What other mods have you contacted, and why do you think they would interfere in another mod’s forum(outside of an emergency)?
I figure most of 'em at least pay attention to ATMB, although I may be wrong. And I’m asking them to intervene because this was a fucking horseshit decision that should be reversed.
I’ve mentioned before, and I’ll say again: mods should mod with their finger outside the trigger guard. In this particular case, JC erred on the side of incaution, issuing a warning in an edge case. I think this is a bad idea, and the warning should be rescinded, especially given BPC’s explanation.
Comparing this moderation to the non-warning moderation of the “(less-intelligent) blacks” post in the other ATMB thread is really disheartening to me, about this board. I hope there is a vigorous backstage conversation going on about these cases among the mods. The benefit of the doubt goes to a poster who was clearly denigrating the humanity of black people, while no benefit goes to a poster who was clearly (IMO) criticizing an extreme and hateful ideology.
Really, really disheartening. The board should be better, IMO. And it wouldn’t be hard.
They are usually pretty busy monitoring their own forums, afaik.
Should have insulted black people, saved yourself the warning.
So, if I understand: “happen[ing] to be wrong about everything all the time” is a trait associated with the Red Pill ethos in general— which is all BPC was referring to, and nothing more— and it’s purely by coincidence that EasyPhil also happens to be wrong about everything all the time?
Had you heard of this whole “Red Pill” movement before? If not, then I could see how one would take it as some kind of weird, non-sequitur insult. In other words, one might assume that BPC saying “You mean the pill that makes me a sexist [etc. etc.]” was intended to be read with an implied “like you are” at the end. But it’d be a pretty big non-sequitur, given that there was nothing even vaguely related to sexism in the thread (especially if EasyPhil has no history of sexist comments in other threads that BPC might have been referencing – I have no idea if he does or not).
But if you’ve heard of the whole “red pill” thing before, I would think it seems a lot more plausible that BPC was just ragging on the “red pill” people – more plausible because they actually are known for being misogynists, so it’s not an insult that was completely out of left field.
As an analogy, imagine someone said “Is that your best argument, or are you waiting to play your trump card?” and BPC responded “You mean the card that makes me a bigot who thinks Mexicans are all rapists?” If you didn’t understand the reference to Donald Trump, you’d probably think that it’s a weirdly out-of-nowhere accusation of bigotry, but it makes a lot more sense to interpret it as him just taking the opportunity to criticize Donald Trump.
Even if BPC has a history of getting warned for insulting other posters, that doesn’t necessarily make that interpretation more likely. He may have just as prolific a history of insulting non-posters, as he claimed was the case here. But insults to non-posters are presumably not tracked by the moderators.
I had never heard of it, myself.
Jonathan Chance, had you ever heard of the movement?
Summing up my previous post:
The choice of insult makes sense if BPC’s intended target was the red pill people, but the choice of insult seems bizarre and random if his intended target was EasyPhil (unless Phil has a history of posting misogynist comments that I don’t know about).
So that suggests the former is more likely.
I doubt whether somebody who posted 44 and 88 all the time would last long here.
Some of Trump’s dog whistling sounds a lot like fog-horning to me, but yeah. Anyway, for those who want to read Atwater (1981) it’s available here: Dog whistle (politics) - Wikipedia
This website gives a history of the phrase, “Red Pill”, and its adoption by the MRAs around 2010. Their subreddit had subscribers north of 200,000.
The Southern Poverty Law Center alludes to red pillers here and characterizes the subreddit as “a misogynistic forum on Reddit.”: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/male-supremacy :[INDENT]Set up by Republican New Hampshire state representative Robert Fisher, who resigned from his seat when he was revealed to be the page’s creator, the Red Pill is chock full of misogynistic comment, coming from all corners of male supremacy. Fisher, who asserted that rape wasn’t all bad because the rapist enjoyed it, wrote that women were inferior to men intellectually, that only their bodies made them worth it and that feminists (or most women) actually want to be dominated and raped. [/INDENT]
That first number is off by 30. 
Deja vu. They must have changed something.
Meanwhile, while we’re discussing whether or not it was worth warning me for attacking a bullshit ideology, the silence on a guy arguing that a woman who was raped while she was unconscious is responsible is quite audible.
I don’t see any rule being broken there. Might be trolling; it’s in the Pit so it’s fine as long as they don’t admit to it or take it to excess. I do know there are people out there who seem to honestly have the view some of the responsibility was on the victim in that case getting so intoxicated.
Perhaps the mods don’t subscribe to your “Anyone who posts something I disagree with is a troll and should be warned” outlook?
If you’re talking about this post, I don’t think it would warrant a warning even if it weren’t in the pit. Which rule do you think is being broken?
Not at all saying I agree with the poster, but people are allowed to post disagreeable positions here as long as they don’t break any rules.
On other boards, this is sometimes called “policing tone” or “seeking a higher level” – a general moderating ethic that intent and context matter much less than the “look and feel” of the surface message. Some people are fine with policing tone, others are not.
In my experience, without policing tone a forum cannot remain civil, overall, for very long. I know in recent years, there are a (seemingly growing) body of netizens who feel justified in giving in to the immediate urge to bury their ideological/political/social adversaries under a rain of harsh language. Again … some boards will support that fully, while others will not.
I thought that the moderation around outright misogyny was supposed to change, including in the Pit. If that isn’t outright misogyny, I don’t know what is.
This approach to moderation sums up just about all my problems here. “Say whatever you want, no matter how wrong, no matter how stupid, no matter how dishonest, no matter how shitty, misogynistic, racist, no matter how clearly it marks you as a stupid troll not worth talking to, as long as you don’t call someone on their bullshit, you’re just fine.” That’s a shitty approach to moderation, because the people it culls are inevitably going to be decent, well-meaning people rather than shitty dishonest misinformation-spewing trolls.