I think this is incorrect moderation. “Red Pill” is a specific and particularly disgusting ideology – a spin off of the Men’s Rights movement that is somehow even more hateful. I have trouble believing that criticizing the KKK as “shitty, bitter, hateful, and misogynstic” would violate the rules – why would criticizing the Red Pill movement in this way violate the rules?
Yeah I responded to the PM in question with the explicit notice that if it wasn’t reversed, I would start this thread. I’m glad someone else did instead. Particularly given the larger context of the thread (and I don’t just mean the far more explicit insult directly below my post!) this warning is moderation so abysmally bad that it feels like a slap in the face. Red pill philosophy typically produces shitty, bitter misogynistic pricks. That’s not inaccurate, and my post does not imply that any particular poster was such a person, merely that the philosophy tends towards that result. And that’s just the truth.
(In fact, I specifically used “me” instead of “you” to avoid precisely this misunderstanding. I fell down that rabbit hole for a while as a teenager and it was fucking awful.)
However, red pill is also a direct reference to the Matrix, and Phil’s post was responding to another Matrix reference. I’m not a mod, but I was willing to overlook the other connotation since it was a direct response to a Matrix reference with another one.
I’m not a moderator but I thought BPC’s response was over the top and added nothing of value to a discussion about Carter Page.
ISTM that this amounts to saying “I’m allowed to call them [such-and-such disparaging terms] because they really are all that”. I’d be surprised if that was adopted here as a general rule.
I would suggest that if a group openly acknowledges that they’re a hate group, e.g. the KKK, then it’s acceptable to call them that consistent with current rules. But if the notion that they’re a hate group is just the assessment of their ideological opponents, then that would not apply.
With all due respect, the entire thread added nothing to the discussion of Carter Page. It’s exactly the kind of clusterfuck I’m talking about in my thread about preemptively closing threads - by that point (less than 20 posts in) the OP’s arguments had been addressed and the response was “There is no evidence” and a repetition of the existing points (points which the same poster had already rehashed in a separate thread about Carter Page).
Then he brings up the red pill, I take a snipe at the philosophy (NOT the poster), he responds with “you don’t need a pill for that”, a statement which is at least as much of a personal insult, and I get a warning.
That’s not what I’m saying – I’m pretty sure that even broad statements like “Democrats hate America” or “Republicans are bigots” aren’t usually moderated in GD. I think moderator JC assumed that post was a personal attack, while in fact it was a sharp attack on the Red Pill ideology.
I’m actually enjoying the schooling in both of those threads. The board has been admirable in its patience, and pointing to the specific parts of the FBI application that proves him wrong. I wouldn’t want that thread to be preemptively closed.
If he insulted you, you should report the post. He made a Matrix reference in response to a Matrix reference. Maybe that’s too much benefit of the doubt, but I don’t see what your response added.
That, in itself, is the power of coded language; the same language that white supremacist have been cultivating since before Goldwater (See Lee Atwater, 1981). One starts with saying/doing something duplicitous then immediately hiding behind the cloak of plausible deniability. That’s followed by feigning outrage, anger, or puzzlement when you question their sincerity. Sessions has this down to a perfect art form but Trump, surprisingly, isn’t too far behind. This behavior (which includes equivocation and whataboutism) serves shift the discussion from something uncomfortable like white supremacy to something that’s non-threatening like the Matrix or the ills of the black community. This is layered beneath what Robin DiAngelo refers as “white solidarity”; the unconscious tendency for white folks to dismiss or be highly skeptical of accusations of racism by people of color (and others) in order to perpetuate white supremacy. In fact, I’ll let her speak for herself.
Because it’s a right wing movement, and the right wing always gets handled with kid gloves. On the SDMB, and everywhere else.
And calling the KKK those things probably* would *get you in trouble, actually, since the KKK is also right wing. You could probably call the Democrats or ACLU something like that, but not the KKK, Republicans or Red Pill types.
I feel like this misses the important context of what “take the red pill” means in right-wing circles. Maybe I’m reading that in somewhere where it doesn’t apply, but hoo boy did my dog perk right up.
It is. I clicked on your link and was duly disgusted. But it is a mistake to assume everyone understands or recognises every code phrase / dog whistle. EasyPhil should have provided something like the link that you did. Since he (she?) didn’t, and BPC didn’t reference it either, and with red being the Republican colour, the comment could easily be taken as insulting all Republicans, so I understand the warning.
Budget Player Cadet used the nondirect language that’s always been allowed as an insult against groups. Easy Phil gave a direct personal insult. There’s no comparison between the two.
Sorry for the delay, I was in a doctor’s appointment.
(As an aside, if you ever want to see your co-pay budget equal your grocery budget, have cancer. You, too, can live the dream.)
Yes, I warned BPC. I took his post as an insult toward EasyPhil, even if an encoded one. BPC has a long history of insulting other posters for which he’s been warned - including a suspension - with which he disagrees politically and I considered this one more of the same. I do not believe the explanation about trying to avoid making a direct insult.
During his time here, BPC has accumulated many warnings - even discounting todays - from five different current and former moderators. Most of the warnings - three-quarters of them - are for personal insults. In short, he doesn’t have a freight of good will that he didn’t intend an insult - direct or otherwise - when he made that post. Given those factors, I issued the warning.
But it wasn’t a personal insult at all, even indirectly. It was an attack on the Red Pill ideology. If somone says “you should join the Klan”, and I say “no thanks, I don’t want to be an ignorant racist asshole”, then I’m attacking the Klan, not insulting that poster.
EDIT: Best wishes for your treatment and recovery.