|
On December 29 2017 02:23 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2017 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2017 01:47 Danglars wrote:On December 29 2017 01:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2017 01:38 Danglars wrote:On December 29 2017 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2017 00:53 Danglars wrote:
Quite obviously, your definition and examples of racism are not shared by others, GH. They are quite obviously shared by quite a few people, just not any other mods besides Kwark as far as we can tell right now. A vocal minority, to be sure. But a minority nonetheless. The majority just rolls its eyes at the latest race-baiting and racism-crusades. It’s hardly worth posting about since it’s the same spin and false outrage every single time. I’m very glad the moderators do not stifle debate to comply with this minority that paint racism with a ridiculously large brush. I’ve leveled a lot of criticism of the moderation team in this thread before, so I’m probably due to point out an area that they’re functioning quite well in currently. I mean, we obviously occupy different realities so I don't see anything to be gained indulging your fantasies here. I'd agree most people on TL don't really care much about racism, largely because they aren't the target of it or the accompanying systemic oppression and habitual violations of our rights. To the crowds credit, some people did say it like it is. To the contrary, I expect they care very deeply about keeping their forum free of it. They just don’t diminish the word by overlabeling it like some want. I also think they can accurately identify and ban for it despite not frequently being targets. Just because victims of white supremacy/racism finally have input doesn't mean those terms are being diminished, they are simply being enlightened. Yes, this is precisely the victimhood narrative that I’m glad isn’t overshadowing forum standards. Show nested quote +On December 29 2017 02:02 Plansix wrote:
Alright this thread is the wrong venue, my opinion on the subject is that TL is pretty tolerant of polite, well worded racism and will quickly ban angry opposition to that racism. Or posters who feel that even humoring the racist argument for an ethnostate is a bridge to far. Obviously if they tolerate white supremacy accusations everywhere, they must also tolerate discussion of alt-right views and applications. They end in the same place.
The hell are you talking about victimhood narrative?
Are you disputing the definitions of racism and white supremacy you prefer predate their targets having input on their meaning?
|
Like literally no it doesn't. Those two things are not equal at all. One is believing a race is inferior, the other is thinking someone has some pretty shitty views on other races.
When someone accuses me of racism, I check to make sure racist people don't hold the same opinion I do. If that is the case, I take a long hard look at what I believe. I refuse to be on the same side as racist or bigots.
There are folks on this site that seem to be upset by being called racist while straight up regurgitating racist talking points. Sometimes in 14 word segments.
|
United States43433 Posts
But Plansix, how can we be sure that opposing racism isn't actually the real racism.
|
We must debate was us and is not racism forever, assuring that true discrimination is never addressed.
|
On December 29 2017 02:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2017 02:23 Danglars wrote:On December 29 2017 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2017 01:47 Danglars wrote:On December 29 2017 01:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2017 01:38 Danglars wrote:On December 29 2017 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2017 00:53 Danglars wrote:
Quite obviously, your definition and examples of racism are not shared by others, GH. They are quite obviously shared by quite a few people, just not any other mods besides Kwark as far as we can tell right now. A vocal minority, to be sure. But a minority nonetheless. The majority just rolls its eyes at the latest race-baiting and racism-crusades. It’s hardly worth posting about since it’s the same spin and false outrage every single time. I’m very glad the moderators do not stifle debate to comply with this minority that paint racism with a ridiculously large brush. I’ve leveled a lot of criticism of the moderation team in this thread before, so I’m probably due to point out an area that they’re functioning quite well in currently. I mean, we obviously occupy different realities so I don't see anything to be gained indulging your fantasies here. I'd agree most people on TL don't really care much about racism, largely because they aren't the target of it or the accompanying systemic oppression and habitual violations of our rights. To the crowds credit, some people did say it like it is. To the contrary, I expect they care very deeply about keeping their forum free of it. They just don’t diminish the word by overlabeling it like some want. I also think they can accurately identify and ban for it despite not frequently being targets. Just because victims of white supremacy/racism finally have input doesn't mean those terms are being diminished, they are simply being enlightened. Yes, this is precisely the victimhood narrative that I’m glad isn’t overshadowing forum standards. On December 29 2017 02:02 Plansix wrote:
Alright this thread is the wrong venue, my opinion on the subject is that TL is pretty tolerant of polite, well worded racism and will quickly ban angry opposition to that racism. Or posters who feel that even humoring the racist argument for an ethnostate is a bridge to far. Obviously if they tolerate white supremacy accusations everywhere, they must also tolerate discussion of alt-right views and applications. They end in the same place. The hell are you talking about victimhood narrative? Are you disputing the definitions of racism and white supremacy you prefer predate their targets having input on their meaning?
Dang: The moderators do a fine job identifying and banning for racism despite attempts to expand the definition or allege they can’t know from never having experienced it.
GH: The expanded definitions don’t diminish the term. They’re the result of victims of white supremacy finally getting a voice. The term is now enlightened.
By corollary, the moderation team is insufficiently knowledgeable of former silenced victims properly adjusting the term. The victimhood narrative is there exist silenced victims now speaking out should that should alter perceptions of racist speech. You stated it pretty succinctly yourself, and I applaud your honesty.
|
On December 29 2017 02:30 Plansix wrote:
Like literally no it doesn't. Those two things are not equal at all. One is believing a race is inferior, the other is thinking someone has some pretty shitty views on other races.
When someone accuses me of racism, I check to make sure racist people don't hold the same opinion I do. If that is the case, I take a long hard look at what I believe. I refuse to be on the same side as racist or bigots.
There are folks on this site that seem to be upset by being called racist while straight up regurgitating racist talking points. Sometimes in 14 word segments.
xDaunt made the comparison and examined the actual implications of GH’s WS perspective over several posts. If that was insufficient to educate you on the connection, nothing I can say will change it. Hell, even explaining the logical sequence got calls for outright bans, if that isn’t the absolute clearest indication that nobody wants to examine the implications.
|
People are not calling for bans. Just for people to be warned for telling blacks to go back to Africa. It is as disrespectful as saying "fuck you, you peice of human garbage." People get warned for far less.
And I don't need education on white supremacy from you two. I've assessed what I've seen and found it unconvincing.
|
United States43433 Posts
The reality is that it's not possible to provide a space for mainstream political opinions within the United States while also disallowing racism.
|
On December 29 2017 02:59 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2017 02:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2017 02:23 Danglars wrote:On December 29 2017 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2017 01:47 Danglars wrote:On December 29 2017 01:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2017 01:38 Danglars wrote:On December 29 2017 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2017 00:53 Danglars wrote:
Quite obviously, your definition and examples of racism are not shared by others, GH. They are quite obviously shared by quite a few people, just not any other mods besides Kwark as far as we can tell right now. A vocal minority, to be sure. But a minority nonetheless. The majority just rolls its eyes at the latest race-baiting and racism-crusades. It’s hardly worth posting about since it’s the same spin and false outrage every single time. I’m very glad the moderators do not stifle debate to comply with this minority that paint racism with a ridiculously large brush. I’ve leveled a lot of criticism of the moderation team in this thread before, so I’m probably due to point out an area that they’re functioning quite well in currently. I mean, we obviously occupy different realities so I don't see anything to be gained indulging your fantasies here. I'd agree most people on TL don't really care much about racism, largely because they aren't the target of it or the accompanying systemic oppression and habitual violations of our rights. To the crowds credit, some people did say it like it is. To the contrary, I expect they care very deeply about keeping their forum free of it. They just don’t diminish the word by overlabeling it like some want. I also think they can accurately identify and ban for it despite not frequently being targets. Just because victims of white supremacy/racism finally have input doesn't mean those terms are being diminished, they are simply being enlightened. Yes, this is precisely the victimhood narrative that I’m glad isn’t overshadowing forum standards. On December 29 2017 02:02 Plansix wrote:
Alright this thread is the wrong venue, my opinion on the subject is that TL is pretty tolerant of polite, well worded racism and will quickly ban angry opposition to that racism. Or posters who feel that even humoring the racist argument for an ethnostate is a bridge to far. Obviously if they tolerate white supremacy accusations everywhere, they must also tolerate discussion of alt-right views and applications. They end in the same place. The hell are you talking about victimhood narrative? Are you disputing the definitions of racism and white supremacy you prefer predate their targets having input on their meaning? Dang: The moderators do a fine job identifying and banning for racism despite attempts to expand the definition or allege they can’t know from never having experienced it. GH: The expanded definitions don’t diminish the term. They’re the result of victims of white supremacy finally getting a voice. The term is now enlightened. By corollary, the moderation team is insufficiently knowledgeable of former silenced victims properly adjusting the term. The victimhood narrative is there exist silenced victims now speaking out should that should alter perceptions of racist speech. You stated it pretty succinctly yourself, and I applaud your honesty.
Gotcha, so actually oppressed people being shut out of being able to influence the definitions of the words addressing their oppression is a "victimhood narrative" unworthy of your respect, but the cry baby victimhood persecuted white conservative crap you've been on for months is legitimate and should be taken seriously.
You are a parody of yourself at this point.
|
On December 29 2017 03:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2017 02:59 Danglars wrote:On December 29 2017 02:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2017 02:23 Danglars wrote:On December 29 2017 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2017 01:47 Danglars wrote:On December 29 2017 01:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2017 01:38 Danglars wrote:On December 29 2017 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2017 00:53 Danglars wrote:
Quite obviously, your definition and examples of racism are not shared by others, GH. They are quite obviously shared by quite a few people, just not any other mods besides Kwark as far as we can tell right now. A vocal minority, to be sure. But a minority nonetheless. The majority just rolls its eyes at the latest race-baiting and racism-crusades. It’s hardly worth posting about since it’s the same spin and false outrage every single time. I’m very glad the moderators do not stifle debate to comply with this minority that paint racism with a ridiculously large brush. I’ve leveled a lot of criticism of the moderation team in this thread before, so I’m probably due to point out an area that they’re functioning quite well in currently. I mean, we obviously occupy different realities so I don't see anything to be gained indulging your fantasies here. I'd agree most people on TL don't really care much about racism, largely because they aren't the target of it or the accompanying systemic oppression and habitual violations of our rights. To the crowds credit, some people did say it like it is. To the contrary, I expect they care very deeply about keeping their forum free of it. They just don’t diminish the word by overlabeling it like some want. I also think they can accurately identify and ban for it despite not frequently being targets. Just because victims of white supremacy/racism finally have input doesn't mean those terms are being diminished, they are simply being enlightened. Yes, this is precisely the victimhood narrative that I’m glad isn’t overshadowing forum standards. On December 29 2017 02:02 Plansix wrote:
Alright this thread is the wrong venue, my opinion on the subject is that TL is pretty tolerant of polite, well worded racism and will quickly ban angry opposition to that racism. Or posters who feel that even humoring the racist argument for an ethnostate is a bridge to far. Obviously if they tolerate white supremacy accusations everywhere, they must also tolerate discussion of alt-right views and applications. They end in the same place. The hell are you talking about victimhood narrative? Are you disputing the definitions of racism and white supremacy you prefer predate their targets having input on their meaning? Dang: The moderators do a fine job identifying and banning for racism despite attempts to expand the definition or allege they can’t know from never having experienced it. GH: The expanded definitions don’t diminish the term. They’re the result of victims of white supremacy finally getting a voice. The term is now enlightened. By corollary, the moderation team is insufficiently knowledgeable of former silenced victims properly adjusting the term. The victimhood narrative is there exist silenced victims now speaking out should that should alter perceptions of racist speech. You stated it pretty succinctly yourself, and I applaud your honesty. Gotcha, so actually oppressed people being shut out of being able to influence the definitions of the words addressing their oppression is a "victimhood narrative" unworthy of your respect, but the cry baby victimhood persecuted white conservative crap you've been on for months is legitimate and should be taken seriously. You are a parody of yourself at this point.
You’ve got the kernel of the truth here. By all means, call out other victimhood narratives that you think are false. It doesn’t preclude your own identification and exposition of an orthogonal or competing one.
|
On December 29 2017 03:23 KwarK wrote:
The reality is that it's not possible to provide a space for mainstream political opinions within the United States while also disallowing racism.
I feel like there is some middle of the road. Like the 14 words as rehashed by Vox day not being acceptable and warning worthy.
|
On December 29 2017 03:43 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2017 03:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2017 02:59 Danglars wrote:On December 29 2017 02:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2017 02:23 Danglars wrote:On December 29 2017 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2017 01:47 Danglars wrote:On December 29 2017 01:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2017 01:38 Danglars wrote:On December 29 2017 01:26 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
They are quite obviously shared by quite a few people, just not any other mods besides Kwark as far as we can tell right now. A vocal minority, to be sure. But a minority nonetheless. The majority just rolls its eyes at the latest race-baiting and racism-crusades. It’s hardly worth posting about since it’s the same spin and false outrage every single time. I’m very glad the moderators do not stifle debate to comply with this minority that paint racism with a ridiculously large brush. I’ve leveled a lot of criticism of the moderation team in this thread before, so I’m probably due to point out an area that they’re functioning quite well in currently. I mean, we obviously occupy different realities so I don't see anything to be gained indulging your fantasies here. I'd agree most people on TL don't really care much about racism, largely because they aren't the target of it or the accompanying systemic oppression and habitual violations of our rights. To the crowds credit, some people did say it like it is. To the contrary, I expect they care very deeply about keeping their forum free of it. They just don’t diminish the word by overlabeling it like some want. I also think they can accurately identify and ban for it despite not frequently being targets. Just because victims of white supremacy/racism finally have input doesn't mean those terms are being diminished, they are simply being enlightened. Yes, this is precisely the victimhood narrative that I’m glad isn’t overshadowing forum standards. On December 29 2017 02:02 Plansix wrote:
Alright this thread is the wrong venue, my opinion on the subject is that TL is pretty tolerant of polite, well worded racism and will quickly ban angry opposition to that racism. Or posters who feel that even humoring the racist argument for an ethnostate is a bridge to far. Obviously if they tolerate white supremacy accusations everywhere, they must also tolerate discussion of alt-right views and applications. They end in the same place. The hell are you talking about victimhood narrative? Are you disputing the definitions of racism and white supremacy you prefer predate their targets having input on their meaning? Dang: The moderators do a fine job identifying and banning for racism despite attempts to expand the definition or allege they can’t know from never having experienced it. GH: The expanded definitions don’t diminish the term. They’re the result of victims of white supremacy finally getting a voice. The term is now enlightened. By corollary, the moderation team is insufficiently knowledgeable of former silenced victims properly adjusting the term. The victimhood narrative is there exist silenced victims now speaking out should that should alter perceptions of racist speech. You stated it pretty succinctly yourself, and I applaud your honesty. Gotcha, so actually oppressed people being shut out of being able to influence the definitions of the words addressing their oppression is a "victimhood narrative" unworthy of your respect, but the cry baby victimhood persecuted white conservative crap you've been on for months is legitimate and should be taken seriously. You are a parody of yourself at this point. You’ve got the kernel of the truth here. By all means, call out other victimhood narratives that you think are false. It doesn’t preclude your own identification and exposition of an orthogonal or competing one.
So this is confirmation you take your own victimhood narrative seriously?
|
On December 29 2017 04:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2017 03:43 Danglars wrote:On December 29 2017 03:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2017 02:59 Danglars wrote:On December 29 2017 02:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2017 02:23 Danglars wrote:On December 29 2017 01:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2017 01:47 Danglars wrote:On December 29 2017 01:40 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 29 2017 01:38 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
A vocal minority, to be sure. But a minority nonetheless. The majority just rolls its eyes at the latest race-baiting and racism-crusades. It’s hardly worth posting about since it’s the same spin and false outrage every single time.
I’m very glad the moderators do not stifle debate to comply with this minority that paint racism with a ridiculously large brush. I’ve leveled a lot of criticism of the moderation team in this thread before, so I’m probably due to point out an area that they’re functioning quite well in currently. I mean, we obviously occupy different realities so I don't see anything to be gained indulging your fantasies here. I'd agree most people on TL don't really care much about racism, largely because they aren't the target of it or the accompanying systemic oppression and habitual violations of our rights. To the crowds credit, some people did say it like it is. To the contrary, I expect they care very deeply about keeping their forum free of it. They just don’t diminish the word by overlabeling it like some want. I also think they can accurately identify and ban for it despite not frequently being targets. Just because victims of white supremacy/racism finally have input doesn't mean those terms are being diminished, they are simply being enlightened. Yes, this is precisely the victimhood narrative that I’m glad isn’t overshadowing forum standards. On December 29 2017 02:02 Plansix wrote:
Alright this thread is the wrong venue, my opinion on the subject is that TL is pretty tolerant of polite, well worded racism and will quickly ban angry opposition to that racism. Or posters who feel that even humoring the racist argument for an ethnostate is a bridge to far. Obviously if they tolerate white supremacy accusations everywhere, they must also tolerate discussion of alt-right views and applications. They end in the same place. The hell are you talking about victimhood narrative? Are you disputing the definitions of racism and white supremacy you prefer predate their targets having input on their meaning? Dang: The moderators do a fine job identifying and banning for racism despite attempts to expand the definition or allege they can’t know from never having experienced it. GH: The expanded definitions don’t diminish the term. They’re the result of victims of white supremacy finally getting a voice. The term is now enlightened. By corollary, the moderation team is insufficiently knowledgeable of former silenced victims properly adjusting the term. The victimhood narrative is there exist silenced victims now speaking out should that should alter perceptions of racist speech. You stated it pretty succinctly yourself, and I applaud your honesty. Gotcha, so actually oppressed people being shut out of being able to influence the definitions of the words addressing their oppression is a "victimhood narrative" unworthy of your respect, but the cry baby victimhood persecuted white conservative crap you've been on for months is legitimate and should be taken seriously. You are a parody of yourself at this point. You’ve got the kernel of the truth here. By all means, call out other victimhood narratives that you think are false. It doesn’t preclude your own identification and exposition of an orthogonal or competing one. So this is confirmation you take your own victimhood narrative seriously?
The specifics are probably better served for the main thread when there’s topic relevance. You probably know well enough from my past posting my thoughts on the matter (no matter how you choose to represent them nowadays).
|
clarification question since I've only been intermittently following over the holiday season and miss a lot of responses:
so advocating ethnic cleansing is permissible as long as it's done civilly/politely?
|
Well you do it in a way where it isn't ethnic cleansing. In the ethnostate discussion, it is some proposed magic system where "western culture" rules and all those not into western culture leave. Magically.
Basically you advocate for something that would require or is ethnic cleansing, but say you oppose ethnic cleansing.
|
On December 29 2017 06:13 zlefin wrote:
clarification question since I've only been intermittently following over the holiday season and miss a lot of responses:
so advocating ethnic cleansing is permissible as long as it's done civilly/politely?
Mohdoo wasn’t talking about racial inferiority or any of that shit.
|
On December 29 2017 06:45 Plansix wrote:
Well you do it in a way where it isn't ethnic cleansing. In the ethnostate discussion, it is some proposed magic system where "western culture" rules and all those not into western culture leave. Magically.
Basically you advocate for something that would require or is ethnic cleansing, but say you oppose ethnic cleansing.
I believe I've seen the term "peaceful genocide" or something like that thrown around to describe it.
|
On December 25 2017 13:04 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2017 23:56 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
TL has zero tolerance non-blatant racism, my arse. It would be wonderful if it was true. Meanwhile testie is still around after writing that all black and brown people are genetically disposed to committing crimes, and it took, what, a couple of years of that former staff member of spewing racial hatred on this forum, emboldening others to post the same, before he got quietly removed from TL?
"near immunity" as long as you are admired for bw contributions would be more accurate. Who was that? I must have missed it (seriously, drawing a blank).
There was that xkcd guy. He was a staff member and couldn't be reported. And so he was free to spread his hatred on TL. But I'm sure mods and admins must have gotten plenty of pm's. I can't find him so I probably got his name wrong or something. In the end it took him for advocating genocide against all muslims before he was removed from being staff. He wasn't officially banned or warned or anything either, just removed.
But hey, testie is still around after writing that all black and brown people are genetically disposed to committing crimes, what zero tolerance can be claimed?
\If you want staff members and bw players to be free to write anything they like, and be free to write anything that would get others banned, hey that's your perogative, but then you can't turn around and say that you do infact have zero tolerance towards it.
|
humph, about the quality of moderation I expected. shame. (referring to my earlier and still unanswered question)
oh well, onto another matter:
i've been wondering if there's a way to have more positive reinforcement for good posting. seems like we don' tmake as much use of it as we should; there's probably some way to add some.
|
On January 07 2018 09:16 zlefin wrote:
humph, about the quality of moderation I expected. shame. (referring to my earlier and still unanswered question)
oh well, onto another matter:
i've been wondering if there's a way to have more positive reinforcement for good posting. seems like we don' tmake as much use of it as we should; there's probably some way to add some.
You can gift me TL+ if you want^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
