In the “Lower Immigration Numbers” thread, you gave both LonesomePolecat and CBEscapee a warning. I was reading that thread and saw where CBEscapee ran afoul of the GD rules, with this:
But I didn’t see what LonesomePolecat had said that was against the rules. When I asked you in that thread,
…you answered by pointing to these two posts by Lonesome:
Neither of those two quotes seem to be near GD infractions. What gives? From where I sit, it looks like the Warning against LonesomePolecat needs to be retracted.
Thanks. But where’s the infraction. I don’t see it. CB clearly insulted LP, which is a violation. I reread most of the exchange, and I see LP showing a lot of restraint. Even after he receives the direct insult, he tells CB to take it to the Pit, without him. And he never insulted him back. Thoughts?
I didn’t warn him for insults. I warned him for his jerkish and inflammatory comment accusing CBEscapee of rooting for genocide against white people (and the second post was just goading). I warned CBEscapee for insulting LonesomePolecat.
Inasmuch as CBEscapee quite clearly hates Anglos, neither of my remarks were out of line. Judging from the many other posts he has left on the SDMB, it seems clear to me that he would be overjoyed if the United States collapsed, and all the Anglos were driven out. I merely told him to say it out loud in so many words. I’m up front about how I think and feel about race; I have every right to show how cowardly and hypocritical CBEscapee is being.
That does not deserve a warning. If it did, then you need to be issuing warnings about pretty much every accusation of “racism” made on this board.
He wasn’t jerkish. He restrained himself remarkably while dealing with a hothead who has been bitch slapped for his behavior more than once. Ask yourself this: if CB hadn’t clearly gone over the line and forced a warning, would you have warned LP? I doubt it, because then you should be issuing warnings all day long.
Having heard your explanation, it seems more obvious than ever that you should retract the warning to LonesomePolecat.
Other posters are quite clearly idiots, racists, and/or mouthbreathing dolts who most likely have helper monkeys posting for them because they can not possibly figure out how to type on their own. But pointing those facts out in GD is over the line.
Yes, CB has said some pretty vile things about Americans as a group. Yes, he’s said some things that surely seem to support a view that Mexicans should be able to violate US law with impunity and criminally enter the United States. Yes, he’s not only said some very nasty things about Americans as a group, but gotten rather upset when people have pointed out that if someone used similar anti-Mexican slurs to his anti-American slurs, (in point of fact got angry and thought that the simple act of pointing out hypothetical anti-Mexican slurs meant that those slurs were being supported.) Yep, I doubt he likes America, or Americans.
Yes, the use of “Anglos” to describe a country that’s got citizens from England, Ireland, Scotland, Germany, Italy, Greece, Russia, Iran, Botswana, and a hundred plus other nations, who we let immigrate legally and made full citizens of our nation… is, well, it’s somewhat odd.
But accusing someone of being a racist and/or having genocidal urges is simply over the line in GD. It belongs in the Pit, even if it’s true.
Does magellan have a history of jerkish posts/insults? Because, while I agree with FinnAgain about the proper place for calling someone a racist, I do believe that it usually only receives a Mod Note at worst.
Do what you will, of course. I just think I understand why magellan is upset. Calling someone a racist is generally not held to be equivalent to a direct insult, and even the latter often get Mod Notes instead of warnings. By giving them both Warnings, you are implying that they both committed the same level of offense.
Finally, I’ll point out that, in my observation, defending yourself against a personal attack often is granted more leeway. The lack of such leeway for him may also be why magellan is upset.
ETA: I however agree with bucketybuck, too. Saying vile things about groups that you know includes the majority of posters and using racial epithets is also quite jerkish and probably should be discouraged by some form of moderation action.
Magellan wasn’t warned, LonesomePolecat was.
And yes, part of dealing with moderators is that some insults will be met with a slap on the wrist, and others will be met with a Warning.
Overall, though, it’s really not that hard to go without getting a Warning in GD most of the time. It’s perfectly possible to clearly and unambigously call someone all sorts of things without ever using an objectionable word. Hell, “Oh, you’re sure of that?” can quite easily stand in for “So, your mother was given to mating with chimpanzees and you were the result, yes?”
If you really need to slug it out, we have the Pit where folks can cut lose and poke people with sticks for no reason other than that they enjoy trolling them, if that’s their thing.
He didn’t directly insult CBEscapee in response to what CBEscapee posted. He did, however, say CBEscapee supports genocide against white people. I’m not seeing the remarkable restraint here.
“It seems clear to me” is a highly qualified phrase and not a factual judgment, and what seems clear to you might not be clear to others. You’ve probably spent a lot more time arguing with CBEscapee than I have, but your statement about Anglos being driven in the sea does not follow even from his first insult.
I think saying someone supports genocide is a bit more extreme than ‘calling someone a racist.’ Accusations of racism were made on both sides in any case. (On it’s own I am more likely to give a note for that; I gave a poster a mod note for a comment much closer to ‘you are a racist’ this morning.) I really don’t care if the two actions - insulting another poster and saying another poster supports genocide - are equivalent. They’re both things we don’t want posters to do, and I felt both instances were severe enough to deserve warnings.
I don’t want to actually endorse this kind of thing, but it’s true. As a general rule you can put down someone’s argument as much as you like as long as you remain civil in doing so. One of the first things I learned in the high school debate club was that if you want to insult your opponent, you say “My learned opponent would have you believe…” It’s understood that this is sarcastic and a polite way of saying your opponent is completely wrong and could be an idiot, but it’s polite on the surface. That’s all that is called for. (I’m reminded of the whole debate over “Regards.”) Arguing that a particular policy would be bad for white people and that there is no compelling reason for white people to support it is an argument about the issue, and however wrongheaded it may be, it meets that minimum standard for civility. ‘You want white Americans to be exterminated’ does not.
I question magellan interest in this whole issue. His motive is obviously based on past threads where we vehemently disagreed. If he was truly interested in why LP was warned why has he mentioned my warning in each and every post when it obvious why I was warned?
I broke the rule and was warned. Done. Over. Why is he not limiting his question to simply why LP was warned if he is so interested? I think it is obvious his interest lies not in LP being warned but in trying to bring up past issues we have had.
I hold no hatred for Americans. There are things in American society that I strongly dislike, racism being an example. There are Americans that I strongly dislike including some on this board. That does not make me racist. Just because someone criticizes your country does not make them racist. I have constantly read posts on this board demeaning my ethnicity. Some very extreme statements such as mining the border and placing machine gun towers with orders to shoot to kill. I were to post the same things several posters on the SD have posted about Mexico and Mexicans, about people from the USA, I would be pitted on a constant basis.
I do, too. As FinnAgain points out, I assumed this was someone complaining about an unfair warning they got. To be arguing this passionately about someone else’s warning seems out of character for magellan.
I had also assumed that you had actually made some sort of implication that you wanted “anglos” to die. That’s why I equated your comment with calling someone a racist.
I thus apologize both for assuming that, and for not paying more attention to what was actually going on. I should always do so before commenting so I’m not commenting from ignorance.
:rolleyes: There are plenty of times someone opens a thread in ATMB about an act of moderation against someone else. It stems from looking for clarification of the rules, or not agreeing with the moderator’s action and feeling it was unfair. I know nothing about your previous interactions with megallan01, or anyone else, but do not see evidence of an agenda against you.
The reason he keeps citing your behavior is because the two warnings were issued simultaneously, for what appears to be the same reason. He is trying to distinguish the behavior that he and everyone else can clearly see violates the rules with behavior that he does not feel violates the rules - certainly not the rule that he thinks is being cited.
Paraphrased:
Post1: I understand why X was moderated, but why was Y moderated?
Post3: I am assuming you posted the link to clear up the situation for me, but that does not clear up the situation. X insulted Y, but nowhere did Y insult X.
Post6: I think you are letting the situation cloud your judgement. Because you saw X insult Y, you are reading more into the comments by Y than you would if X had not insulted Y. I think you should reevaluate Y’s comments on their own merits.
There’s a legitimate reason for bringing it up in each post. It is trying to frame LonesomePolecat’s behavior.
It would be if it was out of the blue. But Really Not All That Bright had made it a discussion about race in Post #115 when she accused LP of being a racist:
And it was CBEscapee who injected “anglos” into the discussion with his very first post to LP:
Note that Really Not All That Bright did not receive a warning for Post 115, and that LP was able to discuss things with her(him?) level-headedly. He did the same thing with CBEscapee. Problem is, CBEscapee clearly went over the line and had to be warned. But Marley23, for some strange reason felt the need to issue a warning to LP, as well.
There are two possibilities for this. One, is that in the busy world of a Mod he wanted to quickly just dial down the tenor and without thinking about it fully, just issued the warnings. Which would be understandable. But it would also require him to now rescind that warning to LP. Problem rectified.
The other possibility is a bit more puzzling. I can only venture a guess that he didn’t want to inadvertently let his (rightful) moderation be perceived as aidingLP, so he slapped both of them. This is a bit more troubling, as it would point to the perceived bias of this board (liberal), including its moderation. I hope and am perfectly willing to write it off as a decision made a little too quickly. But that would mean that Marley23 would be eager to rescind his warning to LP.
I guess, he he wants to stick by his explanation, he could issue a warning to Really Not All That Bright. His/her accusation of racism was more strident than anything LP said. I personally don’t think that what he/she said was all that bad, and discussions like this are bound to go into that territory.
I’ll add that I’ve been accused of racism and homophobia on these boards (yes, in GD) too many times to count. And I can not once recall moderators warning those doing the accusing. Like I said, I don’t think it should be completely off the table. But I do think that if it’s being used as a lazy ad hominem or a club, then a Mod should step in.
Neither of your options includes the explanation I already gave you: I thought they both deserved warnings. I explained why I felt both posts deserved warnings. You’re within your rights to disagree and say I blew it. But there’s no point in asking me to explain myself if you’re going to ignore my answer.
How many times were you accused of supporting ethnic cleansing? I don’t need an exact count, a guesstimate would be fine.
“In some parts of the United States Anglo-American is shortened to Anglo and applied to White Americans who are not of Hispanic or Latino origin, and sometimes to those who are not of French origin.”
I was accused by LP of hating whites/anglos. LP was the one complaining about the dilution of his beloved and superior “white” culture. I don’t particularly care for the word white to distinguish caucasian Americans from Mexicans so I used a different word. Why that choice of word seems to be a problem or seems odd to some I have no idea.
As far as “anglos being driven into the sea”, are you aware of the term “hyperbole”? Or did you really think that LP was suggesting a world wear hordes of people from south of the border would actually push people to the sea, forcing them to either drown or board ships and leave the country? Please.
Additionally, how many times has Der Trihs accused others of wanting to kill, murder and subjugate people. Your defense of your actions would be a lot more believable if you had slapped DT down with a similar warning…oh, I don’t know…about 20 times a week.
Or if you had warned Really Not All That Bright for Post 115. Especially based on what you said here: (bolding mine)