Comparing a single conservative who got warned to a single not-conservative that didn’t to show bias is laughable. Your sample size only shows that you know how the “search” function on this board works.
Shodan can’t claim to be that ignorant of this stuff anymore.
Or, y’know, it’d be like complaining that useless snark that mischaracterizes a position gets a warning when it’s in IMHO and ITD moderates it and a pass when it’s in GD and Bone and JC look at it. Almost like different mods in different fora moderate differently.
Your insistence that the difference is due to politics, not mods and fora, is difficult to justify.
Yes. Pretending that this is not so, that for the overwhelming majority of people there’s nothing in their experience to make different terms and concepts for sex and gender useful, is an ostrich tactic. And treating such people as willfully offensive isn’t going to help either.
When I present to an audience, I describe Dan, the guy at the deli where I buy my breakfast sandwiches. “He isn’t intolerant”, I say. Dan asked me out of curiosity about the skirts he sees me wearing sometimes and I explained a bit and he said something like “Hey, whatever works for you, I got nothing against that, but I gotta be honest, if you told me your inner identity was that you were a pine tree I would understand it about as clearly”. Dan doesn’t get it. Why should he? Nothing in his life has contradicted the mainstream social notion that what is male is manly and masculine and, in fact, he’s just barely past realizing that being male doesn’t automatically mean attracted to females and being attractive to them in turn. And gay rights and social awareness of being gay has been around for a few decades now. “Dan is not the enemy”. (then I move on to explain some stuff about exceptions to the rule).
Who cares about ongoing bias? I realize that’s not fixable. I’m talking about this particular warning, and arguing it should be rescinded based on a similar case being treated differently.
But this makes even less sense to me. If anything, an OPINION that male is male and female is female and ne’er shalt the definitions be muddled is surely more acceptable than a debate that requires citation to authority, especially when such an opinion is so widely held in society.
No, but he can reasonably claim to be unconvinced.
And that’s where the value of this board should shine: a warning brooks no dissent and simply mandates either belief or silence; neither is a useful method of education.
Which part makes less sense to you: that different mods mod things differently, or that in IMHO, where you’re not really supposed to debate, mods would come down harsher on someone attacking an opposing viewpoint through lame satire than mods in GD would?
You haven’t even shown that it exists in the first place. As far as your “arguing it should be rescinded based on a similar case being treated differently” goes, using that logic I could “prove” the opposite by coming up with(out of the thousands available) 2 examples of liberals getting warned for something and one conservative not being warned for vaguely the same type of post.
OK, but that relates to what I said - you don’t assume I am a troll, and thus the specific post in the specific thread did not cause you to think I was trolling. And therefore you responded with discussion. ITD did assume it, based on the specific words, and responded differently.
Which I think is unfortunate.
Which is why it might not be a good idea if I go back to the linked thread. If the mods assume differently than you, they (or at least ITD) could well interpret any subsequent posts from me in the same way. Even if I make lengthy responses, one mod said that will prevent me from being accused, while another has said that length of post is not a consideration. So I am not sure of what will help.
Regards,
Shodan
So every OP in the PIT and half of those in GD is trolling? :dubious:
It’s more than that.
You do understand that the rules and standards for each forum are different, don’t you?
I do feel that, in saying “Dude, you’re the one in favor of dumping poor people in the gutter to bleed to death.” by lemur, he was summing up the position that you were advocating for at the time. You had adamantly said that you were against paying for other people’s healthcare. If that position were to be taken, that of not covering people who cannot pay, then there would be many more dead than can be conveniently disposed of. Dumping poor people in the gutters to bleed to death is not entirely accurate, as that would only be one of the many ways that poor people would by dying in such a scenario, but should the govt take up your position of not paying for the healthcare of people who cannot pay for themselves, then yeah, the natural consequence of that is people bleeding to death in the gutter.
I feel his statement was that you were in favor of policies that would have the very real effect of causing the results that he describes, not that you were actually in favor of seeing people bleeding to death in the gutter.
It’s exactly the sort of summary that torpedoes good debate. Rather than addressing the very real policy differences that well-meaning people can have, it casts Bricker as a moustache-twirling villain.
Someone who genuinely wants poor people to bleed to death in the gutter is not someone who can be reasoned with. That’s the sort of person who should be addressed via police action or revolution, depending on how much power they hold, because they are essentially murderous.
Someone who believes that national health care initiatives is an unwise approach for providing medical care to those who truly need it can, however, be reasoned with. I think Bricker is wrong, but he’s wrong for reasons other than a desire to make poor people suffer.
As I have said before, and at least twice in that very thread, I favor the policies as existed in 2008.
So far as I can recall, the dead did not clog the gutters in 2008.
But thanks for the illustration.
Exactly! And if I’m in error, then debate, argue, illustrate. Show me the error of my ways.
But see how it works differently? Although I reported that initial post, there has been no mod reaction, not so much as a note.
Trolling, so far as I am aware, is forbidden in both GD and IMHO. If the dead-in-the-gutters post was trolling, as Shodan’s post was alleged to be, then it deserves a warning. Was it?
Or does trolling only happen when the object of the post runs counter to the left’s preferred narrative?
Yes: I see how poor debating in GD doesn’t get modded as fiercely as poor debating in IMHO does, when ITD handles the latter and Bone handles the former. The insistence that the difference is due to politics is very strange, given that Bone is on the conservative end of the posters here.
Were I a GD mod, I would’ve modded that comment by Lemur. Were I an IMHO mod, I would’ve modded that comment by Shodan. But I’m not, and there’s no evidence of inconsistency by any single mod.
Edit: Also, I don’t think the dead-in-the-gutters was remotely trolling. It was a deliberately ugly and disingenuous paraphrase, so ugly that it only really functions as a personal attack; but I don’t think it makes sense to call it trolling, since it was clearly attributed to you. Shodan’s post wasn’t attributed to anyone else; he posted it as though it were his personal view, when AFAICT it wasn’t his personal view, and that’s where the “trolling” thing comes in.
What is considered trolling in one forum by one moderator might not be considered trolling in another forum by another moderator. Is this the first time you’ve been told this, Bricker?
]
But pointing ut that the policies that one is advocating for will result in such things is not torpedoing the debate. Implying that the poster desires such things, maybe so, but there is nothign wrong with pointing out that the end result of certain policy decisions will result in disaster.
But you did not, at that time, say that you favored policies that existed in 2008, you said you favored policies that meant that you did not have to pay for someone else’s healthcare.
Those are two different policies entirely. The policies we had in 2008, I think were problematic, but the policy that you said that you were for, that of not paying for someone else’s healthcare, is not the policy that we had in 2008. And that is the policy that would result in a tremendous amount of death.
The results of a policy of not paying for anyone else’s healthcare are, IMHO accurately summed up by poor people bleeding out in the gutters, but that would not be the only way of people dying.
Trolling Happens when someone is only posting for the purpose of getting a reaction out of someone else. Lumer was not trying to get a reaction out of you, he was saying what the results of a policy of not paying for anyone else’s healthcare, a policy that at that time in that thread you claimed to favor, would be.
No, it’s been mentioned. But this disparity also deserves to be highlighted and discussed, in order to help harmonize the standards, because the current level of uncertainty means that liberal posters are freer to lob these kinds of deliberately ugly and disingenuous paraphrases, secure that the majority of readers will agree and not report them, the majority of moderators won’t mod the post of it happens to get reported, and if they do, they’ll issue a mod note as opposed to a warning.
That’s the benefit to loose standards like this. To the majority, anyway.
Check your SDMB liberal majority privilege, Czarcasm.