Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Bill to make attacks on Trump supporters a Hate Crime

Page 11 of 15 [ 225 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

20 Jun 2020, 9:43 pm

Brictoria wrote:
Having received a racist remark aimed at me to (theoretically) "silence" me, or devalue my opinion, by someone who is rather vocal in calling out racism (hence my belief it could not have been accidental), with the only outcome being a moderator editing their post (no appology\remorse from poster, who is still on the site), and no responce (even though requested) as a result of reporting the post, I'd suggest not holding your breath there, sadly.

I'm not going to give names or point out post/thread (thankfully I still have screen-shots, pre moderator edit), and will still interact with this person, but it does lead me to question how "disgusted" they could truely be with behaviour they willingly reproduce.

On a related note, I'm surprised that people are allowed to (not so subtly) make comments intended to infer a group of people are all associated with a certain German group from the 1930's-1940's, purely because they do not adhere to the poster(s) beliefs.


I'm not 100% sure this is directed at me but I suspect it is. The mods had a quiet chat with me and I have agreed to abide by the WP rules more carefully with regard to avoiding triggering other posters with regard to trifecta of race/religion and politics.

I was, however, never required to apologise because I have never directed my posts at any one poster and it seems your attempt to get me removed was i) based only on the links I posted with were general news sources (this after all is a news thread) and these news stories are not an expression of hate but of a news story of general public concern ii) the trigger for my reaction toward you was based on the apparent covert attempts to have me removed. I no longer carry a grudge but I see you ate trying to sneakily resurrect these issues for the benefit of gaining sympathy.

Feel free to use my unedited posts for future attacks on me as I have already been held accountable by the mods.

This is a news thread, I recommend that if you don't like news stories I post then don't feel compelled to read them.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

20 Jun 2020, 10:42 pm

cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Having received a racist remark aimed at me to (theoretically) "silence" me, or devalue my opinion, by someone who is rather vocal in calling out racism (hence my belief it could not have been accidental), with the only outcome being a moderator editing their post (no appology\remorse from poster, who is still on the site), and no responce (even though requested) as a result of reporting the post, I'd suggest not holding your breath there, sadly.

I'm not going to give names or point out post/thread (thankfully I still have screen-shots, pre moderator edit), and will still interact with this person, but it does lead me to question how "disgusted" they could truely be with behaviour they willingly reproduce.

On a related note, I'm surprised that people are allowed to (not so subtly) make comments intended to infer a group of people are all associated with a certain German group from the 1930's-1940's, purely because they do not adhere to the poster(s) beliefs.


I'm not 100% sure this is directed at me but I suspect it is. The mods had a quiet chat with me and I have agreed to abide by the WP rules more carefully with regard to avoiding triggering other posters with regard to trifecta of race/religion and politics.

I was, however, never required to apologise because I have never directed my posts at any one poster and it seems your attempt to get me removed was i) based only on the links I posted with were general news sources (this after all is a news thread) and these news stories are not an expression of hate but of a news story of general public concern ii) the trigger for my reaction toward you was based on the apparent covert attempts to have me removed. I no longer carry a grudge but I see you ate trying to sneakily resurrect these issues for the benefit of gaining sympathy.

Feel free to use my unedited posts for future attacks on me as I have already been held accountable by the mods.

This is a news thread, I recommend that if you don't like news stories I post then don't feel compelled to read them.


I appologise if you somehow feel this was directed at you: if you look at what I was responding to, you will see that it was in relation to another member who had received directed posts of a derisive\derogatory tone.

All I was trying to do was indicate that having reported a racial slur directed at me (seemingly to diminish the value of my posts), and requesting (via the option provided when making a report) to know when\if something occurred, I had not heard anything, nor seen any indication of action having occurred, and so was suggesting to the person to whom my reply was directed that nothing may happen on their behalf either.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

20 Jun 2020, 10:46 pm

Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
Having received a racist remark aimed at me to (theoretically) "silence" me, or devalue my opinion, by someone who is rather vocal in calling out racism (hence my belief it could not have been accidental), with the only outcome being a moderator editing their post (no appology\remorse from poster, who is still on the site), and no responce (even though requested) as a result of reporting the post, I'd suggest not holding your breath there, sadly.

I'm not going to give names or point out post/thread (thankfully I still have screen-shots, pre moderator edit), and will still interact with this person, but it does lead me to question how "disgusted" they could truely be with behaviour they willingly reproduce.

On a related note, I'm surprised that people are allowed to (not so subtly) make comments intended to infer a group of people are all associated with a certain German group from the 1930's-1940's, purely because they do not adhere to the poster(s) beliefs.


I'm not 100% sure this is directed at me but I suspect it is. The mods had a quiet chat with me and I have agreed to abide by the WP rules more carefully with regard to avoiding triggering other posters with regard to trifecta of race/religion and politics.

I was, however, never required to apologise because I have never directed my posts at any one poster and it seems your attempt to get me removed was i) based only on the links I posted with were general news sources (this after all is a news thread) and these news stories are not an expression of hate but of a news story of general public concern ii) the trigger for my reaction toward you was based on the apparent covert attempts to have me removed. I no longer carry a grudge but I see you ate trying to sneakily resurrect these issues for the benefit of gaining sympathy.

Feel free to use my unedited posts for future attacks on me as I have already been held accountable by the mods.

This is a news thread, I recommend that if you don't like news stories I post then don't feel compelled to read them.


I appologise if you somehow feel this was directed at you: if you look at what I was responding to, you will see that it was in relation to another member who had received directed posts of a derisive\derogatory tone.

All I was trying to do was indicate that having reported a racial slur directed at me (seemingly to diminish the value of my posts), and requesting (via the option provided when making a report) to know when\if something occurred, I had not heard anything, nor seen any indication of action having occurred, and so was suggesting to the person to whom my reply was directed that nothing may happen on their behalf either.


Oh ok, sorry about that. I have made a concerted effort to travel the middle road and listen to all sides in recent times.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

21 Jun 2020, 10:16 am

IsabellaLinton wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
IsabellaLinton wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
with the only outcome being a moderator editing their post (no appology\remorse from poster, who is still on the site), and no responce (even though requested) as a result of reporting the post, I'd suggest not holding your breath there, sadly.

I'm not going to give names or point out post/thread (thankfully I still have screen-shots, pre moderator edit), and will still interact with this person, but it does lead me to question how "disgusted" they could truely be with behaviour they willingly reproduce.

On a related note, I'm surprised that people are allowed to (not so subtly) make comments intended to infer a group of people are all associated with a certain German group from the 1930's-1940's, purely because they do not adhere to the poster(s) beliefs.


I'm sorry this happened for you. I agree it's unacceptable and it's hurtful.

I've noticed that some degrading posts of that nature are edited, with or without being addressed. Other times, degrading posts are entirely deleted, as they should be. Sadly, posts targeting certain people often remain on the board as written, and members argue the victim deserved it. The fact this constitutes public gaslighting seems to be unnoticed.

Re: The group of Germans. I find it offensive that this word is thrown around so casually, implying some of our members are complicit in the systemic kidnap, torture, imprisonment, enslavement, and murder or other human beings, based on a vote they cast four years ago. Use of this word shows gross insensitivity toward people who suffered those crimes, including my trauma therapist and the ancestors of many members on Wrong Planet. Comments and insults involving that word are personal attacks according to our rules. I'd like to see the rules enforced more consistently for the mental well-being of others: the recipients, as well as those who are triggered by hate.

(( Hugs Brictoria ))


Thank you for that.

Just to clarify, it wasn't the "four letter word" that you may have been thinking of, more one composing a word associated with a german realm (in same context\era), linked to a word describing part of a bird's anatomy - subtle and permitted, surprisngly, considering the forum\site rules regarding the prohibition on "behavior intended to provoke or belittle other members".


I've seen that word. It's all the same. It's all offensive, and it's all against the rules.


We'll see what happens (it appears still to be in use).

I wonder if making statements inferring someone is a supporter of that regime (through the use of the term), with no evidence, is covered under libel, defamation, or slander laws?



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,959
Location:      

21 Jun 2020, 10:33 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
To call someone ignorant carries multiple meanings. Most of which are quite insulting and not neutral...
No ... calling someone ignorant is pointing out their lack of knowledge.  It's like calling someone 'ginger' to point out their Celtic ancestry.

Anything shameful or insulting is attached by the recipient -- it's as if such a person wants to be insulted so they can parade their martyrdom around like a victory pennant.


_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.


BenderRodriguez
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

21 Jun 2020, 10:45 am

Fnord wrote:
It's like calling someone 'ginger' to point out their Celtic ancestry.


Did you say "ginger"?! Only a ginger can call another ginger, ginger :P


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


TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,092
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

21 Jun 2020, 11:00 am

Fnord wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
To call someone ignorant carries multiple meanings. Most of which are quite insulting and not neutral...
No ... calling someone ignorant is pointing out their lack of knowledge.  It's like calling someone 'ginger' to point out their Celtic ancestry.

Anything shameful or insulting is attached by the recipient -- it's as if such a person wants to be insulted so they can parade their martyrdom around like a victory pennant.

An intelligent person can explain their position without having to call someone "ignorant".


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,558
Location: Right over your left shoulder

21 Jun 2020, 1:22 pm

TheRobotLives wrote:
An intelligent person can explain their position without having to call someone "ignorant".


Does that mean an intelligent person is obliged to not make that observation when dealing with someone who is grossly misinformed or uninformed? Are intelligent people not entitled to become frustrated with others if they lack knowledge on a topic but insist on commenting on it?


_________________
There's no such thing as a free market.
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
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


goldfish21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

21 Jun 2020, 2:02 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
An intelligent person can explain their position without having to call someone "ignorant".


Does that mean an intelligent person is obliged to not make that observation when dealing with someone who is grossly misinformed or uninformed? Are intelligent people not entitled to become frustrated with others if they lack knowledge on a topic but insist on commenting on it?


:heart: :heart:

This.


_________________
No :heart: for supporting trump. Because doing so is deplorable.


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

21 Jun 2020, 7:22 pm

TheRobotLives wrote:
Fnord wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
To call someone ignorant carries multiple meanings. Most of which are quite insulting and not neutral...
No ... calling someone ignorant is pointing out their lack of knowledge.  It's like calling someone 'ginger' to point out their Celtic ancestry.

Anything shameful or insulting is attached by the recipient -- it's as if such a person wants to be insulted so they can parade their martyrdom around like a victory pennant.

An intelligent person can explain their position without having to call someone "ignorant".


I would agree with that: Calling a person "ignorant" is no better than a childish "I'm right and you're wrong" being used to defend the person's claims, or the effort of a bigot to avoid having to admit and recognise that there is a problem with their beliefs regarding the conversation...Name calling when they realise the other "side" is winning.

However, saying a person was "ignorant of ..." and explaining the specific information to which they were unaware of, and how it affects their side of the discussion would be reasonable.

The first is a personal attack (trying to stop a discussion which a person feels they are losing), whilst the second is a method to convey information to which the other party(s) in the discussion may have been unaware (and so productively continue a conversation)...Although, personally, I'd prefer to use words indicating the other party "may have been unaware of" the facts/information, rather than that they were "ignorant of" them.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

21 Jun 2020, 7:33 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
An intelligent person can explain their position without having to call someone "ignorant".


Does that mean an intelligent person is obliged to not make that observation when dealing with someone who is grossly misinformed or uninformed? Are intelligent people not entitled to become frustrated with others if they lack knowledge on a topic but insist on commenting on it?


An intelligent person would have no need to resort to name calling, but would instead put forward the "facts" that supported their case, along with explanations regarding them concerning the dicussion...Of course, they would also be willing to admit when other "facts", put forward by the other person, caused the "facts" they had been presenting to prove to be incorrect, or of questionable accuracy\validity.

A bigot, however, would lack the ability to consider other options, and would refuse to believe they could be wrong.



funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 34,558
Location: Right over your left shoulder

21 Jun 2020, 7:34 pm

Brictoria wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
An intelligent person can explain their position without having to call someone "ignorant".


Does that mean an intelligent person is obliged to not make that observation when dealing with someone who is grossly misinformed or uninformed? Are intelligent people not entitled to become frustrated with others if they lack knowledge on a topic but insist on commenting on it?


An intelligent person would have no need to resort to name calling, but would instead put forward the "facts" that supported their case, along with explanations regarding them concerning the dicussion...Of course, they would also be willing to admit when other "facts", put forward by the other person, caused the "facts" they had been presenting to prove to be incorrect, or of questionable accuracy\validity.

A bigot, however, would lack the ability to consider other options, and would refuse to believe they could be wrong.


need =/= desire :roll:


_________________
There's no such thing as a free market.
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
Just a reminder: under international law, an occupying power has no right of self-defense, and those who are occupied have the right and duty to liberate themselves by any means possible.


TuskenR
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

Joined: 5 May 2020
Posts: 231

21 Jun 2020, 9:03 pm

BenderRodriguez wrote:
Fnord wrote:
It's like calling someone 'ginger' to point out their Celtic ancestry.


Did you say "ginger"?! Only a ginger can call another ginger, ginger :P




Image


_________________
So unscrew my head
And rinse it out
Polish my thoughts
Turn into doubts


TuskenR
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

Joined: 5 May 2020
Posts: 231

21 Jun 2020, 9:08 pm

Fnord wrote:
No ... calling someone ignorant is pointing out their lack of knowledge. 


Calling someone ignorant has evolved over the years into a basic insult on par with calling someone stupid.


_________________
So unscrew my head
And rinse it out
Polish my thoughts
Turn into doubts


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

21 Jun 2020, 9:19 pm

TuskenR wrote:
Fnord wrote:
No ... calling someone ignorant is pointing out their lack of knowledge. 


Calling someone ignorant has evolved over the years into a basic insult on par with calling someone stupid.


The difference is this. Stupidity is a slur (lack of common sense or intelligence)

Ignorance can also be due to not being aware...



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,998
Location: Melbourne, Australia

21 Jun 2020, 9:27 pm

cyberdad wrote:
TuskenR wrote:
Fnord wrote:
No ... calling someone ignorant is pointing out their lack of knowledge. 


Calling someone ignorant has evolved over the years into a basic insult on par with calling someone stupid.


The difference is this. Stupidity is a slur (lack of common sense or intelligence)

Ignorance can also be due to not being aware...


And calling someone "ignorant" without supplying information to remedy the supposed "ignorance" makes it a slur rather than an innocent description...or, alternatively, a dismissive way to ignore inconvenient information which the "ignorant" person was conveying because it did not match the bigoted opinions of the person making the "ignorant" claim.