I’m not MrDibble, but I don’t think that was the question; I think the question was about discussing whether moderating them equally in the original thread was justifiable.
FWIW I found Banquet Bear’s posts in that thread to be enlightening and useful. That said, I think slashk was trying to say something legit (i.e., that societies often dehumanize certain populations and that those in power do a lot to marginalize said populations and that often that marginalizing is successful and results in atrocities against those people being ignored by the majority in that society), but managed, for whatever reason, to garble it pretty badly, over several posts, using words like “ordinary” and “outcasts” and “forgotten” instead of more accurate words. (Not at all trying to relitigate the thread, trying to say what it looked like was happening).
I’d much prefer that BB be able to post in that thread, and would be okay if slashk could as well, with the proviso that I think slashk needs to consider whether their words are reinforcing the very power structure that they’re talking about, the one that allowed this atrocity to occur.
“Society dehumanizes certain populations” is trivially true, but also completely irrelevant to a discussion of a particular dehumanized group. The only reason I can see to bring it up in the discussion of a particular population is to minimize the particular in favour of the general. That’s certainly the only use I see it being put to, not just in that thread but many others like it.
Yes, that was my question. The mod note made it seem only discussing the opening of the thread was allowed, I was asking if discussing the thread bans was as well. Although I see that discussion has been continuing without me 
Shouldn’t the original thread have been exhumed?
You’re right, that’s a grave error.
I think it can be brought up to talk about how a specific instance is part of a broader pattern, and how it’s both similar to, and different from, other atrocities.
Whether that was at all the intent here? I’m afraid I don’t understand slashk’s point well enough to say; the garbling of the point with what are essentially the terms of the oppressive state make it difficult for me to know.
Again, at the risk of sounding repetitive, that 's irrelevant. By focusing on such things, you trivialize the actual occurrence under discussion - it becomes “just another occurrence”. Like I said, no-one disputes that, it’s trivially true and yet not relevant. And often just a gateway drug for the fallacy of relative privation (AKA the “It’s not as bad as the Holocaust” argument)
It’s something I’ve been guilty of in the past, I know. But I’ve come to realize how much I hate it - going into a Holocaust discussion (not a general genocide discussion) and bringing up the Holodomor is not furthering discussion. Bringing up male circumcision in an FGM thread. etc.
The discussion is again verging into talking about the issue discussed in the other thread, not about Board rules and moderating, most notably with MrDibble’s post at 12:15. I do not understand what was unclear about my instruction.
Incidentally, I know this is a reply to thorny_locust post but that post wasn’t an offending example. I had just happened to hit “reply.”
I’m not sure that’s always true, but in this particular case it may well be true.
“12:15” is a useless timestamp on an international site that posts all times in the user’s local timezone, my last post was 18:14 to me. Better to use a post number.
And you hadn’t answered my actual, direct, repeated, question, nor moderated other posts, by that point.
My post was not discussing the other thread’s issues, but actually talking to the issue of why s2k deserved more moderation in that thread. That’s why I deliberately used more examples of that posting tactic that went beyond that thread’s issue.
So I take it, by implication, the answer to my question is “No”.
In which case there’s no point in my posting here, as the thread is already reopened, so the only question you left open for discussion is already resolved.
I don’t actually see a reply to my post; but as people are discussing that part of the issue without being modasked not to, I’ll assume that’s an answer in itself.
I think I can say this much without getting outside the permissible area of discussion:
I think LHofD’s attempt in post #42 in this thread to, if I correctly understand that post, separate the language used from whatever factual information was in the post is a technique that often doesn’t work; and that I don’t believe works in the case of the posts by slash2k that are under discussion. The meaning and the connotation of the words used are part of the posts. Sometimes words are indeed used without an understanding of the connotation they have for others; but I don’t get the impression that that’s what’s going on in this case.
For what it’s worth, I found both of them equally argumentative and were taking over the thread, so it was just the two of them going back and forth, getting angry with each other. I thought it appropriate to mod both of them.
.d was ß
…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.
…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?