"Racist ICE sycophant" is not a political jab

Per Colibri’s instructions in this other thread, I am moving a moderation dispute to this forum about a flag supporting particular types of federal LEOs.

It is not a “political jab” to be discussing the meaning behind a political flag; it’s the whole point of that discussion. There is no rational reality in which ICE, an enforcement agency targeting non-white immigrants, can be anything but racist, and it is not exactly a secret that racial purity is an open and militant part of the GOP platform. To call someone a “sycophant” when they’ve literally designed a new flag to showcase their support for a cause is likewise not a jab. These are not accusations, they are merely descriptions of everyday reality.

I have great respect for Colibri and his posts, but I cannot stand by this moderation decision. I believe it was made in poor judgment and serves to squelch and chill meaningful discussion rather than merely encouraging decorum – if that is even the goal.

I further question the usefulness of the “no political ____ (jab or otherwise) in GQ” rule itself, as the line between what is political (what isn’t?) is too often arbitrary and capricious. What is the point of limiting political discussion on a topic that is innately political? If something seems to be veering into territory uncomfortable for GQ, why not simply move the topic into Politics & Elections instead of worrying about whether it fits GQ rules? Such mundane moderator actions happen frequently between other forums (say, moving GQ threads to Cafe Society), so why not simply apply the same noncontroversial tactics to posts you consider “too political”?

I am sorry if I come off as an ass about this, but I strongly disagree with the moderation decision in this case. This has a chilling effect on otherwise lively discussion, and it’s just not the kind of environment that I feel we should be promoting here.

I appreciate the time you all put forth here as volunteer moderators, but I cannot in good conscience agree with this decision. If it must be final, and you stand by your decisions after this appeal, then I ask that you please permanently ban me from this board as my (meek) protest. In that case, I wish you all well for the many interesting years here. Thank you then, and goodbye.

Of course, “racist ICE sycophant” is a political jab. Such jabs have been prohibited in General Questions for many many years.

You are perfectly free to pursue such discussions in appropriate forums, such as Politics and Elections or the Pit. But such jabs only serve to derail factual discussions in General Questions.

This distinction has served us well for many years. There is no chance we are going to change it now.

No, it isn’t, as above, and again: Why even have that rule in GQ to begin with, and if that rule must be there, why not simply move offending threads into P&E?

If you must disagree with all three points (that the statement is not a jab, that even if it were, GQ should not have such a rule, and that even if such a rule must exist, it would be better to move threads rather than enforce that rule), then I ask you, please, to honor my request for a permanent ban and to register it as a strong protest against that particular rule. Not against you personally.

Thank you for your consideration.

It wasn’t an offending thread, it was your offending post that was the problem. In general I will try to keep threads in GQ if it is reasonable to do so. In my judgement, this was such a case.

If you don’t like our rules, just stop posting. We don’t really honor requests for martyrdom.

ICE is not inherently racist. Everyone, even radical leftists, agree we must have some kind of immigration control. And that means we need an agency to enforce our immigration laws.

The reality that there is currently such a high level of racism involved in our immigration policy is a flaw of particular politicians. We could have an immigration control agency without racism. So condemning ICE for racism is political commentary.

Even the best-intentioned moderators, as I believe you are, can make judgment calls that posters disagree with. More than once I have seen such a call made (not always for my posts, just in general), and they have the effect of silencing an otherwise lively – if not always fruitful – discussion. Such silencing of political speech, especially, and doubly so in times such as this, makes me less and less willing to engage in any thread in GQ.

It is not a request for martyrdom, it is an acknowledgment on my part of my own inability to foretell what you would consider a “political jab”. I simply do not hold your view that it was such, and I cannot predict when it is going to happen again, because I did not intend for it to come off as one this time around. I don’t want to keep posting here if political discussion is just going to see unnecessarily heavyhanded moderation.

I am requesting a ban just like Tim Mortiss’s in this other thread. Tim_R.Mortiss BANNED as per his request after his 3rd warning for being a jerk If you really cannot honor it, fine, I will stop posting.

You are free to hold this opinion, even if I do not agree with it. What I’m not OK with is a moderating enforcing this opinion as an official moderation action, instead of as a poster.

I am not saying that your jab is true, but a statement can be true and still be a political jab.

Political discussions by their nature belong in Great Debates, Politics and Elections, IMHO, or the Pit. GC has always been for factual discussions, and calling another poster a “racist ICE synchophant” certainly isn’t factual.

Once again, we do not “silence” political speech. You are perfectly free to make your points in an appropriate forum, just not in GQ.

I understand you, and I am saying that truthiness aside, one, I do not consider it to be a political jab even if you do, and two, even political jabs should not be silenced in GQ. Political threads could be identified and easily moved to P&E as necessary, thereby allowing discussion to continue instead of being stopped via moderator opinion.

Except it wasn’t a political thread, it was a factual thread. One poster shouldn’t be able to have a factual thread moved out of GQ by starting to make political comments.

Making judgement calls like this is what moderators do.

So move them there. I wasn’t the one who put that thread in GQ.

PS Wasn’t calling another poster anything. Was questioning a particular grouping of different types of federal LEOs under one flag (feel free to read that other thread).

ICE targets white immigrants also. Altho at the highest level ICE leadership is perhaps infected by the current administration, sure.

The Border patrol also keeps out drug dealers- even from Canada. There are many Border patrol Checkpoints along out Northern Border.

The INS has been around since 1933. Sure it has now morphed and changed names, but Canada has a very similar agency to keep out drugs, guns and riff-raff from their Southern Border.

I do hope you get your wish.

This would only be a valid point if you were a GQ moderator.

True. Yes, now ICE is out of control at the top, but it is not inherently racist.

I have read that thread. I thought you were criticising Running Coach as a “racist ICE syncophant”, by the way he grouped ICE in with other federal LEO.

Asking about the symbolism of different flags is not a political question, and the thread isn’t a political thread, so it should stay in GQ.