Because you didn’t just call them racist. You called them sycophants, making it clear that the whole thing was an insult rather than just a factual declaration.
If you’d said “socialist leftist psychopaths” or “religious right-wing nutjobs,” I’d also see those as political jabs.
Both of those are political categorizations, not statements of fact. I know left-wingers who are not socialists, and right-wingers who are not religious. Fine to use those terms in a political debate in GD, but using them in GQ will just become a hijack of a factual thread into a political debate - and there’s another couple of forums specifically designed for those discussions.
I’m not calling ICE sycophants. I’m calling people who fly that flag in support of ICE, which is racist, sycophants. To take a country’s flag – a symbol of unity – and turn it instead into a symbol that represents only a tiny minority of that country IS a sycophantic action, is it not? Do you really think that flag would be visible today if not for BLM and Trump?
More to the point: isn’t this innately worthy of discussion? Why would you want to stop this discussion instead of letting it simply play out on the relevant thread? I’m not saying you should agree with me. I’m saying this discussion is worthwhile and should be allowed to happen. You see how it’s just organically picking up steam here? The same thing was happening in that other thread. Why not let it?!
Of course it’s worthy of discussion. In one of the forums specifically designed for political debates, rather than a forum designed for factual answers to factual questions.
…started, of course, in the relevant forum.
So essentially you are demanding that once you see some sort of factual response to GQ, no one else is allowed to continue that factual discussion just because you want to discuss the more political aspects of a particular topic. Seems like a horrible idea to me.
How about trying to simply start a new thread in P&E and linking back to the original thread, which has worked pretty darn well for the last couple of decades here? Seems like a better solution than trying to re-write the rules.
Yes, of course, fine. With perfect foresight, every political thread would start in P&E, and every potentially inflammatory P&E post would start in the Pit instead. But if a discussion about a political symbol naturally, through discussion, becomes political… isn’t that the whole point of a message board? Why not let the discussion go on? We’re having it now, anyway, in ATMB instead of either GQ or P&E. And yet there are no moderator warnings here – which is great, because it’s a bad rule to have in the first place, and people should be free to speak their thoughts.
If it gets too heated naturally, move it. If people start being dicks, then warn them for being dicks. If a GQ turns political, naturally, once the GQ was answered, and people remain relatively civil to each other, then just let it continue. I don’t see the problem.
And once again you bring up a point that is totally non-relevant to this conversation.
Obviously you don’t see the problem. Let me try to clarify it for you.
It is actually possible to have a factual discussion about some aspect of a political topic. It may not be possible for you, but many of our users are perfectly fine with the concept. Not all threads on political matters need to be moved to P&E.
And again, for those, like yourself, who wish to delve into the more political aspects of a topic, we have a tried and true solution for that which has worked just fine for a couple of decades now. Start a new thread in P&E and link back to the original thread. Easy peasy.
No, of course not. I’m saying that is what is factual and what is political is often a gray area, especially when literally the GQ was about a political symbol, and that the differentiation is arbitrary, subjective, and pointless. Both should be allowed to continue, if they happen organically. The same way, say, that Star Trek about why it’s not a military got sidetracked by a discussion about post-scarcity economics. Discussions are free-flowing by nature and other rules prevent assholery well enough. The “no politicization of GQ” rule is not a good one, IMO, or should be very selectively applied (removed altogether would be my vote).
The whole point is that it’s not always easy to know, beforehand, whether a certain topic would blow up in a political debate. I asked a straightforward question about the topic at hand, and yes, the language may have been inflammatory to some, but if so, then just let them address that directly (as they have here, and it hasn’t devolved into anything Pitworthy). Somehow we manage.
It’s literally a political question about a political flag that organically grew out of the discussion. Is that really so unreasonable?
(We simulposted).
We were having a factual discussion on a political topic – whether there is actually a significant overlap between people who appreciate the border patrol and people who appreciate park rangers. That discussion stopped because of an unnecessary application of a bad rule.
It’s not irrelevant, it’s literally the thing I’m arguing: that this rule should not exist.
I did not assume, beforehand, that it would be worthy of such a thread. There is another rule against starting too-similar threads. I honestly thought it might result in another two or three comments at most, and then fade into obscurity. Of course if I had thought the topic was in and of itself potentially blow-up-able, then yes, it makes perfect sense to start another thread in the right forum. I really did not know.
It is still unclear to me, now, whether that original add-on question IS worthy of its own thread (the overlap between people who like BP and park rangers). No one else has expressed any interest in that, here, vs the questions around ICE.
It stopped because you said this:
“Is there really much of overlap between racist ICE sycophants and people who like the ranger giving a bear talk?”
You have been a member here for a very long time, and you should be quite familiar with the rules by now. If you somehow think that “racist ICE sycophants” is appropriate for GQ after all of that, then perhaps you should confine yourself to the political forums where such jabs are commonplace and acceptable. In GQ, phrases like that tend to derail conversations.
There’s a reason we have the rule against political jabs.
The fact that you don’t like the rule is not (IMHO) a good reason to get rid of the rule. It serves a purpose.
And again, if you want to make some sort of political comment about ICE being racist sycophants, you are free to do so. Just not in GQ. That’s a P&E discussion (hint - new post, link, etc…).
No, there was no ongoing discussion, because you were the only one who brought it up. You asked your question about racist ICE syncophants. No-one before in that thread had raised that issue, and Colibri then told you not to make political jabs, which you disputed, turning what had been a simple caution into a mod warning. There was no discussion going on about the question your raised. And no-one has addressed it since.
And by the way, your question seems to me to have been a hijack as well, since the passage you quoted from Running Coach does not mention ICE at all:
ICE is not mentioned in that quotation. Border patrol is. US Border Patrol is a sub-set of US Customs and Border Protection, which is not ICE.
To be forthright with you, while I HAVE seen the “no political jabs” moderation action before, I had erroneously assumed it was meant for unrelated opportunistic drive-bys, not merely heated (but on-topic) continuations of the discussion at hand. That’s my own fault, I suppose, for not having properly understood the rule.
I still don’t agree with it, but at least now I know.
I believe I understand those reasons (to prevent the derailing of a GQ thread into a contentious political showdown). I understand the desire for that, but believe there are better ways to achieve that to have selective enforcement, too ambiguous, about what constitutes a “jab” in an already-political thread.
I just cannot agree with you here. It’s a post about a flag that symbolizes support for law enforcement over the victims of law enforcement. It’s not derailing the conversation but continuing it. Left unmoderated, it likely would’ve turned out largely similar to how it turned out here, above, without all this brouhaha.
I have been given the opportunity to appeal your decision, and I’ve made my case. It simply wasn’t strong enough to convince any of you. I don’t think there’s anything more I can add. We hear each other, we just disagree. So be it.
This is a significant enough disagreement for me that I wish to stand my ground. Sorry, political speech matters a lot to me, and I cannot in good conscience comply with your moderation decision here. Given that you also do not wish to honor my request for a ban, I will voluntarily leave these boards.
Thanks for the good times and many interesting threads. I wish you all well. Good night, and goodbye.
I am sorry to see you go. You bring a lot to these boards. I hope you will re-consider at some point.
The difference is lost on me, and if that technicality constitutes a hijack, then I apologize for that. And I was fine with Colibri telling me not to argue mod decisions outside this forum. My bad on that as well; should’ve known that rule.
Goodbye, Northern_Piper, and I wish you well.
I just want to echo this same sentiment. @Reply, you’re a valued poster and I think it’s a shame that you choose to make this ultimatum around changing a long-standing rule the condition of your staying around. You didn’t initially even get a warning for politicizing the GQ discussion against a long-standing rule. You just got a mod note, and the warning was for persisting after the note. The reasons for the rule and the subsequent mod actions have already been addressed. I hope you’ll reconsider.
Yes, there are gray areas in what is and is not a political jab. That’s why we have human moderators instead of just letting Discobot do it all, and that’s why we sometimes give notes instead of warnings.
But “racist sycophants” is not in anything remotely resembling a gray area. It is, plainly and simply, a political jab, and exactly the sort of thing that we want to keep out of GQ. We disallow political jabs in GQ because we want to stop such things before they get to the point of people calling people racist sycophants.