Making it Better: The future of WP

Post Reply New Topic

Several people here were banned for doing this.

I turned that feature on but it was annoying so I turned it back off.

Yes. If someone told me I was racist and explained why, I'd thank them for bringing it to my attention and make sure to check myself so it didn't happen again. I don't get called racist though because I'm very introspective in general.

I may be repeating myself here, from a post I made in the Politics forum a few weeks back, but I can't help wondering if the official WP attitude on 'conservative opinions' is that they're fine as long as they're confined to support for free markets, low taxes, deregulation ('government getting out of the way'), and all the rest of it, but when it comes to social and cultural matters, it's a different story.

That would pretty much mirror what has become the default situation throughout the Western World over the past quarter of a century, with the almost unfettered application of 'neoliberal' economic policies (including the Clinton administration in the USA, Blair in UK), but increasing restrictions on expressions of conservative social views in the workplace, in social media, even in government. You now have a situation where someone arguing in favour of, for example, the traditional concept of marriage, can be accused of bigotry and hate speech and could quite likely lose his or her job for holding an opinion which was unexceptional a decade or so ago. No wonder the big corporations have bought into this state of affairs - they've been able to take advantage of the neoliberal free for all in the business environment, while at the same time being able to indulge in virtue-signalling by embracing the new orthodoxy of PC and identity politics.

So maybe WP is just a reflection of the wider society. Maybe inevitable, but still perhaps regrettable for more members here than one might at first imagine (the phrase 'silent majority' comes to mind....). But I could be wrong about that. I often am. LOL.

And I know someone who used to get people banned from here. He would do things to get them to break the rules and then report them to get them banned. (I have no idea how he did it) I think one of the mods caught on what he was doing and then he got banned after being here for like 6 years.

There was another member who was trying to get me to break the rules by saying stuff to me and saying things to accuse me of stuff to get me to react so she can report me to get me banned. She was bad at hiding it so it was obvious to everyone what she was doing. Then she stopped when I ignored it.

I have yet to be called a racist although defending someone who has been insulted ( called a Nazi , White Supremacist , some stuff I wont mention ) will probably make you see me as racist?

Yes indeed, with the help of the regular members the other forums could largely self moderate.

To some of us it's more obvious what someone's intentions are. It's been pointed numerous times by other members too. It doesn't mean my observations nor those of others should be dismissed because not everybody can see it.

I think leaving everything to the moderators isn't a very flexible mindset to have. We need to rely on ourselves too in case the mods miss something, such as what Fnord keeps doing.

Intolerance of bigots is not "bigotry." It's literally the opposite of bigotry. This is a hate free community and bigotry won't be tolerated.

If someone expresses white supremacist ideals, they're a white supremacist. That isn't a personal attack. Their beliefs are literally that they're better than other people.

I wouldn't feel attacked if someone called me a white supremacist because I'm not one and it would be absurd to say that to me. I'd just say "you're incorrect."

People really should just be nice and call out things they see as problems. If you say something about black people that's racist, you're probably at least a little bit racist, even if you didn't realize it.

It's like if you lock your car door when a black person walks by, you may not even realize you aren't doing it to white people.

Well I saw my hometown invaded by actual nazis who killed a girl with a car and violently attacked my friends who were just trying to get home and then the president said there were good people on both sides. The sides were the Nazis (almost all of whom came in from out of town) and everyone else who lived in the town.

Reporter: "I do love Thomas Jefferson."

Trump: "Okay, good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue?

"So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.

"Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

Reporter: "Sir, I just didn’t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly? I just don’t understand what you were saying."

Trump: "No, no. There were people in that rally -- and I looked the night before -- if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people -- neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them.

"But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest, and very legally protest -- because, I don’t know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didn’t have a permit. So I only tell you this: There are two sides to a story. I thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country -- a horrible moment. But there are two sides to the country.

And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.

Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group.

I don't care if it's a personal attack. If someone decides to insult me, they shouldn't be surprised what I say to them next. I see it as self defense.

The word "bullying" isn't in our rules at all. Alex mentions personal attacks and personal insults, but doesn't use the word bullying, which is more vague.

The rule is that you can debate topics or ideology, with support for your own position, but you can't insult or belittle the person making the opposite comments. You can't imply or state that the person is bad or inferior to you based on their differing opinions. Likewise, you can't criticise groups of people (on or off WP) either, because that's a generalisation.


(August, 2016)

Regarding Right Wing, of course people can criticise the ideology, especially if they give reasons. It wouldn't be OK to make broader speculations and generalisations by assuming the person is racist, white supremacist, violent, psychotic, or the member of any worldwide fascist hate group, because of the person they may have supported in a previous election. Likewise with Left Wing, people can criticise their ideology with reasons but that criticism shouldn't extend to the person's character by using lies, libel, or wild speculation that they are violent or part of a hate group.

It's the same with religion (no one can insult anyone else's religion as being delusional / wrong, or insult their lack of religious faith as atheists and agnostics).

PPR has the same rules as every other part of Wrong Planet. The mudslinging we see might get heated in terms of informed debate, but it's still important that no one uses belittling or provocative language against other members (e.g., calling people names, making assumptions about their character, or otherwise shaming them as individuals for their contributions).