Making it Better: The future of WP

Post Reply New Topic

I actually added a fourth autistic one to my post and then decided against it.

That's a great way you've done it Brictoria, and there's much more to it than just another example in a list. I'm impressed.

As bad as the stuff about racism is, the banning of this word:

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/thug

Is the worst. It is extremely fringe today to see that used in a racial slur way. Context matters, and you can see all the familiar contexts in which that word is used. It's not a word we can just replace with another either, as it's a catch all for these behaviours that we don't afaik have a word with which to perform the same function, because why would we, when we already have the word for the job, in widespread use and understanding, right there.

See my first post in this thread for the origin and actual meaning of that word.

magz, you "blinked" first.

All Antifa members are left-wing fascists.
Hey,
This is fun!

It never does with me.
I have to do the backspace thing * every time* Captcha pops up. <sigh>

It's your first post in the other thread, but I made the same mistake by posting in here.

What of it though? Who uses it that way today? Context matters. It's a reference to behaviour now in the mainstream, race is irrelevant.

It was a reference to behaviour back then , too. That was my point.

Ah. I saw that in the wiki you posted, but I thought you were trying to refute me, hence the confusion.

Nope, full agreement.

All kangaroos are marsupial supremacists! (Ye gods, the shame of it!) fight for KLM (not the airline, kangaroo lives matter!! !!) I'm just suffering from conflict fatigue, don't mind me.

@Alex: When you go about re-writing The Rules, please take care to not define racist, sexist, and generally bigoted speech so narrowly that anyone with only a little savvy can be as racist, sexist, or generally bigoted as they want and still not technically violate The Rules.

Also, please do not make the definitions so broad that quoting racist, sexist, or generally bigoted statements, or using those same statements to describe racism, sexism, or bigotry would unintentionally violate the rules.

Thank you.

Or wide enough to use Beria's principle* to ban any member on a whim.

_____________
* "Show me a man and I'll find a crime"

After the edit, I no longer interpret your post as sarcastic

Yes, I considered Beria's Principle after I had clicked the 'Submit' button.

I've been trying to word the definitions just complex enough to cover most any incident, without making them so complex as to not be understood.  Of course, there is little one can do to defeat the efforts of armchair lawyers who can wring out any justification they need from even the most draconian set of rules.

Oh let me add some groups to your semi sarcastic list

All those mobilizing NATO drones bomb civilian areas hospitals schools etc and civilians in other countries With zero accountability even if captured in film and with evidence.-- are war criminals.

All armies inflicting weapons recognized as illegal by UN on populations of people destroying water filtration tanks creating millions of refugees illegally breaking in to homes and kidnapping civilians with false chargesc are in themselves state sponsored terrorists and have been for decades.

All arms dealers are guilty of spurring terrorism but get away with it and are even upheld as heroes.
I could go on

And the other way around - compose an accusation of being evil because "it was his intent to be evil when he did this innocent thing". Sounds familiar?

I don't want people to freely express harmful content because under narrow definition of "harmful", they are within the rules. I don't want people get massively attacked for being poor in communication so people interpret their words as harmful.
In dubious cases, I believe in clarification of both the intent and the intepretation.