|
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 mean someone directly trying to invalidate Reade happened in the blow thread in extremely plain and unambiguous language and you had to be harangued into giving him a sixer and spent large portions of the QCS thread and this thread being flippant/hostile/defensive about it Maybe you've learned your lesson in the last couple days but you need to understand that no amount of posting is gonna undo the past failures to curtail that poo poo. Nobody is going to be convinced by anything you have to say about the topic and you will have to demonstrate it by future action
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 07:18 |
|
|
A unitary executive is not a collaborative work, and the people who elevated a known rapist to that position are more culpable, not less. Trying to ban people who make this argument in relevant contexts is using moderation as a cudgel, as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:49
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted: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? Basically, my position is that when there are no unambiguously good options, it is inappropriate to hurl abuse at each other, or try to get mod action taken against them, when their respective moral calculus doesn't precisely line up. As long as people aren't going "I voted for Donald Trump cause he's going to Build The Wall to keep the Mexicans out!!" or something similar that runs afoul of other site rules, people who voted for Biden or protest voted or refused to vote should be allowed to post in D&D without harassment. Hell, if libertarians want to say they voted for whoever the libertarian candidate was because they like weed and hate taxes, they shouldn't be chased off because of that. This isn't to say that people aren't allowed to discuss their own calculus or criticize others, but they cannot be abusive about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:50
|
|
|
How are u posted: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. how far do you unspool this, though? Is voting for Biden an endorsement of ANYTHING he did? I can see how if you want to be incredibly cold you can call rape a 'personal failing' or the like but is voting for Biden an endorsement of his political history, his segregation support, his crime bill, his war on drugs support, his massive iraq war support that many would argue was a major factor in uniting the democrats behind it? Does the person on the ballot even matter or could it be, to be extremely hyperbolic, Adloph Hitler (D) as long as that victory meant the Democratic Party won the branch?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:50
|
|
|
fool of sound posted: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. I think I should be allowed to post in D&D. MPFs interpretation of the Toxx is stupid. Toxxs aren’t ongoing like that. You get banned and the toxx is over. That’s what I thought I was signing up for. If it helps, I promise not to post in D&D very much. I just don’t want to be banned if I forget again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:51
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:I mean someone directly trying to invalidate Reade happened in the blow thread in extremely plain and unambiguous language and you had to be harangued into giving him a sixer and spent large portions of the QCS thread and this thread being flippant/hostile/defensive about it We're aware, and we agree.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:51
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I think I should be allowed to post in D&D. MPFs interpretation of the Toxx is stupid. Toxxs aren’t ongoing like that. You get banned and the toxx is over. That’s what I thought I was signing up for. If you would like to return to D&D that is fine. I basically don't enforce toxxes anymore unless the person so toxxing requests that I enforce it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:52
|
|
|
If you want to say, "Hey, Probably Magic, you didn't give a poo poo about Libyans when you voted for Obama a second time," you'd.. be right? I did a lot of soul-searching in 2016, some very uncomfortable realizations with myself. Voting is a morally perilous act. What's frustrating is people saying Biden is a rapist and then, "But I'm voting for him in 2024." Of course you are. This is the frustrating aspect of electorate decisions right now, it's all fait accompli. Anyway, this isn't to do a debate on the thing, just showing that there's self-interrogation going on.
Probably Magic fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Oct 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:53
|
|
|
If you voted for someone who was credibly accused of rape you should probably expect people to sometimes ask "hey what's up with that?" and if the question sucks and feels bad, yeah. The whole thing sucks and it's a good sign that it makes you feel bad since it would be a whole lot worse if you didn't care. Sorry the world sucks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:54
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:If you voted for someone who was credibly accused of rape you should probably expect people to sometimes ask "hey what's up with that?" and if the question sucks and feels bad, yeah. The whole thing sucks and it's a good sign that it makes you feel bad since it would be a whole lot worse if you didn't care. Sorry the world sucks. That, however, does not make them rape apologists. What makes them rape apologists is trying to downplay and or attack Tara Reade or other rape survivors.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:54
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:If you would like to return to D&D that is fine. I basically don't enforce toxxes anymore unless the person so toxxing requests that I enforce it. Please enforce this Toxx: If I get into any slap fights with leftists, please ban me immediately. I don’t want to do them anymore. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:55
|
|
|
Aegis posted: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. I think it can be done in theory, if you said it like "I disagree that is justifiable on any moral basis, frankly" but the odds of that being the way the sentiment would be expressed are pretty, uh, low. As to copping a Biden vote in CA... I accept that some posters literally owe their lives to Democratic policies like Obamacare, so maybe they have rational justification for voting for Biden, but I couldn't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:56
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:If you voted for someone who was credibly accused of rape you should probably expect people to sometimes ask "hey what's up with that?" and if the question sucks and feels bad, yeah. The whole thing sucks and it's a good sign that it makes you feel bad since it would be a whole lot worse if you didn't care. Sorry the world sucks. Debating the moral calculus (in threads where that is appropriate) is fine, calling them a rape apologist or worse, or trying to get them banned for it, is not. Similarly, calling someone who protest voted a racist who doesn't care about black people is also disallowed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:56
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:That, however, does not make them rape apologists. What makes them rape apologists is trying to downplay and or attack Tara Reade or other rape survivors. this is going to sound like a shitpost but I swear this is a genuine question, is this really just a semantics argument? Like, can they then be called 'rapist supporters' because that would be technically more accurate?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:56
|
|
|
As a NoJoe in large part due to the credible rape accusation, I do not and did not really have an issue with the utilitarian arguments for voting for Biden being posted here, even though I strongly disagreed with them. I had an issue with the people minimizing the accusation, maligning Reade's character, and just generally being gross. "But have you seen the other guy?!?" is not an argument that I think is very strong but I wouldn't want it to be punished.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:58
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:this is going to sound like a shitpost but I swear this is a genuine question, is this really just a semantics argument? Like, can they then be called 'rapist supporters' because that would be technically more accurate? No, because there is no consensus over whether a vote must necessarily constitute supporting a candidate as an individual.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:59
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:As a NoJoe in large part due to the credible rape accusation, I do not and did not really have an issue with the utilitarian arguments for voting for Biden being posted here, even though I strongly disagreed with them. I had an issue with the people minimizing the accusation, maligning Reade's character, and just generally being gross. "But have you seen the other guy?!?" is not an argument that I think is very strong but I wouldn't want it to be punished. Why isn't it, the reality of the situation is there were two rapists running for president and one was fundamentally worse then the other, the real split is between those that believe whatever small good a Biden presidency will do for people is worth having to vote for him over the other rapist. That said I have no sympathies for anyone that voted for Biden in the primary, however I don't feel there are many if any of those people in D&D
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 19:02
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:That, however, does not make them rape apologists. What makes them rape apologists is trying to downplay and or attack Tara Reade or other rape survivors. If I thought it did I would say it did. Again, this is my main complaint with D&D that it's impossible to ever have what you say taken in earnest. It is always assumed there is a motive or a lie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 19:02
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:this is going to sound like a shitpost but I swear this is a genuine question, is this really just a semantics argument? Like, can they then be called 'rapist supporters' because that would be technically more accurate? I think there are contexts in which this should be ok to say but I think the mods are leery of someone constantly rolling into uspol with "listen up all you rapist supporters" for good reason.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 19:02
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Debating the moral calculus (in threads where that is appropriate) is fine, calling them a rape apologist or worse, or trying to get them banned for it, is not. Similarly, calling someone who protest voted a racist who doesn't care about black people is also disallowed. And constantly saying the "genocide deniers" should be banned?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 19:08
|
|
|
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. Agreed. Its the distinction between the introduction of guilt versus shame in another individual. Guilt is generally thought to be actionable (provided the person you are talking to is effectively persuaded by some combination of reason/empathy) while shame is waaaaay more difficult to self-correct. Even if on some level you agree with the person who is attempting to shame you, you will feel powerless to make any changes because the root cause has been identified as a character flaw, something deep within. Something somethign about the masters tool and fixing a house, basically. When people feel powerless to change in the face of a personal attack they will almost always turn defensive or just shut down entirely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 19:08
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:I think it can be done in theory, if you said it like "I disagree that is justifiable on any moral basis, frankly" but the odds of that being the way the sentiment would be expressed are pretty, uh, low. I think we're talking past each other; I get that that is your personal position. What I'm asking is whether you think, from the standpoint of moderation "I believe Tara Reade's accusations but I had to balance that against X, Y, and Z; and in the end X, Y, and Z won out/wins out" ought to get a poster probation for engaging in rape apologia by way of minimizing Reade's allegations. Contrary to what you are saying, I think we have seen people take exactly that position in this thread (either directly or by quote from past threads).
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 19:10
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:If I thought it did I would say it did. Again, this is my main complaint with D&D that it's impossible to ever have what you say taken in earnest. It is always assumed there is a motive or a lie. that's because you're doing "bad faith" "trolling" while "acting like an rear end in a top hat," according to the subjective judges & juries.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 19:16
|
|
|
Stop probating posters giving feedback you don't like and then hide behind the excuse of them "doing a gotcha". Also mods shouldn't be constantly posting in the thread and dictating what can or can't be discussed. It's kinda antithetical to the supposed intent of the thread. 
thatfatkid fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Oct 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 19:20
|
|
|
thatfatkid posted:Stop probating posters giving feedback you don't like and then hide behind the excuse of them "doing a gotcha".
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 19:21
|
|
|
As far as Reade/Biden, this is what I wrote in the Me Too thread:quote:The perps are the ones who need to be named & shamed, not voters, as well as the media who cover for the perps, and the organizational entities who try to shift the naming & blaming onto accusers instead of the perps, and the female political leaders who try to dismiss the acts of the perps through pinkwashing and thus serve as cover for the perps. and I still p. much feel that way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 19:25
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:And constantly saying the "genocide deniers" should be banned? Denying atrocities will get you in trouble in much the same will that denying accusers will.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 19:28
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:If I thought it did I would say it did. Again, this is my main complaint with D&D that it's impossible to ever have what you say taken in earnest. It is always assumed there is a motive or a lie. I don't see how what he said is "not taking what you say in earnest." CG didn't accuse you of anything or impute any motives to you in that exchange; he made a response to your post that I don't read as being particularly flip or dismissive and added what looks to me like a sensible caveat. What are you objecting to?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 19:33
|
|
|
for most people, voting for a presidential candidate is more about what the candidate is going to do as a matter of policy if elected, rather than who they are or what they've already done yes, their past, their personality, and their values can be used as proxies for what they're likely to do in the future but even during the most heated times of the General Election Thread, the argument was never about "you can't vote for Biden because his segregationist stances in the past mean you'd be a segregation supporter". instead, the argument was "Biden's segregationist stances in the past mean he can't be trusted to stand up for minorities in the future"
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 19:39
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Denying atrocities will get you in trouble in much the same will that denying accusers will.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 19:39
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:This seems like a dodge. Not sure if you meant to do it, but the question was about people calling others genocide deniers, not doing genocide denial. If someone is calling another poster a genocide denier and the target is not doing that, then they'll be punished yes. It's part of the general "don't accuse people of heinous poo poo unless you are absolutely sure and have proof" principle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 19:42
|
|
|
I think what people are looking for is space to discussion of what China is currently doing in way that cannot be allowed regarding the question of what Joe Biden did to Tara Reade or what Hitler did to the Jews. Which is reasonable since one is an ongoing situation. They'd like not to be accused of genocide denial while doing so. I know little about the China thing but mostly I think we would need to do much worse here to US culture to ever fix climate change. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Oct 29, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 19:47
|
|
|
The Eurasia thread in cspam is chock full of 'just asking questions' about the Uighur genocide. I've seen some posts denying that the Tiananmen Square massacre happened as well. There are definitely safe spaces on the forums to ask those questions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 19:52
|
|
|
How are u posted:Saying something like "If you voted for Joe Biden you support rape" is pretty evil poo poo, and shouldn't be tolerated. How are u posted:They're probably not calling it out because they don't believe it happened. Like with Tara Reade. Its not that most people believe her and are afraid to call it out, its just that they don't believe her to begin with. How are u posted:I"m sorry, "rapes" plural? There was a single accusation, and a complete and utter lack of any other people following up with their own accusations. It's really quite striking when compared to other politicians who have been accused of similar. How are u posted:
Fun side note: the people who reacted (myself included) with disgust to your rape apologia were probated several hours before you eventually were, and one was in fact threadbanned! Gotta maintain that decorum.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 20:03
|
|
|
How are u posted:The Eurasia thread in cspam I stopped reading your post here, because we are all talking about D&D, not CSPAM, and the consensus in this thread seems to be that they are not being segregated based on opinions/stances on issues.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 20:16
|
|
|
How are u posted:The Eurasia thread in cspam is chock full of 'just asking questions' about the Uighur genocide. I've seen some posts denying that the Tiananmen Square massacre happened as well. There are definitely safe spaces on the forums to ask those questions. A cspam thread has nothing to do with a D&D moderation thread Just say you don't like leftwing opinions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 20:20
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:As far as Reade/Biden, this is what I wrote in the Me Too thread: It's a good opinion and post.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 20:20
|
|
|
thatfatkid posted:A cspam thread has nothing to do with a D&D moderation thread Just say you don't like leftwing opinions. Wait is denying the square happened a leftwing opinion?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 20:21
|
|
|
Kaedric posted:Fun side note: the people who reacted (myself included) with disgust to your rape apologia were probated several hours before you eventually were, and one was in fact threadbanned! Gotta maintain that decorum. Personally my favorite part of my rap sheet are the like 3-4 times that I told rape apologists to gently caress off and got probed for "parting shots" or "you are usually a better poster"
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 20:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 07:18 |
|
|
Darkrenown posted: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"? Were you ok with the rapes that were going on under US occupation? Framing his posts as saying 'taliban good' as opposed to 'some of the locals prefer the taliban to the US' is a bit disingenuous. My guess is you're operating under the western (and, sad to say, totally normal) assumption that we were the 'good guys' in that war. We absolutely were not. The taliban are horrible monsters imo, but I'm glad our own horrible monsters are out of that country now. VitalSigns posted:I don't know how to break this to you, but we were not the good guys and the invasion and 20-year occupation and looting of the country had nothing to do with preventing rapes of anyone by anyone Malleum posted:U.S. Soldiers Told to Ignore Sexual Abuse of Boys by Afghan Allies, 2015
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 20:23
|
|