...the unmarked grave thread should be reopened

…I don’t deny being angry. But being angry isn’t specifically against the rules. I don’t deny being argumentative. But I only posted five times in that thread, where Martin Hyde posted twenty times in that thread, was argumentative with multiple people, and only got a corrective mod note.

So was it the fact that I was angry that I got banned from the thread? Because s2k wasn’t angry, so why were they thread banned as well?

Why was a thread that had been open for less than 24 hours deemed to have gone “so far off the rails” that it was closed in the first place after an exchange of only 10 posts? I took part in the JK Rowling thread that went on for probably a year that got more heated than this. I had zero expectation that my posts in the unmarked grave thread would earn me a thread-ban. I’m still unclear on what line I crossed and have been awaiting clarification from the moderators.

And I point to how Martin Hyde was treated in this thread as a basis for comparison. (And for the record I don’t think Martin Hyde should have been thead-banned at all)

As far as I’m concerned, it was just two posters yelling at each other. I knew when I started that thread that it wouldn’t be an easy read, but I wanted more discussion, not two posters taking it over to yell at each other. Based on the conduct of the two of you, I turned off the tracking function for my own thread and stopped reading it.

After the banning and re-opening, I started reading it again. I now find it very interesting, much more what I was hoping for when I started it.

And that’s all I’m going to say, because I don’t want to hijack this thread. Put bluntly, I approved the moderation of that thread.

…its good to know where you stand.

The s2k posts upset me but I followed my own rule: don’t step in crap. I held my tongue.

My mother and her siblings all attended religious (Catholic) school while on the Rez. A confluence of bad stuff ended up with her leaving it and living a life not so great.

I guess I count myself lucky that she wasn’t one of those who died. I wouldn’t be here otherwise. Plus, by the time she was born (1939), the schools were on the Rez vs shipping kids across State or further. (USA … Minnesota for my folks, I was born in Iowa.)

I do know that I was not raised with anything more than “You are Ojibwe.”

I would say more but this isn’t the right forum.

For this forum I will say I think you getting modded was very wrong.

Note that no warnings were issued.

…kia kaha @mistymage

…to the moderators: there really is a lot of genocide apologism going on in that thread. I don’t want to get a reputation for being a litigious reporter so don’t want to over-use the report function, but do posts like this one:

Violate any standards of civility here? What are the options here?

There’s no violation of Board rules there. No one is advocating genocide or engaging in hate speech.

…so genocide apologism is the line then.

Thank you for clearing that up.

I don’t know for sure what you mean by “genocide apologism” but if there is a actual violation of the Board rules, please report it. You don’t have to participate in a thread to do so.

…I was asking where the line was. I was unsure if there was an actual violation which is why I asked the question here. You think that it is acceptable to state that the perpetrators of what the truth and reconciliation commission called genocide “probably wept daily over the plight of the children.” That isn’t jerkish. Not in the slightest. Even though the evidence overwhelmingly says this is untrue.

That’s all I wanted to know.

I do not have a personal opinion as to whether it is acceptable to state that. It is not, however, a violation of the rules of the Board.

…you have made that clear. Saying stolen children “were outcasts” isn’t against the rules. Saying stolen children “were forgotten” because indigenous families didn’t really count isn’t against the rules. None of these things are remotely being a jerk. I understand you and the position of the boards now. Clear as crystal.

If I can say something as a non-participant in the thread, @Banquet_Bear everyone understands that you are very angry about topics like this, and you have the right to be angry. But if you bring that anger into every thread it eventually derails them all. Be angry, be angry 23 hours a day if that’s the way you feel. But maybe you could put that anger away when trying to talk to people on a message board about horrible shit like this, which has occurred with distressing regularity all over the world. No one wants to have a conversation with someone - about anything - if one side just wants to be angry about everything anyone says that doesn’t agree 100% with their position. That’s not a conversation, it’s a tirade. You have good points, you know that, just argue them calmly and clearly.

One final thing. I notice as soon as you think someone has an opinion that does not agree with yours, you tend to interpret all their following posts in the worst possible way. Nobody wants to be told what they wrote means something else, including you.

It is possible to be absolutely wrong and/or delusional and not break the rules here.

No; but a voice with relevant experience and info was silenced in the thread.

Really? Not even Rule Zero?

So Holocaust denial would be not against the rules, too? Or at least claiming all those Nazis just hated what they were doing.

Seriously, are we back to the “Be as racist/sexist/transphobic/pick-your-bigotry as you want to be, as long as you’re polite about it” standard? Good to know.

…nah, I’m good thanks. I won’t put my anger away just because it makes other people feel more comfortable about themselves. I won’t break the rules of course. And I’m still not clear on what rule I broke here that got me straight to a thread-ban without even as much as a mod-note.

But I’m not ever going to stop being angry about the casual, dismissive way the genocide of indigenous peoples are being treated on these boards. It’s no longer about what any one poster may have said any more. The moderators have straight up said that these sorts of statements (in regard to indigenous people) are not in any way against the rules here. I don’t think that’s right.

So I shouldn’t get angry when someone claims that the people who stole thousands of children and were responsible for hundreds, if not thousands of deaths “probably wept daily over the plight of the children”. Josef Mengele was just doing science, he wanted the best for the children in the camps. He probably wept daily over the plight of the children under his care. That isn’t offensive at all. That doesn’t go against every historical record that we have. Gotcha.

Because having a “civil” conversation is more important than pointing out that this person is defending genocide. As @Northern_Piper said:

The thread is so much more interesting now, much more than they could have hoped for, now that people can post openly sympathetic things about those responsible for stealing children, and escape moderation because they did so politely.

And with that, I think we’re done here.

@Banquet_Bear, I realize that this is a hot button topic for you. Perhaps you should avoid posting about it here on the SDMB (except perhaps in the Pit). As things currently stand, your anger makes you blow things out of proportion and take things the wrong way, so much so that you are developing a pattern of derailing threads with it.

Since you are too angry to have a reasonable discussion about the issue even in ATMB, this is closed.