Its a joke.
Okay. Now I detect the humor.
Ha!
Ironically (or perhaps subconciously…my brain doesn’t fully engage till after noon) a three day suspension is perfect joke wise.
Kobal used the magic word 5 times. 5 times 3/5 equals a three day suspension.
I am on record as saying that post was inexcusable. But I thought that due to his generally decent posting history, I asked for mercy based upon that. I did not and could not excuse that post. The Mods did reduce his sentence, which I agreed was reasonable.
The post Kobal2 responded to was an insanely racist dog-whistle. As a dog-whistle, not everyone heard it, so Kobal2 called it out for what it was in a quite flamboyant, muscular way. For this, he should be applauded. That the mods went back and discussed this and still came to such a poorly thought-through response is sad, but not surprising.
3 days or a month, who gives a toss, I doubt it was the length of the ban that was the problem but the very act of the ban itself.
I hope he comes back in 2 days and tells you lot to stuff your wonky board.
For the rest us “deaf” and likely dumb people, please explain what the fuck is so racist about “A predictable result of relaxing policing policies. Anyone with common sense understands why.”?
It’s widely understood that stop and frisk was aimed primarily at African Americans. Ending the policy has had no statistically significant impact on crime. What he said was, “now that we aren’t routinely violating the constitutional rights on blacks, they’re free to get back to their crime-committing ways.” Since the connection to crime rate doesn’t really exist, and the policy change largely affects black citizenry, there’s really no other way to read it.
Nope, it’s not. And not just because of the head-in-the-sand response to bigotry. But because, while it is better than before, we still don’t have moderators that can moderate rationally and consistently.
The mods have repeatedly said that no words are forbidden. Yet both Colibri and Jonathan Chance have stated the problem was the specific language he used, rather than the meaning behind it, which remains to call the actions of the other guy racist.
As you can see, I’m not going to pretend that the compromise is acceptable. I would have accepted maybe keeping the Warning if they switched it to “being a jerk” and Jonathan Chance had taken back his claim that a single post had deserved a suspension. But not moderation that is supposed to make it clear that “such language is not acceptable.”
The words we use are not supposed to be relevant, just the message. This is explicitly about use of the word “nigger” without a “good reason.”
This from the mods that were previously treating the banned list of words in the Pit like the joke it is. (Rarely actually Warning anyone for it, just to keep up appearances.)
Except he didnt mention “stop and frisk”. The broken windows theory of Giuliani was also put to an effective end, even tho that is backed by many experts. “stop and frisk” is only a tiny part of “broken windows”. And, there’s many people that are not racist and are experts that support “stop and frisk”, so altho certainly there’s some racial overtones to it’s actual use in the field by some officers, it’s hardly on the level of nooses in trees and burning crosses.
It’s a pretty big stretch. You gotta have pretty damn selective hearing for that whistle.
Actually, you were doing fine with the baby part, but the seams part, you got me there.
Gawd I hate it when I do things like that.
Stop and frisk was the policy that was ended, and it was the policy that was explicitly called out in the OP (via linked article.)
If someone wanted to defend a fair implementation of stop and frisk, I’d think they were unclear on the Constitution, but if they wanted to defend the actual implementation of stop and frisk as used in New York, they’d either be racist or ignorant. Most likely the former.
Sew true.
In the Op, but not by the poster quoted.
Unclear on the Constitution eh?The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is unclear on the Constitution? Especially after the judge who ruled it was unconstitutional was removed from the case for violating the Code of Conduct for United States Judges?
Or perhaps you think those three judges are also racist? or Unclear on the Constitution?
It’s possible that if this hits SCOTUS that the Court of Appeals will be overuled in turn. But when such distinguished and respected jurists disagree on whether or not a policy is unconstitutional, then to have a layman proclaim he knows more about Constitutional law than three Federal Appeals Courts justices is hubris indeed.
Feel free to believe he was introducing a new topic if you want.
This being ATMB, I don’t think we need to open a debate on stop and frisk or other matters here. If you need to, take this discussion back to the original thread.
Fair dinkum.
“Dog whistle” is one of the most overly used “get out of having to defend an argument free” cards played in GD these days. And the idea that the post in question was not just racist, but “insanely racist” is simply eye-rollingly absurd.
Is it your claim that dog whistles (the metaphorical kind, not the literal kind) are not a real thing? That we can’t recognize them reliably? That we shouldn’t say anything when we recognize them?
Maybe.
Probably not as reliably as you think (with plenty of false positives…and how do YOU feel about being falsely acussed of bad shit you didn’t do BTW?)
Sure, say if you THINK you see one if you must (but I don’t see the point in the big picture and I think it makes you look silly). But I don’t think you really need “I just know your thinking nigger nigger nigger…” in order to do that.