"Some blacks are just dumb and enjoy killing each other" - no warning issued, Tom?

[Bone]

I didn’t see that post. Our email alerts for reported posts has been a bit wonky lately (reports coming in a day or so late). That would have changed my view.

[iiandyiiii]

@Bone

I didn’t see that post. Our email alerts for reported posts has been a bit wonky lately (reports coming in a day or so late). That would have changed my view.

If only mods had the power to take action and do something about it, even for posts from the days of early August, 2018…

[kayaker]

@Bone

I didn’t see that post. Our email alerts for reported posts has been a bit wonky lately (reports coming in a day or so late). That would have changed my view.

Cool.

Thanks.

[John_Mace]

@Amara_1

There’s a current thread in the Pit that also shows a poster who hasn’t even read his cites but somehow he knows black people are inferior.

Here’s Marley23 back in 2011:.

Notwithstanding your larger point, that note from Marley is not applicable to the thread you cited. The instruction was not to hijack threads and there was an explicit statement about not making a topic ban. The thread you cited was about that subject from the very beginning and was not being hijacked.

But, that thread probably should have been closed early on for this reason:

1. It didn’t belong in the Pit. The OP was ostensibly starting a debate but put it in the Pit on purpose because he knew it would be contentious (forbidden knowledge). That’s just BS, at best.

2. It didn’t make sense to move it to a debate thread since the OP was: Go listen to this 2 hour podcast and then come back and discuss it. Further, I refuse to summarize what’s in the podcast. The first couple pages were little more than him pouting that he wouldn’t bother summarizing the podcast and wouldn’t debate with anyone who was, I guess in his mind, too lazy to go and do his bidding. The mods have been shutting down those type of threads in GD and Elections for some time.

I don’t know that poster’s history, and if he had posted on that subject over and over and over again, then we already have a rule for that, and that would have been reason to shut it down, too. And to tell him not start any more threads on the subject.

[Heffalump_and_Roo]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Here’s a pretty interesting article on how one history-themed Reddit deals with Holocaust denial: with extreme prejudice.

Its description of how Holocaust deniers engage should sound real familiar to anyone who’s read any of the Just Asking Questions scientific racist posts that crop up around here. Their description of how they deal with such posts will be novel and refreshing.

I encourage folks, but especially mods and admins, to read what they’ve done, and consider how much better our board would be without the need to coddle racists.

Interesting article. Thanks.

I went to the AskHistorians rules section where they post:

We will not tolerate racism, sexism, or any other forms of bigotry. This includes Holocaust denialism.

It would be more helpful if they explained that included not asking questions and maybe even point to more information for those not familiar with the issues.

The example in the article happened to me on a message board a few years ago. At that time, I didn’t know what Holocaust denialism was about.

Someone else, who had a good reputation on the board, started a thread asking how many people had died in the Holocaust. He said he wanted his sources from a reputable source. I went looking for some cites. I posted the information I found, and he seemed appeased. In the meantime, the mod was screaming about how this guy was a troll Holocaust denier.

I can’t know if he was or not. The only thing that happened was when I brought up the issue years later, he showed up to say that the experience was one of the reasons he stopped posting on that board. It was also one of the reasons that I later stopped posting on that section of the board.

I’m hoping that if the rules are modded differently here, then there will be more clarity on what will be modded.

So far, I’m inclined to lean toward tomndebb’s approach because if exceptions are made, then the rules will get a lot more complicated and/or arbitrary.

@MrDibble

I may have misjudged reddit - I thought it was merely a haven for racists, Red Pills, incels and GamerGaters, and that’s the way the CEO liked it. I mean, read his take on it- it might have come from the keyboard of a mod here:

Might have to give some of these other saner subreddits that don’t buy into that bullshit a look-see - I wonder if someone maintains a list of good ones…

The users start the subReddits. They can make any rules they choose for their subReddits. There are subs that only allow positive things to be posted about Trump, subs where only negative things can be posted about Trump, subs where mostly positive things can be said about women, subs where mostly negative things are posted about women. They may have banned the subs where people mostly say negative things about other races, but I’m not sure. There’s a subReddit called African American that “stands against hate speech” against African Americans.

The rules of a subReddit says more about the people (or really the owners of the sub) than it does about morality in general or anything about right and wrong.

[Mtgman]

I think you blew this one tom. You’re letting the perfect be the enemy of the good enough. There won’t ever be a bright line for recognizing racism/hate speech, that’s why the membership gave people they trusted, including you, the authority to make those hard calls when they see them. You recognized the behavior as egregious, enough that even another instance of it could be a ban, so why not make it formal with a warning? If you’re unwilling to make the hard calls then don’t, but since that’s the job, you should either step up or step away(for what its worth I think you’ve been a great mod over the years).

I’d prefer you be willing to step up. I think you, with the advice and support of the rest of the mod team in the background, are more than capable of making a good call that will support the values of the community. If you feel the moderation is inconsistent and difficult to apply across various aspects of the discussion(ethnicity, religious affiliation, political leaning, etc.) then propose some standards, let them get batted around, and refine them. Avoiding moderating hate speech because there’s fuzzy lines and you don’t want to make a bad call is unworthy. Life is all about the fuzzy lines and occasionally making a bad call.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Drunky_Smurf]

@Mtgman

that’s why the membership gave people they trusted, including you, the authority to make those hard calls when they see them.

The members do not, and never have, had a say in who becomes a mod, besides maybe other mods.

[watchwolf49]

@Drunky_Smurf

The members do not, and never have, had a say in who becomes a mod, besides maybe other mods.

That’s why it’s important to make sure the moderators know one would be abusive with moderator powers … I feel much happier knowing I’m considered “unfit for service” …

[Drunky_Smurf]

@watchwolf49

I feel much happier knowing I’m considered “unfit for service” …

“Those whom would never have me or consider being associated with me are my best friends.” - Somebody, probably me, because I’m awesome.