Several dopers tacitly called for violence against the Covington Catholic school kid by using by using the terms “slapable” and “punchable.” Some dopers refused to condemn a comedy writer’s offer of sex for violence against the Covington kid as well. Nothing was done.
Currently, in the Pit, there’s a call for George Zimmerman to be shot. Nothing has been done.
Calls for violence or anything remotely condoning violence should never be acceptable anywhere on SDMB. I would love to hear the justification of allowing calls for violence against a child. Again, the liberal bias of this board shows.
The mods just tell you they don’t agree with you, and that people have a right to speak no matter the consequences. They disagree that there’s an immediate effect, though you remain sure there is…
You’re simply wrong.
Do you really need me to cite incidents of Blackand LGBT youth committing suicide after bullyingincidents to show this?
What makes you think I wasn’t talking about immediate effects?
Are you so detached in affect that you don’t understand that behind “statistics” lie actual dead people? Real “harm by definition”, in other words.
You can’t wish for one without wishing for the other. It is literally impossible given we’re talking about human beings, not all of whom would voluntary move.
And I say this as someone who is only ONE generation away from beingforcedto move. I live with the direct violence of racist forced removals and its effects every damn day.
You can’t support one without supporting the other. It is literally impossible given we’re talking about human beings, not all of whom would voluntary move.
Your points 1-4 I agree with in their entirety, unless the topic itself is offensive, which was the only beef I had anyways. I’m against offensive hijacks as it is already. Scrolling past offensive posts shouldn’t be a problem, because if it isn’t a thread where calling Bernie Sanders unelectable is relevant, that comment doesn’t belong. I’ve been talking about threads such as, “Is Bernie Sanders electable?” yes, no, here’s why, here’s why not, etc.
Except, you know, replace Bernie Sanders’s electability with something like “Christians: Is it moral for two men to have sex?”, or “Should a sleeper ship/underground colony include people of color?”, or “Do women deserve subsidized birth control?”, or “Should a husband have a say in his wife’s abortion?”, or “Is it fair to give grants out to minority communities?”, or “I am concerned that immigrants will destroy the culture I know and love”.
The list goes on and on. Thinking about it, I am actually surprised how many controversies involve the question of whether discrimination is warranted.
I don’t think I understand your final point #5, possibly because I misunderstood point #4. If there’s a thread asserting that position X is hateful, and the original poster then gets offended when people disagree, that is trolling and I agree with you. But I don’t see how “my standard” corresponds to that.
Which is why all that should count is the offense, not the intent behind it, as I agree that’s unknowable. Which we clearly will do for some offenses (say, “Jews are venal greedy people”) and not for others (“Transgenders aren’t really the gender they claim”). I want the second to be modded like the first.
What about when there’s a perfectly fine thread on trans issues, much good information sharing, and *then *someone makes a “Trans people don’t really exist” posts? Are they just supposed to *forget *they saw it? We’re not just discussing OPs here.
Changing your opinion is not the issue or the ask. Sometimes not speaking the opinion (if the opinion is something like a group is lesser or abnormal) but more often even just being mindful how an opinion is expressed.
It’s not actually a contradiction, at least not on the surface. Don’t you sincerely wish everybody would just respect women? Do you sincerely wish everybody would just get along? If so, surely you don’t want to kill or harm every person who disrespects women, do you?
Do you think at least some white nationalists sincerely wish black people would just go away? It is not at all implied that all white nationalists want to force black people to move against their will, and it is definitely not implied that all white nationalists want to kill black people.
I was thinking way back when the reservations were first established.
Not stupid, ignorant. Ignorant people aren’t necessarily stupid.
You and Jragon both must come here for a different reason than I do. I literally come here to fight ignorance, be it others’ or my own. Maybe the board should change the tagline if it doesn’t signify anything. Maybe it should rebrand entirely.
To you and others participating in this thread: we can agree to disagree. It’s your community so much more than it is mine, and to be honest, I am not the one who should be deciding how to move forward.
I didn’t think the rest applied if we’re talking about discussions. To be clear, below I will modify your post to insert “discussions of” as best I can without changing the intent.
I actually want to change a few more things but I don’t want to run afoul of the quote box rule. Outside of the quotebox, here is a more liberal change:
[ul][li]Don’t like discussions of whether Blacks should have to sit in the back of restaurants? Don’t join those discussions.[/li][li]Distressed by discussions of whether to herd Japanese into internment camps? Don’t join those discussions.[/li][li]Don’t like discussions of the morality of sundown laws? Don’t join those discussions.[/li][li]Don’t like discussions of whether bosses should refer to female employees by their bra sizes and refuse to promote them? Don’t join those discussions.[/ul][/li]
~Max
Word of advice - editing attributed quote boxes is verboten even if you’re just doing it to clarify. Only indicating your own redaction and emphases is allowed AFAIK.
My assumption was that being exposed to bigoted* comments causes discomfort and therefore is offensive. The bigotry would be hidden behind the thread link on the index page. By not clicking on the thread link, a member could avoid that exposure and therefore avoid discomfort and offense.
nellieby was talking about how bigotry restricts people’s freedom. It is true that the above advice would result in a member (voluntarily) being restricted from certain threads, but ostensibly they do not want to participate in those threads to begin with, so the issue is moot. Mere commentary does not restrict one’s freedom like other forms of bigotry can, and that’s a distinction I think is important in this case.
*I am using bigoted as a placeholder for racist/misogynist/transphobic
If the policy were that people could speak no matter the consequences, I would leave the board.
If not, and they disagree that there’s an immediate harm, I would try to get an explanation. I would be profoundly disappointed if the mods refused to explain their decision at all. I can’t predict myself any further than that without specifics.
I don’t think I need the cites. I read the WaPo story but I am not going to read every incident on Wikipedia’s list of suicides that have been attributed to bullying. I know that bullying and the risk of suicide are linked, causally even.
I can also gather that discrimination against black and LGBT youths is linked to an increased risk of suicide, causally. I am comfortable making that stipulation.
Contrast with advocating actual suicide. Risk is a statistic, even if there are real tangible dead people backing up the statistic. Advocating for something that increases the risk of harm is not advocating for harm itself.
I am also not considering those bigoted posts that are motivated by a want to actually harm people. I recognize that I sound ridiculous if I leave that part out.