|
On November 15 2012 14:40 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 14:38 HULKAMANIA wrote:On November 15 2012 14:33 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 15 2012 14:30 MountainDewJunkie wrote:Okay, Daphreak: remove the word allegedly. My argument remains unhindered (pending your reply  ). A baby is a fetus or an infant. It is not a descriptive word in this context and should be dropped for either fetus or infant depending on the nature of the conversation. Infanticide? Infant. Abortion? Fetus. Justin Bieber? "Baby." Let's rock! actually, i may have to back off my statement. merriam and the online oxford dictionaries dont include fetus or unborn children in their definitions of baby. i may have been had with the post a few pages back saying its included.... only online dictionaries are showing fetus/unborn child as baby, and online dictionaries are less than reliable in my view.... my world is crumbling about me.... although, in common parlance, everyone still uses baby. =P As I pointed out in my original post, the most authoritative dictionary of the English language (the OED) clearly states that baby can be used to refer to an unborn child. i checked the online Oxford dictionary and it doesn't. are you looking at a paper copy, or what? http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/babynoun (plural babies) 1a very young child: his wife’s just had a baby [as modifier]: a baby girl a very young animal: bats only have one baby a year [as modifier]: baby rabbits the youngest member of a family or group: Clara was the baby of the family a timid or childish person: ‘Don’t be such a baby!’ she said witheringly (one's baby) informal one’s particular responsibility or concern: ‘This is your baby, Gerry,’ she said, handing him the brief 2 informal a lover or spouse (often as a form of address): my baby left me for another guy a thing regarded with affection or familiarity: this baby can reach speeds of 120 mph
Online "oxford dictionaries" are not to be confused with the Oxford English Dictionary, which is an institution unto itself. You have to pay to access it, though, because it's that legit. Personally, I get "free" access because I'm a graduate student. I'll post the entire definition tomorrow when I'm on campus if you'd like, but I posted the relevant portion in this thread already.
At any rate, goodnight all.
|
On November 15 2012 08:33 KwarK wrote:
Of course you're allowed to say false claims of rape occur. I'll do it right now. There are cases in which people accuse others of rape when no rape occurred. You're not allowed to be willfully ignorant of the difference between sex and gender, there is a difference whether you keep up to date with science or not, get over it. Having a sincerely held homophobic belief doesn't make it any less homophobic, homophobia isn't welcome here.
Just wanted to provide some examples here so the discussion isn't 100% about the word "baby"...
On rape:+ Show Spoiler +On August 23 2012 18:10 VPCursed wrote:
rape is when you and another get stupid drunk and have sex, then she decides 2 weeks later she wants to change her mind and reports you the police. thats rape. At least in maine thats how it is.
User was banned for this post. On August 23 2012 22:27 Masvidal wrote:
Rape is when a woman decides to have sex with a man, and then at a later time, decides she regrets it and takes legal recourse to assuage her shame.
User was banned for this post.
On gender:+ Show Spoiler +On April 03 2012 18:12 qrs wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 05:02 JOJOsc2news wrote:On April 03 2012 03:41 StimFesT wrote:
I seriously feel wierd when I look at the picture and know that she/he was born as a regular male. But she/he is actually beautiful Wow... stumbling over the he/she awkwardness in this post. She chose to be a woman, just call her her. He's a man who had surgery/hormone therapy; just call him him. User was temp banned for this post. On April 03 2012 18:40 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Sorry about his feelings, but working as intended. A man should not be able to qualify as Miss Universe; he may be wearing a skirt, but there's a smelly sausage under it. I'm not trying to come across as ignorant, but that's the simple truth and no amount of surgery can truly change what nature gave him. Well unless he wants to castrate himself, but that still wouldn't give him ovaries and a vagina, and his body will never naturally produce female hormones (without supplements) in the amount biological females produce it.
User was warned for this post On April 03 2012 19:34 Spieltor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 19:30 judochopaction wrote:On April 03 2012 19:25 Spieltor wrote:you're saying if I were to have ovaries and suddenly discover it later in life, I'd change? Probably not, seeing as doctors would've discovered this upon birth or I'd die from PMS having no outlet, as I have no vagina.
BUt lets assume we live in fairy land where someone can magically grow internal sex organs inconsistent with their body's birth gender. I'd have them removed and continue to live as I always lived. the whole point is you wouldnt change because you think of yourself as a man. thats why she changed herself because she was a woman with male body parts. so then it comes to the issue of why he felt like a woman despite being born a man. User was temp banned for this post. On April 03 2012 23:09 TheRhox wrote:
So I've read the article and I can't seem to understand why this is an issue, he's clearly not a female. Just a man that had some surgery done to appear female. That's why he was disqualified right, because it's Miss Universe Canada?.. As far as I know you have to be biologically female to compete in this competition.
You can't change who you are just because you want to, like if you were born asian you can't just decide one day to be white and go around telling people you're native Irish, no matter how much you "feel" white inside.
User was temp banned for this post.
On Islam:+ Show Spoiler +On September 16 2012 04:18 Bahamut1337 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 04:11 Jormundr wrote:On September 16 2012 03:55 Supert0fu wrote:On September 16 2012 03:20 FrogOfWar wrote:On September 16 2012 03:02 Supert0fu wrote:
Muhammad was a warlord and Jesus was a healer. I'm glad with my choice Yes, a shame that christians never followed him but only use him to make themselves feel better while being just as militant as everybody else. And I mean that. Jesus was a great person. (Not sure about miracle healings though.) Yes I'm not sure either, but Jesus's core philosophy is something that everyone should really take heart in. The point is Jesus never fought or killed ANYONE for his cause, while Mohammed killed many. I am also dismayed that Christianity has been twisted, but you never see Christians start burning shit in the streets when someone makes a retarded video of their profit. Take the westborough bapist church, probably the worst portrayal of Christianity in America. They have never killed anyone and only have their horrible protests. Muslims however are responsible for the deaths of many in America and around the world, Plug your ears, forget about abortion bombings, fag-bashings, and the KKK. Or you could just say that those people weren't 'true christians' (while Muslims say the same thing about Al-Qaeda and other militant sects.) The truth is that no religion is willing to accept responsibility for the actions of its extremists. Hence why nobody called Anders Breivik a 'Christian terrorist' - it's not profitable for news media to alienate their viewers. Beating homosexuals is against the law, this means there will be a severe penalty involved for the culprits, meanwhile throwing homosexuals of buildings is almost a national sport in the islamic world. Abortion bombings are rare, happen not even once a year, Islamic Jihad attacks happen daily. the KKK is a group with 3.000 members, you have nearly no social life if anyone knows you are part of this extreme group. But if you are in the Muslim Brotherhood ( supports terrorism, main goal is a global Islamic Calpihate) people will shrugg. Christianity as a religion is more peaceful, modern and openminded then Islam is, Islam has yet to even reach an enlightment age so people are actually EQUAL if they have a different religion. Breivik was not inspired by a bible, but rather political and most likely simply insane. But Muslims attack homosexuals, beat infidels and bomb the twin towers with the Koran in their hands. And for good reason, the Koran has some extremly violent parts in it, and unlike Christianity all of it has to be taken literal. Sura (8:55) - Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve Sura (48:29) - Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves Sura (9:30) - And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah... Allah (Himself) fights against them. How perverse are they! Sura (8:12) - I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them Sura (9:123) - O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness Sura (5:33) - The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement User was temp banned for this post.
Now I don't want anyone to get the impression that I think these posts are good, or that I think they are correct, or that I agree with them. My only point here is that these are opinions which should be allowed to be expressed without people being punished for them. If they are wrong, then part of the purpose and benefit of the thread is to clearly articulate why they are wrong and to have a better discussion. Just foregoing the persuasion and using authority to silence them is bound to have a chilling effect on posting many opinions, which detracts from the conversation as a whole. Personally I'd love to hear these sorts of posts debated, it's far more interesting then everyone repeating the same arguments over and over. We all know TL doesn't believe in complete freedom of speech, but I would advocate that people have a right to be wrong on certain issues without being punished for it or silenced. We should avoid as much as possible excluding entire perspectives which large numbers of people hold from the discussion. The standard argument is that the quality of discussion improves when you eliminate these people, but I would argue greater consensus is worse for the quality of discussion than a wide variety of tolerated perspectives.
|
On November 15 2012 14:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 14:16 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 14:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 14:02 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 13:41 xDaunt wrote:
Honestly, the politics threads are so unevenly (and sometimes horrifically) moderated that I'm rather disinclined to continue posting in them. The double standard is ridiculous. Thanks for having the guts to admit this openly. Glad I'm not alone in thinking this. This is website feedback, you can say pretty much whatever you like in here and not get banned. Feel free to call us godless liberals if you want. The flipside of this is that I can be more than usually blunt in addressing your concerns, the freedom to be frank with each other goes both ways. I'm pretty sure a number of the bans I have gotten are directly related to the grudge some people have held due to a website feedback thread I made regarding double standards. I would actually advise anyone against giving their honest feedback about moderation on this site. I've seen other people receive harsher moderation too after making threads in website feedback. That's just my honest opinion, you can tell me I am wrong, but I see what people get away with around here and the things I have been banned for, and they are not consistent to say the least. I took a look at your mod history. You haven't gotten a serious ban in almost a year and there is no real pattern regarding moderators taking action with you. ETT probably has the plurality of recent actions but opts to warn you. Mind if I ask who you think is persecuting you because I can't figure it out? Well these bans were a long time ago. The problem now is that my "mod history" is used as the justification for making my history worse, sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, in the last ban I got the mod directly said "Normally I would give a warning for this, but your history isn't helping you." I don't care to rehash old history, this thread isn't about me anyway.
Sounds familiar.
|
On November 15 2012 14:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 14:02 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 13:41 xDaunt wrote:
Honestly, the politics threads are so unevenly (and sometimes horrifically) moderated that I'm rather disinclined to continue posting in them. The double standard is ridiculous. Thanks for having the guts to admit this openly. Glad I'm not alone in thinking this. This is website feedback, you can say pretty much whatever you like in here and not get banned. Feel free to call us godless liberals if you want. The flipside of this is that I can be more than usually blunt in addressing your concerns, the freedom to be frank with each other goes both ways. I'm pretty sure a number of the bans I have gotten are directly related to the grudge some people have held due to a website feedback thread I made regarding double standards. I would actually advise anyone against giving their honest feedback about moderation on this site. I've seen other people receive harsher moderation too after making threads in website feedback. That's just my honest opinion, you can tell me I am wrong, but I see what people get away with around here and the things I have been banned for, and they are not consistent to say the least.
I agree with everything you've posted in this thread, except for this part. I've had some pretty heated back and forths with moderators (especially Kwark), and I haven't seen even the slightest inkling of a grudge.
Kwark's even gone out of his way to remove a mod action that he gave me when I pointed out the misunderstanding that instigated it. We all know his stance on religion, but he was the only mod willing to remove the negative language regarding religion in a recent thread. It took a couple days of pm'ing staff, other mods, and a website feedback thread, but he did it (even after other mods declined to do so).
I sincerely disagree with your opinion that the staff let a grudge affect their moderation. If that were the case, I wouldn't have an account on here anymore.
|
United States41976 Posts
On November 15 2012 14:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 14:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 14:16 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 14:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 14:02 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 13:41 xDaunt wrote:
Honestly, the politics threads are so unevenly (and sometimes horrifically) moderated that I'm rather disinclined to continue posting in them. The double standard is ridiculous. Thanks for having the guts to admit this openly. Glad I'm not alone in thinking this. This is website feedback, you can say pretty much whatever you like in here and not get banned. Feel free to call us godless liberals if you want. The flipside of this is that I can be more than usually blunt in addressing your concerns, the freedom to be frank with each other goes both ways. I'm pretty sure a number of the bans I have gotten are directly related to the grudge some people have held due to a website feedback thread I made regarding double standards. I would actually advise anyone against giving their honest feedback about moderation on this site. I've seen other people receive harsher moderation too after making threads in website feedback. That's just my honest opinion, you can tell me I am wrong, but I see what people get away with around here and the things I have been banned for, and they are not consistent to say the least. I took a look at your mod history. You haven't gotten a serious ban in almost a year and there is no real pattern regarding moderators taking action with you. ETT probably has the plurality of recent actions but opts to warn you. Mind if I ask who you think is persecuting you because I can't figure it out? Well these bans were a long time ago. The problem now is that my "mod history" is used as the justification for making my history worse, sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, in the last ban I got the mod directly said "Normally I would give a warning for this, but your history isn't helping you." I don't care to rehash old history, this thread isn't about me anyway. Sounds familiar.
He got a 2 day ban for that and it was for back seat moderating. Entirely justified and definitely not worth bitching about. Jd's being retarded about this "they're out to get me" shit, if we were out to get him on the basis of his history or because we disagree with him then we would actually get him. I get that you can't see his mod history the way I can but as much as what he's saying may be in line with your view of tl moderation it is entirely baseless, he's being an idiot. He's had nothing done to him for near a year now.
|
That Koran guy deserved to be banned because he said that the hate-filled speech rampant in the King James bible is somehow not supposed to be taken literally, while the Koran is. He's an ass.
He makes blanket statements and actually said that Christianity is more peaceful, modern, and openminded, which is historically debatable at the very least, but the MAIN issue is that we shouldn't judge all Muslims based on the acts of extremists. Just because there are more monsters hiding behind the Koran than there are hiding behind the bible does not mean that Christianity, or Christians, are better people. There are enough peaceful people on both sides that do not pervert their books to their own political, financial, and extremist pursuits.
How about I make a long list of controversial Bible verses. Oh right, they're not to be taken literally, looks like I lose.
|
On November 15 2012 14:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 14:49 xDaunt wrote:On November 15 2012 14:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 14:16 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 14:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 14:02 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 13:41 xDaunt wrote:
Honestly, the politics threads are so unevenly (and sometimes horrifically) moderated that I'm rather disinclined to continue posting in them. The double standard is ridiculous. Thanks for having the guts to admit this openly. Glad I'm not alone in thinking this. This is website feedback, you can say pretty much whatever you like in here and not get banned. Feel free to call us godless liberals if you want. The flipside of this is that I can be more than usually blunt in addressing your concerns, the freedom to be frank with each other goes both ways. I'm pretty sure a number of the bans I have gotten are directly related to the grudge some people have held due to a website feedback thread I made regarding double standards. I would actually advise anyone against giving their honest feedback about moderation on this site. I've seen other people receive harsher moderation too after making threads in website feedback. That's just my honest opinion, you can tell me I am wrong, but I see what people get away with around here and the things I have been banned for, and they are not consistent to say the least. I took a look at your mod history. You haven't gotten a serious ban in almost a year and there is no real pattern regarding moderators taking action with you. ETT probably has the plurality of recent actions but opts to warn you. Mind if I ask who you think is persecuting you because I can't figure it out? Well these bans were a long time ago. The problem now is that my "mod history" is used as the justification for making my history worse, sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, in the last ban I got the mod directly said "Normally I would give a warning for this, but your history isn't helping you." I don't care to rehash old history, this thread isn't about me anyway. Sounds familiar. He got a 2 day ban for that and it was for back seat moderating. Entirely justified and definitely not worth bitching about. Jd's being retarded about this "they're out to get me" shit, if we were out to get him on the basis of his history or because we disagree with him then we would actually get him. I get that you can't see his mod history the way I can but as much as what he's saying may be in line with your view of tl moderation it is entirely baseless, he's being an idiot. He's had nothing done to him for near a year now.
I've always been very careful about avoiding backseat moderating. When I read a horrible conspiracy theory thread without solid sources, I sat back and waited for mods to take care of it. When it was still around the next day, I was surprised. I didn't think that saying "I'm surprised this is still open" amounts to what was called "snide and sarcastic backseat moderating." Now I know that I can't even express surprise that a thread is open. The funny thing is the thread was closed 2 pages after I got banned for lack of reliable sources.
But I appreciate you calling me an idiot and a retard. I've never insulted people like this on this site, I'm always careful to be courteous and respectful to people, and yet I'm considered a bad poster, according to my history.
|
United States41976 Posts
On November 15 2012 14:47 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 08:33 KwarK wrote:
Of course you're allowed to say false claims of rape occur. I'll do it right now. There are cases in which people accuse others of rape when no rape occurred. You're not allowed to be willfully ignorant of the difference between sex and gender, there is a difference whether you keep up to date with science or not, get over it. Having a sincerely held homophobic belief doesn't make it any less homophobic, homophobia isn't welcome here.
Just wanted to provide some examples here so the discussion isn't 100% about the word "baby"... On rape: + Show Spoiler +On August 23 2012 18:10 VPCursed wrote:
rape is when you and another get stupid drunk and have sex, then she decides 2 weeks later she wants to change her mind and reports you the police. thats rape. At least in maine thats how it is.
User was banned for this post. On August 23 2012 22:27 Masvidal wrote:
Rape is when a woman decides to have sex with a man, and then at a later time, decides she regrets it and takes legal recourse to assuage her shame.
User was banned for this post. On gender: + Show Spoiler +On April 03 2012 18:12 qrs wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 05:02 JOJOsc2news wrote:On April 03 2012 03:41 StimFesT wrote:
I seriously feel wierd when I look at the picture and know that she/he was born as a regular male. But she/he is actually beautiful Wow... stumbling over the he/she awkwardness in this post. She chose to be a woman, just call her her. He's a man who had surgery/hormone therapy; just call him him. User was temp banned for this post. On April 03 2012 18:40 DemigodcelpH wrote:
Sorry about his feelings, but working as intended. A man should not be able to qualify as Miss Universe; he may be wearing a skirt, but there's a smelly sausage under it. I'm not trying to come across as ignorant, but that's the simple truth and no amount of surgery can truly change what nature gave him. Well unless he wants to castrate himself, but that still wouldn't give him ovaries and a vagina, and his body will never naturally produce female hormones (without supplements) in the amount biological females produce it.
User was warned for this post On April 03 2012 19:34 Spieltor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2012 19:30 judochopaction wrote:On April 03 2012 19:25 Spieltor wrote:you're saying if I were to have ovaries and suddenly discover it later in life, I'd change? Probably not, seeing as doctors would've discovered this upon birth or I'd die from PMS having no outlet, as I have no vagina.
BUt lets assume we live in fairy land where someone can magically grow internal sex organs inconsistent with their body's birth gender. I'd have them removed and continue to live as I always lived. the whole point is you wouldnt change because you think of yourself as a man. thats why she changed herself because she was a woman with male body parts. so then it comes to the issue of why he felt like a woman despite being born a man. User was temp banned for this post. On April 03 2012 23:09 TheRhox wrote:
So I've read the article and I can't seem to understand why this is an issue, he's clearly not a female. Just a man that had some surgery done to appear female. That's why he was disqualified right, because it's Miss Universe Canada?.. As far as I know you have to be biologically female to compete in this competition.
You can't change who you are just because you want to, like if you were born asian you can't just decide one day to be white and go around telling people you're native Irish, no matter how much you "feel" white inside.
User was temp banned for this post. On Islam: + Show Spoiler +On September 16 2012 04:18 Bahamut1337 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 04:11 Jormundr wrote:On September 16 2012 03:55 Supert0fu wrote:On September 16 2012 03:20 FrogOfWar wrote:On September 16 2012 03:02 Supert0fu wrote:
Muhammad was a warlord and Jesus was a healer. I'm glad with my choice Yes, a shame that christians never followed him but only use him to make themselves feel better while being just as militant as everybody else. And I mean that. Jesus was a great person. (Not sure about miracle healings though.) Yes I'm not sure either, but Jesus's core philosophy is something that everyone should really take heart in. The point is Jesus never fought or killed ANYONE for his cause, while Mohammed killed many. I am also dismayed that Christianity has been twisted, but you never see Christians start burning shit in the streets when someone makes a retarded video of their profit. Take the westborough bapist church, probably the worst portrayal of Christianity in America. They have never killed anyone and only have their horrible protests. Muslims however are responsible for the deaths of many in America and around the world, Plug your ears, forget about abortion bombings, fag-bashings, and the KKK. Or you could just say that those people weren't 'true christians' (while Muslims say the same thing about Al-Qaeda and other militant sects.) The truth is that no religion is willing to accept responsibility for the actions of its extremists. Hence why nobody called Anders Breivik a 'Christian terrorist' - it's not profitable for news media to alienate their viewers. Beating homosexuals is against the law, this means there will be a severe penalty involved for the culprits, meanwhile throwing homosexuals of buildings is almost a national sport in the islamic world. Abortion bombings are rare, happen not even once a year, Islamic Jihad attacks happen daily. the KKK is a group with 3.000 members, you have nearly no social life if anyone knows you are part of this extreme group. But if you are in the Muslim Brotherhood ( supports terrorism, main goal is a global Islamic Calpihate) people will shrugg. Christianity as a religion is more peaceful, modern and openminded then Islam is, Islam has yet to even reach an enlightment age so people are actually EQUAL if they have a different religion. Breivik was not inspired by a bible, but rather political and most likely simply insane. But Muslims attack homosexuals, beat infidels and bomb the twin towers with the Koran in their hands. And for good reason, the Koran has some extremly violent parts in it, and unlike Christianity all of it has to be taken literal. Sura (8:55) - Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve Sura (48:29) - Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves Sura (9:30) - And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah... Allah (Himself) fights against them. How perverse are they! Sura (8:12) - I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them Sura (9:123) - O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness Sura (5:33) - The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement User was temp banned for this post. Now I don't want anyone to get the impression that I think these posts are good, or that I think they are correct, or that I agree with them. My only point here is that these are opinions which should be allowed to be expressed without people being punished for them. If they are wrong, then part of the purpose and benefit of the thread is to clearly articulate why they are wrong and to have a better discussion. Just foregoing the persuasion and using authority to silence them is bound to have a chilling effect on posting many opinions, which detracts from the conversation as a whole. Personally I'd love to hear these sorts of posts debated, it's far more interesting then everyone repeating the same arguments over and over. We all know TL doesn't believe in complete freedom of speech, but I would advocate that people have a right to be wrong on certain issues without being punished for it or silenced. We should avoid as much as possible excluding entire perspectives which large numbers of people hold from the discussion. The standard argument is that the quality of discussion improves when you eliminate these people, but I would argue greater consensus is worse for the quality of discussion than a wide variety of tolerated perspectives.
Dismissing the existence of rape entirely is an appalling thing to say, as well as being utterly stupid and simply wrong. It's not only a factually wrong thing to say, such that it doesn't fall under the category of an acceptable opinion, but is also a despicable view.
Standing by shitty, outdated, offensive and factually wrong stances on the grounds that you're allowed to misunderstand the difference between sex and gender as long as it's your opinion that you don't understand the difference is fucking retarded. Transgender women aren't men and when we have a mod note that kindly explains this for people then it's little more than martyring to insist upon spouting offensive bullshit for the sake of it.
We ban people for religion arguments on both sides. There was a recent religion topic where I banned everyone from both sides for refusing to drop shit.
All of those bans are not only completely justified but they're not even in any way contentious. If those are your examples of bad moderation then we're really good at doing our jobs here.
|
United States41976 Posts
On November 15 2012 15:00 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 14:54 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 14:49 xDaunt wrote:On November 15 2012 14:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 14:16 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 14:11 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 14:02 KwarK wrote:On November 15 2012 13:58 jdseemoreglass wrote:On November 15 2012 13:41 xDaunt wrote:
Honestly, the politics threads are so unevenly (and sometimes horrifically) moderated that I'm rather disinclined to continue posting in them. The double standard is ridiculous. Thanks for having the guts to admit this openly. Glad I'm not alone in thinking this. This is website feedback, you can say pretty much whatever you like in here and not get banned. Feel free to call us godless liberals if you want. The flipside of this is that I can be more than usually blunt in addressing your concerns, the freedom to be frank with each other goes both ways. I'm pretty sure a number of the bans I have gotten are directly related to the grudge some people have held due to a website feedback thread I made regarding double standards. I would actually advise anyone against giving their honest feedback about moderation on this site. I've seen other people receive harsher moderation too after making threads in website feedback. That's just my honest opinion, you can tell me I am wrong, but I see what people get away with around here and the things I have been banned for, and they are not consistent to say the least. I took a look at your mod history. You haven't gotten a serious ban in almost a year and there is no real pattern regarding moderators taking action with you. ETT probably has the plurality of recent actions but opts to warn you. Mind if I ask who you think is persecuting you because I can't figure it out? Well these bans were a long time ago. The problem now is that my "mod history" is used as the justification for making my history worse, sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, in the last ban I got the mod directly said "Normally I would give a warning for this, but your history isn't helping you." I don't care to rehash old history, this thread isn't about me anyway. Sounds familiar. He got a 2 day ban for that and it was for back seat moderating. Entirely justified and definitely not worth bitching about. Jd's being retarded about this "they're out to get me" shit, if we were out to get him on the basis of his history or because we disagree with him then we would actually get him. I get that you can't see his mod history the way I can but as much as what he's saying may be in line with your view of tl moderation it is entirely baseless, he's being an idiot. He's had nothing done to him for near a year now. I've always been very careful about avoiding backseat moderating. When I read a horrible conspiracy theory thread without solid sources, I sat back and waited for mods to take care of it. When it was still around the next day, I was surprised. I didn't think that saying "I'm surprised this is still open" amounts to what was called "snide and sarcastic backseat moderating." Now I know that I can't even express surprise that a thread is open. The funny thing is the thread was closed 2 pages after I got banned for lack of reliable sources. But I appreciate you calling me an idiot and a retard. I've never insulted people like this on this site, I'm always careful to be courteous and respectful to people, and yet I'm considered a bad poster, according to my history.
Next time PM a mod if you want mod action taken rather than bitching about it in the topic. You did something wrong and then got modded for it, learn from it.
|
Canada11272 Posts
I actually disagree that 'baby' should be a disallowed term for a 'fetus' because it forces one side to use their opponents set of definitions and thereby the control of the debate goes to those that are allowed to use their 'own' terms. Both sides feel they are justified scientifically or linguistically to use fetus or baby. Both sides use the terms they do because of they implicitly support their own positions: amoral, routine procedure vs immoral killing.
But then again, I also generally refuse to get involved in any abortion debate on the internet as it is an exercise in futility.
|
They didn't deny the existence of rape entirely, obviously. They were simply making the argument "this happens sometimes." And they were banned for it, when it does in fact happen.
People should be allowed to have differing views on what gender means. It's not something that can be pinned down scientifically, it's still largely taken to be "whatever the person says they are." This should be a discussion that people should be allowed to have without having a single perspective forced down their throats.
The Islam post was in a thread which was dedicated to discussing Islam. It wasn't a matter of banning any mention of religion, because religion was allowed in that thread. And he brought up some real issues which are worthy of debate as well.
Stifling these sorts of opinions is indeed bad moderation in my view. I realize you think that's "bullshit," but I don't dismiss the idea of protected speech as lightly as the ten commandments do.
|
On November 15 2012 14:59 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
He makes blanket statements and actually said that Christianity is more peaceful, modern, and openminded, which is historically debatable at the very least, but the MAIN issue is that we shouldn't judge all Muslims based on the acts of extremists.
Speaking of making blanket statements, and in the spirit of the double standards in moderation enjoy:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=374083¤tpage=8#150
On October 10 2012 11:04 MooMu wrote:
Blemish the brand's reputation in the eyes of bigots and bible-thumping fundamentalists. Good stuff.
This was allowed because it is the (incorrect) belief of some moderators that anyone who takes a fundamentalist viewpoint of the Bible is a gay-hating bigot. Curious that so many confessed non-believers know the minds of every religious person in existence better than the believer.
While I was happy that part of the OP was edited out in that thread, his blanket statement implying that all believers in the living Christ supported the persecution of gays didn't warrant a mod action. I can go on, but I think we're lying to ourselves by saying that there isn't a double standard when it comes to broad sweeping generalizations.
|
Canada11272 Posts
@Joedaddy.
On the otherhand, I do seem to recall that Kwark offered to receive any future complaints of similar nature. (I was conserving posts at the time for my 5K.) But I do remember something to that effect.
|
United States41976 Posts
On November 15 2012 15:13 jdseemoreglass wrote:
They didn't deny the existence of rape entirely, obviously. They were simply making the argument "this happens sometimes." And they were banned for it, when it does in fact happen.
People should be allowed to have differing views on what gender means. It's not something that can be pinned down scientifically, it's still largely taken to be "whatever the person says they are." This should be a discussion that people should be allowed to have without having a single perspective forced down their throats.
The Islam post was in a thread which was dedicated to discussing Islam. It wasn't a matter of banning any mention of religion, because religion was allowed in that thread. And he brought up some real issues which are worthy of debate as well.
Stifling these sorts of opinions is indeed bad moderation in my view. I realize you think that's "bullshit," but I don't dismiss the idea of protected speech as lightly as the ten commandments do.
They both said rape is when a women lies about consensual sex. It's not and the possibility of false rape accusations do not justify dismissing rape as a possibility. They didn't say sometimes women lie about rape, they said that rape is when women lie. Completely different. You're being willfully ignorant here because you want to build it into your narrative that we're disallowing views that don't conform with our feminazi agenda.
No, you don't get the difference between gender and sex either. You can try and learn if you like but it's not going to change, whether or not you understand it.
The religion one was just grabbing verses out of context and using them to condemn Islam as a whole. We can do the same for Christianity and it'd be equally irrelevant. Finding your favourite atheist/hating X religion website and copy and pasting your favourite list of despicable/absurd things that religious people said a thousand years ago as if you're making a legitimate point against the religion is retarded. If you want to discuss a religion then the way to go about it is not "check out what some warlord said back in the time of warlords, clearly religion is dumb".
|
On November 15 2012 15:23 Falling wrote:
@Joedaddy.
On the otherhand, I do seem to recall that Kwark offered to receive any future complaints of similar nature. (I was conserving posts at the time for my 5K.) But I do remember something to that effect.
He did, and I have. I've credited him a few times in this thread for how reasonable he can be. However, Kwark's admirable position to receive future complaints of similar nature doesn't change the persistent double standard that is seen here and in past threads.
I still think Kwark takes it way_way to far and needlessly steps on people's toes because in his mind he thinks he's inherently smart and the poster is inherently dumb. The dumbness being the result of foetal alcohol syndrome in some cases, and possibly being dropped on their head as baby in others.
|
United States41976 Posts
Bigots and bible-thumping fundamentalists, not bigoted bible thumping fundamentalists. Two separate groups which can independently agree with not letting gays in Christian institutions. I don't think it's an especially controversial thing to claim that fundamentalist Christians aren't in favour of including gays.
|
The obvious fact is that moderating is not completely fair. I've been banned for the stupidest nip-picking bullshit you'll see, but I've also gotten away with some rather unsavory posts with just warnings. It almost evens out, though I am was a little bitter about my first ban (which was also backseat moderating), but regardless I learned to just not do it again. Why tempt fate? In the end, the bad posters eventually fall, and the good posters rise. And the posters like me slip up occasionally and come back.
I think you're straight up nuts for thinking that you are memorable enough to be unfairly attacked. I'm sorry for opening up the past here, but before Kwark was a banling, I posted on TL that he should not be allowed to write for the OSL write-up team (he wrote something I didn't like  oooooh ). Except I didn't use kind words like that. It was pretty rude and a direct attack. I'm pretty sure Kwark has no more than maybe 2 mod actions against me (who knows, not me). If mods were more vengeful I'm pretty sure you and I would be permabanned by now if they really cared about backseat moderating so much or personal attacks from years ago.
Oh, hi Joedaddy, I remember you. And I don't disagree.
|
Canada11272 Posts
Only 1 by Kwark. I've given you more, but they were just warnings.
|
On November 15 2012 15:40 Falling wrote:Only 1 by Kwark. I've given you more, but they were just warnings.
I appreciate it. Warnings have always been more effective for me personally. When I see a warning, I say, "Woops, erm, better not do that again," and I even feel a little embarrassed. But when I see that I've been banned, and I look the reason, it's always, "What? Banned for that? That is bullshit! There are worse posts that very thread and they weren't even warned, talk about oversensitivity!" The mind is a wonderful thing 
|
On November 15 2012 15:31 KwarK wrote:
Bigots and bible-thumping fundamentalists, not bigoted bible thumping fundamentalists. Two separate groups which can independently agree with not letting gays in Christian institutions. I don't think it's an especially controversial thing to claim that fundamentalist Christians aren't in favour of including gays.
Believing homosexuality is a sin does not mean that I "agree with not letting gays in Christian institutions." I've said this a few different times, and its a truth that applies to a lot of self described fundamentalist Christians. The truth may be inconvenient to those with preconceived notions about the Christian faith and the Bible, but that doesn't make it any less true.
I agree that homophobic is an accurate description of some religious people. I can assure you though that not everyone who holds a literal view of the bible fears and/or has contempt for homosexual people. My literal understanding of the Bible is quite the opposite. I think the catch phrase is, "love the sinner, but not the sin."
Similar to if a close loved one did something you disapproved of. You wouldn't hate your loved one because of it. But, I digress.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
