I’d be in favor, to be sure.
But I’m not in favor of enforcing such a rule only when the snarking is directed against a left-favored target and more forgiving of snark against the right.
It’s not obvious to me that “oppressed identity,” is a neutral category. I argue the existence and treatment of “oppressed identity” members is central to much of today’s political debate, and thus is a proxy for liberals and conservatives.
And for what it’s worth, I think my own view of gender identity is fairly described as progressive. But the way to get more people to share this view is, in my opinion, by engaging their inaccuracies rather than the lefty-shaming approach exemplified here.
Which I could understand if you came up with like examples of someone on the left getting away with this repeatedly, instead of just repeating the claim over and over again.
I’m neither in favor of that nor remotely convinced that that’s what’s happening.
Not at all. Why apologize if he didnt mean to offend?
He didnt do anything wrong- in this post. He is being warned due to his past opinions.
And these are your opinions-mine are different.
Lame shit snark? I guess a board with no posters at all could be considered better… This board lives for lame shit snark.
So it’s sort of like getting Al Capone for income tax evasion since the feds couldn’t get him for murder or racketeering? Of course the difference is that Al Capone actually did evade income taxes, and Shodan broke no rules with this particular post. So it’s more like getting Al Capone for starting the great Chicago fire.
Also, I did a quick search on the terms you suggested and couldn’t find anything hateful. But as I said it was a quick search. My interest in doing a detailed investigation of Shodan’s posting history on Trans issues is pretty much nil. But if you could post some of Shodan’s hateful transphobic comments, that might be helpful.
Also, until such time as Professor X becomes a mod here, I’m wary of moderation by mind-reading.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=20501216
It would seem the evenhanded thing to do is give both posters mod notes.
No, there really isn’t. The warning was for trolling. The prohibition against trolling has been around for a long time, requires inference of intent, and this application of the rule is not new.
When you choose to write in the plural as if representing a collective voice, your message is lost. If there exists any “we”, it would be the moderation team, of which you are not a member.
No. Lack of apology is not sufficient to determine intent to offend.
I think people post in that manner frequently as well, but that’s not the standard by which we moderate. Trolling is moderated, so to the extent that there is overlap between trolling and the criteria you and LHoD laid out, then the trolling aspect may be moderated.
With the qualifier that we’re speaking of an environment where there is equal access to the microphone in the public forum, I fully agree. Including an exasperated endorsement of the phrase “lefty-shaming approach”.
Now, that qualifier is a huge and complicated qualifier. In the larger context, there sure as shit is not equal access to the microphone. In this smaller and more immediate one, there is vastly more of one. Does the local immediate context outweigh the larger?
I’m uncertain. And I’m ambivalent. I know I feel more empowered in a context where I can engage and [del]witness[/del] debate and explain than in one where somebody keeps blowing a whistle and cornfielding an entire conversation because it was “triggering”, and I’ve been in my share of those in Facebook groups.
I hope this conversation, itself, raises consciousness about this kind of “baiting” and about the complexities of the open-discussion issues in a nuanced, consider-all-sides sort of way. It doesn’t have easy answers, I think.
I agree that you could reasonably argue about whether it is neutral. My point is that it is different from mere partisan bias.
I agree.
Posts 96/97 offered this example.
In my opinion, ITD can’t really defend that point any more, but won’t want to explicitly switch rationales.
I think this is a distinction without a difference. “Mere” partisan bias arises because the parties support different goals and different methods to achieve those goals, fueled by different views of the various issues that constitute our social governance.
And one of those issues is gender identity and the proper role of government in addressing it.
So conditioning decisions on how one treats identity is not simply a proxy for political position but a reasonably reliable product of political position.
Does a rule against hate speech have partisan bias, then?
Depends on how “hate speech” is defined.
Don’t get me wrong, the Catholic Church is evil for any number of reasons.
Hate speech?
Bullshit. This board lives for pure-grade brilliant hilarious snark. The lame shit snark dilutes the fuckin brand.
These posts are both sentences, yes. Beyond that, they share very little in common.
SECOND VERSE SAME AS THE FIRST
So here’s where I’m supposed to point out, again, that it was a different moderator in a different forum, and that different moderators have different personalities, and two posts from different posters being moderated differently by different moderators in different forums don’t comprise a pattern, right?
And this is where you or Shodan or somebody complains about my demanding an impossible standard of evidence (y’know, where someone compares like things instead of different things), and refuses to supply anything even slightly more convincing, right?
No. I give up. You win. The pattern is established.
In that spirit, however, do you mind telling me the law school you went to? I plan to sue them for discrimination against people not named Rick. After all, they not only accepted you to law school, they graduated you. I’m also an American man, but not only didn’t they give me a degree, they didn’t even accept me. Discrimination!
And don’t you even THINK of pointing out how our cases aren’t the same. What sort of impossible standard would that be?