I thought we’d pretty much narrowed the issue down to the warning being based on the vocabulary used in this satire. And thus the question of whether there exists some range of vocabulary (such as “negro”) that is unacceptable if used as an unironic racist epithet, but which is not so inflammatory that it is disallowed even in a satiric mockery of racism.
Essentially, I see your position as wanting to elevate “negro” to taboo status, because you think it’s too difficult discern satirical/nonsatirical usage. I disagree, I don’t think that it’s difficult to recognize satire, and I think we should only narrow the range of permitted speech if there is a compelling need to do so.
Here is what the actual rules say (some of this was only partially quoted upthread):
To use your examples, the first example (insincere just to rile people up) is clearly trolling.
Your second example, where the poster in question really believes what they are posting, isn’t so clear. And this is where the last line in the rules matters - “Trolling is posting solely for the purpose of riling others up.” And this is where motivation comes into play. If the poster in question is sincere and really wants to discuss the issue, then it isn’t trolling. However, if the poster knows that the post will rile people up, and they post anyway, that is a form of trolling. If you go to a pro-choice board where you know everyone is pro-choice and you know that you aren’t going to change their opinions, and, as a pro-lifer, you post what you actually believe anyway just because you hate them and want to get them all stirred up, that is also trolling.
It’s the intent to rile people up that makes it trolling. Insincerity is not a requirement for trolling.
I mean, granted I am somewhat of an authority on the matter. Here are a few more:
Nothing about sincerity there.
As to your example about the border wall…it’s kind of silly. We have extensive discussions about the wall with people able to express their views without being admonished for trolling. Your observation is contradicted quite clearly.
I understand that it is not modded, but under your “sincere trolling” rule it could be. The sincere trolling rule, which before today was foreign to me, seems to say that you may not hold a minority viewpoint, or that you may hold it so long as you don’t say it too much or too forcefully.
I understand also the conundrum expressed in the previous rule: that the mods cannot tell if some extreme viewpoint is real or is simple trolling so sometimes you err on the side of trolling. But your rule has no bounds which can be recognized.
How does arguing for Trump’s wall not fall within the confines of the rule? A poster knows that 95+ percent of posters here not only oppose the wall, but viscerally opposes it. Isn’t any further argument simply an attempt to get a rise out of other posters, even if sincere?
ETA: Your further cites do not support your rule. If I am arguing a position, I am not doing it solely to incite others, even though others may be so incited.
Second, there is an element of judgment to this as is stated explicitly in the rule:
Third, we do not err on the side of trolling. If anything, given that warnings for trolling make up around 6.5% of total warnings, I’d say that most posters would think we don’t give warnings for trolling enough.
And on that note, as I said in post #99, I’ve thought about it. I’ll rescind the warning, though somewhat reluctantly. I have my doubts, but given the comments here in this thread and ashai’s posting in this thread, I’ll choose to construe the comment in a more favorable light. Please be more judicious in the future to avoid potential misunderstanding.
You are being utterly obtuse about this. Why attempt to paraphrase - less accurately - what has been stated so transparently clearly? The prohibition is solely for the purpose of riling others up.
The rule has no bounds that don’t require judgment calls by mods. That doesn’t mean it has no bounds.
If it is then it’s trolling; if it isn’t then it isn’t. May I direct your attention again to solely for the purpose of riling others up.
The mods don’t ban discussion of the Wall. You seem to be arguing that if the mods made a judgment call that was wrong, then that would be wrong. Okay.
Nobody mentioned an obligation never to antagonize others if you are arguing in good faith and on-topic. May I once again direct your attention to the solely in the phrase solely for the purpose of riling others up.
The point of the quotes is that, clearly, the moderation staff is on the alert for posters who are deliberately trying to “push the line” or “see how close to lines they can get.”
I’m not going to claim that moderators are wrong to consider this possibility. Clearly the internet has many corners in which testing the rules (and/or taunting the moderators) is an accepted activity. No one can deny that such people might show up at this message board and try to engage in that activity.
But given my own recent case, and this current case involving asahi, I’m wondering if the moderation staff is a little too quick to assume that this is going on.
I know that the post I was Warned about was not a case of my trying to Push the Line or Test the Moderators or anything of the kind. I’d suggest further that my posting history, here, does not support a theory that I post with Pushing Lines or Testing Moderators in mind.
I just don’t find that to be an interesting activity. I have never engaged in that activity. (If someone sees something in my posting history that indicates otherwise, I’d be grateful if you’d point it out to me.)
Furthermore, I would feel very safe in betting that asahi had no such thing in mind, either, with the post discussed in this thread. Or ever, really. Heaven knows I’ve said some uncomplimentary things about asahi, but I definitely don’t see him as a would-be edgelord.
Anyway, at the risk of offending moderators: is it possible that you-all are overly quick to conclude about some particular post that ‘this person is trying to test the rules’?
Bone, I hope you don’t feel this thread was too nitpicky since I endorsed the Pitting, and a Note probably wouldn’t have been controversial. Perhaps it was partly an inclination to seek scrupulous fairness for asahi, since although I’ve butted heads with him recently I also agree with this:
Thirded. It’s obvious that people on the same side of this issue (that would be non-racist people) look at this situation differently. It shows a fine character that Bone was willing to consider other perspectives.