|
Hi,
I was told by NovemberstOrm to take my complaint about hannahbelle's post here.
I reported this post by hannahbelle in the US Politics Megathread, for containing the following personal attack on GreenHorizons:
On March 13 2015 11:43 hannahbelle wrote:
Nah, I don't have a problem calling out someone who tries to justify the cold blooded killing of two cops.
Not only is his accusation completely false, because GreenHorizons never justified anything of the sort, it's also an incredibly violent personal attack on GreenHorizon. How can deceptively accusing another poster of justifying "the cold blooded killing of two cops" possibly be considered acceptable on these forums, to the point where the user does not even get a warning?!
Now I understand that I was warned for speaking out about this in the thread even though I should only have used the report function (I'd like to point out that hannahbelle's behaviour in the thread had already been discussed publicly by other posters and at least one admin, though), but I would really appreciate it if someone could explain to me how hannahbelle did not get sanctioned for that post... Especially given that poster's history of personal attacks against other posters in the thread.
Thanks.
|
That's not a personal attack? It's his interpretation of GH's post. Doesn't make it accurate or anything, but it's not a personal attack
|
On March 14 2015 03:15 QuanticHawk wrote:
That's not a personal attack? It's his interpretation of GH's post. Doesn't make it accurate or anything, but it's not a personal attack
If I replied to your post saying "stop defending hannahbelle and the systematic murder and rape of innocents by Boko Haram", I would be going beyond simply interpreting your post and trying instead to discredit you personally with deceptive accusations. That's exactly what hannahbelle did against GreenHorizons.
|
But the conversation was about race, ferguson, and the recent shooting down there. It's not like he just all the sudden out of the blue pulled that out. GreenHorizon specifically said that the reason people act the way they do to cops is because of distrust.
|
First Hanna was strictly factually incorrect in that the cops are already out of the hospital so no one could be justifying murders that didn't happen.
Secondly, Hanna just said that dealing with that "scum" (implicitly referencing the black people of Ferguson), would probably make anyone racist. Presumably that's supported by the random tweets gathered in the Alex Jones article of people from all over the world hating cops. As if being racist was a reasonable position...
It's not like Jonny hasn't already suggested I "don't like white people" and am "a bigot" without so much as a warning. Surely the mods at least appreciate the not-so-ironic situation of 1 of 2 black posters getting banned for calling a white guy racist but the white guy doesn't even get a warning for calling the only remaining black guy poster a racist bigot.
On March 05 2015 06:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2015 06:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 05 2015 06:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 05 2015 06:05 Paljas wrote:On March 05 2015 06:01 RCMDVA wrote:
The Tamir Rice shooting happens so damn fast, I think it could have been a white/asian/hispanic kid and it would have gone the same. He's got a parka on and underneath a gazeebo and the cop car slides through the wet grass/snow before it goes bad. The whole thing lasts 2-4 seconds. I think there is was a break down from the 9-1-1 call taker, to the police dispatcher.. to the cops. The cops were not told he was a boy or had a toy gun, iirc. and how often did something like this happen with a white kid? It happens, sadly. I don't think I can google up an exact match to the situation, but here's a story about a white 19 year old girl shot by officer Wakana Okuma while holding a drill ( link). Not only does "It happens" not answer the question of "How often" but it also isn't true. You wont find a comparable situation with a white child, and it's not a coincidence.The longer it takes to realize that, the longer the problem persists. Police interaction with mentally unstable people is just another pervasive problem. It accounts for a significant amount of the white as well as black victims of police abuses. Stop it. I know you don't like us whites, but going down that road isn't productive.
On March 07 2015 07:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2015 07:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2015 07:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 07 2015 06:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2015 06:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 07 2015 06:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2015 06:30 zlefin wrote:
Maybe people are just busy, there's a lot of stuff to do after all.
When is the event anyways? The link didnt' seem clear on when the event was. Well it's a 50 year anniversary so it's not like it snuck up on them. If they are busy, it's with something they thought was more important to attend. I'm not sure that's the road they want to go down in explaining their absence. On March 07 2015 06:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 07 2015 06:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 07 2015 06:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 07 2015 06:11 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
What explanation are you imagining for why so few Republicans are showing up and leadership isn't? I'm not imagining anything. So you are completely clueless? Meaning you have no idea why? I do not have psychic powers, if that's what you're asking. Yes jonny obviously I'm asking if you have psychic powers.... Or maybe I'm asking why you think leadership isn't going, but a couple dozen republicans are? What's the point of speculating why? They obviously decided they had other things to do. The DHS shutdown as averted just the other day and going is little more than symbolic. The majority of people from Congress, both D's and R's aren't going. Why is this even a big deal? I can't recall you harping on the importance of this event before Politico decided to make it a talking point. How was I supposed to know they weren't going until it was reported? "They obviously decided they had other things to do" is the whole point. "Why is this a big deal?" I don't know Jonny... Why is the 4th of July a big deal? + Show Spoiler +On March 07 2015 06:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Glorious small government! Glorious small government! fixed that for you. The majority of Congress decided it had better things to do, as did the majority of people in the country and on the planet. You only care that some R's aren't going, and have arbitrarily assigned special meaning to it. If my local representatives don't show up to my local 4th of July fireworks show, I'm not going to accuse them of being communist traitors or think that all Democrats hate 'Murica. + Show Spoiler +I care that D's aren't going too. Particularly the ones with a history of missing events like this or attending ones that are questionable in nature (Comparable to Scalise). Also the ones that aren't honoring the people in some other way (as Boehner said he is in the capital) make me skeptical about their inclinations.
But you're right that those D stories are harder to find. Both as a result of media bias and a general lack of content. But you should know that I don't excuse them either where they exist.
If republicans had anything to address the specific issues minorities face (that white men don't [at least at the same frequency]) I wouldn't be so inclined to be so skeptical that they really do care, they were just busy. If Republicans didn't take every opportunity to put themselves on the opposite side of racial minorities on specific racial minority related issues I also wouldn't be so skeptical. + Show Spoiler +Congress has been limited to almost exclusively symbolic actions over the last bit of time. That they saw so much more value in wasting time and money on symbolic actions to attempt to remove peoples benefits/healthcare and so little value in the "symbolic action" of attending Selma is the "blue and black" you guys can't see. No mater how many times you are shown differently. They don't, you bigot.
On November 26 2014 08:53 Ace wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 08:40 dAPhREAk wrote:On November 26 2014 08:35 Nyxisto wrote:On November 26 2014 08:24 dAPhREAk wrote:if i did it, i would just be called a racist. so i will let bill cosby (a black man) do it. We have to start holding each other to a higher standard.
We cannot blame the white people any longer. http://www.rense.com/general82/ana.htm That's a very healthy attitude to have personally but the effects of discrimination are pretty evident. Native Americans are another group in the US that has a lot of problems. Or Muslims in Germany, France or Russia. It's not rocket science. Marginalized minorities face socio-economic problems all over the world, often proportionate to the degree of discrimination they have experienced, completely independent from what cultural attitudes they share or don't. no dispute that they face problems, but how they deal with them determines how their futures will develop. want to know another marginalized minority group in america? japanese. the U.S. government put them in camps, stole all of their lands and belongings and generally did bad shit to them. the U.S. government had propaganda material for the sole purpose of making it easier for americans to kill japanese (we were at war of course). all within the last century. how are the japanese doing in the modern day? pretty damn well. people use race as a crutch too often. Are you really comparing the Japanese to an entire race of people from different backgrounds with different levels of treatment in America for long periods of time? :/ Don't even know why that racist pos xdaunt is allowed to post here. User was temp banned for this post.
So I'm not really surprised. A little disappointed, but recent events have significantly lowered my expectations.
|
I especially agree with GH about Johnnys posts.
e: to be fair tho, iirc ace was banned for calling xdaunt a piece of shit, not for calling him racist.
still, calling GH a racist bigot without any justification is clearly a personal attack
|
On March 14 2015 06:43 Paljas wrote:
I especially agree with GH about Johnnys posts.
e: to be fair tho, iirc ace was banned for calling xdaunt a piece of shit, not for calling him racist.
still, calling GH a racist bigot without any justification is clearly a personal attack
Yeah I guess it was for "pos", not sure if that's more or less confusing though...?
Ace was just temp banned for 2 days by NovemberstOrm.
That account was created on 2002-10-28 22:27:16 and had 15427 posts.
Reason: Abbreviating your insult doesn't make it any better.
If calling someone a racist isn't an actionable issue I'd like to know, because someone is certainly earning it.
|
I mean seriously... I don't even know what to say?
|
While I can see how the moderation in the US politics thread might end up inconsistent now and then, I will say that hannahbelle's posts seem actionable given a variety of factors. First off, the account is either brand new or that of a PBU; in either case, the moderation team's tendency to grant veterans leniency seems misallocated in favor of hannahbelle, who has adopted an incredibly condescending and clearly self-aggrandizing tone since day one (and yes, I'm aware that the same accusations can be appropriately levied towards me, though I'd argue that the difference is clear  ). Additionally, I've yet to see hannahbelle post in a helpful or conversational manner once since they joined the site, yet another factor that confounds the fact that hannahbelle seems to have been granted an unusual degree of leniency by the mods who keep tabs on the US politics thread.
It would seem that hannahbelle's ability to just barely toe the line in each individual post has allowed that account to continue without even so much as a warning, and I think that this is inconsistent with the stated and unstated moderation goals of TL's general forum. If that renders this post a pot calling a kettle black, so be it 
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
I can differentiate between Jonny/Ace from this point of view. In each quote chain Jonny has actually contributed to the discussion before the 'actionable' offense whereas Ace hasn't. In the context of the quote chain and recognising the (long standing) difference between posters, I'm less concerned about his posts particularly because its in the US politics threads which is moderated subject to its own micro-community standards.
Hannabelle falls under the same idea, except Jonny is pushing the boundary more than Hannabelle.
Elaborating further on Jonny's case, I can understand how with his internal calculus a statement like
If Republicans didn't take every opportunity to put themselves on the opposite side of racial minorities on specific racial minority related issues I also wouldn't be so skeptical. Would warrant a comment like 'you bigot'. And with that interpretational framework that constitutes a legitimate call out on someone making an outrageous claim. TL traditionally doesn't action legitimate call outs. At the same time I can understand from your perspective why that callout was illegitimate and why it should warrant action.
So this post could be interpreted in either framework and lead to two very different conclusions. So in order to determine whether action is warranted we test to see if its this is a random callout or from someone involved in the discussion in the thread. Since it's the latter, we're inclined to lean towards no action towards these posts than action.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
After looking into things, there is a clear internal consensus that TL is better off without hannah. So we have removed the poster.
|
What do you mean with removed?
I dont think a perm banned without any kind of warnings (temp ban) is a good way to go about it, even if its a poster as awful as hannabelle.
I mean, he somewhat tried to contribute to the discussion, its just his political position which is god damn awful.
|
On March 14 2015 08:26 Paljas wrote:
What do you mean with removed?
I dont think a perm banned without any kind of warnings (temp ban) is a good way to go about it, even if its a poster as awful as hannabelle.
I mean, he somewhat tried to contribute to the discussion, its just his political position which is god damn awful.
This is my perspective if that account belongs to a new user; I get the feeling that this isn't the case.
|
On March 14 2015 08:11 Plexa wrote:I can differentiate between Jonny/Ace from this point of view. In each quote chain Jonny has actually contributed to the discussion before the 'actionable' offense whereas Ace hasn't. In the context of the quote chain and recognising the (long standing) difference between posters, I'm less concerned about his posts particularly because its in the US politics threads which is moderated subject to its own micro-community standards. Hannabelle falls under the same idea, except Jonny is pushing the boundary more than Hannabelle. Elaborating further on Jonny's case, I can understand how with his internal calculus a statement like Show nested quote +If Republicans didn't take every opportunity to put themselves on the opposite side of racial minorities on specific racial minority related issues I also wouldn't be so skeptical. Would warrant a comment like 'you bigot'. And with that interpretational framework that constitutes a legitimate call out on someone making an outrageous claim. TL traditionally doesn't action legitimate call outs. At the same time I can understand from your perspective why that callout was illegitimate and why it should warrant action. So this post could be interpreted in either framework and lead to two very different conclusions. So in order to determine whether action is warranted we test to see if its this is a random callout or from someone involved in the discussion in the thread. Since it's the latter, we're inclined to lean towards no action towards these posts than action.
I should of put "some" and "practically" so it was more clear and accurate.
How about the "You don't like us whites"? Or was that just a "legitimate call out" too?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On March 14 2015 08:16 Plexa wrote:
After looking into things, there is a clear internal consensus that TL is better off without hannah. So we have removed the poster.
Oh wow, so it's safe for me to take a gander every once in a while again? :O
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On March 14 2015 08:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 08:11 Plexa wrote:I can differentiate between Jonny/Ace from this point of view. In each quote chain Jonny has actually contributed to the discussion before the 'actionable' offense whereas Ace hasn't. In the context of the quote chain and recognising the (long standing) difference between posters, I'm less concerned about his posts particularly because its in the US politics threads which is moderated subject to its own micro-community standards. Hannabelle falls under the same idea, except Jonny is pushing the boundary more than Hannabelle. Elaborating further on Jonny's case, I can understand how with his internal calculus a statement like If Republicans didn't take every opportunity to put themselves on the opposite side of racial minorities on specific racial minority related issues I also wouldn't be so skeptical. Would warrant a comment like 'you bigot'. And with that interpretational framework that constitutes a legitimate call out on someone making an outrageous claim. TL traditionally doesn't action legitimate call outs. At the same time I can understand from your perspective why that callout was illegitimate and why it should warrant action. So this post could be interpreted in either framework and lead to two very different conclusions. So in order to determine whether action is warranted we test to see if its this is a random callout or from someone involved in the discussion in the thread. Since it's the latter, we're inclined to lean towards no action towards these posts than action. I should of put "some" and "practically" so it was more clear and accurate. How about the "You don't like us whites"? Or was that just a "legitimate call out" too?
"You don't like us whites" is more of a strawman than anything else. (And for what it's worth, I agree with what you are saying in that quotation chain).
|
On March 14 2015 09:49 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2015 08:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 14 2015 08:11 Plexa wrote:I can differentiate between Jonny/Ace from this point of view. In each quote chain Jonny has actually contributed to the discussion before the 'actionable' offense whereas Ace hasn't. In the context of the quote chain and recognising the (long standing) difference between posters, I'm less concerned about his posts particularly because its in the US politics threads which is moderated subject to its own micro-community standards. Hannabelle falls under the same idea, except Jonny is pushing the boundary more than Hannabelle. Elaborating further on Jonny's case, I can understand how with his internal calculus a statement like If Republicans didn't take every opportunity to put themselves on the opposite side of racial minorities on specific racial minority related issues I also wouldn't be so skeptical. Would warrant a comment like 'you bigot'. And with that interpretational framework that constitutes a legitimate call out on someone making an outrageous claim. TL traditionally doesn't action legitimate call outs. At the same time I can understand from your perspective why that callout was illegitimate and why it should warrant action. So this post could be interpreted in either framework and lead to two very different conclusions. So in order to determine whether action is warranted we test to see if its this is a random callout or from someone involved in the discussion in the thread. Since it's the latter, we're inclined to lean towards no action towards these posts than action. I should of put "some" and "practically" so it was more clear and accurate. How about the "You don't like us whites"? Or was that just a "legitimate call out" too? "You don't like us whites" is more of a strawman than anything else. (And for what it's worth, I agree with what you are saying in that quotation chain).
I would use much stronger words than "strawman", but for what it's worth I appreciate it. I still strongly disagree with not actioning him but it's yall's house not mine. I can't come over and tell you who can stay, or what you let them say to your guests, but I can have assessments about the type of company one keeps.
I'm still largely disappointed in the TL community regarding ism issues in general but I can appreciate when some progress is made.
|
Never mind it needs its own thread
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On March 14 2015 10:19 Jaaaaasper wrote:
I mean GH appears to have a personal attack in his signature, but maybe thats another thread to be made
It's the opposite of a personal attack (in the sense of ad hominem). I don't think a quote can be a personal attack.
|
On March 14 2015 10:19 Jaaaaasper wrote:
I mean GH appears to have a personal attack in his signature, but maybe thats another thread to be made
If claiming I "don't like [you] whites" is a "strawman" and calling me a "bigot" is reasoned as a "legitimate call-out" there is no way quoting someone is a personal attack.
Although I'd love to hear why you think it is?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
