Yep, thanks. Fortunately the save draft function has paid off.
It now says it’ll reopen in six minutes – but it obviously is open, I was able to post. The ‘six minutes’ notice was there both before and after I posted.
You have my utter sympathy, but it was the right call. And it says a lot about the OP of the thread (which I agree, is a shit-stirring troll, probable trock since they knew alll the buttons to push in their OP) and the parties involved to perfect the dog-whistles to clad their intent and refuse to explain.
I had read a few posts and after the near perfect dismantlement (I believe by Gyrate) figured anything else would be efforts to say “Yeah, But!” You went in with good intentions, but that whole thing was poisoned bait from the get go.
I probably am better off not being in the thread–it’s infuriating to see shitheels using violence-inducing language like “invaders” to describe immigrants, it’s straight out of the Klan’s playbook–but I don’t see it as an attack on a poster. It’s difficult to think of a more definitional example of xenophobia than calling peaceful immigrants “millions of invaders,” and it’s a longstanding problem on this board, one that I thought we’d gotten rid of along with tomndebb, that somehow we’re not supposed to identify such venomous language for what it is.
For what it’s worth, to me if felt like W_E was going for a back handed protection for you LHoD.
I agree, that it was only a mild personal attack (but did feel it was one), but you were (for GOOD REASON mind you) escalating, and it likely would have resulted in something they would have HAD to give you a warning for.
Banning you from the thread prevented it from escalating farther. I’m not sure that this was the best option, heck, I wish they had left the damn thing closed, but as discussed repeatedly in this thread, we in -this- thread are very suspicious sorts, and the mods try to be evenhanded.
But I think W_E acted in good faith in a tough situation.
As for this -
We know it’s not just the board, it’s the frikkin’ nation and world that have been emboldened and find it amusing to infuriate people who are just trying to make the world a better place. It’s insanely frustrating, and the fact that you feel that way says good things about you.
Next time though, stay with us here our flaming Troll forum, or give them their own thread in the Pit. You are not alone!
I should’ve just reported the “invaders” and “illegals” comments as hate speech. I don’t know whether they’d be moderated as such, although obviously they should be. Maybe I’ll open an ATMB on the subject.
Idiot/troll drops a load of xenophobic bullet points taken from most every Republican political rally out there and runs away, and this is deemed suitable for Great Debates?
Please don’t. We don’t moderate such.
To be clear, you don’t moderate “invaders” and “illegals” as hate speech, and you also think that this isn’t an appropriate issue for ATMB?
FWIW, I don’t see how your responses were a personal attack. It was a strident attack on the poster’s language (and maybe too strident for GD and worthy of a “step it down” note), but to my eyes, I didn’t see anything that attacked the poster himself.
To officially declare that “invaders” and “illegals” when used in this context is not hate speech will not sit well, in either the short or the long run.
Hell, we should just be glad they decided to moderate wetback after a decade or so. Or would that be kosher in that immigration thread too?
I think this thread should work for a review:
Based on it, I doubt the terms used (invaders and illegals) wouldn’t quite hit the current definitions, but if the poster using those terms has a pattern of doing so, or other targeted speech, then the mods might take a another look at it.
ETA - I’m not saying I find these rules ideal, but want anyone who brings it up to have as much specific ammunition as possible!
Agreed, it poisons the well for any meaningful conversation.
I didn’t specifically try it in that thread, partly because you’d already done so; but sometimes it’s possible to phrase the identification so that it’s entirely clear but doesn’t seem to be aimed at the specific poster.
That looks like a good idea, though I didn’t think of it.
Seconding the question: do you mean you don’t think it should be discussed in ATMB? Why not?
It would upset the bigots on the board. They are already upset enough at the current restrictions, demanding that they not dehumanize and denigrate those seeking to escape violence and poverty would be asking too much.
Then that’s all the more reason we need an ATMB thread, That policy needs to change, and ATMB is where we can advocate for that.
It wouldn’t be the first time a particular type of bigotry wasn’t against the rules, but we successfully argued to change that.
Absent any clarification from @What_Exit or any moderation of those terms in that thread, I absolutely think an ATMB thread on the subject is needed. If someone else wants to start it, great, or I can start it when I have some time.
When everyone from the CATO Institute to Elie Wiesel to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom’s advisers warn against using “illegal immigrants,” “illegals”, and “invaders” as slurs/hate speech/incitement-to-violence language, it’s clear that it’s deeply offensive language. I suspect the moderation team just hasn’t really looked into or thought much about the subject and about its ties to racist Great Replacement Theory propaganda; but I am hopeful that once they examine the evidence, they’ll make the right call.
I remembered starting this thread about “illegals” as hate speech and being denied:
It seems to me that they closed it without actually making a decision, ruling instead that the thread had gone off-topic. Also, it has been four years, and I would like to think that the board as a whole has become a little more knowledgeable about who is using the term and why it is used.