|
i know youre being piled on for this response but i'm genuinely curious, did the moderators consult any rape survivors at all about their plan? if no, do you feel like you should have involved them in the process? For the future, if it becomes necessary to make moderation decisions involving topics relating to rape culture, do you plan to reach out to survivors and involve them in the decision making process (with their consent, of course)?
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 00:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 11:13 |
|
|
silicone thrills posted:Imagine if someone - anyone - had said that about one of the women trump raped. That's fair. Our - or at least my - decisions were bad and based in a desire to not evaluate where exactly the line is in what people can say about rape accusations, because making those decisions sucks and will lead to everyone being angry. And in fairness "I am not equipped to make these decisions except MAYBE in the case of Jacob Wohl's Marine, so let's just ban doubting" is adjacent to that, but it's hopefully a better decision. A big flaming stink posted:i know youre being piled on for this response but i'm genuinely curious, did the moderators consult any rape survivors at all about their plan? if no, do you feel like you should have involved them in the process? I don't remember the exact details but we did speak to some people in the run-up to and after the start of the metoo thread, when we were having our first go at fixing our bad decision? I'm not excited to share some of the details I do remember, because I don't recall what some of the contributors have made public about their experiences Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Oct 30, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 00:14
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:That's fair. Our - or at least my - decisions were bad and based in a desire to not evaluate where exactly the line is in what people can say about rape accusations, because making those decisions sucks and will lead to everyone being angry. Look I really do get that you nor any moderator isnt really equipped to handle these sorts of discussions but neither is anyone who deals with this ourselves. Even after what was done to me, I probably didnt always say the right things or know the right things to do and I definitely didnt get therapy or deal with poo poo until years later and its never really dealt with but you should be trying to grow and learn and listen and it feels like over and over again the mods of this forum really just absolutely dig in to these positions and it is hurtful. I was just sitting here debating asking for a sixer because it legitimately is hard to police myself and my reactions to this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 00:18
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Some do, some don't. And certainly the mods know/think such splits kill conversations, since one of them just, y'know, admitted that they created a thread in a deliberate and considered attempt to do exactly that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 00:19
|
|
|
LGD posted:And certainly the mods know/think such splits kill conversations, since one of them just, y'know, admitted that they created a thread in a deliberate and considered attempt to do exactly that. okay so no the intent was for it to be a general productive metoo and suchnot thread that was about more than just tara reade and it did in fact have some very good conversation on that, and heck, may yet again the objective was not to kill the topic, the objective, to put it overly simply, was "where do we go from here"
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 00:21
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:okay so no There's definitely a difference between feeling like you got punted off to a thread to have your conversations where other people aren't going to see them - A big thing about USPol is it is one of the highest traffic threads on SA. I wanted to have that conversation in public where other people could see it. Its another thing to hear that it was directly a policy to hope that the conversation would die.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 00:23
|
|
|
That axeil post was directly the catalyst that made it clear that the low-moderation policy we had in place with regards to Reade wasn't viable. It was absolutely a serious mistake and we made changes based on it: impugning Reade's (and other accusers') character was made severely punishable. The other rules we put in place for the 2020 primary thread were in response to the widespread denouncement of posters arguing for Biden as "pro-rape", but they were overly restrictive and shut down discussions that should have been permitted. As for splitting off discussion into their own threads: this is a traditional forum, that is what you DO with different topics. We're not going to compel people to participate in spin-off threads that they don't wish to. Often soem posters in the "light discussion about news" thread aren't interested in in-depth discussion on a topic and while that can be disappointing that will not change. We specifically allow advertising spinoff threads in USNews or other related threads and made the New Thread Thread in hopes that we could have more successful focused threads. We're certainly not trying to kill discussion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 00:24
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:That axeil post was directly the catalyst that made it clear that the low-moderation policy we had in place with regards to Reade wasn't viable. It was absolutely a serious mistake and we made changes based on it: impugning Reade's (and other accusers') character was made severely punishable. The other rules we put in place for the 2020 primary thread were in response to the widespread denouncement of posters arguing for Biden as "pro-rape", but they were overly restrictive and shut down discussions that should have been permitted. Hey, this is a thing that keeps coming up and it's weird to me because it feels like decisions are made to curate d&d to a specific type of reader. You know how Chuck Schumer has that imaginary family? Who are the d&d mods Bailey family? What's the image of the person that you're making decisions like that for?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 00:28
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:We're not going to compel people to participate in spin-off threads that they don't wish to. Often soem posters in the "light discussion about news" thread aren't interested in in-depth discussion on a topic and while that can be disappointing that will not change. We specifically allow advertising spinoff threads in USNews or other related threads and made the New Thread Thread in hopes that we could have more successful focused threads. We're certainly not trying to kill discussion. Doesn't matter what you are trying to do, it's what you actually are doing. Intent doesn't matter as much as impact. If you're OK with killing discussions on important subjects, then say that. Otherwise, we can work on a solution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 00:32
|
|
|
imo the spin stuff off into a new thread is indeed a good idea and yeah that's how forums work, but yknow let stuff go on a little longer before shutting it down, especially if it's merely a derail and not a slapfight and doubly so if its a slow news day
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 00:32
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Hey, this is a thing that keeps coming up and it's weird to me because it feels like decisions are made to curate d&d to a specific type of reader. You know how Chuck Schumer has that imaginary family? Who are the d&d mods Bailey family? What's the image of the person that you're making decisions like that for? I have no idea what you mean about the Chuck Schumer thing, but when we first were talking about reforming USPol into USNews in a prior feedback thread (and another in QCS) we had a bunch of posters express their desire to keep a space for news posting and light discussion. On the other hand my experience in D&D is that it consistently produces the best information and most interesting conversation in focused threads, while it produces by far the worst discussion in whatever the USPol of the day is, and that has been the case for all 8 years I've read D&D.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 00:34
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Doesn't matter what you are trying to do, it's what you actually are doing. That's a huge part of the apparently insoluble problem with uspol/usnews really. The pendulum swings between "megathreads suck, they're impossible to keep up with" and "splitting off threads kills discussion" (we are here). There have been a few suggestions we haven't tried yet as to how to square this circle in the last two threads. I guarantee we'll try at least one in the near future.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 00:35
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Doesn't matter what you are trying to do, it's what you actually are doing. I want more people to participate in non-USNews discussion and am willing to experiment to make that happen. The things I'm not willing to do are: ---just let everything happen in USNews indefinitely (though I'm open to letting conversations go on longer) ---compelling posters to post in threads that they do not want to If you have any ideas that might improve matters I'm all ears. I'm strongly considering turning back on the post timer for USNews right now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 00:37
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:okay so no quote:After things settled down, we, for the reasons fos and i enunciated, went with "everybody shut up about readechat". This was a clear, simple policy that made absolutely everyone involved angry. quote:Our secret hope was that everyone would move on from Tara Reade Oh certainly no one intended anything as gauche as killing a conversation, they just wanted to sequester it away in a specific thread in the explicit hope that people would "move on" (certainly not a phrase with any unfortunate implications re: allegations of sexual impropriety involving Democratic presidents) And it would be wildly unfair to draw any unfavorable conclusions from things like: a. lack of previously established interest in a more in-depth conversation than could be accomplished in USPOL b. The impetus very clearly being the Reade accusations specifically c. All of this coming on the heels of what is acknowledged to be an explicit "shut up about Reade" policy
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 00:38
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:imo the spin stuff off into a new thread is indeed a good idea and yeah that's how forums work, but yknow let stuff go on a little longer before shutting it down, especially if it's merely a derail and not a slapfight and doubly so if its a slow news day This is entirely subjective and mostly hinges on whatever a mod feels like. Someone disagreeing with a thing and then getting told they are wrong with multiple sources isn't a "slapfight" but that's how it gets treated. Spin off threads are for things that continually and habitually dominate threads devoted to a different subject. Spending 5 pages talking about police reform in what is the defacto main US politics thread is not an issue, as it's a major major issue in US politics. Same with any number of things. However if USPOL is dominated day in and day out with CaliChat, then spin it off. And low and behold, the Cali thread sustains itself. IMO, part of that is because talking about California politics doesn't cause a lot of white people to feel bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 00:40
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:I have no idea what you mean about the Chuck Schumer thing, but when we first were talking about reforming USPol into USNews in a prior feedback thread (and another in QCS) we had a bunch of posters express their desire to keep a space for news posting and light discussion. On the other hand my experience in D&D is that it consistently produces the best information and most interesting conversation in focused threads, while it produces by far the worst discussion in whatever the USPol of the day is, and that has been the case for all 8 years I've read D&D. You seriously never heard about the Bailey's? They're a made up family in his head who he thinks about when he makes decisions https://thehill.com/homenews/news/5662-keeping-up-with-schumers-baileys?amp= But my point is then, is D&D and specifically USPol for those people? Who is your audience that informs the decisions you're making and the specific experience you're trying to curate here? Because you obviously seem to have a specific audience in mind when you're making decisions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 00:40
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:I want more people to participate in non-USNews discussion and am willing to experiment to make that happen. The things I'm not willing to do are: One thing I can think that might legitimately help is that if someone brings up convo in USPOL / News that has another thread for to be very proactive about linking those threads. Like don't be a dick about it and be like THERES ANOTHER PLACE FOR THAT CONVO /probe 6 hours - but a - hey, the US is sending a bunch of subs to gently caress around near Taiwan - hey here's a link to the military policy thread ( idk if there is one but just for the sake of examples ) Like im not sure if there should be an onus for the poster but maybe it could be helpful. Like here's a mega thread for a bunch of news listening and happenings, if you happen to know where people should go to talk about it - heres the link - or you can say "I dont think there's another place to talk about this" I get that you want more signal to noise in that thread and the intentions but I think a lot of people might be like me and have some curated bookmarks but otherwise dont poke around much, but I will click links in thread if there's a topic i'd like to learn about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 00:42
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:I want more people to participate in non-USNews discussion and am willing to experiment to make that happen. The things I'm not willing to do are: Let "derails" that are relevant to politics go on longer. Don't probate or even warn for "slapfights", slapfights are self-moderation and if the thread is unhappy everyone will tell them to shut up, which happens in every other forum on here. Slow mode is fine, I personally think it encourages less shitposting and trolling without the need to tone police. It does lead to some people doing chain-editing their post to continue arguing without a new post, not sure how to deal with that but it's only a few people doing it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 00:43
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:But my point is then, is D&D and specifically USPol for those people? Who is your audience that informs the decisions you're making and the specific experience you're trying to curate here? Because you obviously seem to have a specific audience in mind when you're making decisions. Basically I think that D&D has two audiences that only have partial overlap: the group that wants to keep appraised of and discuss current events, and the group that is interested in in-depth discussion. The former is the larger of those two groups, but if possible I would like to figure out ways to expand the overlap.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 00:44
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Ok, all the mods and admins are in agreement that casting aspersions on accusers is unacceptable. In theory this has been the policy for almost two years now, but some stuff has slipped by, and we'll make an effort to be more vigilant about it. This isn't to say that this is an automatic permaban, but it's an automatic harsh probe and/or a ban. We can't stop people from believing this in their hearts, but we can stop them from posting about it. However this is an issue: Thanks for replying to me. I have some more thoughts about this, but before I start I do want to be clear that I'm only speaking for myself and no one else. To start, I want to give a small framework on what I consider is crossing the line into rape-apologism since my initial example was not very clear. Saying something like "I like Biden's policies and I'm glad I voted for him" should be, fine, for a lack of a better word. That can open someone up for debate over policies or voting, but immediately jumping into accusations of rape-apologism off of something like that would be tedious and unproductive in the same way that going after someone saying "I like Michael Jackson's music" would be escalating when it probably isn't warranted. Let's take it a step further. Saying something like "I'm glad that Joe Biden is in the White House" should be more open to challenge in the same way that saying "Michael Jackson was such an amazing artist and person." I don't think posting that should be actionable by mods, but I do think it's fair to have other posters question their motives and why they would have that opinion, along with the ramifications of what having that opinion would mean. This, however, is where the line gets crossed: quote:I am perfectly fine to tell you or anyone who asks where that line is in terms of a bridge too Far. As far as the mental calculus there were several variables here, mainly that Biden's opponent was Trump. It wasn't just a vacuum equation. It literally (in my mind) is a trolly problem. Biden being elected has saved tens of thousands of lives, if not hundreds. I can believe her and still decide that given those circumstances, I will vote for the lesser of two bads because it saves lives, including my own parents. Is that selfish? I'm sure it is, but so are people who in 2021 choose to have children. And before anyone asks, yes, this is a direct quote from someone in the MeToo thread. The fact that not only did someone feel confident enough to post that in the MeToo thread and that it wasn't probed is damning to the mod policies that have led us to this point right now. I understand, and ultimately support, the sentiment that we need to look forward and not back so I don't think this exact post should be punished since it happened awhile ago, but I was being dead serious when I suggested that the mods should reread the MeToo thread and take notes over the posters that said some truly heinous poo poo in that thread. For God's sake, this is the literal first reply in that thread and, again, it is so damning and indicative of the failure of moderation that led us to now: quote:I cannot understand why folks keep referring to her allegations as credible, I am excited to read about the valid proof that I have missed in the last 2 years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 00:46
|
|
|
I'll pipe up that I lurk here with the occasional post and will go venture into the in depth threads when conversations get moved there. I may be an aberration in that regard though. Slow mode for USNews/Pol would be good. If there's a way to limit editing even better so you don't have the disjointed conversations as people edit in replies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 00:46
|
|
|
"have you considered actually linking to the other threads you're telling people to go to" does seem like a rule I should follow more often than i do
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 00:48
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:Basically I think that D&D has two audiences that only have partial overlap: the group that wants to keep appraised of and discuss current events, and the group that is interested in in-depth discussion. The former is the larger of those two groups, but if possible I would like to figure out ways to expand the overlap. How do you know this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 00:49
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:How do you know this? While my gut response is to agree with fos, it is in fact basically impossible for us to have an accurate barometer of goon opinion, short of Jeffrey forcing everyone to express their opinion in this thread on one (1) account or else be banned. which I guess we could try That's one of the secondary purposes of having feedback threads.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 00:54
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:certainly, but the danger here is that due to the moderation-enforced impermissibility of discussion previously, there has been ideological uniformity on this issue in the china thread, with outright contempt shown to people who do not hew to that line. if we are sincere about the desire to hold good faith discussion of the topic, then not only will posters have to know that they will not face retaliation from the moderators for bringing up the topic, they also must have confidence that they will not be completely acceptable targets for a variety of insults. A big flaming stink posted:Ok I actually have a legit question regarding moderation. hey, mods, any chance of getting a response to this question? if you're working on a more meaningful response, that's fine, just want to make sure this isnt forgotten in the churn.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 00:56
|
|
|
Yeah, I think if you all have not you should think about who's going to win out when they assumed wants of those two groups are directly opposed or just wildly different. I'd personally lean to the group who generate content over those who are mostly looking for an RSS feed but it's whatever you want, you just need to build with an audience in mind because it's definitely not going to be everyone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 00:58
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Some do, some don't. It's not the mods' fault no one really cares about cop stuff except as a chat subject. there's a thread with tons of useful knowledge and resources and plenty of people who've read up a lot on the issue, and they have no one to talk to because everyone else would rather float along on the tides of generic politics chat letting the currents take them wherever they happen to go. Same thing happened in the Israel/Palestine thread, and that's not something that was broken off from USPol - it's been its own standalone thread forever. It just slowly died off over the last few years. Aside from three or four knowledgeable posters, no one really follows I/P anymore, except for briefly popping in when it happens to make the American news. All the racists who were openly pro-apartheid are gone, all the people who only showed up to yell at the racists are gone, and all the people who only read the thread because it gave them plenty of stuff to be mad at are quite satisfied with American politics these days. Now the only people left are the ones who genuinely had an enduring interest in what happens there...so the thread died, because very few people actually had more than a passing interest. GreyjoyBastard posted:I don't remember the exact details but we did speak to some people in the run-up to and after the start of the metoo thread, when we were having our first go at fixing our bad decision? yes. there were survivors who talked to us privately about it and advised us. I'm not going into details, because it's private and personal to them and that is that
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 00:58
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:While my gut response is to agree with fos, it is in fact basically impossible for us to have an accurate barometer of goon opinion, short of Jeffrey forcing everyone to express their opinion in this thread on one (1) account or else be banned. which I guess we could try Yeah I realize that. Did I miss a lot of folks asking for less detailed political discussions in this thread? Also A big flaming stink posted:hey, mods, any chance of getting a response to this question? if you're working on a more meaningful response, that's fine, just want to make sure this isnt forgotten in the churn. Seconded
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 00:59
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:hey, mods, any chance of getting a response to this question? if you're working on a more meaningful response, that's fine, just want to make sure this isnt forgotten in the churn. my immediate response is "hell if I know", you're welcome I'll make sure we don't miss this one, chinathread is an important topic even though it's not usnews
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 00:59
|
|
|
ScootsMcSkirt posted:This, however, is where the line gets crossed: I understand the point you are making here, because I don't like the 'lesser harm' argument myself, but looking at it in terms of moderation, how should a poster be allowed to respond to the question "How could you vote for Joe Biden in the face of the Reade accusations"? As far as I see it, there are really only three options: ---Give reasons for disbelieving Reade, which is, afaict, officially punishable SAwide now. ---Make some form of greater good/lesser harm argument ---Leave the Reade part of the question unstated To my mind, the middle is the best option because it at least confronts the accusations and the fact that the election was a contest between two rapists, while the latter results in the toxic peacekeeping effect we ended up creating in the primary thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 01:01
|
|
|
If we're going to treat any skepticism of sexual violence no matter how rooted as a thinly veiled attempt to promote rape culture, we should extend the same treatment to any skepticism of mass political violence whether or not it is capital-G Genocide. It's very clear that many posters want to keep on pushing "It's not that bad", "They wouldn't have been targeted if they hadn't been whatever the criteria of the day are", "It's made up by the CIA", "The sexual violence that's part and parcel of the political violence never really happened because Reasons", "It's unfortunate but we can never be too careful about counterrevolutionaries", "Actually the  smiley is inherently funny", "The eye witness confessing their own involvement is making it up because the main perpetrator is denying it", "The civilians developed nerve gas just to drop on themselves to make the government that also produced nerve gas look bad" et multum loving cetera.Look, nobody just goes "Tara Reade is a CIA plant and should be shot for her counterrevolutionary tendencies" and expects that's not going to result in a ban. Nobody brings up what she wears or wore, or expects her to be more careful. But bringing up the CIA elsewhere is supposed to be not only acceptable but this sort of trump card that the mods for some reason won't allow. Who cares if it's pissing all over the suffering of real people, there's points to be scored! If there's any reason people keep pushing it, it's because they want violence and want it any way they can get it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 01:01
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's not the mods' fault no one really cares about cop stuff except as a chat subject. there's a thread with tons of useful knowledge and resources and plenty of people who've read up a lot on the issue, and they have no one to talk to because everyone else would rather float along on the tides of generic politics chat letting the currents take them wherever they happen to go. it is, in part, the fault of the mods that they have sheltered a thread that formed a consensus of "defund the police is a pipe dream" and people do not want to defend that view in a different thread where the consensus is "ACAB"
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 01:01
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's not the mods' fault no one really cares about cop stuff except as a chat subject. Of course it isn't. It is the mods fault if every time it comes up it gets killed Impact versus intent. I'm fully aware that white america is content to just let minorities get murdered and tortured by armed gangs. This has been true for decades, centuries even. What I don't support is actively aiding that apathy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 01:02
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:hey, mods, any chance of getting a response to this question? if you're working on a more meaningful response, that's fine, just want to make sure this isnt forgotten in the churn. The admins are going to give us their guidance on this, and we'll get back to you. Sorry for the wait.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 01:02
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:I want more people to participate in non-USNews discussion and am willing to experiment to make that happen. The things I'm not willing to do are: * Post timer is a good idea. * I liked the idea some made for monthly iterations; that might cut down on people raging about something posted 20 pages & three weeks ago. * Don't try to force interest in other discussions; it'll happen organically from those interested in other discussions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 01:02
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:The admins are going to give us their guidance on this, and we'll get back to you. Sorry for the wait. GreyjoyBastard posted:my immediate response is "hell if I know", you're welcome no problem! i recognize its a contentious topic, to put it mildly 
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 01:03
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:An easy cut to this gordian knot is that a forum's goal is not to model the universe with words but to be an enjoyable place to chat with others. Some people like arguing, and that's cool but the arguments have to at least continually seek out some sort of novelty. I don't think identifying a goal counts as an easy solution, the hard part was always how do you get there via policy. The rape apologia thing is clearly a very serious issue for many people and it's not obvious to me how we cultivate an enjoyable place for everyone to chat without telling them "do not say this true thing" when that true thing makes so many people deeply uncomfortable. "Do not say this true thing" appears to be the policy we're going with here, and that doesn't seem like a foundation that can support much of anything. I think it's going to keep forcing the moderators to make difficult case-by-case decisions that leave everyone unhappy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 01:07
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:it is, in part, the fault of the mods that they have sheltered a thread that formed a consensus of "defund the police is a pipe dream" and people do not want to defend that view in a different thread where the consensus is "ACAB" I haven't been in the police thread in a while, but it was absolutely not the majority opinion in that thread that police should be defunded or abolished. Reformist arguments exist, I guess, but they're far from the majority opinion. Edit: And there's 17 posts since I've last been there, and it doesn't seem from that list that there's been a radical shift in opinion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 01:13
|
|
|
1337JiveTurkey posted:Look, nobody just goes "Tara Reade is a CIA plant and should be shot for her counterrevolutionary tendencies" and expects that's not going to result in a ban. Nobody brings up what she wears or wore, or expects her to be more careful. But bringing up the CIA elsewhere is supposed to be not only acceptable but this sort of trump card that the mods for some reason won't allow. Who cares if it's pissing all over the suffering of real people, there's points to be scored! If there's any reason people keep pushing it, it's because they want violence and want it any way they can get it. There's a much, much higher ratio of cases where the CIA made some poo poo up about what a country was doing than there is of women making up rape accusations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 01:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 11:13 |
|
|
silicone thrills posted:There's definitely a difference between feeling like you got punted off to a thread to have your conversations where other people aren't going to see them - A big thing about USPol is it is one of the highest traffic threads on SA. I wanted to have that conversation in public where other people could see it. every thread in D&D is viewable by everyone with a forums account. they're all equally visible. every registered user who isn't banned can see the MeToo thread anytime they want to, it's every bit as public as USPol/USNews is. if anyone wants to talk about rape culture, they can find the MeToo thread - even if they're not a USPol regular who reads politics talk all day long Cease to Hope posted:it is, in part, the fault of the mods that they have sheltered a thread that formed a consensus of "defund the police is a pipe dream" and people do not want to defend that view in a different thread where the consensus is "ACAB"  to my knowledge, the mods are not stopping anyone from going into that thread and having a respectful and polite discussion about different approaches and outlooks toward solving the problem of wildly racist, abusive, and murderous police officers honestly I'm struggling not to laugh when people claim that having a separate cop thread is somehow smothering the issue. the Cops On The Beat threads were an iconic part of old D&D, and along with HidingFromGoro's prison threads, they were a major factor in turning a lot of budding SA lefties against the boys in blue
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 01:15
|
|