The thread bogged down a couple of times over the definition of the word “genocide”. This is a situation where there is a technical definition based on international standards, but there are also “commonly used” defintions, and arguing over which one is right takes the focus off the actual event, IMHO.
Also, we try to avoid moderating for facts. That’s something we ordinarily let posters hash out.
Note that the restriction on the word “genocide” is only for that one thread. If a poster wanted to start a different thread on the topic, “are the Israeli actions on Gaza a genocide” that would be perfectly okay. And there are a couple of pit threads on the subject that use the word genocide to describe the situation.
So why not moderate those who keep disrupting the thread. The situation is widely regarded by experts to be a genocide, so by any standard it is the correct term to use. Banning it just sides with those that support Israels actions.
A reasonable position to take generally, but in this case you are moderating against the facts.
You are moderating that Genocide is not an appropriate term for what is happening. That is 100% taking a side on the issue. You are allowing the supporters of Israels actions to dictate the terms of discussion.
By all means, make a rule that people can’t argue the definition in that thread, but people should be allowed to use it in the appropriate context.
I tend to agree with you that forbidding the term “genocide” outside of the Pit to describe Israel’s actions in Gaza comes across as something of a holdover from earlier days of the conflict, when it was a much more debatable issue and invariably derailed threads into arguments about how to define the word or assess the threshold, etc.
Now that the UN Special Rapporteur and Amnesty International and the Lemkin Institute and numerous other responsible voices have investigated and concluded that yes, these actions do qualify as genocide, it would seem much more weirdly partisan and one-sided to institute a ban on using the term.
However, I recognize some value in moderation policies staying stable over the medium term even if that sometimes puts them somewhat out of date in terms of the consensus of public opinion, and we’ve been able to have a full range of discussion of Gaza issues in those threads even without articulating the G-word, so IMHO this is an acceptable level of imperfection in moderation policy. YMMV and MHO is not determinative, of course.
I’ll politely disagree with the first section, and point out the second section is exactly what is happening.
In that specific thread the use of the term was disallowed due to long discussions on whose exact definition would be used, which if anything (IMHO) was distracting all from what was legitimately happening, because the conversation was fixed on the narrow terminology. No one was banned from discussing the actual incidents.
Which is exactly what @puzzlegal said here, and largely there as well.
The mods generally don’t step in to say you can only use one definition or the other, because, again, that’s absolutely putting our fingers on the scale (quibbles when we’re in a structured forum and trying to keep it on track per the Original Post). Or if saying one source or the other is “factual” since there’s lots of competing claims based on differing reporting. That is for anyone who is interested (and presumably therefor participating in the thread) to try to make sense of, and people are going to disagree. I have not seen any mods taking a stance as a moderator on who is or is NOT misrepresenting things.
It seems you feel that is still putting our fingers on the scales by your first statement, but I for one disagree (politely as I said). But again, and to @Kimstu as well, the term isn’t generally banned, or even banned outside the Pit. It was banned in the one thread because it because the constant arguments about the term stalled the discussion of the actual events.
The problem is that it’s highly charged (and should be) and several posters seem to be incapable of keeping responses within the bounds of our rules in the many forums it’s being discussed in. Which, rather inevitably leads to the conclusion that they only place to have a discussion on the subject would be the Pit. Like @What_Exit, I doubt anyone could frame the discussion or debate other in such limited terms that there would be no discussion at all, so general that we’d be right back to ranting past each other, or requiring such tight moderation as to have a dedicated mod and likely to result in a lot of warnings and secondary Pit threads.
I’d even say (and happy to be corrected) that it’s not about the fact that it’s distracting from what was legitimately happening in Gaza, but because it was hijacking a thread purported to be about discussing current events.
In that regard, this is not that different in my mind from moderation that prevents gun debate discussion in MPSIMS threads about shootings. Not because you can’t have that discussion, but because there is value in making room for discussion about those events without it turning into an argument/debate about gun control. Start a thread on gun control and reference current events? Great! Take a thread about a current event and hijack it into a long back and forth about gun control? No thank you!
YOU claim the tag is “appropriate”, but the definition and spirit of the term shows it is not. The reality is that a relatively small number of the population has been killed. The reality is that population has been harboring a terrorist organization that has been openly attacking Israel for a long time.
If Mexican terrorists were firing missiles across the border and killing American citizens, no one would complain if we struck back hard, and no one would call it genocide if we killed people doing it.
That may have been a concern at first, but as Kimstu and I have shown there is no reasonable doubt that this is genocide, no matter which definition you want to use. UN agencies, Human Rights organisations and genocide experts all agree that it is a genocide.
You’ve banned the word genocide in the main thread discussing said genocide, how can that not be “putting (y)our fingers on the scales”.
So moderate those posters. If they can’t obey the rules when discussing the issue then deal with them appropriately. If they want to argue the definition then that discussion can move to another thread.
Again, banning discussion over the definition in the thread would be fine. This however is more like saying that you can’t refer to a shooting as a shooting, because some posters might turn it into a gun control debate.
We’re not going to turn ATMB into a debate forum. If you wish to debate whether the term “genocide” is the appropriate to describe current events, feel free to start a thread in GD.