C-SPAM moderation and Xinjiang: read rules in op

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > C-SPAM moderation and Xinjiang: read rules in op

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

genocide has a few different definitions, and i think that's a huge part of the issue of trying to moderate around it.

using a different genocide as an example to dilute some of the poisoned well:

is the usa committing a genocide against african americans? under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the answer seems likely yes. but i don't think the idea is to ban anyone who says "the usa isn't genociding african americans, its just mass repression" because there are other definitions of genocide that make that statement valid.

instead moderate around:

1. moral judgement. saying "the way the usa treats african americans is good" seems clear cut enough to be moderated on

2. denial of specific facts of some degree of certainty. this is less clear than moral judgement, but seems reasonable to moderate on someone saying "actually black people aren't shot by police"

# ¿ Mar 24, 2021 19:06

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 11, 2024 06:06

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Grapplejack posted:

Has there been any mod action on xinjiang stuff? I haven't seen anything and I post a lot in the east asia / succ threads.

E: answered above

here's some recent examples

Bathtub Cheese posted:

China will have always been along for the ride with respect to carbon intensive modernization because the alternative was some flavor of neocolonial relationship with the West.

in the present, China isn�t as bad on the climate front and the gap will only grow in the future, coinciding with the gap between the increasingly frantic American claims of genocide in China and reality.

we�re all doomed anyway but China will fall apart slower

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Lostconfused posted:

So are you just going to stay mad or will you finally post some more propaganda here?

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Rated PG-34 posted:

no really, post the source so I can be convinced or unconvinced

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Zeno-25 posted:

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ¿ Mar 24, 2021 19:18

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Again, there are multiple overlapping definitions of genocide, so it can be reasonable to say the US is committing genocide at the border and also reasonable to say that the US isn�t committing genocide at the border.

That�s why arguing over the word without discussing which definition you are using is a distraction, almost like it is intentionally used to shift the conversation away from reality and towards labeling individuals as deniers to try and hurt their credibility.

# ¿ Mar 25, 2021 17:17

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Usually considering the background, funding, and reputation of an author is an absolutely normal activity when researching complex and controversial issues.

Like, it does actually matter if the �scientist� claiming global warming is fake also gets paid by the American Petroleum Institute.

# ¿ Mar 25, 2021 17:31

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Dolphin posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5zZxlTN2rE

Usually it's cited as a potential source of bias but can't be used to conclusively discredit a story. And in regard to the petroleum one specifically those scientists have a long history of accidentally proving climate change is occurring so their papers don't get published.

No, often a bias is sufficient to disregard the work someone did.

And you�re mistaking my API example, where they directly pay scientists to come up with bullshit denialist papers.

It is absolutely absurd to pretend one must consider the work of API or the Heartland Institute when discussing climate change.

But I�m curious, if you think sources of bias don�t conclusively discredit an author, then presumably that also applies to Chinese state supported media? Or is that somehow a different kind of bias that totally discredits them, but if it is State Department supported media they aren�t discredited?

# ¿ Mar 25, 2021 17:46

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Gringostar posted:

only there are pretty well defined definitions of genocide while they do include death camps are absolutely not limited to them

sure, but also people are also routinely using less expansive terms.

Like under treaty, one could make a strong argument that the US is genociding African Americans, but when most people think of genocide, they think of a more acute form of ethnic repression.

Or how many genocides are contained within our climate policy? None? Because no group is specifically targeted? Or many? Because we are knowingly enacting policy that will directly cause things that are considered genocide by the treaty we signed.

# ¿ Mar 25, 2021 17:55

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Herstory Begins Now posted:

idk I'm applying the most widely used definition,

albeit i suggest people consider the other ways people have considered defining genocide

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions

Sure, and by that definition the USA is engaging in the genocide of African Americans. Which is a reasonable conclusion I agree with, but surely you don't think we should ban any poster who disagrees with that conclusion.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2021 00:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 11, 2024 06:06

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Good Soldier Svejk posted:

Are there cspam posters defending american prisons or the border concentration camps as necessary or not as bad as they seem?

if you count �cspam posters� as people who have posted in this thread, or other cspam threads but mostly post in other forums then yes.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2021 18:05

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > C-SPAM moderation and Xinjiang: read rules in op