Well, I appreciate the “smartest” part, but not the conservative part.
I apologize if this is the wrong forum for this statement. But i see a common reason for conflict to be a disagreement as to what “racism” is and how to deals with it.
I believe the common wisdom among liberals right now is that we are all a little racist, and those who aren’t (fill in disadvantaged race here) sometimes inadvertently commit micro-aggressions because we just aren’t aware that we are doing so. Whereas the common wisdom among conservatives is that racism is a horrible and intentional evil that only horrible people commit.
So a conservative will say something that is hurtful to (insert disadvantaged race here) and a liberal will call him out on it, expecting him to say, “oops, I’m sorry, i shouldn’t have said that.” But the conservative hears, “you are an evil person attempting to put down (idrh).” So the conservative, who probably had no racist intent, takes umbrage and gets defensive.
And then the fight begins.
To tie it back to the topic of this thread, then the conservative insists he isn’t racist, and the liberals accuse him off lying. Meanwhile he accused the liberals of lying about him being racist. And both sides are telling the truth as they see it, and both are the other side apparently dishonest. So it gets ugly.
And there were are, people pitted for dishonestly. In many cases due, basically, to a misunderstanding.
I believe you and I’m pretty far left. I’ve said it before, if I was a conservative on this board I wouldn’t tell anyone.
What a lot of posters didn’t get, or didn’t like, about @Bricker was that he wanted to talk about legalities. He didn’t care what your opinion of a law should be, he cared about what the law was. Since some posters, not all, didn’t want to discuss things on that level and Bricker didn’t want to participate in side arguments, some people just got pissed at him. Just like some posters now get pissed at conservatives because they can’t convince them to change their minds on a topic.
I thanked God when politics was split off from GD, and I thanked Him again when Discourse gave us the option to hide entire forums.
I don’t think I ever agreed with Bricker on anything, I don’t think I ever talked to him at all. But I do vehemently disagree with him on one thing: Friends was not the greatest sitcom on television. The correct answer is Cheers.
There’s no way to prove/disprove this. General comments about mods are not allowed on this board. You can Pit mods for their posts as posters and you can bring a grievance for a specific action in ATMB. But there’s no place on the board allowed to give general impressions of mods. That’s one of the reasons that the snark forums went underground.
I’m good with the rule that hamstrings general comments on mods because it would get too distracting to see general comments about every mod for every complaint.
But it’s also not possible to make any general conclusions about how mods are seen because general comments about them are all not in public, except the positive comments.
If that’s the case, shouldn’t the liberal respond with “pardon me (handing over the Grey Poupon), here’s the response I expected to see here.”
Not go apeshit and start posting about them in another forum with the most disgusting insults they can imagine, over and over again.
This thread reminds me of when Reddit was trying to get rid of r/fatpeoplehate. The arguments were that people had to hate on fat people because it was a benefit to society. If there was not a place to hate on fat people, the hate would spread to all of Reddit and no one wanted that, right? And besides, sometimes the haters got through to some of the fat people who then lost weight.
Reddit got rid of r/fatpeoplehate. Nothing happened except the place had a lot less hate, and people didn’t get hit by the crossfire as much.
I haven’t really decided whether it’s a good idea or not to get rid of the Pit because I’m still reading and weighing the arguments, but so far, I will say that the arguments in favor of keeping it look weak to me. The Pit used to be my old stomping grounds so the idea of it does have some sentimental value.
That’s just crazy talk! Throwdown!
It’s nice that this particular warning was absurd enough for some people to call attention to it. Who is going to go though that mod’s 2000 previous instances of dubbing any dissent from his own politics “threadshitting” or “trolling” and rescind those? What is going to change to prevent this from continuing to happen in the future past the point of the people in that thread having the energy to care?
Of course he seems easygoing, and I think he probably is, but he mods the Pit, where pretty much anything goes. I about had a heart attack when I saw him mod note someone a few weeks ago. Before that I think the last time I saw Miller mod someone was back in the days when he had to say " Saying fuck in the Pit is not allowed, no warning issued."
The only other ones I knew of other than what I posted in the thread about Hari, were when he didn’t get that a poster was making a joke and he noted them for it. I didn’t ever check back to see what happened but I assume he changed them since posters were pointing out his mistake in the thread. But Velocity links to one in this thread that I hadn’t seen before.
Hari also gave me a warning that was later rescinded. I think it was given partly because he thought a sarcastic comment I made was serious, and that plus the fact that he objected to my views made him decide I must be trolling.
I do think being bad at detecting jokes and sarcasm is kind of a problem for a mod, and they need to remember that having different views from those prevailing on this board, even extremely different views, is normal and common, and not in itself evidence of trolling.
Except that, often, his talking about “legalities” was the side argument in a thread where “what the law should be” was already the main subject of discussion.
Back on topic, and in relation to other comments above, I’ll note that:
A lot of the “this board persecutes conservatives” claims tend to involve posters who make outrageous or indefensible statements and then use the backlash as evidence of persecution. I’m not saying that this board isn’t often hostile to right-wing viewpoints, but the frequency with which accountability for actual words posted is dodged using this gambit is pretty high.
Although free debate is good, when the proposition from one side is “Black/trans/etc people are effectively second-class citizens who are to blame for any discrimination they receive - change my mind” it’s not exactly reasonable to treat it as a purely academic debate, especially for members of the groups under discussion. As such, suggesting that we should just calmly discuss whether something is bigoted or not can easily stray into sealioning.
While this is true, there are also plenty of progressives, both on this board and off it, who will be sure to tell everyone how horrible and unacceptable racists are, and that it would be better to suffer 1,000 more years of Trump than make any kind of concession towards them (okay, that’s an exaggeration - but I’m sure you know what I’m talking about). There appears to be a certain amount of equivocation going on here, where racism is both universal and unavoidable - something you shouldn’t be upset about being accused of - and also the worst thing in the world, with racists deserving of public shunning and being left to starve in the streets.
There’s also the issue that common conservative views around personal responsibility, the limitations of government etc, are fairly frequently seen as racist in themselves by progressives. It should be obvious that conservatives (or any other group, really) are not going to instantly change their minds and apologise just because someone on a message board disagrees with them ideologically.
Thing is that many conservatives, specially in the US, are falling for Orwellian propaganda about what less conservative, centrists or liberals are actually up to.
The problem is then when hard conservatives do things based on deceptive propaganda. As a meta example, currently many conservatives in power are showing that the move against Critical Race Theory was, as me and others suspected, a ruse to remove any educational efforts to teach about the real history of America. And to remove teachers and professors that realize how important the teaching of past injustices are. It is not a coincidence that is mostly affecting the few minorities that did become teachers and professors.
This is more appalling when one remembers that many of those politicians and the right wing media attempted to hide behind Martin Luther King by falsely claiming that he would be against CRT or to be in support of hiding history because it “causes divisions”.
Now, one has to remember also that there is precedent for governments that apologised for past misdeeds, I think many will have to apologize when in a better future (I’m an optimist, sue me) less ignorant leaders will recognize the injustice that is being committed right now. It will be very likely a new generation of politicians that will realize that ignorance like that was harmful.
The current conservatives in power are doing precisely the thing that they claim to be correcting. Cancelling history, discriminating against minorities in academia. Enhancing systemic racism, and becoming perfect examples of how ideology can be twisted to turn people that are not racist into supporters of policies that mostly do what actual racists want.
Got one link? Should be easy if there are 2000 to choose from
Oh, I don’t need an apology for affirmative action; striking it down would suffice.
Perhaps we read different forums, but i see exactly that happen a lot.
Well, not exactly that, because both sides are now angry and hardening their stance. But i really do see a lot of instances of the liberals saying, “you could have apologized for saying xyz, but you are doubling down.”
I think @DemonTree is more on-point, especially in the part I’ve bolded
This is sometimes the case. And sometimes it’s that common conservative views around the roles of the sexes are sexist, etc. (IMHO)
You do often end up with both sides thinking the other is lying about them, though.
Re your first paragraph, about the… idealistically pure progressives who want to ban everyone else from speaking… I know one of them, and he doesn’t post on this board. While i certainly agree that such people exist, i don’t think that’s a common dynamic here. I think the conservative not immediately agreeing with the liberal, and then both sides getting angry and yelling past each other is far more common here, and is often a precursor to a pitting.
GIGOBuster showing up in an ATMB thread to copy and paste his 4000th two page word salad about how critical race theory is good and inevitably attracting no staff attention for it, when people who disagree with him are not even allowed to discuss critical race theory in the debate forum, is definitely proving a relevant point here, just not the one he thinks it is.
When this thread is closed in 36 hours for “going off topic” as if it had a will of its own, that point will continue to be proven.
I haven’t read every ATMB thread, but I don’t recall 4000 GIGOBuster posts about CRT in ATMB. Did you report those posts? Got links to any?
Anyways, you were banned from the subject not because you’re a conservative, but because you kept making personal attacks like claiming that GIGOBuster was an illiterate foreigner or something. You really still don’t understand the difference there?
That was not the point I made, but suffice to say, I do think that a lot of the limitations made before to affirmative action that used quotas are ok, since quotas are not good, the reality is that a lot is still done to counter the injustices that are still happening to minorities.
And anyone can notice that what you posted does not show any concern for the minorities that are being affected by the conservatives that want to ban anything that smells like CRT. As noted, it is not just that, what hard conservatives in Texas show is that if not CRT, other reasons would be used by ignorant politicians to remove the teaching of past and current injustices in schools.
I’m not sure you got my point there. It’s that many people are using the same word to describe something quotidian and universal and presumably not-particularly-blameworthy, and also to describe something really terrible that should not be tolerated in polite society. You can’t really blame others for not knowing where the line between those two uses lies.
Sure. It’s kind of the point here that not everyone agrees on what is racist, sexist etc. This paradigm of ‘if someone claims you said something racist, you should apologise and not say it again’ doesn’t really take account of that disagreement. It implies that person A should accept person B’s understanding of what is racist in lieu of their own, without any further discussion or evidence. That doesn’t seem particularly reasonable.
You could try reading the posts in context. It’s generally 100% clear if you are being accused of “you should work on that” level racism or “you’re a monster” level racism.
That’s fine, you are free not to change your mind, and others are free to call you out for it. Or should they just be forced to accept your understanding of what is and isn’t racist? That doesn’t seem particularly reasonable.
Moving away from any racism, the issue of vaccines is also being dealt with in the worse way by many conservatives out there. Further discussion or evidence is being dismissed at very dangerous levels.
Maybe it is to you. Not to everyone.
They could have that discussion, and dig out the evidence if there is any. That is what I consider reasonable.