Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 11-20-2019, 01:27 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
When everything is reported, with increasing hostility, and where the judgment of the moderation team differs from the more reactionary posters, it builds up a sort of discounting.
Good of you to own it, but that's still fucked up.

We've been told in the past that we're encouraged to report posts, and now we find out that no, that just makes it worse? Wonderful!
  #252  
Old 11-20-2019, 01:32 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
SamuelA - most of your posts in this thread are pretty objectionable, and go far beyond the statement that spawned this thread. Plus, you seem more interested in having a Ford/Kavanaugh discussion rather than one about the board or moderation. While that is the underlying subject of the comment in question, this isn't the place to rehash that bit.
Other posters in this thread have expressed opinions that Ford cannot be blamed in any way for telling her story and there is no evidence that she isn't being truthful.

I am just pointing out that her story, whether or not it is based in truth, is a verbal assault intended to cause severe harm. And it's rather suspicious how 1 sided it is. Like how every victim of a fight in the E.R. was always minding their own business when 2 guys come out of nowhere and attack. Is every assault victim lying? No, but most probably are.

My point was to say that HD has a legitimate point of viewing informing his post and that Ford purposefully attacked kavanaugh with the intent of causing harm. The death threats (both aimed at her and kavanaugh) are a forseeable consequence of her actions.

Last edited by SamuelA; 11-20-2019 at 01:34 PM.
  #253  
Old 11-20-2019, 01:36 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
We want the board to be a place where people can discuss any manner of topic. Most of the time that's great, but some of the times those topics can be offensive and not every topic is everyone's cup of tea.
I certainly understand this. But the post in question wasn't "on topic". The topic had nothing to do with Kavanaugh, Ford, or sexual assault allegations in general. I know we've rehashed this already, but this is at least one of the sources of our disagreement (and presumably, your other disagreements in this thread, including with the posters you praise as thoughtful below).

Quote:
My first instinct when presented with a type of ultimatum is to escalate. That's why I usually hold my posts for a while before responding.

For me, I'm much more interested and receptive to thoughtful posts from folks like Helena330 and Manda JO, than I am to the more reactionary responses that are often offered.
I don't know which group you're slotting me into, not that it particularly matters. I've tried to keep my language and tone appropriate for ATMB and hopefully I've succeeded.

Do you find any of these "thoughtful posts" convincing to you, even a little bit? Has your opinion changed at all due to any arguments in this thread? Do you have any doubt about your initial decision, and for that matter, is this issue under any wider discussion among the staff?

Quote:
As you say, this is your most important issue, but the persistent efforts to increase what falls under the umbrella of ban worthy ideas is counter-productive in my view.
I'm not suggesting that such views should be "ban worthy", except in the sense that every rule violation can lead to a ban if egregious, or repeated, enough.

Quote:
Post reports are very useful - but they only serve to alert moderators to make their own judgments. When everything is reported, with increasing hostility, and where the judgment of the moderation team differs from the more reactionary posters, it builds up a sort of discounting.

I'm willing to address any argument on the merits. But I'm told that if I disagree with an individual's assessment that something is misogynistic, that makes me a misogynist. And since the charge can be leveled at basically anything, it becomes circular and unassailable. That's not a discussion any longer.
I'm not sure if this is directed at me, but I don't believe disagreeing about whether something said by someone else qualifies as misogyny is necessarily misogynistic. I've seen nothing from you as a poster or a moderator that indicates to me that you're a misogynist. I think you've generally been a good moderator, I just disagree (incredibly strongly!!!) on this specific issue, and I still want to hear from as many others in the staff and Doper-dom as are interested in contributing. Maybe someone will make an argument that clicks with some of the moderation staff, if they haven't already.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 11-20-2019 at 01:38 PM.
  #254  
Old 11-20-2019, 01:37 PM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 13,072
At this point, I do think it's reasonable to wonder why the mods don't have women, minorities and/or the disabled represented amongst their number. I know that we can't have every viewpoint, but they should at least hear from more than one on the loop.
  #255  
Old 11-20-2019, 01:42 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
At this point, I do think it's reasonable to wonder why the mods don't have women, minorities and/or the disabled represented amongst their number. I know that we can't have every viewpoint, but they should at least hear from more than one on the loop.
How about we go a step further. Unless we have an equal representation of all races and genders this means the mod pool is biased. Let's actively discriminate against mod applicants who are of over represented races and genders in favor of minorities and women. Who we should lower the bar for.
  #256  
Old 11-20-2019, 01:42 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
At this point, I do think it's reasonable to wonder why the mods don't have women, minorities and/or the disabled represented amongst their number. I know that we can't have every viewpoint, but they should at least hear from more than one on the loop.
Spice Weasel used to be a mod, but she left the board.
  #257  
Old 11-20-2019, 01:43 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,104
I'll add that we can see in real time the damage to the board, including the loss of some really wonderful contributors, done by decisions like this.
  #258  
Old 11-20-2019, 01:47 PM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Spice Weasel used to be a mod, but she left the board.
All of the POC or women mods, as far as I know, are no longer mods. TubaDiva is an administrator, of course, but I rather think she may be too busy to moderate. "Used to be" isn't really helpful in this case.
  #259  
Old 11-20-2019, 01:48 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny Daze View Post
At this point, I do think it's reasonable to wonder why the mods don't have women, minorities and/or the disabled represented amongst their number. I know that we can't have every viewpoint, but they should at least hear from more than one on the loop.
We used to (so I am told), but apparently TubaDiva wants to recruit more moderators anyways. You can head over to the other thread and suggest more diversity in the up and coming expanded mod pool.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TubaDiva View Post
Yes, we need more moderators in here.
~Max
  #260  
Old 11-20-2019, 01:49 PM
LAZombie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 347
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
SamuelA - most of your posts in this thread are pretty objectionable, and go far beyond the statement that spawned this thread. Plus, you seem more interested in having a Ford/Kavanaugh discussion rather than one about the board or moderation. While that is the underlying subject of the comment in question, this isn't the place to rehash that bit.
It should be noted SamuelA is the only one you admonished for changing the subject to Ford/ Kavanaugh while multiple other posters have done likewise. I feel there is genuine bias against certain points of view and those people who express those views. Instead having reasonable discussions, they hide behind claims of misogyny. Don't give into them.
  #261  
Old 11-20-2019, 01:52 PM
TroutMan's Avatar
TroutMan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 5,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
And I thought the moderators had a pretty good handle on what is "misogyny". I'm no longer confident that's the case. Possibly it's because of the moderation staff turnover, or maybe it's due to something else.
It is telling that during the previous shitstorm over misogyny, which resulted in more strict moderation of misogynistic posts, there was a female moderator. And now as a former mod, she has said she found HD's comment misogynistic. Unfortunately we only have the male moderation staff making the calls today, and those standards seem to have reverted to the way it used to be.

I hope TubaDiva is successful finding some more moderators willing to come on board, and is able to expand the range of perspectives a bit.
  #262  
Old 11-20-2019, 02:05 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
My point was to say that HD has a legitimate point of viewing informing his post and that Ford purposefully attacked kavanaugh with the intent of causing harm. The death threats (both aimed at her and kavanaugh) are a forseeable consequence of her actions.
Do you feel everyone should take the possibility of death threats against their attacker into account before reporting a crime?
  #263  
Old 11-20-2019, 02:13 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Do you feel everyone should take the possibility of death threats against their attacker into account before reporting a crime?
This wasn't a crime report, it was an explicit attack. A crime report would be going to the police in a timely manner when records and witnesses still exist.
  #264  
Old 11-20-2019, 02:14 PM
Helena330's Avatar
Helena330 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Near Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 3,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
We used to (so I am told), but apparently TubaDiva wants to recruit more moderators anyways. You can head over to the other thread and suggest more diversity in the up and coming expanded mod pool.~Max
We've heard it before. Action is what counts now.
  #265  
Old 11-20-2019, 02:15 PM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
This wasn't a crime report, it was an explicit attack. A crime report would be going to the police in a timely manner when records and witnesses still exist.
And people like you are the reason why women dont feel comfortable doing so. Congrats!
  #266  
Old 11-20-2019, 02:18 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
Quote:
Originally Posted by Helena330 View Post
We've heard it before. Action is what counts now.
Do you know what happens if you complain to an institution? Usually, absolutely nothing. But if you go to a different institution things get better immediately. Have you heard of Reddit? In Reddit, many subreddits are explicit echo chambers with no dissent allowed. This is what you are asking for. There are subreddits explicitly moderated by women for women where any posts outside the opinions of that subreddit are downvoted and the posters will be banned. There is also a couple that are safe spaces for Trump supporters. In them, the impeachment hearings don't even exist, just missteps by liberals.
  #267  
Old 11-20-2019, 02:25 PM
SamuelA is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 3,903
The key that makes this possible is the voting system. Here, the posts you find offensive don't break any rules. I explain logically the key holes in Ford's story. You find this to be victim blaming - I don't accept it as certain that Ford is even a victim at all. So the mods don't delete my posts. But on Reddit, it's based on the opinions of the crowd, and these posts of mine would be invisible on some subreddits. On others, yours would be the ones voted down to oblivion.
  #268  
Old 11-20-2019, 02:34 PM
SmartAleq's Avatar
SmartAleq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: PDXLNT
Posts: 5,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
How about we go a step further. Unless we have an equal representation of all races and genders this means the mod pool is biased. Let's actively discriminate against mod applicants who are of over represented races and genders in favor of minorities and women. Who we should lower the bar for.
Yes, because it's SO FUCKING UNREASONABLE to expect that the gender that is the ACTUAL MAJORITY in the US be represented, if not equally, then at least nominally in the moderation staff of this incredibly and overwhelmingly cranky old white male space. How dare we. So unreasonable, these women, expecting such consideration and SPECIAL TREATMENT. *flips vigorous double bird*
  #269  
Old 11-20-2019, 02:36 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
This wasn't a crime report, it was an explicit attack. A crime report would be going to the police in a timely manner when records and witnesses still exist.
Ah, I see. So do you feel that unless a victim files an actual crime report in a timely manner, they should shut up about it for all time?
  #270  
Old 11-20-2019, 02:40 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Who we should lower the bar for.
The hell?
  #271  
Old 11-20-2019, 02:54 PM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rural Western PA
Posts: 33,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
The hell?
Heh. He's saying that the only way Helena330, MandaJo, ITD, etc could be mods is through affirmative action. SMH.

ETA SmartAleq, Sunny, etc

Post-post script: unless they've all been offered, but turned down, modships.

Last edited by kayaker; 11-20-2019 at 02:57 PM.
  #272  
Old 11-20-2019, 02:58 PM
Modesty Blaise is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
The hell?
Yeah I caught that too. Itís just a given that the bar must be lowered because females and people of color are inferior to the master class of people.
  #273  
Old 11-20-2019, 02:59 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
Heh. He's saying that the only way Helena330, MandaJo, ITD, etc could be mods is through affirmative action. SMH.

ETA SmartAleq, Sunny, etc
Or any mods of colour, too.

Quote:
Post-post script: unless they've all been offered, but turned down, modships.
None of the ones who post elsewhere have mentioned it.

Last edited by MrDibble; 11-20-2019 at 03:01 PM.
  #274  
Old 11-20-2019, 03:01 PM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rural Western PA
Posts: 33,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Or any mods of colour, too.
I know the sexes, but not the races, of the moderators, but isn't at least one not white?
  #275  
Old 11-20-2019, 03:07 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Good of you to own it, but that's still fucked up.

We've been told in the past that we're encouraged to report posts, and now we find out that no, that just makes it worse? Wonderful!
Everyone continues to be encouraged to report posts they believe violate rules. I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying, especially given I set up that comment with a fairly specific fact pattern beyond just reporting posts.

Imagine a scenario where everytime you, MrDibble, posts something, there are two or three people who will report it and say that due to your direct style and cutting wit, you are not in fact posting in good faith, but are being insulting to other posters. Like, every single time. How would you handle that?

I look at every report, and make an independent evaluation. Sometimes, I'll agree, sometimes I'll disagree, and other times could be borderline and I could see it from multiple points of view. I think that's normal. Are you saying that if this was the fact pattern, after a certain number of reports you wouldn't get a sense of your level of agreement, while still maintaining that independent evaluation? Because that's what I'm saying. Add to that the chorus of reports are along the lines of "do your fucking job", then yeah, I don't think it's a revelation to say that those do get discounted. I still read every report and make an independent evaluation.
  #276  
Old 11-20-2019, 03:10 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
I know the sexes, but not the races, of the moderators, but isn't at least one not white?
Asimovian's the only recent one I know of, and they're no longer a mod. Sure, any of the others could be - and to Samuel, their username might as well be Token, apparently.
  #277  
Old 11-20-2019, 03:22 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Imagine a scenario where everytime you, MrDibble, posts something, there are two or three people who will report it and say that due to your direct style and cutting wit, you are not in fact posting in good faith, but are being insulting to other posters. Like, every single time. How would you handle that?
If it's the same 2 or 3 posters always and only reporting the one poster (me)? I'd PM them to get a new hobby. Or else.

If those same 3 posters are also regular reporters of other legit violations, I might question whether I was, in fact, the asshole.
Quote:
Are you saying that if this was the fact pattern, after a certain number of reports you wouldn't get a sense of your level of agreement, while still maintaining that independent evaluation?
I can't parse this sentence, could you rephrase it, please?
Quote:
Add to that the chorus of reports are along the lines of "do your fucking job", then yeah, I don't think it's a revelation to say that those do get discounted.
Those should be. Only those, even if they're complaining about the same post as other, not-rude, reports. That wasn't the style of thing your other post indicated - it seemed to indicate that both merely persistent as well as rude reports would get discounted if they were all about the same post or poster.
Quote:
I still read every report and make an independent evaluation.
Sorry, that doesn't jibe with what you said. It still seems like you do let the weight of reports impact your decisions, in a negative fashion.

Last edited by MrDibble; 11-20-2019 at 03:23 PM.
  #278  
Old 11-20-2019, 03:25 PM
Amara_ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Modesty Blaise View Post
Yeah I caught that too. It’s just a given that the bar must be lowered because females and people of color are inferior to the master class of people.
It's in-line with his earlier comment referencing that, of course, Blasey-Ford would want to have sex with "a high-status" male. It's a view of the world where others- women and minorities - are inherently inferior and desire the goodwill/approval of their superiors at all times.

Last edited by Amara_; 11-20-2019 at 03:30 PM. Reason: Typo.
  #279  
Old 11-20-2019, 03:28 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amara_ View Post
It's in-line with his earlier comment referencing that, of course, Blasey-Ford would want to have seen with "a high-status" male.
That was a bit of a dog whistle, wasn't it?
  #280  
Old 11-20-2019, 03:34 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I certainly understand this. But the post in question wasn't "on topic". The topic had nothing to do with Kavanaugh, Ford, or sexual assault allegations in general. I know we've rehashed this already, but this is at least one of the sources of our disagreement (and presumably, your other disagreements in this thread, including with the posters you praise as thoughtful below).
If the mention of Ford and Kavanaugh was on topic, would that eliminate your objection to the post in question?

Quote:
Do you find any of these "thoughtful posts" convincing to you, even a little bit? Has your opinion changed at all due to any arguments in this thread? Do you have any doubt about your initial decision, and for that matter, is this issue under any wider discussion among the staff?
Of course I've been persuaded in some cases, and moved to evaluate things differently overall by the thoughtful contributions of posters, including and especially the previous two that I mentioned. For this specific item, my take hasn't changed from what was said in this thread, and the initial PMs that I sent you. (SamualA's contributions are another matter entirely, and I'll let ECG address that).

Bringing this back to the original item, the proposed question was if people could agree that exposing someone to death threats because you think it might help your side in a political squabble is a pretty shitty thing to do. The counterfactual is to bring up an example where someone was exposed to death threats to aid in a political squabble where it was condoned. HD brought up Ford (which I thought was a particularly bad example). I think a better way to address that would have been to demonstrate how the Ford example wasn't germane - to introduce more information to the fact pattern showing how the testimony by Ford was serving a different purpose, had a legitimate purpose, and was extremely relevant to the underlying question - that being Kavanaugh's suitability for the court. Contrast that with the total irrelvance of the identity of the whistleblower to the veracity of the claims made by the whistelblower.

But that's not what happened. A bad argument was made, but instead of it being rebutted, everything stopped because HD said something that folks found offensive. Personally if I were to think of an example I would pick Cheney outting Valerie Plame to be more on point - which to say was a shitty thing to do is an understatement. The question being asked is whether it is more than just a bad argument - is it moddable? Is it made in bad faith? Does it display a hatred of women? To this one item, I think you really have to stretch to get there. Folks have interpreted HD's statement as him saying she should not have testified - that's not in evidence. Folks have interpreted the statement to mean that Ford should be blamed for the threats - but that's not in evidence either. Ford took action that she felt was right, was within her right to do, and others should be encouraged to do if they are in the same situation. But that's not the question - the question was as I wrote in post #9: The construction of the questions to determine relevance is, were there death threats? Then if so, were they the result of political activities? The answer to both is yes. That makes the post relevant, but still a terribly bad argument.



We've discussed in the mod loop. I'll let any other mods share whatever thoughts they are comfortable with.
  #281  
Old 11-20-2019, 03:49 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
If the mention of Ford and Kavanaugh was on topic, would that eliminate your objection to the post in question?
I'd still strongly object to the sentiment, but I don't think I would have reported it -- there has generally been a bit more leeway in "on topic" assault/rape allegation discussions. And I find that additional leeway acceptable, for the most part.

Quote:
The question being asked is whether it is more than just a bad argument - is it moddable? Is it made in bad faith? Does it display a hatred of women? To this one item, I think you really have to stretch to get there.
Okay, thanks for breaking it down this way. Let's get to the heart of the disagreement.

Quote:
Folks have interpreted HD's statement as him saying she should not have testified - that's not in evidence.
Fair enough. This hasn't been part of my argument.

Quote:
Folks have interpreted the statement to mean that Ford should be blamed for the threats - but that's not in evidence either.
<BUZZ>

And here's the main MASSIVE disagreement. Blame -- responsibility for a negative event -- for the death threats is clearly and explicitly assigned to "Ford and her allies" in that post. I'm not sure how it could be more clear. The poster said (my bolding) "Ford and her allies exposed Kavanaugh's family to death threats". I still can't conceive of how that is not assigning blame to Ford (and her allies) for the death threats.

Quote:
Ford took action that she felt was right, was within her right to do, and others should be encouraged to do if they are in the same situation. But that's not the question - the question was as I wrote in post #9: The construction of the questions to determine relevance is, were there death threats? Then if so, were they the result of political activities? The answer to both is yes. That makes the post relevant, but still a terribly bad argument.
I find this to be a terrible cop out. If Ford's accusations were "political activities", that means any accusations at all connected to a politician or political nomination are "political activities". That's so broad as to include every single accuser of any politician or nominee ever, if the allegations were made while the accused was in office or in the process of nomination. That doesn't make it acceptable to bring them up, much less in a victim-blaming fashion, in unrelated threads that touch on politics.

Quote:
We've discussed in the mod loop. I'll let any other mods share whatever thoughts they are comfortable with.
I very much hope they will contribute.

Thank you for continuing to respond to posts, even as I think you're terribly wrong here.
  #282  
Old 11-20-2019, 04:33 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,026

Moderating


ECG is presently indisposed, so I'm taking care of some housekeeping.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
How about we go a step further. Unless we have an equal representation of all races and genders this means the mod pool is biased. Let's actively discriminate against mod applicants who are of over represented races and genders in favor of minorities and women. Who we should lower the bar for.
This is a warning for being a jerk. It's also sexist and racist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Other posters in this thread have expressed opinions that Ford cannot be blamed in any way for telling her story and there is no evidence that she isn't being truthful.

I am just pointing out that her story, whether or not it is based in truth, is a verbal assault intended to cause severe harm. And it's rather suspicious how 1 sided it is. Like how every victim of a fight in the E.R. was always minding their own business when 2 guys come out of nowhere and attack. Is every assault victim lying? No, but most probably are.

My point was to say that HD has a legitimate point of viewing informing his post and that Ford purposefully attacked kavanaugh with the intent of causing harm. The death threats (both aimed at her and kavanaugh) are a forseeable consequence of her actions.
This is warning for being a jerk. I cautioned you against continuing this line of discussion, but apparently that didn't stick.

Really, there's more too, but I'm going to hit some low hanging fruit for now. You are banned from this thread. Do not post in this thread again.

[/moderating]

Last edited by Bone; 11-20-2019 at 04:36 PM.
  #283  
Old 11-20-2019, 04:39 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,026

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
IANAMod and don't get to make any decisions over who stays and who has to go, but in another recent post, you said this:



ISTM that there's some application for those words of yours here as well.
This is a warning for being a jerk, and for a not even close in the realm of reality hijack. It's a terrible, transparent, and bullshit attempt at some kind of gotcha and in the context of this thread is clearly jerkish. The only reason you are not banned from this thread is that your post is the subject of the thread. Any further contribution shall be in the context of the post in question, not participating in tangent or subsequent discussion.

[/moderating]

Last edited by Bone; 11-20-2019 at 04:44 PM.
  #284  
Old 11-20-2019, 04:40 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
No, I think you are mixing up good faith and sincerity. Sincerity is only one component of good faith, the "faith" part. The other component is that the action is done without any malice (hate). That's the "good" part. So good faith requires both sincerity and the absence of malice. It is incompatible with hate speech.
Proving either malice or the absence of malice, short of functional telepathy, isn't possible. If you're trying to say that nothing can be sanctioned unless malice can be proved: it wouldn't then be possible to sanction anything at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
the proposed question was if people could agree that exposing someone to death threats because you think it might help your side in a political squabble is a pretty shitty thing to do. The counterfactual is to bring up an example where someone was exposed to death threats to aid in a political squabble where it was condoned. HD brought up Ford (which I thought was a particularly bad example). I think a better way to address that would have been to demonstrate how the Ford example wasn't germane - to introduce more information to the fact pattern showing how the testimony by Ford was serving a different purpose, had a legitimate purpose, and was extremely relevant to the underlying question - that being Kavanaugh's suitability for the court.
How were we to do that, without contributing to the (continuing) hijack about whether Ford was acting in bad faith? Because her testimony only had a legitimate purpose (which I agree that it did) presuming that she wasn't doing so.

I had quite a lot I wanted to say about that, but refrained so as not to contribute to the hijack.
  #285  
Old 11-20-2019, 04:41 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,026

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by SmartAleq View Post
Nope, it really is because people like you are gross and are being allowed to continue to be gross and grossed out women don't stick around to see if maybe there's something worthwhile behind the grossness. Because we know better, because we deal with men being gross on a daily basis and after a while we just refuse to stick around where gross men are being gross and are being enabled by other gross men. Y'all can have your kitty litter sandbox to play in all by yourselves. Enjoy.
This is a warning for personal insults.

[/moderating]
  #286  
Old 11-20-2019, 04:42 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,026

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by Babale View Post
The only "behavior" she is guilty of that's leading to posts like these is being a woman, you misogynistic creep.
This is a warning for personal insults.

[/moderating]
  #287  
Old 11-20-2019, 04:46 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 19,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
No, I think you are mixing up good faith and sincerity. Sincerity is only one component of good faith, the "faith" part. The other component is that the action is done without any malice (hate). That's the "good" part. So good faith requires both sincerity and the absence of malice. It is incompatible with hate speech.

ETA: You too, Kobal2.

~Max
Then we have very different notions of good faith/bad faith.
  #288  
Old 11-20-2019, 04:53 PM
Babale is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
Then we have very different notions of good faith/bad faith.
From Google's definition,

Quote:
good faith

noun

honesty or sincerity of intention.
I think I agree with your definition, Kobal2...
  #289  
Old 11-20-2019, 05:00 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
Proving either malice or the absence of malice, short of functional telepathy, isn't possible. If you're trying to say that nothing can be sanctioned unless malice can be proved: it wouldn't then be possible to sanction anything at all.
I'm not in the mood to simultaneously argue for a particular standard of proof wrt impeachment of the President and censure of SDMB members, but I do think the presumption ought to be of good faith until some level of evidence is presented to counter that presumption. I would not restrict that evidence to clear confessions.

That being said, I'm sure I could jump into the Pit right now and find some clear confessions of malicious intent, things like 'let's bait the trolls' and patting each other's backs when someone gets warned or suspended.

But something like, this member has been told consistently not to use a certain provocative phrase or slur, but they keep bringing it up. At some point (after one or two incidents) you have to draw a line and say, there is no way you forgot how offensive that slur is, you are no longer arguing in good faith but are instead riling people up on purpose, here is your warning. That sort of thing.

~Max
  #290  
Old 11-20-2019, 05:01 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,019
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
Then we have very different notions of good faith/bad faith.
So we do. I was referring to my definition. Whatever you want to call arguments made sincerely and without malice, that's what I'm talking about.

ETA: You too, Babale.

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; 11-20-2019 at 05:03 PM.
  #291  
Old 11-20-2019, 05:02 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
This is a warning for being a jerk, and for a not even close in the realm of reality hijack. It's a terrible, transparent, and bullshit attempt at some kind of gotcha and in the context of this thread is clearly jerkish. The only reason you are not banned from this thread is that your post is the subject of the thread. Any further contribution shall be in the context of the post in question, not participating in tangent or subsequent discussion.

[/moderating]
On that note, I think I'll bow out of this thread.

iiandyiii, I started a thread here for you and I to have one of those subsequent discussions, if you feel so inclined.
  #292  
Old 11-20-2019, 05:10 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
On that note, I think I'll bow out of this thread.

iiandyiii, I started a thread here for you and I to have one of those subsequent discussions, if you feel so inclined.
...in the spirit of this particular post, if you didn't know about it there exists a pit thread that already has several posts related to this topic if you want to have subsequent discussions there, if you feel so inclined.
  #293  
Old 11-20-2019, 06:00 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Everyone continues to be encouraged to report posts they believe violate rules.
It would help if y'all would enforce each others instructions or at least explain why not.

NB: the first two quotes there are from Elections.

Last edited by Skywatcher; 11-20-2019 at 06:01 PM.
  #294  
Old 11-20-2019, 06:06 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skywatcher View Post
It would help if y'all would enforce each others instructions or at least explain why not.

NB: the first two quotes there are from Elections.
It's pretty obvious, isn't it? The particular posts you identify are close to the line, but not sufficient to cross it to merit a warning. Mod notes are part of the tools that mods have available and not all moderation action results in warnings. This is outside the scope of this thread though, so if you want to discuss further, feel free to start another thread.
  #295  
Old 11-20-2019, 06:08 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,378
A note for doing the very thing that you warned him not to do? Whatever...

i.e.: I'm not interested enough tangentially make him the subject of yet another thread.

Last edited by Skywatcher; 11-20-2019 at 06:11 PM.
  #296  
Old 11-20-2019, 07:34 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
And here's the main MASSIVE disagreement. Blame -- responsibility for a negative event -- for the death threats is clearly and explicitly assigned to "Ford and her allies" in that post. I'm not sure how it could be more clear. The poster said (my bolding) "Ford and her allies exposed Kavanaugh's family to death threats". I still can't conceive of how that is not assigning blame to Ford (and her allies) for the death threats.
If I am driving and run into your car that is legally parked and cause damage to your car, I'm clearly at fault. If I ask to pay you rather than go through insurance because it will increase my rates, but you decline, and subsequently report the claim as is normal - I can say that your reporting the claim exposed me to increased insurance premiums. Would you interpret that as blaming you for the premium increase? I mean, in one sense, that could be considered the proximate cause of the rate increase, but I wouldn't consider that blaming you. I would be to blame, since I was the responsible party. The effect of you reporting is that I'm exposed to higher premium, but you are not to blame for it. That's how I interpret it, and that's why I said earlier that it's not "blame" in the sense that most people would construe blame. This is one of those things that I think there is basis to interpret the way that you do - I just don't share your view.


Quote:
I find this to be a terrible cop out. If Ford's accusations were "political activities", that means any accusations at all connected to a politician or political nomination are "political activities". That's so broad as to include every single accuser of any politician or nominee ever, if the allegations were made while the accused was in office or in the process of nomination. That doesn't make it acceptable to bring them up, much less in a victim-blaming fashion, in unrelated threads that touch on politics.
Ford's action were political, but not solely political. I wouldn't hazard a guess to attribute a ratio. But the confirmation hearing process is a political one, and I do view pretty much every single thing related to confirmation hearings as political in nature, even if they are serving multiple purposes. But that's not to say that every accuser of every politician is engaging in political activities. Reporting something to law enforcement for criminal behavior, or to an oversight body for non-criminal behavior I wouldn't consider political at all.
  #297  
Old 11-20-2019, 07:39 PM
GreysonCarlisle's Avatar
GreysonCarlisle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
If I am driving and run into your car that is legally parked and cause damage to your car, I'm clearly at fault. If I ask to pay you rather than go through insurance because it will increase my rates, but you decline, and subsequently report the claim as is normal - I can say that your reporting the claim exposed me to increased insurance premiums. Would you interpret that as blaming you for the premium increase? I mean, in one sense, that could be considered the proximate cause of the rate increase, but I wouldn't consider that blaming you. I would be to blame, since I was the responsible party. The effect of you reporting is that I'm exposed to higher premium, but you are not to blame for it. That's how I interpret it, and that's why I said earlier that it's not "blame" in the sense that most people would construe blame. This is one of those things that I think there is basis to interpret the way that you do - I just don't share your view.
If your friend got in andy's face about it, then yeah, andy is being blamed.
  #298  
Old 11-20-2019, 07:52 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
If I am driving and run into your car that is legally parked and cause damage to your car, I'm clearly at fault. If I ask to pay you rather than go through insurance because it will increase my rates, but you decline, and subsequently report the claim as is normal - I can say that your reporting the claim exposed me to increased insurance premiums. Would you interpret that as blaming you for the premium increase? I mean, in one sense, that could be considered the proximate cause of the rate increase, but I wouldn't consider that blaming you. I would be to blame, since I was the responsible party. The effect of you reporting is that I'm exposed to higher premium, but you are not to blame for it. That's how I interpret it, and that's why I said earlier that it's not "blame" in the sense that most people would construe blame. This is one of those things that I think there is basis to interpret the way that you do - I just don't share your view.
But in that case I did nothing wrong. I was the victim of your negligence. That's not what the post in question said.

In the post referenced in the OP, Ford (and her allies) "exposed Justice Kavanaugh's family to death threats"... not by doing something reasonable, honest, innocuous, etc. (i.e. comparable to reporting an accident to law enforcement and the insurance company), but "because they thought it might help their side in a political squabble". Not to talk about her experiences, or reveal her truth, but to harm someone she disliked.

If I falsely reported an accident as your fault to my insurance company and law enforcement, because I don't like you, and as a consequence your rates go up, then it'd be entirely proper to blame me for your higher rates.

So here would be a roughly comparable statement for the faked accident scenario -- "Andy exposed Bone to higher insurance rates because he doesn't like Bone and wants his family to suffer". Doesn't that indicate that I'm to blame? It certainly looks that way to me.

Quote:
Ford's action were political, but not solely political. I wouldn't hazard a guess to attribute a ratio. But the confirmation hearing process is a political one, and I do view pretty much every single thing related to confirmation hearings as political in nature, even if they are serving multiple purposes. But that's not to say that every accuser of every politician is engaging in political activities. Reporting something to law enforcement for criminal behavior, or to an oversight body for non-criminal behavior I wouldn't consider political at all.
She took part in a political process. But that doesn't mean that her actions were political -- which indicates a political motive.

This seems like a semantics thing, so I'm not sure if it's really worth going further on. Why is this part important? Would it be very different if she had talked to media and law enforcement, resulting in a similar level of political "kerfuffle", but declined to take part in the hearing, or the GOP Senators prevented her from taking part in the hearing? I don't think this would change the relevance or appropriateness of the post in question. Either way, it was irrelevant to the discussion -- entirely off topic and entirely out of the blue.
  #299  
Old 11-20-2019, 07:54 PM
TroutMan's Avatar
TroutMan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 5,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
If I am driving and run into your car that is legally parked and cause damage to your car, I'm clearly at fault. If I ask to pay you rather than go through insurance because it will increase my rates, but you decline, and subsequently report the claim as is normal - I can say that your reporting the claim exposed me to increased insurance premiums. Would you interpret that as blaming you for the premium increase? I mean, in one sense, that could be considered the proximate cause of the rate increase, but I wouldn't consider that blaming you. I would be to blame, since I was the responsible party. The effect of you reporting is that I'm exposed to higher premium, but you are not to blame for it. That's how I interpret it, and that's why I said earlier that it's not "blame" in the sense that most people would construe blame. This is one of those things that I think there is basis to interpret the way that you do - I just don't share your view.
First, why would you say that reporting the claim exposed you to higher premiums? I mean, it's obviously true, and it isn't a fact that I need to know. So what is your motivation for putting it in words? I can't see any reason, unless you intended to suggest a little responsibility on my part.

Second, the topic of sexual assault is extremely fraught, and what is not considered victim-blaming in other circumstances becomes much more sensitive. If my friend's bike is stolen and I tell him "it wouldn't have been stolen if you'd locked it up," I'm maybe being insensitive, but not really jerkish. That's a pretty standard comment that everyone expects.

But an analogous comment about sexual assault - "you wouldn't have been raped if you hadn't walked alone at night" - carries a lot more baggage. Women hear these kinds of comments constantly - pretty much every rape prevention program focuses on what women need to do, not on preventing men from raping. Yet another comment that shifts responsibility to the woman is exhausting to people who hear it every day.

I get that this is a different situation, but I want to point out why analogies to things like car accidents and insurance aren't really applicable when it comes to sexual assault. And this distinction is going to be recognized much more readily by women who have experienced this.
  #300  
Old 11-20-2019, 08:24 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
She took part in a political process. But that doesn't mean that her actions were political -- which indicates a political motive.
Do you think the timing of her actions indicate a political motive?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:41 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017