Making it Better: The future of WP

Post Reply New Topic

I put it in quotation marks, indicating it is the generic use of the word "you".

In my day, "Man Banter" was allowed, assuming both parties agreed.
It was a form of humour.

Unfortunately, some people don't get it, don't understand it is a mutual mode of alternate communication, put their own interpretation on it using their own personal value system, ignore the context, and scream bloody murder.
That isn't a problem.
The problem arises when you explain the situation, the other person verifies that it is mutual, and "you" are still in the doghouse.

DEATH TO INDIVIDUALITY!

Hoomans.

I'm trying to understand everything that was said tonight.

Everyone is racist to a degree, so it's OK to call anyone racist.
If someone calls you a racist and you object, you are the worst type of racist.
If you ask for evidence and they can't supply it, you are still a racist.
Personal attacks aren't allowed on Wrong Planet.
Calling someone a racist or WS isn't a personal attack, even with no evidence.
Anyone who will vote for Trump this year can be called a White Supremacist.
Being on the right doesn't make someone a White Supremacist.

I'm trying my best to understand this, and to see how it applies to our rules.

I'm not sure what constitutes calling someone a Nazi. How is that defined?

This is all very confusing to me, especially when there is a rule against generalisations based on politics.

If we can't say Trump supporters are idiots, why can we say they are White Supremacists?

What about people who aren't even American, and aren't political, and offer support for BLM?
How are they allowed to grouped as "fragile racists", or "coddled White Supremacists" ?

I've had racial assumptions about my heritage used here to try and lessen the value of what I have posted by a member who protays themself as being against racism.

I've been called a racist and a bigot becuase a person wanted to focus on how an action affected one specific race, and I pointed out that it affected all races, and that it might be better to focus on fighting the action, rather than the race of a subset of those affected, if you wanted the action stopped.

I've seen members here refer to all on the right of the political spectrum as Nazi's - in a thread started with a poll asking if it was OK to punch Nazis, with only 2 options: yes, and yes - and in which none of the active participants saw any issue with this belief.

I've seen a member state that anyone who disagreed with a conservative was intelligent, perceptive, and wise, with "justification" supplie dto indicate that no conservative could hold those virtues...

I've seen a member say that supporting Trump is no different than liking Hitler.

And this is a small sample of what has been permitted (either through leaving it when reported, or allowing a precedent through other posts that were ignored (even worse is when a moderator is a part of the thread and doesn't see the issue themself and act accordingly on it, instead needing it to be "reported" and then maybe acted on), leading to it becoming "normalized"). As a result, this has given rise to a large number of people wondering what the point of the site is if they will be attacked for holding a different view, and so leaving the site...Along with who-knows how many potential members who see that and decide they would rather avoid the place altogether and so not even sign up.

"The dictionary is your friend." (I've trademarked that sentence, btw, not to be confused with Fnord's "Google is your friend.":))

Report the attack to the mod so they can get warned as well.

Isabella, I'm equality confused. I've heard here before the argument "I'm allowed to use insults if I'm right". It has never been made clear how "being right" is decided.

*From another non-American who would never vote for Trump

Most of the time, the dictionary is wrong because people don't use words how the dictionary uses them.

See https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentu ... ctionarium


Not saying you are doing it but people do use the dictionary as an argument to say "but the dictionary says..." to support their argument.

So far what I have learned is it's okay to call people these things if they are true.

But my question is what if they are wrong with their accusation? What if everyone had a different view on what is considered racism? Or what is considered white supremacy?

That was me.

And I got a soft warning about it but my post stayed unedited.

Yup,
Yup,
And yup.

I think I was there and saw most/all your references.
I have been avoiding PPR and News like the coronavirus for quite some time now.
If things change, I may go back.
Meh.
Life's too short.

Can't imagine Hitler being as chummy with Netanyahu as Trump is.

We don't moderate threads we have participated in (the mod attention thread being an exception because we've all been there, and it's not political or similarly hot topic).

Why don't you guys moderate threads you participate in?

Well, I hope people understand a good-natured joke when they see one.
Otherwise, I'm "out of business". EEP!

If you can't moderate a thread you participate in, though, do you forward possible infringements to another moderator to look at\evaluate, or is it up to someone else to report it?

I'd like to think it was the former, as otherwise seeing those sorts of posts, along with moderator contribution to the thread, would give the impression to anyone reading the thread that the words\behaviour are encouraged\endorsed, particularly if all those who may have disagreed with the sentiments have left the thread and so would be unable to see and then report them.