Okay. If someone says “you should take the Red Pill” in GD, then how can I respond within the rules while also appropriately shitting on that disgusting ideology as much as allowed?
Unless I’m badly misreading my user control panel, in the 7 years I’ve been a member here, I’ve had 5 warnings, three of which are personal insult infractions - all of those from you, oddly enough. And sure, I deserved two of them, and to my knowledge I did not contest them, because those were fair calls. I spoke out in anger after the election and crossed the line. But in this case, I’m rather at a loss as to what you expect from me. I didn’t insult a person. I insulted a shitty, toxic ideology. I did so explicitly, without mentioning the poster. I referenced myself, because I have literally been there myself (I blame youtube atheism). I “took the red pill” and the result was me being a shitty, bitter, lonely person.
I’m glad you realized that the post below it was a direct insult, thank you for correcting that gross oversight. This ruling is still ridiculous, and I’d appreciate some input from one of the other moderators.
Look further down your UserCP. There are five warnings per page. Click over. You have 13, 9 of which are for insults.
And that should give you pause. Even if you disagree with other interpretations, you should be able to see them. And even if you missed them at first, others have detailed them. Not only that, but they’ve repeatedly shown the flaws in your interpretation.
I mean, it’s just direct English interpretation to see that he’s describing the pill. His description “that makes me a shitty, bitter, hateful misogynistic prick who happens to be totally wrong about everything all the time” is attached to the word “one.” The word “one” has the antecedent of “the red pill.” It cannot link to the poster, as that’s not how English works.
Your interpretation requires reading BPC’s mind and assuming that he was secretly trying to encode a personal attack in language that isn’t one on its own. It requires assuming that the other poster is a Red Piller, even though he never said he was. It requires assuming that BPC had temporarily lost control of himself, given your last response.
You make a lot of assumptions rather than just using the straightforward reading of what is said. I understand them, but they are all more tenuous than the interpretation that he was following the rules which say you can attack the post, not the poster.
And I at least find predicting assumptions like this to be difficult. The only way I’ve succeeded is to constantly rewrite my post over and over while thinking of the worst way what I type may be interpreted. (I’ve been working on this post for an hour now, based on when the board says I was last here.)
You should have instead said that it makes some people shitty, bitter, hateful, etc. I gather that would get you a note at most.
jesus fucking christ
It really should not be this hard for a messageboard not to condone nasty bullshit like r/theredpill
Come on guys.
Cancer is obviously horrible and nothing else needs to be said on that subject except to hope you do as well as a friend of mine who was expected to die and now five years later is cancer-free.
Unfortunately, we’re discussing moderation of a thread instead.
I didn’t know BPC’s history and maybe that justifies mods not cutting him any slack. I don’t know EasyPhil’s history either. All I see is a thread that should either be closed or moved to the pit to allow posters to properly address his conduct as well as a personal insult that occurred before you stepped in to moderate.
I was going to say more but it turns out you did finally give EasyPhil a warning. I shouldn’t have needed to click over to find that out; you should have mentioned it here because it completely changes this discussion.
Part of the problem, as I noted above, is spotting the correct reference. The red pill also occurs in the film the Matrix. And Total Recall. And it occurs in literature. Certain real-world pills are red (e.g. Xanax and Tramadol). Which one is the correct reference? You can’t expect people to Just Know.
Compare
with
Same words, vastly different meanings. Both clarified by the links.
Given that there was no explanation, I understand the warning.
Until this thread I was unaware RED Pill was an ideology. I have always assumed the cinematic references when I’ve seen it. Along the line of the road lesser traveled.
If I had just read the post in question without reading this thread, I would have interpreted it as an indirect insult, too. Even though BPC used “me” in his post, there seemed to have been an implicit “like you” there based on the tone. I would have recognized *The Matrix *reference, but not the Men’s Rights Movement reference. Never heard of that “red pill” reference, and after doing a bit of googling I’d still call it very obscure. Best not to use obscure cultural references with something that might come off as an insult.
Having said that, and with the explanation given by BPC and by others in this thread, I agree that the warning should be rescinded. I understand the poster has a history of warnings for insults, but I feel pretty confident after reading this thread that no insult was intended.
But it’s a judgement call, and I guess the moral of the story, if the warning is not rescinded, is what I wrote at the end of my first paragraph. I think we’ve encountered other situations here that fall in that category. After all, why would anyone interject something about Men’s Rights into a thread about Carter Page? Makes no sense at all.
But if this is what you meant, I think that tends to confirm that you’re taking a swipe at the other poster based on their misogyny. (As opposed to my example, in which you’d really be taking the piss out of yourself.)
Chances warning really has nothing to do with the Redpill. If someone posted that the redpill *movement *was full of “shitty, bitter, hateful misogynistic pricks who happen to be totally wrong about everything all the time” I am sure no warning would occur.
What Chance apparently thought is that that line was a clever attempt to conceal a personal insult vs a poster.
This seems doubtful. JC is very often seeing insults where none are meant. Just like my first warning, where I made a really bad joke. Even the person I made the joke against didn’t take it as a insult. Basically, even if the “insulter” claims there was no insult meant, and the “insultee” also said he saw and took no insult, and several posters say they didnt see it, JC will continue on, sure that a insult was there, even tho no one else can see it.
But there is zero chance he will change his mind, I am sure he is SURE that that was some sort of personal insult vs a poster.
Otherwise JC does a good job, but he is often seeing insults where none are meant.
One question that no one seems to be addressing is what EasyPhil meant with his statement, and - more importantly - what is a reasonable interpretation of his statement.
Specifically, was it reasonable for BPC to assume that EasyPhil referring to MRA as opposed to merely suggesting that he (BPC) face the uncomfortable reality WRT the Carter Page issue that was being discussed? Because if BPC’s interpretation was not a reasonable interpretation, then his gratuitously dragging in MRA seems like an attempt to attack EP by associating him with misogyny etc. If he genuinely thought that EP was for some reason introducing MRA to the discussion, then that’s something else.
References to taking the red pill can extend into other areas like conspiracy theories and racial biology differences. It’s why being “red pilled” is often likened to the right wing version of being “woke.”
I believe it’s no accident the poster did not intend to mention a specific philosophy but also meant it as more than a Matrix reference.
His capitalization is what made me think it’s most likely he meant the Red Pill ideology, and BPC’s response made it very obvious to me that BPC was specifically attacking the ideology, even if that’s not what the first poster meant.
Perhaps it can, in other instances. I’m basing my conclusions on the first two posts in this thread where it seems clear that BPC was using it in the Men’s Rights Movement context. If not, then it should be no surprise that folks can’t figure out what the hell it’s supposed to mean.
I’m not aware that capitalization makes a difference, but I’m not all that familiar with various incarnations of red pill references and you could be right about that.
There’s no doubt that BPC was attacking the MRA ideology even if that’s not what the first poster meant. The issue is that if BPC likely knew that EP meant something else and deliberately chose to attack the MRA meaning in an attempt to insinuate that EP meant the MRA ideology - and by extension was himself a Red Pill misogynist etc. - then that’s an issue on its own.
Basically, my point is that there’s a big difference between objecting to an ideology if that ideology is actually what’s being discussed, and objecting to that ideology if that’s not on the table and your primary purpose in objecting to it is to pin odious connotations on your debate opponent.
I’ve got to disagree. It only works if you get the reference. Someone who doesn’t - as those who in this thread did not - is going to draw the wrong conclusion. It would all have been avoided if BPC and EasyPhil had included links.
I suppose it thus serves as an object lesson to us all.
What do you think I’ve said that you disagree with?
Still waiting on feedback from other mods, btw. This decision is and remains bullshit.