I can’t agree with this warning. We’re all asking why Northam hasn’t resigned, and asahi is clearly parodying Northam justifying why he should stay on as governor - as an old white man who grew up in an era of ingrained racism and who hasn’t really changed.
It was pitted, and I laid into asahi in the Pit thread too, since I don’t think it contributes much to the level of discourse to put deprecated words into the mouths of people who haven’t actually used them. But it’s a rhetorical technique, and “negro” is hardly so taboo that it can’t be used in a parody of outdated racist values.
The fact that you considered a warning for hate speech for an obvious parody tells me you’re off base on this. He’s guilty of using a rhetorical technique that imo lowers the level of debate, but that’s not a rules violation. And I think it’s a real stretch to call it trolling. There’s an overall context of asahi’s erratic behavior (exacerbated by alcohol), but I don’t even think this even an instance of this. I do think he’s sincere, and that he’s making a valid point here.
Are these remarks still true if one is not familiar with Asahi’s patterns of posting? I am not particularly familiar with him, and the first time I read this post (admittedly out of context, in the Pit thread) it seemed repellent.
I’m not saying yea or nay on the warning, I’m just asking this question: how much should a post be considered on its own, and how much does the poster’s history have to be considered in matters like this?
History might elevate a Note to Warning if this were a trollish comment. But I don’t see how this is a trollish comment at all. I wouldn’t personally have chosen to make a rhetorical point quite this way, but I think it’s sincere and it makes a perfectly valid point about the possible mindset of an old white man in Virginia. This wasn’t an out-of-the-blue inflammatory accusation that all white people are irredeemable racists, it’s specifically about Northam in a context where everyone is debating why the hell this guy hasn’t resigned yet.
I dunno, ever since his friend (?* ) was banned he has been off the rails. Witness his recent stinky threadshit in the Cafe Soc thread about Super bowl ads. That was a very weird paragraph.
Maybe a suspension until he cools off?
I actually thought he was a sock for huey, but I guess I am wrong.
That’s all the reason needed. When people are posting shit that hurts the level of discourse, nip it in the bud. There’s zero reason to tolerate stuff that makes the board worse.
I’m not seeing a warning. I see an attempt at edgy parody…that failed. I am unsurprised it sparked a Pit thread. That thread is a reasonable community response to self-police IMO. I do support a Mod note with some guidance that still nips it in the bud. Violating that guidance by continuing would be a pretty clear warnable offense.
In the context it was written, though, I don’t see a warning for either trolling or hate speech.
Yeah, but “shit that hurts the level of discourse” is a pretty low bar for a warning. I can think of some posters who’d get a warning for every post if that was the standard.
Gotta admit the warning surprised me: if I’d thought it was a candidate for mod action, I’d have clicked the little red triangle, rather than starting a Pit thread. And after reading Riemann’s OP here, I’ve gotta agree. It wasn’t trolling, and I’m having a hard time seeing it as hate speech, either.
I’m sure asahi thought he was being cute, but simply couching that type of language as if coming from an off board person isn’t a shield for those types of remarks. For example, if a poster were to write, “Trump thinks [all sorts of hate speech]” I don’t think that would be okay. Shifting discussion into the third person as if from someone else doesn’t immunize the poster from the consequences of whatever they are spewing.
Are you are now saying that the warning was for hate speech, and that you think the use of “negro” even in a sarcastic parody of a public figure’s views constitutes hate speech?