floor?

I think from my point of view the aim would be to argue the opposing point of view as convincingly as possible, not portray the other side as unhinged nutters.

I'd like to see whether, by trying to put yourself fully in the mindset of someone with opposing beliefs, and then argue those beliefs passionately instead of resorting to abuse, it might be possible to change your own beliefs or those of other posters.