And yet that post remains un-modded. I mean, your taking the time to explain why we’re all wrong and hypocritical or whatever to scold you is ducky, but in the time it took you to write that defense, perhaps instead you could have gone and done your mod-job?
Would it help if I give it another report? Here we go.
Well, shit–I accidentally reported his post in BBQ instead of GD. Both are probably against the rules, but the latter is more ambiguous. Sorry, Miller.
No. We are not going to drop a Warning on a post that is over a week old when the poster has been watching these threads enough to know that he was out of line. I can only recall two late/retroactive Warnings in my experience at the SDMB. It is extremely rare and is not necessary.
…so to absolutely clear here, because you are being absolutely not clear.
If I was to post “Marxists are an existential threat to our well being and way of life. Every single one of them should be lined up against the wall and shot, because that’s exactly what they’d do to us if they got into power.” right now in Great Debates, would that get a warning/mod not or not?
Can you show where in this thread that it has been made clear that a comment like that is out of line? Does “out of line” mean that the statement has reached the threshold of garnering a mod note/warning?
But if you don’t drop an actual warning, then how does it get considered for any potential future revocations of posting privileges? It seems to me any answer to that question is dissatisfying.
I guess the best answer is that he gets a free pass on that one, but the mods are now looking and any repeats will be modded. If he really is on the train to banning, it won’t matter. But that’s still worth a griping mumble.
Is the point of handing out Warnings to see how many posters we can ban? Or is it to catch a poster’s attention to get him or her to behave?
If a poster is really a troll or otherwise undesirable, that poster will continue to rack up Warnings to get banned. If a poster backs off from bad behavior, what is the desperate need to ban them? All the troll-like posts for the poster under discussion happened between four and eight days ago. If he is not continuing to misbehave, why the issue? Is anyone harmed because a bad poster stopped misbehaving after attracting attention rather than after receiving a certain number of Warning?
That is why long-after-the-fact Warnings are so rare. They are either not needed because more warnings will be handed out, anyway, or they are not needed because the poster changes behavior and no further Warnings will be issued.
Read the moral. It’s a fable. I’ve done my part to fight ignorance, it doesn’t work on everybody. Did you read the “hate speech” about Muhammad that was attributed to Construct? Nothing hateful in it. Yet, how many posters, besides me, were willing to defend the guy? At least concede that perhaps not all of the quotes were “hate speech”? Zero.
Now how did the Thurber animals behave? Did they all pile on, uncritically, once a charge had been made? Yup.
And what’s your brilliant commentary on Thurber? You want to examine whether the crimes were felonies or misdemeanors!!! THEY’RE ANIMALS!!! They can’t commit crimes! They also can’t talk! It’s a fable! I’m sorry if you don’t understand how fables work, but I don’t think I can help you.
I’m going back to not talking to you. I have my hands full fighting ignorance among the other posters, I can’t be responsible for the mods, too.
No, it’s not clear.
Unless you’re saying you’re only going to mod future posts along those lines, but are somehow incapable of retroactively moderating a post that fits the criteria you’ve now said you would use in modding.
Because that would be bullshit, mods do retroactive moderation all the time.
One week is not “long after the fact”, especially when the issue is still under active discussion, as this has clearly been.
But it seems the answer is yes, he will be given a pass.
Shrug. Tom, through this whole thing, has been dismissive and contemptuous of posters who make complaints. He started by sneering at folks who want hate speech modded by saying it was all about “speech I don’t like.” Then he excused his unwillingness to do his job in the same way, saying that so many complainers with shitty reasons had confused him. Then he grudgingly said what he’d do going forward, but suggested that focus on him instead of other mods had suspicious motives. Then when you ask him if he’s ever gonna do his job, he wildly misinterprets you to suggest you’re gonna talk about killing Marxists now. Finally, when pinned down on that question, he acts like asking him to do is job is a ridiculous thing to do and is really an effort to see how many people can be banned. :rolleyes:
I’m not entirely clear why he’s kept on for the job, but he is. I’m sure he’ll keep on keeping on.
This is disingenuous.
The point of warnings is, obviously, to create a record of inappropriate behavior so that a poster can be judged with objectivity if those behaviors persist over time. Mod notes exist to catch a poster’s attention, since they don’t contribute to that record.
Tom, you’ve been pretty dismissive and even borderline contemptuous of a lot of the posters in this thread.
Maybe tom should get a salary cut. Take the coffee mug back and give him a demitasse.
Can we not note that the phrase so and so “should be lined up against a wall and shot” is a rather common hyperbolic statement?
People who defend violent hate speech by telling others not to take it so seriously should be lined up against a wall and taught.
Taught how to engage in productive dialog that doesn’t include needlessly inflammatory rhetoric.
The moral? Let’s look at it again, shall we? “Anybody who you or your wife thinks is going to overthrow the government by violence must be driven out of the country.” That’d not a moral about free speech, that’s a moral about perceived loyalty. For this story to work as a fable about free speech, it needs the gander to be persecuted for something he actually said, not persecuted for actions he’d did not actually take. Neither of these things happen. The gander does not speak, and he is run out because of rumors that he’s been committing actual crimes. It is not a fable about free speech. It’s a fable about gossip and fear mongering.
Yes, they did. But what was the charge? It wasn’t, “He has an unpopular opinion,” which would make this a story about speech issues. It was “He’s a spy and a saboteur.”
I get how fables work. The problem appears to be that you can’t follow a simple narrative line through half a page of double spaced type.
The animals, as you so adroitly spotted, are given many human characteristics in this piece, as is common in many fables. Among these characteristics are speech, the ability to form themselves into political units (the hawks bring an obvious stand in for a foreign - and likely fascist, given the year this was written - nation), and the ability to recognize actions that are contrary to the health of the polity: crimes, in other words. To understand the fable, you need to take into account why the animals have been assigned those particular human characteristics. It is, therefore, significant to the story that the animals have a concept of illegal activities like bomb throwing - the choice of a dangerous, major crime among the accusations leveled at the gander is not an accident. If he’d actually done the things he’s accused of, he needs to be punished for it. The behavior criticized by the fable is the standard of evidence used by the other birds in determine the guilt of the gander, and their decision to take matters into their own hands, instead of reporting it to the proper authorities.
Again, and I really can’t stress this enough, for the fable to be about free speech, it needs two missing elements: for the gander to actually say something, and for the things he’s bring accused of doing to be speech related in some way. This story has neither of these elements. This story is not about free speech.
Promises, promises.
It is. But it wasn’t used in that sense by Construct, as the follow-up post with all that ‘self-defence’ justification shows.
No, it was I who argued self-defense. Construct never did. I also argued he could have meant “shot by Super Soakers full of pee.” I dismissed the pee only because of Marxist behavior, which we all know is obscenely violent. The irony, which may have been lost on Marxists, was that it wasn’t easy for him to claim hyperbole because Marxists actually do line people up and shoot them, so by making the comparison, it’s hard to get out of.
Of course, Dibble, perhaps you’d like to make the argument for him. Are Marxists NOT murderous tyrants whenever they seize power? Because, if Stalin, Mao, Kim, Castro, et al are peaceful leaders who line people up against walls to shoot pansies at them, his comparison doesn’t suggest “harm” to anyone. Is that what Marxists have historically done? It’s absolutely delicious that you are arguing, "Construct advocated murder because that’s what we Marxists do, so sanction him for it."
I’m still curious, mods, if I can advocate killing ISIS members. Can I?
Because if I am not allowed to openly advocate and encourage the stated military goals of our President and military, how can we ever discuss military action?
If I start a thread in GD about bombing Iran, will the pro-bombers be silenced? Seems to stack the deck pretty neatly in favor of pacifist liberals. Perhaps that’s the point?
Also, I assume the proscriptions against racial slurs are always if effect. (Some of you derided me as a troll and hater when I asked but now I’m glad I know!) So it may be the case that if I were to post, “ISIS are sand ni**ers who should all have their throats slit,” I would be totally ok in advocating the throat slittings, but the racial slur would be out of bounds. Is my reading correct?
Your answers are found in the Registration Agreement.
At this point, in either case you would be trolling.