|
CommieGIR posted:No its not. Because that's what has happened. It turns into a big slapfight over "Every dem voter is a rape apologist, therefore all of D&D is likely full of rape apologists and fascists" which is why we're in this problem to begin with. It does not result in any meaningful conversation or discussion, just an endless chum fest of who is worse than whom. No what's not? I said it wasn't conducive to discussion to constantly bring it up. But pointing out that Biden is a rapist is not morally equivalent to smearing Tara Reade. The former is obnoxious (if not relevant to the discussion at hand), the latter is evil.
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 13:14 |
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:You're right that people should probably say things like "what you are saying is hateful" and not "you are a hateful person," but it doesn't make that big a difference. Nobody is less offended by "what you are saying is rape apologia" than by "you are a rape apologist." Hard disagree, op. Tone is important and can change the way the reader interprets information. Someone will be far more receptive without personal accusations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 17:56
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Hard disagree, op. Tone is important and can change the way the reader interprets information. Someone will be far more receptive without personal accusations. "What you are saying is rape apologia" is an accusation. You can hem and haw about grammar, and tone and, hell, I agree. But it will always be read by the person you are speaking to as an accusation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 17:58
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:No what's not? I said it wasn't conducive to discussion to constantly bring it up. But pointing out that Biden is a rapist is not morally equivalent to smearing Tara Reade. The former is obnoxious (if not relevant to the discussion at hand), the latter is evil. That isn't what happened though? Biden being a rapist we all agree on. Its whether voting for Biden invalidated Tara Reade's case or makes the voter a rape apologist. There's nuance there silicone thrills posted:In general people should be mad that the democratic leadership and media pushed a rapist to the general election and made people feel like they had no other choice but to vote for a rapist. This makes the point better than I could
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 17:58
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:"What you are saying is rape apologia" is an accusation. You can hem and haw about grammar, and tone and, hell, I agree. But it will always be read by the person you are speaking to as an accusation. This isn't true, and we've seen an example of this with regards to 'smoothbrain' and 'hugbox' in this thread. A poster asked them to not do it and explained why and the person so asked apologized and agreed to take them out of their vocabulary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:01
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:That isn't what happened though? Biden being a rapist we all agree on. Its whether voting for Biden invalidated Tara Reade's case or makes the voter a rape apologist. There's nuance there Okay. The issue here is that How are u was trying to draw false equivalences to smearing Tara Reade as a rhetorical cudgel, and they can feel free to cram that cudgel someplace uncomfortable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:02
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:"Just as punishable" isn't quite right, but calling people rape apologists who are not, in fact, doing that is punishable. Like I said in my original post, acting in a way that benefits a powerful rapist isn't the same thing as supporting that person or their actions. Still not sure this applies to politics the way it applies to consumption under capitalism. Maybe there should be a thread where this can be discussed without posters being punished for hurting Biden voters feelings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:02
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:This isn't true, and we've seen an example of this with regards to 'smoothbrain' and 'hugbox' in this thread. A poster asked them to not do it and explained why and the person so asked apologized and agreed to take them out of their vocabulary. The difference there is that it's behavior that the person accused is willing to stop, and has not wrapped up in their own identity the way people do political affiliation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:05
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:"What you are saying is rape apologia" is an accusation. You can hem and haw about grammar, and tone and, hell, I agree. But it will always be read by the person you are speaking to as an accusation. Yeah, but you are not accusing the person themselves of being a bad person, you're saying the thing they are doing is bad,and imo that makes all the difference when talking on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:06
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Still not sure this applies to politics the way it applies to consumption under capitalism. Maybe there should be a thread where this can be discussed without posters being punished for hurting Biden voters feelings. The problem is where you cross the line and accuse D&D posters and voters DIRECTLY of being rape apologists for voting for the Dem presidential candidate. What should've been done was call out anyone one directly tried to invalidate Tara Reade rather than general Dem voters who likely don't like Biden in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:06
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Yeah, but you are not accusing the person themselves of being a bad person, you're saying the thing they are doing is bad,and imo that makes all the difference when talking on the internet. That is not my experience. Especially when speaking to a hostile audience, and especially when the accusation is grave. CommieGIR posted:The problem is where you cross the line and accuse D&D posters and voters DIRECTLY of being rape apologists for voting for the Dem presidential candidate. What should've been done was call out anyone one directly tried to invalidate Tara Reade rather than general Dem voters who likely don't like Biden in the first place. It's material support for the Democratic Party's policy of not considering rape accusations disqualifying. It's a problem in this forum because it's inflammatory and derails discussion. But it's also a reasonable interpretation of true facts, so it's gonna come up. And it should not be treated as morally equivalent to rape apologia, as How are u alleged. Cease to Hope fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Oct 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:07
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, are forum-banned posters allowed in here today and when do mods plan on closing the thread? Might be valuable for people to know the deadline for submitting feedback.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:08
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No its not. Because that's what has happened. It turns into a big slapfight over "Every dem voter is a rape apologist, therefore all of D&D is likely full of rape apologists and fascists" which is why we're in this problem to begin with. It does not result in any meaningful conversation or discussion, just an endless chum fest of who is worse than whom. I think the concept of 'support' is important here. Begrudgingly voting for someone isn't support, but if you buy in and support them... that's going to bring all their baggage with them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:08
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Still not sure this applies to politics the way it applies to consumption under capitalism. Maybe there should be a thread where this can be discussed without posters being punished for hurting Biden voters feelings. "Both the democrats and Republicans ultimately ran rapists, this is a damning example of rape culture and the extent to which the powerful are above the law" is fine. "It was an inexcusable moral failing to vote for a major party candidate knowing this" is not.q
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:10
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The problem is where you cross the line and accuse D&D posters and voters DIRECTLY of being rape apologists for voting for the Dem presidential candidate. What should've been done was call out anyone one directly tried to invalidate Tara Reade rather than general Dem voters who likely don't like Biden in the first place. I assume since it's friday I can do this but if not welp Does this apply to, say, saying that 'voting for Joe Biden while being aware of the credible accusations against him was ignoring the fact that he was a rapist and rewarding him anyway' or something along those lines count? Like, aside from avs and all I don't think anyone's literally going around saying 'you are a rape apologist' to every Joe voter but I have seen many people, including people who have been through sexual abuse and all, that it was distasteful for them how many people so happily put aside Joe Biden's accusations to support him while wielding Trump's equally credible and disqualifying accusations as part of why it's wrong to support him. Would those people also be acting in bad faith here?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:12
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:I think the concept of 'support' is important here. Begrudgingly voting for someone isn't support, but if you buy in and support them... that's going to bring all their baggage with them. I disagree. I think if you vote for someone you are supporting them and their policies both. A vote is an endorsement of a candidate imo. But I suppose its all personal opinion there. IDK. I definitely get icky around people who knew about the Tara Reade and the 8 other women who said he violated them/their space/made them feel uncomfortable but still voted for them. I can't fault anyone who just didnt know because the media sucks poo poo though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:12
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:Out of curiosity, are forum-banned posters allowed in here today and when do mods plan on closing the thread? Might be valuable for people to know the deadline for submitting feedback. Oh yes. Forum banned users who have not already posted in this thread may comment today. I'll probably close it around 10pm est unless there's an important conversation happening.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:12
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:"It was an inexcusable moral failing to vote for a major party candidate knowing this" is not.q Assuming it is relevant to the discussion, why is this unacceptable? That's a ridiculous rule.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:13
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:That is not my experience. Especially when speaking to a hostile audience, and especially when the accusation is grave. Even if it's interpreted in the same way, at least saying "this post is rape apologia" vs "you are a rape apologist" forces at least a little bit of proof behind why you're making that accusation. Take that claim from earlier that many D&D posters are white supremacist fascists. By itself, it's not really a position you can argue with. Why? What have they posted that's in support of white supremacy, or fascism? Pointing to posts and saying "this supports white supremacy" gives a context for the conversation instead of it just being an unsupported attack.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:13
|
|
|
enki42 posted:Even if it's interpreted in the same way, at least saying "this post is rape apologia" vs "you are a rape apologist" forces at least a little bit of proof behind why you're making that accusation. The people making those claims have posted at length why they think those things. You can scarcely get them to shut up about it!
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:14
|
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:Out of curiosity, are forum-banned posters allowed in here today and when do mods plan on closing the thread? Might be valuable for people to know the deadline for submitting feedback. This thread closes tonight, IIRC some Forumbanned posters have already started posting. Either way I suspect its open to them at this point. e: Beaten by Fool Of Sound
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:16
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:"Both the democrats and Republicans ultimately ran rapists, this is a damning example of rape culture and the extent to which the powerful are above the law" is fine. "It was an inexcusable moral failing to vote for a major party candidate knowing this" is not.q The latter should also be fine. It's a ripe ground for discussion. It's one thing for someone to repeatedly bring it up over and over in US Pol in response to every post about Biden or whatever, representing that as your opinion should not be actionable by default. We all have moral failings and I don't think it's the end of the world to feel like someone has pointed out what they think is one of yours. As long as it's not descending into slap fighting "obviously you don't care about black people since you didn't vote Biden" or then being used to try run people out of the forum for balancing their moral hazards differently. Tdd had a good post on the last page. I'm still processing how to explain all this but we're talking about important ideological conversations and there's got to be some room to try to persuade people on any side that they are wrong and have been wrong about things, as long as it isn't done incredibly toxicly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:16
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:"Both the democrats and Republicans ultimately ran rapists, this is a damning example of rape culture and the extent to which the powerful are above the law" is fine. "It was an inexcusable moral failing to vote for a major party candidate knowing this" is not.q I would think even the latter is OK as an arguing position; the problem is when every possible response other than full agreement becomes punishable. At that point the latter position just becomes a discussion ender.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:17
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:The latter should also be fine. It's a ripe ground for discussion. It's one thing for someone to repeatedly bring it up over and over in US Pol in response to every post about Biden or whatever, representing that as your opinion should not be actionable by default. We all have moral failings and I don't think it's the end of the world to feel like someone has pointed out what they think is one of yours. As long as it's not descending into slap fighting "obviously you don't care about black people since you didn't vote Biden" or then being used to try run people out of the forum for balancing their moral hazards differently. Agreed, but especially the highlighted part.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:17
|
|
|
Kaedric posted:Although I obviously want harsher punishments for this particular issue for various reasons, I understand what you are saying and don't disagree. However, one of the problems I see is the fact that these posters were never the ones that got thread or forum-banned. You cannot tell me that someone like VitalSigns, who is probably one of the best posters on this site, is worth kicking out over (and I'm choosing not to name names) people a-ok with rape as long as it's their guy doing it, just because they frequently disagree and get into arguments with certain posters. Which usually leads to very good discussion, no less! Vitalsigns' last posts in USnews were repeatedly saying how great it was that the Taliban were regaining power in Afghanistan. Would you say that A) There's no rapists in the Taliban, or B) VitalSigns is "a-ok with rape as long as it's their guy doing it"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:19
|
|
|
enki42 posted:Even if it's interpreted in the same way, at least saying "this post is rape apologia" vs "you are a rape apologist" forces at least a little bit of proof behind why you're making that accusation. I mean, not really. Posting rape apologia makes you a rape apologist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:20
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:The latter should also be fine. It's a ripe ground for discussion. It's one thing for someone to repeatedly bring it up over and over in US Pol in response to every post about Biden or whatever, representing that as your opinion should not be actionable by default. We all have moral failings and I don't think it's the end of the world to feel like someone has pointed out what they think is one of yours. As long as it's not descending into slap fighting "obviously you don't care about black people since you didn't vote Biden" or then being used to try run people out of the forum for balancing their moral hazards differently. Sorry, it's more fair to say that my position is that you may express the belief that it was a moral failing, but may not browbeat posters about it, or try to get them punished for running afoul of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:20
|
|
|
I'd be more sympathetic to the earnestness of the whole thing around 'you're calling all biden voters rape lovers' if it wasn't fairly well agreed in D&D that, say, those terrible 'Trump can grab MY pussy!!!!' shirts and all are mockable and rightly seen as downplaying a very serious violation because you agree with his politics. It feels a bit like a frankly much more long lasting and disturbing version of 'when Trump ran them we agreed they were concentration camps but now that Biden is it's suddenly complicated'. Trump supporters were rightly said to be, at least in part, ignoring his rapes, why can't it be said that Biden supporters did as well?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:22
|
|
|
In CD, you can say you like Bruce Willis as much as you like Kevin Spacey in a film. In D&D, support of anything Trump did was automatically support for his worst crimes, but more importantly, pointing out flaws with Biden during the election was also treated as support for Donald Trump and his worst crimes. These are cases that continue to be made in D&D to this day. Biden supporters seem to object to being characterized as they've characterized third party supporters, but they aren't stopping anytime soon. I don't think the answer is, "Turn Reade into a meme," and the grudgeposting is excessive, but it's not a unilateral offense, if you get my drift, and is also a paradox of D&D's own cultural making.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:22
|
|
|
silicone thrills posted:A vote is an endorsement of a candidate imo. See this is where we disagree and it is hard for me to imagine ever seeing eye to eye. I do not think a vote is necessarily an endorsement of a candidate, a vote is a political tool to exercise the small amount of power we have as citizens. A vote could be a wholehearted endorsement of a candidate, or it it could be something much less. I think the idea that a vote should be considered a full 100% endorsement of the candidate + their morality + their worldview + an endorsement of anything wrong they've ever done in their lives is absurd and throws all nuance and understanding of political reality out the window.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:25
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:In CD, you can say you like Bruce Willis as much as you like Kevin Spacey in a film. In D&D, support of anything Trump did was automatically support for his worst crimes, but more importantly, pointing out flaws with Biden during the election was also treated as support for Donald Trump and his worst crimes. These are cases that continue to be made in D&D to this day. Biden supporters seem to object to being characterized as they've characterized third party supporters, but they aren't stopping anytime soon. I don't think the answer is, "Turn Reade into a meme," and the grudgeposting is excessive, but it's not a unilateral offense, if you get my drift, and is also a paradox of D&D's own cultural making. Yeah, I agree that browbeating posters for protest voting or refraining to vote as a means of protest also has to be punishable in order for this to be equitable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:25
|
|
|
Personally, when people bring up supporting things Trump did in office, I mostly saw responses criticizing the other stuff Trump was doing in office, not stuff he did years before he ran for president. I don't remember "no matter how many good things Trump does in office, you can't support him because he's a rapist" being a super common take in D&D.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:27
|
|
|
How are u posted:See this is where we disagree and it is hard for me to imagine ever seeing eye to eye. I do not think a vote is necessarily an endorsement of a candidate, a vote is a political tool to exercise the small amount of power we have as citizens. A vote could be a wholehearted endorsement of a candidate, or it it could be something much less. No vote is a complete endorsement, not even a vote for myself since I hate half the things I do, but some things should morally exclude a vote or there is no point for debate, campaigning, etc., just lodge votes by people's party registration and be done with it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:29
|
|
|
Aegis posted:I would think even the latter is OK as an arguing position; the problem is when every possible response other than full agreement becomes punishable. At that point the latter position just becomes a discussion ender. I can picture a utilitarian justification for voting Biden in a swing state, but in a Democratic-dominated state, no. Leave it blank, vote any left party, just not for a rapist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:29
|
|
|
How are u posted:I think the idea that a vote should be considered a full 100% endorsement of the candidate + their morality + their worldview + an endorsement of anything wrong they've ever done in their lives is absurd and throws all nuance and understanding of political reality out the window. We are talking about a grave crime, not an ethical or policy disagreement. And not a page ago you were claiming that pointing out that grave crime and your own complicity is morally equivalent to denying that grave crime.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:32
|
|
|
If you have ever voted in a US election, it is incredibly likely that someone on the ballot that you voted for who sexually assaulted someone. If you have ever watched a movie or a tv show, you have watched a piece of media where someone involved in the production sexually assaulted someone. If you have ever bought a product, someone involved in creating that product sexually assaulted someone. Look at the numbers sometime. There are a lot of assaulters wandering around out there. To never "support" a sexual assaulter is to never participate in democracy, or buy a product, or watch or read media. To say otherwise is making the exact same argument as that dude in the "and yet you live in a society, curious" panel. But I give up -- you win! You've chased a rape victim out of D&D, moral victory upheld! You can all feel very good about yourselves now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:38
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:I can picture a utilitarian justification for voting Biden in a swing state, but in a Democratic-dominated state, no. Leave it blank, vote any left party, just not for a rapist. That's fine as a position, but do you think anyone taking the opposite position in a discussion on this forum (or copping to voting for Biden in a non-swing state, for whatever reason) ought to be at least harshly probated? I think that is the situation the mods are trying to put a guardrail around.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:39
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Yeah, I agree that browbeating posters for protest voting or refraining to vote as a means of protest also has to be punishable in order for this to be equitable. So does this mean if it becomes actionable to say voting for biden meant at the very least viewing your political agenda as more important than keeping sexual predators out of power then it'll be equally punishable to play the 'well I'm voting biden because I care about queer/black/women's rights unlike you third party/non-voters' game? What about republican voters? I mean I know it's pretty unlikely any genuine trump supporter types would be eager to post in good faith in D&D but in that hypothetical would it be equally punishable to say the same about them? Does this apply to just other posters or 'voters' in general, can it be said 'Biden voters' or 'Trump voters' didn't care about rape in their candidate or 'third party voters' don't care about marginalized people?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:41
|
|
|
Grooglon posted:If you have ever voted in a US election, it is incredibly likely that someone on the ballot that you voted for who sexually assaulted someone. If you have ever watched a movie or a tv show, you have watched a piece of media where someone involved in the production sexually assaulted someone. If you have ever bought a product, someone involved in creating that product sexually assaulted someone. Look at the numbers sometime. Again, supporting potential offenders you don't know as part of large collaborative works is not equivalent to directly supporting a single identified person with a high-profile accusation. This sort of argument, that rape culture is everywhere so what can you even do, is obnoxiously common but it is still apologia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 13:14 |
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Again, supporting potential offenders you don't know as part of large collaborative works is not equivalent to directly supporting a single identified person with a high-profile accusation. This sort of argument, that rape culture is everywhere so what can you even do, is obnoxiously common but it is still apologia. The electing of a member of the Democratic Party to the office of President of the United States is, quite clearly, a large collaborative work with stakes far beyond the personal endorsement of any one candidate's history. It was not an up/down vote on whether Joe Biden is a good person or deserves the job, it was so much more than that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:46
|
|