Board index › Administration › WrongPlanet.net discussion

Making it Better: The future of WP

Page 10 of 162 [ 2587 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 162  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Alex_2x4
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2020
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 46

31 Jul 2020, 10:09 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Alex_2x4 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Alex_2x4 wrote:
^ I think referring to members as racist nazis white supremacists etc but also stating that you want to punch nazi's or even kill them gives off a vibe of threatening behaviour.


Should we not refer to a poster who consistently puts the interests and concerns of white people ahead of others, or who consistently denigrates or is hostile to the interests and concerns of PoC by the term used to describe such people?
I thought we were supposed to be in favour of speaking the truth plainly.


I was looking through some of the mods post to see their moderation style. One of the mods essentially said there are posters here who hold alt-right/Nazi/white nationalist views and they are allowed to post here as long as they don't violate WP's rules.


What part of that statement do you disagree with? :?

There are posters who hold WN/alt-right views and they are allowed to post here just like anyone else who obeys the rules.


I disagreed with your method or re-education. I don't believe being called alt-right/Nazi/white nationalist would be seen as an insult by someone who aligns themselves that way especially as they are allowed on this site. If they feel insulted then they are probably not or don't see their views that way. I'd be offended if someone called me a Nazi , but if I was a Nazi and called a Nazi it wouldn't cause me an issue. Hate breeds Hate.


_________________
"He had the mind of a god but the emotional stability of a ferret."
Emily: Emergence Season 1 Episode 6


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,128
Location: Right over your left shoulder

31 Jul 2020, 10:11 pm

Alex_2x4 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Alex_2x4 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Alex_2x4 wrote:
^ I think referring to members as racist nazis white supremacists etc but also stating that you want to punch nazi's or even kill them gives off a vibe of threatening behaviour.


Should we not refer to a poster who consistently puts the interests and concerns of white people ahead of others, or who consistently denigrates or is hostile to the interests and concerns of PoC by the term used to describe such people?
I thought we were supposed to be in favour of speaking the truth plainly.


I was looking through some of the mods post to see their moderation style. One of the mods essentially said there are posters here who hold alt-right/Nazi/white nationalist views and they are allowed to post here as long as they don't violate WP's rules.


What part of that statement do you disagree with? :?

There are posters who hold WN/alt-right views and they are allowed to post here just like anyone else who obeys the rules.


I disagreed with your method or re-education. I don't believe being called alt-right/Nazi/white nationalist would be seen as an insult by someone who aligns themselves that way especially as they are allowed on this site. If they feel insulted then they are probably not or don't see their views that way. I'd be offended if someone called me a Nazi , but if I was a Nazi and called a Nazi it wouldn't cause me an issue. Hate breeds Hate.


It's not an insult, it's a description of people who embrace a certain set of ideas. It's not relevant whether or not a Nazi is offended to be called a Nazi, only whether or not it's reasonable to call a Nazi a Nazi.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
If you feel useless, just remember the USA took four presidents, thousands of lives, trillions of dollars and 20 years to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.


Alex_2x4
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2020
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 46

31 Jul 2020, 10:20 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Alex_2x4 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Alex_2x4 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Alex_2x4 wrote:
^ I think referring to members as racist nazis white supremacists etc but also stating that you want to punch nazi's or even kill them gives off a vibe of threatening behaviour.


Should we not refer to a poster who consistently puts the interests and concerns of white people ahead of others, or who consistently denigrates or is hostile to the interests and concerns of PoC by the term used to describe such people?
I thought we were supposed to be in favour of speaking the truth plainly.


I was looking through some of the mods post to see their moderation style. One of the mods essentially said there are posters here who hold alt-right/Nazi/white nationalist views and they are allowed to post here as long as they don't violate WP's rules.


What part of that statement do you disagree with? :?

There are posters who hold WN/alt-right views and they are allowed to post here just like anyone else who obeys the rules.


I disagreed with your method or re-education. I don't believe being called alt-right/Nazi/white nationalist would be seen as an insult by someone who aligns themselves that way especially as they are allowed on this site. If they feel insulted then they are probably not or don't see their views that way. I'd be offended if someone called me a Nazi , but if I was a Nazi and called a Nazi it wouldn't cause me an issue. Hate breeds Hate.


It's not an insult, it's a description of people who embrace a certain set of ideas. It's not relevant whether or not a Nazi is offended to be called a Nazi, only whether or not it's reasonable to call a Nazi a Nazi.


Why do people see it as an insult then?
Hopefully a mod will give their take whether or not it's reasonable to call a Nazi a Nazi.
I only mentioned this topic as it was in the moderators thread of recent problems.


_________________
"He had the mind of a god but the emotional stability of a ferret."
Emily: Emergence Season 1 Episode 6


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,128
Location: Right over your left shoulder

31 Jul 2020, 10:24 pm

Alex_2x4 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Alex_2x4 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Alex_2x4 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Alex_2x4 wrote:
^ I think referring to members as racist nazis white supremacists etc but also stating that you want to punch nazi's or even kill them gives off a vibe of threatening behaviour.


Should we not refer to a poster who consistently puts the interests and concerns of white people ahead of others, or who consistently denigrates or is hostile to the interests and concerns of PoC by the term used to describe such people?
I thought we were supposed to be in favour of speaking the truth plainly.


I was looking through some of the mods post to see their moderation style. One of the mods essentially said there are posters here who hold alt-right/Nazi/white nationalist views and they are allowed to post here as long as they don't violate WP's rules.


What part of that statement do you disagree with? :?

There are posters who hold WN/alt-right views and they are allowed to post here just like anyone else who obeys the rules.


I disagreed with your method or re-education. I don't believe being called alt-right/Nazi/white nationalist would be seen as an insult by someone who aligns themselves that way especially as they are allowed on this site. If they feel insulted then they are probably not or don't see their views that way. I'd be offended if someone called me a Nazi , but if I was a Nazi and called a Nazi it wouldn't cause me an issue. Hate breeds Hate.


It's not an insult, it's a description of people who embrace a certain set of ideas. It's not relevant whether or not a Nazi is offended to be called a Nazi, only whether or not it's reasonable to call a Nazi a Nazi.


Why do people see it as an insult then?
Hopefully a mod will give their take whether or not it's reasonable to call a Nazi a Nazi.
I only mentioned this topic as it was in the moderators thread of recent problems.


There's contexts where it would clearly be an insult. It's not an insult when referring to reactionary nationalists who openly embrace Nazi imagery.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
If you feel useless, just remember the USA took four presidents, thousands of lives, trillions of dollars and 20 years to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

31 Jul 2020, 10:26 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Alex_2x4 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Alex_2x4 wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Alex_2x4 wrote:
^ I think referring to members as racist nazis white supremacists etc but also stating that you want to punch nazi's or even kill them gives off a vibe of threatening behaviour.


Should we not refer to a poster who consistently puts the interests and concerns of white people ahead of others, or who consistently denigrates or is hostile to the interests and concerns of PoC by the term used to describe such people?
I thought we were supposed to be in favour of speaking the truth plainly.


I was looking through some of the mods post to see their moderation style. One of the mods essentially said there are posters here who hold alt-right/Nazi/white nationalist views and they are allowed to post here as long as they don't violate WP's rules.


What part of that statement do you disagree with? :?

There are posters who hold WN/alt-right views and they are allowed to post here just like anyone else who obeys the rules.


I disagreed with your method or re-education. I don't believe being called alt-right/Nazi/white nationalist would be seen as an insult by someone who aligns themselves that way especially as they are allowed on this site. If they feel insulted then they are probably not or don't see their views that way. I'd be offended if someone called me a Nazi , but if I was a Nazi and called a Nazi it wouldn't cause me an issue. Hate breeds Hate.


It's not an insult, it's a description of people who embrace a certain set of ideas. It's not relevant whether or not a Nazi is offended to be called a Nazi, only whether or not it's reasonable to call a Nazi a Nazi.


Without evidence included along with the claim, it IS an insult.

If you can provide the evidence which fully supports such a claim, then there would be no issue, but if it is just an assumption due to differing understandings, or because you don't feel it is worth the effort to provide evidence, then don't post a reply.

A person cannot effectively refute an unsubstantiated claim, but can clarify material that someone uses to make a claim about them, and so show the claim was unsubstantiated.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

31 Jul 2020, 10:31 pm

Fnord wrote:
Alex_2x4 wrote:
... Cyberbullying differs from a disagreement when it is intentional, recurring, and causes harm to the target (victim).
[color=black]Intent can only be determined by explicit statements like "I'm gonna get you banned!"


Intent can also be determined by a user continually pushing against the boundaries to see what the can "get away with"...



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,128
Location: Right over your left shoulder

31 Jul 2020, 10:33 pm

Brictoria wrote:

Without evidence included along with the claim, it IS an insult.

If you can provide the evidence which fully supports such a claim, then there would be no issue, but if it is just an assumption due to differing understandings, or because you don't feel it is worth the effort to provide evidence, then don't post a reply.

A person cannot effectively refute an unsubstantiated claim, but can clarify material that someone uses to make a claim about them, and so show the claim was unsubstantiated.


If you don't like being called racist, don't say racist things. :mrgreen:
If you insist on saying racist things, anticipate that someone will call you out on it instead of demanding that they must explain why you're yet again having the same behaviour called out.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
If you feel useless, just remember the USA took four presidents, thousands of lives, trillions of dollars and 20 years to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

31 Jul 2020, 10:42 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Brictoria wrote:

Without evidence included along with the claim, it IS an insult.

If you can provide the evidence which fully supports such a claim, then there would be no issue, but if it is just an assumption due to differing understandings, or because you don't feel it is worth the effort to provide evidence, then don't post a reply.

A person cannot effectively refute an unsubstantiated claim, but can clarify material that someone uses to make a claim about them, and so show the claim was unsubstantiated.


If you don't like being called racist, don't say racist things. :mrgreen:
If you insist on saying racist things, anticipate that someone will call you out on it instead of demanding that they must explain why you're yet again having the same behaviour called out.


The problem is that just because one person, subjectively, sees a statement as racist doesn't mean that it was in fact a racist statement...The lack of context supplied in a claim that someone is "racist" makes it an attack on them.

If it's worth taking the time to make such a claim against a person, then it is also worth the time to include an explanation as to the reasoning used, along with evidence...



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,128
Location: Right over your left shoulder

31 Jul 2020, 11:09 pm

Brictoria wrote:
The problem is that just because one person, subjectively, sees a statement as racist doesn't mean that it was in fact a racist statement...The lack of context supplied in a claim that someone is "racist" makes it an attack on them.

If it's worth taking the time to make such a claim against a person, then it is also worth the time to include an explanation as to the reasoning used, along with evidence...


Precedent is relevant evidence and there's no sense in making the same explanation over and over to a poster who isn't interested in hearing it. If one didn't care six months ago, and six weeks ago, and six days ago they're not going to care today. If one makes one hundred racist comments over an extended period they don't deserve one hundred explanations and it's simply dishonest to act like it's suddenly just an insult in that situation.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
If you feel useless, just remember the USA took four presidents, thousands of lives, trillions of dollars and 20 years to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

31 Jul 2020, 11:30 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
The problem is that just because one person, subjectively, sees a statement as racist doesn't mean that it was in fact a racist statement...The lack of context supplied in a claim that someone is "racist" makes it an attack on them.

If it's worth taking the time to make such a claim against a person, then it is also worth the time to include an explanation as to the reasoning used, along with evidence...


Precedent is relevant evidence and there's no sense in making the same explanation over and over to a poster who isn't interested in hearing it. If one didn't care six months ago, and six weeks ago, and six days ago they're not going to care today. If one makes one hundred racist comments over an extended period they don't deserve one hundred explanations and it's simply dishonest to act like it's suddenly just an insult in that situation.


At that point, it is still a case of one subjective opinion being made and judgement passed, with no way for the "convicted" to refute the evidence produced as there was none.

It is also quite possible that the person making the claim of "racism" may be seeing things as "racist" simply because they have a "conflict of interest" in the issue at hand, where anything which does not align with what they believe is considered by them to be "racist" due to the personal impact that would arise should their side of the discussion prove mis-informed, whereas to an objective reader there may be no issue.

Claims such as racism need to be objective, not subjective, and so evidence is required to substantiate the claim...If you feel a person is racist, yet don't feel it is worth your time to inform others (not just that person) of exactly what they said that was racist, then don't respond at all. If you feel the need to respond, then you owe it to other members to explain what the issue you see is.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,128
Location: Right over your left shoulder

31 Jul 2020, 11:34 pm

Perhaps the best approach is to treat comments disparaging other cultures (such as black or indigenous cultures) as racially motivated bullying if you're going to insist that calling racists racist is bullying. As long as that behaviour is normalized and condoned we don't actually have an inclusive website.

Brictoria wrote:
I've personally never had any problem with police, but that's probably because I obey laws and don't try to emulate cultures or people who seem intent on behaving otherwise.


This would be an example of what I'm referring to, implying that anyone who's had experience with institutional racism must be part of an inherently criminal culture.


_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
If you feel useless, just remember the USA took four presidents, thousands of lives, trillions of dollars and 20 years to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

31 Jul 2020, 11:59 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Perhaps the best approach is to treat comments disparaging other cultures (such as black or indigenous cultures) as racially motivated bullying if you're going to insist that calling racists racist is bullying. As long as that behaviour is normalized and condoned we don't actually have an inclusive website.


If you can PROVIDE EVIDENCE of the problem you see, not just throw unsubstantiated claims around, then issues can be addressed...If all you feel like doing is making a claim against a person (or group) with no evidence, then you are simply attacking the person.

Just because someone feels it "not worth their time" to provide evidence, or that "they have explained many times" does not give them the right to make claims against a person (or group) or their character. The reason they (or others) may not have made any changes is equally possible due to having misunderstood or misinterpreted what was said (whether accidentally or intentionally), or not having explained what the issue they saw was in a way which the other person understood, then used the same explanation each time....Or that the "reasoning" used to find a post "offensive" was flawed.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,138
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

01 Aug 2020, 12:20 am

Well I have had to cut down on posting here quite extremely, I used to post all the time but yeah anymore I kind of feel it is better to stay away from these forums. I know I made a couple inappropriate posts to other members here and that is what kind of made me decide that...Like posting here was bringing out my worst and I just needed to stop. But I have still been lurking and looking at posts, just being a lot more careful about when I post or what I post. Not stating that as a weird conspiracy thing(like you better be careful what you say or else), just I should sometimes figure better ways to articulate things without being an insulting a**.


_________________
Eat the rich, feed the poor. No not literally idiot, cannibalism is gross.


envirozentinel
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 16 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,177
Location: Keshron, Super-Zakhyria

01 Aug 2020, 3:04 am

Brictoria wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Perhaps the best approach is to treat comments disparaging other cultures (such as black or indigenous cultures) as racially motivated bullying if you're going to insist that calling racists racist is bullying. As long as that behaviour is normalized and condoned we don't actually have an inclusive website.


If you can PROVIDE EVIDENCE of the problem you see, not just throw unsubstantiated claims around, then issues can be addressed...If all you feel like doing is making a claim against a person (or group) with no evidence, then you are simply attacking the person.

Just because someone feels it "not worth their time" to provide evidence, or that "they have explained many times" does not give them the right to make claims against a person (or group) or their character. The reason they (or others) may not have made any changes is equally possible due to having misunderstood or misinterpreted what was said (whether accidentally or intentionally), or not having explained what the issue they saw was in a way which the other person understood, then used the same explanation each time....Or that the "reasoning" used to find a post "offensive" was flawed.




Well he DID supply evidence in this particular case and whether intentioned or not, the quoted statement sounds "off" and borderline racist. We all need to be careful before posting questionable stuff that can be quoted against us later. No one is condoning the violent behaviour of some extremists but if a post suggests that an entire people or culture "goes in" for that, then it's against the rules.


_________________
Why is a trailer behind a car but ahead of a movie?


my blog:
https://sentinel63.wordpress.com/


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,138
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

01 Aug 2020, 3:07 am

Well this is a difficult time...maybe some of the mods have some other s**t going on in their lives. I am sure they try but they can only do so much, they are only regular humans too.


_________________
Eat the rich, feed the poor. No not literally idiot, cannibalism is gross.


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

01 Aug 2020, 4:01 am

envirozentinel wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Perhaps the best approach is to treat comments disparaging other cultures (such as black or indigenous cultures) as racially motivated bullying if you're going to insist that calling racists racist is bullying. As long as that behaviour is normalized and condoned we don't actually have an inclusive website.


If you can PROVIDE EVIDENCE of the problem you see, not just throw unsubstantiated claims around, then issues can be addressed...If all you feel like doing is making a claim against a person (or group) with no evidence, then you are simply attacking the person.

Just because someone feels it "not worth their time" to provide evidence, or that "they have explained many times" does not give them the right to make claims against a person (or group) or their character. The reason they (or others) may not have made any changes is equally possible due to having misunderstood or misinterpreted what was said (whether accidentally or intentionally), or not having explained what the issue they saw was in a way which the other person understood, then used the same explanation each time....Or that the "reasoning" used to find a post "offensive" was flawed.




Well he DID supply evidence in this particular case and whether intentioned or not, the quoted statement sounds "off" and borderline racist. We all need to be careful before posting questionable stuff that can be quoted against us later. No one is condoning the violent behaviour of some extremists but if a post suggests that an entire people or culture "goes in" for that, then it's against the rules.


I was under the belief we were talking about hypothetical situations, sorry, so I wasn't aware that this was in terms of a specific situation (nor the post or thread that was referenced).

The point I was making, though, was that throwing out claims of "racism" (or other "ism"\"ist"\...) without evidence to support the claim not only devalues the word used, but also denies the target of the word any possibility of defending against the claim or demonstrating how its use was incorrect.

If someone makes a "borderline racist" statement then they should be called out on it, but there should be an indication of what was wrong - Maybe it was intentional, maybe it was an issue by the poster where they chose the wrong word or didn't express what they meant in the way it was intended, and people should be presented with an opportunity to correct any misunderstandings which may have occurred. Multiple occurrences, if not "worth the time" to provide evidence, then shouldn't get any responce other than a note to moderators, along with reasoning (and information) for the belief that the poster is breaking rules.