|
AGGGGH BEES posted:I'd like it if derailing a thread about some foreign topic to bloviate on and on and on about the US was made probateable. off-topic posting already is probateable. i think your problem is that the people you're angry at aren't off-topic
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Again dead reckoning it's strange that you have this worry Elector_Nerdlingen posted:Can you explain why you're worried about inadvertently being just that little bit too racist? It's something that's never crossed my mind. Fool_of_sound suggested that we should interpret bigotry incredibly broadly: fool_of_sound posted:Defending an idea with a clearly and provably negative outcome for a protected group without showing exceptional necessity is bigoted. The strength of belief or ostensible motivation doesn't matter. In the past, such broad rules have been interpreted by the mod staff in ways that happen to cover posters with political views the mod staff dislikes. For example, banning a poster for arguing that calling ICE detention camps "death camps" was hyperbolic. Low content ankle-biting generally goes unpunished, but the same behavior by Trump supporters draws the eye of Sauron. The lack of feedback on reports exacerbates the problem, and it is an ongoing problem. The mods run the place, and if they want to set the limits of discussion as being between democratic socialism and Leninism, that's fine, but I think they should come out and define where those limits are, rather than relying on too-vague rules to impose a soft ban on various opinions. If you want people to follow the rules, they have to be able to understand them. Lightning Knight posted:Because it hasn’t been widely discussed among the mods/admins. It also seems a bit circular to argue that banning support of Trump won't have any serious effects on chilling discussion because all the Trump supporters have been run off or realized that openly espousing their beliefs invites punishment.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 19:44
|
|
|
the idiots pretending they're just asking questions about how racist they can be before they get banned are obscuring the actual, legitimate questions about opinion orthodoxy (hint dead reckoning the concern isn't between racism and 'political correctness', it's between liberalism and socialism), which is kind of a shame because it's probably worthwhile to have a real discussion on the topic. the asinine insistence that without clear boundaries nobody will know what constitutes racism vs what doesn't is laughably absurd and is a paper thin cover for your concern that you're going to be held accountable for awful opinions. if you're that concerned about your opinion resulting in you being banned then either don't post in D&D or don't post about race or gender. I got a week probation when the primary thread got moved to CSPAM for not supporting Sanders enough (or something? it wasn't clear), which was kind of lovely, and I think we do need a rule that that kind of thing shouldn't happen again and I think is a legitimate complaint. Seven Hundred Bee fucked around with this message at 19:53 on May 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
I am concerned that some posters seem to think that relatively mainstream opinions like "we should enforce our immigration laws" or "the government should be allowed to use standardized testing in hiring decisions" ought to constitute punishable bigotry because some people may be supporting them for the wrong reasons, which goes back to the whole toxic "interrogating other posters' hidden motivations" problem. I don't see how this is different from "opinion orthodoxy." I am concerned that the mod team has declined to address this in a thread about the new rules.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 20:00
|
|
|
please post an example of someone getting probated for saying "I think the US should enforce immigration laws" without also including a bunch of racist poo poo about getting the "right people" into the country the "right way". you've made more posts in this thread tilting at an imaged windmill than there have been defending awful things in the way you're so worried about being banned for. also, what kind of rule are you even looking for? should we establish a racism scale so you can make sure your racism per post quotient isn't too high? do you need someone to explicitly come out and state (in more detail than has already been stated) that it's ok to have a conversation about varying immigration laws and border controls as long as you're not being openly racist when doing so? what the real issue is -- and you should at least be honest about it -- is you want to post awful opinions about topics where there's not much of a debate. it's hard to provide a non-objectionable opinion arguing that transgender people, for example, shouldn't be allowed in the military. or that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. or that abortion should be illegal. your schtick of just asking questions is really trying to establish standards so when you post awful things you can try to rules lawyer yourself out of a ban ("I was just asking questions! I'm playing devil's advocate!") give it a rest. and -- as I said before -- your nonsense is obscuring a real conversation that should probably happen. edit: also, just to add, your tone of being the concerned D&D poster who is willing to speak up to protect the legions of innocents who share his opinion and are being unjustly banned left and right is as grating as it is stupid. you're not posting about hypothetical situations any poster may run afoul of -- you're posting about not getting banned for your specific poo poo opinions. Seven Hundred Bee fucked around with this message at 20:13 on May 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 20:09
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:please post an example of someone getting probated for saying "I think the US should enforce immigration laws" without also including a bunch of racist poo poo about getting the "right people" into the country the "right way". you've made more posts in this thread tilting at an imaged windmill than there have been defending awful things in the way you're so worried about being banned for. Dude this is everything people who are concerned with the "mod discretion" rule have been talking about summed up in one post. You've used an ideological lense to sort opinions on a bunch of topics into a Right side and a Wrong side and concluded that anyone on the Wrong side is racist and awful and banning them is ok, and further that a poster you disagree with is just trying to see how racist and awful he can be without getting banned instead of having validly held opinions that differ from what you think the forum orthodoxy should be. Which is I guess fine if you're posting (I mean, you're welcome to your lovely opinions as much as anyone is) but a lovely way to run a discussion forum.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 20:32
|
|
|
We're talking about a poster who has spilled a million words justifying police executions of minorities and there's no reason to pretend he doesn't have that history.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 20:37
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Dude this is everything people who are concerned with the "mod discretion" rule have been talking about summed up in one post. You've used an ideological lense to sort opinions on a bunch of topics into a Right side and a Wrong side and concluded that anyone on the Wrong side is racist and awful and banning them is ok, and further that a poster you disagree with is just trying to see how racist and awful he can be without getting banned instead of having validly held opinions that differ from what you think the forum orthodoxy should be. Which is I guess fine if you're posting (I mean, you're welcome to your lovely opinions as much as anyone is) but a lovely way to run a discussion forum. please post a well reasoned, not transphobic post about how transgender people shouldn't be allowed in the military and I will give you the apology you rightly deserve. or acknowledge that concern trolling about your posts not being taken the wrong way and you being unjustly banned is a thinly veiled effort to try to pretend that there are no base standards concerning things like civil rights, wherein it's very difficult to both acknowledge fundamental civil rights and argue certain things, i.e. gay marriage should be illegal or transgender rights don't exist. there is a categorical difference between conversations about "should women vote" and "what healthcare system should the US have?". the latter has a place on this forum while the former doesn't. and -- here's the rub -- outside of this thread there are no posts in the above vein. the last "controversial" banning was when an actual nazi got banned and people started wringing their hands about how while he was a Nazi, we shouldn't prevent him from posting elsewhere on the forums by banning him for his D&D posts. the real conversation that needs to happen is people (including myself) being probated or banned when a thread was moved from D&D to CSPAM for not being socialist enough. as I said, I think that was lovely and unwarranted. that discussion does not open the door for racism and sexism disguised as free speech and just asking questions, though, and if my probation was the price to keep that trash out of D&D then I'm all for it. Seven Hundred Bee fucked around with this message at 20:42 on May 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 20:38
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Dude this is everything people who are concerned with the "mod discretion" rule have been talking about summed up in one post. You've used an ideological lense to sort opinions on a bunch of topics into a Right side and a Wrong side and concluded that anyone on the Wrong side is racist and awful and banning them is ok, and further that a poster you disagree with is just trying to see how racist and awful he can be without getting banned instead of having validly held opinions that differ from what you think the forum orthodoxy should be. Which is I guess fine if you're posting (I mean, you're welcome to your lovely opinions as much as anyone is) but a lovely way to run a discussion forum. If you're absolutely committed to stanning for racism in the face of oncoming probations, the moderator is almost obligated to probe you or your gesture is for nothing.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 20:41
|
|
|
here's another way to look at it: there may be no right opinion about certain topics, but there's certainly lots of wrong opinions, and we all know what they are and stop pretending we don't. the evidence that we all know what shouldn't be posted is that those opinions aren't posted. this doesn't need to be codified in an explicit rule other than "learn to read the room by lurking in some threads and don't be a shithead".
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 20:45
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:please post a well reasoned, not transphobic post about how transgender people shouldn't be allowed in the military and I will give you the apology you rightly deserve. In another D&D there might be able to exist threads about those things and people could have spirited discussions about them. But not in the D&D we have now. Because posters cannot handle the idea that there might be people who disagree with them on things they view as fundamental or that regardless of what they think of those people they have to maintain decorum while debating. So a thread on any of the topics above would be a shitshow from the first reply and just go downhill from there. The problem with those topics is not that people have bad opinions on them, no matter how much you are convinced that you're right and your stances are the only righteous ones. The problem is is that posters have been allowed to think that being self righteous entitles them to wage total posting war against what they determine are Bad Opinions and that the mods have, to this point, mostly let it slide as long as it is in support of particular ideological stances. Notable exceptions are for instance the Venezuela thread recently where PPJ has been laying down the law and some of the more informed posters have come back and started contributing again.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 20:53
|
|
|
what a shame that D&D can't have riveting threads on topics such as "should women be allowed to vote?" or "should gay marriage be allowed?". truly, a loss. but, just as there's no rule protecting these opinions (and the irony of people who want to question fundamental civil rights proclaiming that they need some sort of protected speech status), there's no rule preventing them. so why don't you lead by example and start asking the questions that the D&D orthodoxy is trying to silence? edit: also, still waiting for you (or anyone) to link someone banned under the circumstances you are describing. Seven Hundred Bee fucked around with this message at 21:00 on May 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 20:56
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:In another D&D there might be able to exist threads about those things and people could have spirited discussions about them. But not in the D&D we have now. Because posters cannot handle the idea that there might be people who disagree with them on things they view as fundamental or that regardless of what they think of those people they have to maintain decorum while debating. So a thread on any of the topics above would be a shitshow from the first reply and just go downhill from there. The problem with those topics is not that people have bad opinions on them, no matter how much you are convinced that you're right and your stances are the only righteous ones. The problem is is that posters have been allowed to think that being self righteous entitles them to wage total posting war against what they determine are Bad Opinions and that the mods have, to this point, mostly let it slide as long as it is in support of particular ideological stances. Notable exceptions are for instance the Venezuela thread recently where PPJ has been laying down the law and some of the more informed posters have come back and started contributing again. "But there might be good reasons to be transphobic", I say, totally not transphobicly
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 21:00
|
|
|
posting poo poo that amounts to "we should enforce our laws" is low content as hell. it adds no value to the discussion if this forum is for arguing what the law should be.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2019 21:03
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I am concerned that some posters seem to think that relatively mainstream opinions like "we should enforce our immigration laws" or "the government should be allowed to use standardized testing in hiring decisions" ought to constitute punishable bigotry because some people may be supporting them for the wrong reasons, which goes back to the whole toxic "interrogating other posters' hidden motivations" problem. I don't see how this is different from "opinion orthodoxy." Just because a position is mainstream doesn't mean it's not bigoted. According to this poll, 43% of Americans think LGBT relationships are morally wrong, and 17% said that interracial marriage is morally wrong. Are you going to argue for those here? Because they're clearly bigoted views, regardless of how they poll, and I don't see what it could possibly contribute to these forums to allow someone to argue against either one here.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 00:01
|
|
|
exmarx posted:posting poo poo that amounts to "we should enforce our laws" is low content as hell. it adds no value to the discussion if this forum is for arguing what the law should be. on the issue of the forum laws, I'd argue that sometimes we shouldn't enforce our laws, even when they are good rules. Then again I'm a fan of Restorative Justice. Strict adherence to the letter of the law isn't that important compared to fostering a positive environment and good norms. I've noticed that this is already how the forum usually functions and approve, even if it means mod justice can at times seem arbitrary and capricious. The specific forum rules aren't really that important compared to setting a good tone. It's always funny when someone first becomes a mod and has all kinds of great ideas for new rules, like when R. Guyovitch banned the use of the word "whataboutism." I'm not sure that one was even enforced for a week before he threw in the towel. I don't think anyone is willing to put in the effort to rigorously enforce that kind of rule by themselves.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 00:10
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:In another D&D there might be able to exist threads about those things and people could have spirited discussions about them. But not in the D&D we have now. Because posters cannot handle the idea that there might be people who disagree with them on things they view as fundamental or that regardless of what they think of those people they have to maintain decorum while debating. So a thread on any of the topics above would be a shitshow from the first reply and just go downhill from there. The problem with those topics is not that people have bad opinions on them, no matter how much you are convinced that you're right and your stances are the only righteous ones. The problem is is that posters have been allowed to think that being self righteous entitles them to wage total posting war against what they determine are Bad Opinions and that the mods have, to this point, mostly let it slide as long as it is in support of particular ideological stances. Notable exceptions are for instance the Venezuela thread recently where PPJ has been laying down the law and some of the more informed posters have come back and started contributing again. please do not use the multiverse hypothesis as the basis for your mad desire to want to openly posit that certain classes of people should be unpersonned for the crime of their birth just because there is an infinitesimal chance that we will all spontaneously attain posting enlightenment because a neo nazi is allowed to posit the question of whether non-whites are actually people and not npcs for the thirty septillionth time
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 00:44
|
|
|
Squalid posted:on the issue of the forum laws, I'd argue that sometimes we shouldn't enforce our laws, even when they are good rules. Well, law is not the basis of morality, and new mods must find ways to use their posting capital or the first hundred days of their term will be judged harshly by historians.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 00:50
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I am concerned that some posters seem to think that relatively mainstream opinions like "we should enforce our immigration laws" or "the government should be allowed to use standardized testing in hiring decisions" ought to constitute punishable bigotry because some people may be supporting them for the wrong reasons, which goes back to the whole toxic "interrogating other posters' hidden motivations" problem. I don't see how this is different from "opinion orthodoxy." I'm concerned that you're still allowed to post freely and Just Ask Questions about racist poo poo
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 02:11
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Dude this is everything people who are concerned with the "mod discretion" rule have been talking about summed up in one post. You've used an ideological lense to sort opinions on a bunch of topics into a Right side and a Wrong side and concluded that anyone on the Wrong side is racist and awful and banning them is ok, and further that a poster you disagree with is just trying to see how racist and awful he can be without getting banned instead of having validly held opinions that differ from what you think the forum orthodoxy should be. Which is I guess fine if you're posting (I mean, you're welcome to your lovely opinions as much as anyone is) but a lovely way to run a discussion forum. Counterpoint he's right, the poster he's talking about is a noxious shithead who Just Has Some Concerns all the time and is worried that now people will punish him for it being bigotry Also it was incredibly good and cool when the primary thread went to cspam to be purged of decorum brained libs and I ate a week when it got moved back, it was worth a week off to be able to ban shitheads
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 02:12
|
|
|
"Maybe there are no right sides here" I mutter beneath my hood as I erect the cross my neighbors lawn
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 03:07
|
|
|
Wild that anyone can pay enough attention to D&D to effortpost in this thread and still think it's possible to get run for wrongthink. The era of Trump thread saw the darkest days of thoughtpolicing. Where the shitlib mod team ensured Dems Bad posting was met with swift and excessive punishment for content. In all that time, I don't recall any probes for shining a light on Bad Dems. Instead, seems like everyone who got done* for breaking the rule was some combination of insufferable, habitual  trolling, and/or living to own the centrists. Somehow, posters without a history of lazy baiting who cleared the bar of "slight effort" survived disrupting the rigidly enforced succdem safe space. Mind, the others were welcome to post about literally any other topic in the thread (the derails  ) and had a choice of threads devoted to their favorite topic, it's not as if they were exiled.I'm sure it was hell to moderate given how prolific the dramamongers on each side were, so I completely understand why the format was retired. But that was the prime example! Viewpoint discrimination in modern D&D. How'd it go? Shittily posting verboten opinions in the one place you're explicitly not allowed to: Occasional probations, extraordinarily rare bans. All other posting about verboten opinions in the one place you're explicitly not allowed to: Rare kettling when your post was adjacent to drama and shitposting. Keep your :tenbux: *sixers don't count. Anything under a week shouldn't. R. Guyovich posted:tentative rules list, subject to review here in this thread for a week or so. Which is to say: R. Guyovich posted:no it wouldn't lol. megathreads are already little fiefdoms with their own cultures and you want that to be formalized?  just not with bespoke IKs or whatever. As you note, it's already how well-trafficked threads function with the (understandable!) mod mentality of the last decade. If we're not going to alter behavior or tactics in order to change that, might as well make it a clear expectation?More people ought to read (and keep updated!) OPs. New OPs ought to be intentional when considering what environment they want from the thread(even if you don't get it!). I'm mildly annoyed by people who kramer in and then complain that people are unwelcoming. Setting expectations makes it easier to understand that I'm an rear end in a top hat, not a victim.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 03:18
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:More people ought to read (and keep updated!) OPs. New OPs ought to be intentional when considering what environment they want from the thread(even if you don't get it!). I'm mildly annoyed by people who kramer in and then complain that people are unwelcoming. Setting expectations makes it easier to understand that I'm an rear end in a top hat, not a victim. That isn't going to help when people aren't required to even read the thread before posting
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 03:29
|
|
|
E: never mind, probably not best to bring up old arguments
WampaLord fucked around with this message at 04:03 on May 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 03:31
|
|
|
Squalid posted:on the issue of the forum laws, I'd argue that sometimes we shouldn't enforce our laws, even when they are good rules. for a very large portion of 2017 and 2018 i was the only one doing any modding here. hard to make big changes when you're carrying the day-to-day load solo.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 04:41
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:for a very large portion of 2017 and 2018 i was the only one doing any modding here. hard to make big changes when you're carrying the day-to-day load solo. That seems to be the usual state of the forum, and its not a terrible circumstance. Trying to write specific rules for every little niggling detail that troubles the forum is probably a futile exercise, however well intentioned. Much more vital is setting the right tone. Compared to that the actual text of the rules is trifling. I had a look at the official forum rules for the first time in years after seeing this thread. Still has the proscription on lowercase writing and internet speak. Rules like that only get enforced these days if you really piss someone off. And that's the way it should be.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 06:53
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 07:05
|
|
|
Pander posted:2) Cut down on extreme partisan derail manifestos. It's frustrating to post when some people turn every issue or argument into a penultimate litmus test for whether you are on Good Side or Bad Side. If you're mostly coming here to ask specific questions and receive specific answers without too much argument about the premise of your question then maybe you should be spending more time in Ask/Tell, the forum specifically dedicated to that format? I was thinking the other night about this, but it's weird that a small subset of D&D people have this really specific vision for D&D where it would mostly be a place for credentialed experts to answer narrowly specific technical questions relevant to their fields. That forum already exists and is correctly labelled as such. If someone wants to question whether purestrain electoralism is actually an effective strategy for achieving political change then that is absolutely within the bounds of a debate or discussion on politics. In fact some of us feel the failure to entertain these larger questions contributed to some of the problems society is facing today. You might not agree, but if you want to hang around in D&D I think you should be prepared to argue and debate with people who feel that way. If you don't think that's a worthwhile use of your time then I suggest you're in the wrong forum, and there's actually a perfectly good alternative you are free to make use of.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2019 19:24
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:R. Guyovich indicated that the new rules would include a "catch-all" rule that included both "bad posts" and "sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia and promotion of any ideology espousing such." However, the mod team has offered no guidance about how either of those things will be interpreted. So you feel like the underlined terms are currently (or may be in the future) interpreted too broadly, and that you might get banned for inadvertently posting something that you didn't believe would be defined that way. Fair enough. Could you please show us how you think those terms should be defined?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2019 03:50
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:So you feel like the underlined terms are currently (or may be in the future) interpreted too broadly, and that you might get banned for inadvertently posting something that you didn't believe would be defined that way. Fair enough. Could you please show us how you think those terms should be defined? IMO, off the top of my head, it ought to be limited to: -Any use of ethnic, racial, gender, sexual orientation, disability, religious, or gender identity based slurs. -Calling for violence against or disenfranchisement of any person or group based on their membership in one of the above categories -Espousing the inherent superiority of one race over another I am open to the idea that there are additional categories I may have missed. I don't think the proposed outcomes based ethics is workable, because of the fact that almost any neutral public policy will be more easily utilized or accessed by the wealthy, and wealth in America cleaves along racial lines.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 06:28
|
|
|
I for one welcome our upcoming debates and discussions about the horrors of busing, the upsides of colonization, and the stalwart defense of public order against the criminal element by our police force. Maybe we’ll also get a thread about trans toilets? IDK
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 09:47
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:IMO, off the top of my head, it ought to be limited to: By "disenfranchisement", do you mean the denial of the right to vote, or the broader sense of being denied any right or privilege? By violence do you mean in the "beating an individual person" sense, or in the broader sense including institutionalized structural and economic violence and threats thereof? And why aren't you including ethnicity, gender/identity, sexual orientation, religion, disability, etc in the superiority line? Is that intentional, or should we be reading that line as if those were there instead of just race?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 12:16
|
|
|
Elector_Nerdlingen posted:By "disenfranchisement", do you mean the denial of the right to vote, or the broader sense of being denied any right or privilege? By violence do you mean in the "beating an individual person" sense, or in the broader sense including institutionalized structural and economic violence and threats thereof? I wasn't really sure about the best way to phrase the superiority rule. A great number of religions are predicated on the idea that they most correctly interpret the will of God and are therefore "better", and I don't think expressing the idea that your faith is the truest is equivalent to ethnic supremacy. Similarly, criticizing a faith tradition for elements of their doctrine or practice shouldn't be forbidden. When drafting a rule stating that people "can't" do something under threat of punishment, I favor starting from the narrowest and most specific positions, and under regulating rather than over.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:structural/economic "violence" are concepts too broad to be meaningful. Not really! Let's go back to why you're afraid you'll be punished for being accidentally racist, considering it's one of the few things I have never worried about once despite having a fairly severe anxiety disorder. Dead Reckoning posted:
Incredible surprise that the gunfucker would prefer to have inusfficient rules Also I can't imagine actually being concerned about people being too strict about racism, unless you yourself are a caricature of a right wing loon who's terrified of the caricature of the PC police BENGHAZI 2 fucked around with this message at 22:19 on May 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 22:16
|
|
|
i thought the entire point was to NOT have bright-line rules like that so you can't play the "i'm not 
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 22:31
|
|
|
I don't understand the concern. If the mods think that secret racists have started using "zebras" as a coded slur, they can always come out and say "knock it off with the zebras." The mods weren't powerless to ban ableist slurs.BENGHAZI 2 posted:Not really! Let's go back to why you're afraid you'll be punished for being accidentally racist, considering it's one of the few things I have never worried about once despite having a fairly severe anxiety disorder. It's weird to me that I'm pretty left wing on topics like environment protection, labor rights, and civil rights, but because I deviate from left-wing orthodoxy on some issues, you to assume that I'm alt-right. I'm not so convinced that I'm correct that disagreeing with me can only come from a place of bad faith, and I don't understand what the purpose of D&D is if people can't disagree without risking a probation. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 23:19 on May 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 22:33
|
|
|
E: doublepost
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I don't understand the concern. If the mods think that secret racists have started using "zebras" as a coded slur, they can always come out and say "knock it off with the zebras." The mods weren't powerless to ban ableist slurs. it's the part where you declare the summary execution of black children for having toy guns on a playground, and the ripping of children from their parents to be thrown into cages for the crime of impure blood, both wholly defensible and desirable, OP if only there was some term, for someone whose political goals were "socialism, but kept from the racially undeserving through unremitting violence at the hands of authority, from which there is no legal escape," eh?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 23:21
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:but because I deviate from left-wing orthodoxy Dead Reckoning posted:assume that I'm alt-right. now why would people think the worst of you when you use Nazi talking points like "left-wing orthodoxy"
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 23:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
NachtSieger posted:
I don't mean that in a pejorative sense. What term would you prefer I use for "positions typically held by those on the American left"?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2019 23:24
|
|