Page 98 of 162 [ 2587 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 ... 162  Next

League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,229
Location: Pacific Northwest

21 Aug 2020, 9:24 pm

BenderRodriguez wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
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.


Several people here were banned for doing this.



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.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.


Jakki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,802
Location: Outter Quadrant

21 Aug 2020, 9:26 pm

alex wrote:
Jakki wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
alex wrote:
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.



I notice I lock my doors whenever I see a homeless person but yet I don't lock my doors if someone doesn't look homeless.

Very odd. My car automatically locks the doors when I turn on the ignition, and I double check , as a course of habit .
Traveling alone. Causes this habit .


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


There is a option to turn it off ? Looolz


_________________
Diagnosed hfa
Loves velcro,
Quote:
where ever you go ,there you are


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

21 Aug 2020, 9:27 pm

Black Muslims (The Nation of Islam) are black supremacists....no doubt about that. And they are racists.

I believe in some of the “woke” stuff. Other aspects of being “woke” are pure utopian fantasy.



Oh_no_its_Ferris
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2020
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 728

21 Aug 2020, 9:31 pm

alex wrote:
Feyokien wrote:
alex wrote:
But racism is pretty common in america. most people have done racist things at some point in their lives with or without realizing it.


I think a good number of individuals are in denial about this issue because they were educated to think in terms of categories and not gradients/spectrums. They've formed a concept of what racism is based off of an arbitrary threshold.

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 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?


_________________
Release me from moral assumption
Total rejection total destruction


League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 27,229
Location: Pacific Northwest

21 Aug 2020, 9:31 pm

DeepHour wrote:
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.



Lot of places online have banned right wing views and they cry about being censored and act like they are oppressed.

We ban holocaust denial beliefs here and other obvious racist views and homophobia views and stuff. I don't see banning right wing views any different.

Even Reddit bans right wing stuff and they banned a bunch of subs again but yet they left r/conservative and r/trueunpopularopinion. The right wing have created their own platforms.

Twitter bans right wing stuff too and people keep wondering why Donald Trump is allowed to keep breaking their TOS and I think it's because he is the president so people need to keep in tabs on what he is saying so he is the exception. Maybe when he is done being president, his account will get suspended.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.


BenderRodriguez
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,343

21 Aug 2020, 9:45 pm

League_Girl wrote:
BenderRodriguez wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
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.


Several people here were banned for doing this.



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.


And I know several people who are still doing this here. The mods apparently didn't catch on this time.


_________________
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." Aldous Huxley


Feyokien
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Dec 2014
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,303
Location: The Northern Waste

21 Aug 2020, 9:48 pm

Oh_no_its_Ferris wrote:
alex wrote:
Feyokien wrote:
alex wrote:
But racism is pretty common in america. most people have done racist things at some point in their lives with or without realizing it.


I think a good number of individuals are in denial about this issue because they were educated to think in terms of categories and not gradients/spectrums. They've formed a concept of what racism is based off of an arbitrary threshold.

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 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?


Not me. That situation was ... complex from what little I can glean about it well after the fact. There is a difference between describing a belief for what it is ("calling someone out" I guess) and verbally abusing them. I've heard 'the insult' about the avatar image said several times and whoever said it was indeed being verbally abusive. I don't know who said it or what prompted them to say it, but I believe you did the right thing in defending Sly for that.



Last edited by Feyokien on 21 Aug 2020, 9:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

21 Aug 2020, 9:50 pm

Amity wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
With a limited amount of moderators and the time they have by necessity some form of prioritizing/triage, unfortunately has to happen. My suggestion is to concentrate on the three sections we know "triggers" people, Love and Dating, PPR, and News and Current Events.

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


I could be an undercover snitch.
I am sure I would learn a lot from my hero, Fnord, in the basics and then specialise in detecting bullying and groupthink in general.

I would need to be compensated for eavesdropping equipment, and the like.
I would also need a security contingent so I don't get my tea spiked with radioactive substances, etc.

All in all, half a billion should cover it. Image



DeepHour
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 80,134
Location: United Kingdom

21 Aug 2020, 10:06 pm

League Girl - my views on the expresssion of conservative social and cultural opinions are not related to most of the examples you cite in your previous post, especially the stuff about holocaust denial.

I think the suppression of 'right wing' views goes a lot further than the examples you cite, and has worrying implications as to whether we still live in a fully democratic society. In the USA there may well still be outlets for right-of-centre social views, but you shouldn't assume that's the case elsewhere in 'the free world'.

Funnily enough, I identify with ordinary people in my society, black or white, and regardless of other affiliations, and would like to see a lot more genuine economic equality, such as was beginning to happen in the Sixties and Seventies before phenomena like Thatcherism and Reaganomics arriived on the scene. Frankly I find the current definition of 'equality' centring around matters of race, gender and all the ever-expanding types of 'sexuality' to the exclusion of a more basic definition to be a cruel hoax that has hoodwinked the very people who have ended up on the receiving end of economic inequality. It's pathetically sad that huge numbers of the 20-45 age group in my country can no longer afford to buy a house, will never get a proper pension, and can't even see that they've been fooled by the establishment.


_________________
On a mountain range
I'm Doctor Strange


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

21 Aug 2020, 10:07 pm

smudge wrote:
magz wrote:
smudge wrote:
magz wrote:
I don't think unjust reporting should be a bannable transgression - unless it meant spamming the moderators with unhandable amount of information, but I doubt it ever happens on WP.
Reporting is meant to turn moderator's attention to an issue. It's not an attack.

It's the intention behind it.

None of us is a mind reader to evaluate intentions. We can evaluate actions only.
Leaving the perceived rule breaching (multiple threads on one topic, I understand) for moderators to handle was the right thing to do. The moderators investigated, decided there was no transgression and openly expressed it. What else could have been done?


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.


Sorry, magz,
I have to agree with Smudge, on this one. Image

But it does depend on the experience, wisdom, non-partisanship, etc, of the people involved. Image
A group of groupthinkers isn't the best group to advise.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

21 Aug 2020, 10:20 pm

alex wrote:
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."


So if a woman acts like a slut it’s ok to call her a slut and she won’t feel bad if she isn’t a slut.

Can I get you quote on that?
What about if people are acting like jerks as*holes etc can we call them so?

What if they support a domestic terrorist group? Is it ok to call them terrorist?

It’s not ok to redefine what I means to be a racist then call someone it based on your own definition.

Also welcome to 2020 where if you get called something even if it’s not true you lose your job house and friends.


_________________
There is no place for me in the world. I'm going into the wilderness, probably to die


DeathEmperor413
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2020
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 881

21 Aug 2020, 10:23 pm

Politics has really ruined everything. :?


_________________
♥♦♣♠


sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

21 Aug 2020, 10:25 pm

alex wrote:
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.

I got called a racist nazi and threatened physical harm for saying I won’t support rioting by the way which is done by mostly white upper class liberals.

Guess that’s ok on you site.


_________________
There is no place for me in the world. I'm going into the wilderness, probably to die


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

21 Aug 2020, 10:26 pm

alex wrote:
Temeraire wrote:
alex wrote:
I don't think all the trump voters the first time around would be considered white supremacists but certainly if they vote for him in the 2020 election now that he's made it clear that he believes in those ideals.


Would this be your personal opinion or fact, Alex?

This comment alone, coming from you, could potentially undo a lot of progress to make this place better for everyone.

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.


I have always been confused by the this "very fine people" thing, as even politifact says "Full context is needed".

As I had understood it, (and reading through politifact's summary, nothing changed), it sounds like the comment was made to indicate that not everyone was there to cause trouble or that everyone on a given side has the same views\beliefs - That there were people from outside the race based and antifa type groups who went with the intention of peacefully protesting for\against the removal of the statue and those were the people he was talking about:
Quote:
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.

Source: https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/

Maybe there was something I have missed (being I don't live in that country), but the way it has been reported is as though one side was being grouped and "labelled" based on the worst elements, whilst the other was treated around the "best" elements, with no differentiation between the people there for personal reasons, and the groups (white supremecists\neo nazis\antifa\etc.) who were there to cause trouble.

The pertinent part, as I understand it would be:
Quote:
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.


So, is it possible to get some form of clarification as to what I have misunderstood from the above? Not being a fan of seeing misrepresentations used as justification for future words\actions\beliefs (to me, intentionally misrepresenting something to further a groups aims deters me from supporting them, regardless of how pure the group's goals may be, as it leads me to question what else is also being misrepresented\lied about by them), could someone please clarify whether my understanding of this correct, or if not, in what way.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

21 Aug 2020, 10:27 pm

League_Girl wrote:
magz wrote:
Oh_no_its_Ferris wrote:
magz wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
In that sense, when I told someone "you're an idiot if you think you have to insult people to disagree," I did literally mean the person I was responding to because they had called me an idiot. So I did a comeback and that person and some other people did not like it.

Some people can dish it out but they cannot dish it back in.

What you describe sounds like responding to a personal attack with another personal attack.

Is it a personal attack or a strong disagreement :lol:

I'm waiting for League_Girl to judge.



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.

But then you get warned or banned. How’s that for fair?


_________________
There is no place for me in the world. I'm going into the wilderness, probably to die


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 26,635
Location: Australia

21 Aug 2020, 10:28 pm

IsabellaLinton wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
I wonder if criticizing right wing views is bullying.


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.


TheWalrus wrote:

In recent months, it has become increasingly clear that people are not reading these rules.

As a result, any thread made after this post that breaks these rules in the opening post will be locked, and the user will be formally warned. If a thread contains significant ongoing constructive discussion then the rule break may be edited out of the OP instead.

In particular, please pay attention to the rule banning attacks on groups of people. For avoidance of doubt, here are some contemporary examples which break that rule:

"Trump supporters are idiots"
"Only stupid people would vote for Clinton"
"The left will get upset at this"
"Conservatives get butthurt too easily"
"Feminists are evil"

The following would not break that rule:

"Trump supporters are ignoring the disastrous effects of his policies"
"Clinton supporters seem to be fine about the email thing"
"The left's economic theories have been discredited"
"Conservative views on abortion have harmed millions of women"
"Some feminists favour equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity: I think that's evil because it will harm industry"
"Hillary Clinton is stupid"
"Donald Trump is evil"
(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).


The word "Nazi" was code for conservatives.
Totally unacceptable, yet it was allowed to happen.

Indiscriminately throwing around the "racist" word, with the intention (yes, I used that word. ;)) to brow-beat, stifle, emotionally blackmail people into shutting up, is totally unacceptable, yet it was allowed to happen, *IF* you were on one side of politics.

Erm... 8O