EPT
(Although, again, with the note that I think moderating racism is very difficult. ) US Politics Feedback Thread - Page 97
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
Liquid`Drone
Norway28605 Posts
(Although, again, with the note that I think moderating racism is very difficult. ) | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22999 Posts
On February 05 2018 21:52 Liquid`Drone wrote: I honestly haven't paid attention to the MLK ad or squabble surrounding it - so I can't really comment on the 'it's stupid to be offended by the MLK ad'. I'm inclined to think that I agree with you that racism and exploitation of black citizens is casually accepted in a way that anti-semitism isn't, though, and that thus, it is not stupid to be offended by the MLK ad, and that the statement might well be casually racist in a similar way that 'the country is run by jews' is casually anti-semitic. But this is an argument for not accepting the former, not for accepting the latter. (Although, again, with the note that I think moderating racism is very difficult. ) But moderating antisemitism is so much easier because it's simply unacceptable. While racism needs a consensus of white/Asian men to decide it's racist. Since it is impossible to get privileged white/asian men to agree on what is racism, the only sensible solution is to ban antisemitism and accept racism. If it's not obvious, my complaint isn't that more antisemitism should be acceptable, but that you need to do a better job of checking the racism you allow here, point blank, period. | ||
Nixer
2774 Posts
On February 05 2018 21:57 GreenHorizons wrote: But moderating antisemitism is so much easier because it's simply unacceptable. While racism needs a consensus of white/Asian men to decide it's racist. Since it is impossible to get privileged white/asian men to agree on what is racism, the only sensible solution is to ban antisemitism and accept racism. If it's not obvious, my complaint isn't that more antisemitism should be acceptable, but that you need to do a better job of checking the racism you allow here, point blank, period. Reign in your emotions for a bit. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22999 Posts
Or I'll just call em like I see em. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28605 Posts
I entirely agree with your complaint and accept that I'm an accessory.  But I really, really don't know where the line should be drawn for 'casual racism' - not about 'what degree of it should be acceptable', but in the sense that I genuinely don't know how to identify it - aside from the completely obvious situations. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22999 Posts
On February 05 2018 22:16 Liquid`Drone wrote: That is a really fair point and I don't have a good counter-argument aside from that it's difficult and time/energy-consuming in a way that volunteer positions will struggle with upholding the ideals. Anti-semitic catch-phrases are so established that there is little or no argument regarding whether they are anti-semitic, whereas 'casually racist' statements end up causing loads of discussion about whether they are racist - precisely as you describe. I entirely agree with your complaint and accept that I'm an accessory. But I really, really don't know where the line should be drawn for 'casual racism' - not about 'what degree of it should be acceptable', but in the sense that I genuinely don't know how to identify it - aside from the completely obvious situations. I think my position can best be summed up by saying "Expect better, do better". I appreciate the awareness, but it needs action or it's practically worthless. EDIT: It may help to think about the last time you thought something might be racist but there wasn't a consensus and the mods sided with the person denoting the perceived racism and actioned/banned the accused. That you likely can't (or the particular circumstances of the situation where it happened) is kinda the point. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22999 Posts
On February 06 2018 03:35 IgnE wrote: why is change in awareness not considered an action? iirc this isn't a change | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13818 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22999 Posts
On February 06 2018 13:23 Sermokala wrote: I think one of the issues is that its hard to gain a consensus on what exactly is banable racism and what is passable racism beacuse GH tends to explode at anything he perseveres as racism and no one else really does. Its a weak argument to say that it takes a majority of white/asian people to decide something is racist first when the community is almost all white/asian. You can't hold yourself up as the only authority of whats racist and whats not even if you don't intend for that to happen. I wish you could actually see me explode and not politely request people not to say offensively ignorant things. It's not a weak argument, it's a statement of fact. I'm not holding myself up as the only authority of what's racist and what's not even if you want to see it that way. My critique isn't complicated or excessive, I'm simply pointing out if they actually want to do better one way would be not to expect a group of white and Asian men to unanimously agree on what is (less overtly) racist or isn't and simply error on the side of actioning something that's potentially racist even if some people think it wasn't (actionably) racist. Unless the problem isn't so much that there isn't unanimous agreement, but that it's in favor of finding the racism acceptable. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13818 Posts
Do you not see a problem with you insisting that anything even potentially racist should be actioned? Do you not see a problem with the perception that it might be you abusing that ability for you to accuse someone of being racist and them being actioned for that? Thats you holding yourself up as the authority of whats racist and whats not. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22999 Posts
On February 06 2018 14:39 Sermokala wrote: I'm not saying you're inentionaly holding yourself up as the only authority as whats racist and whats not I'm saying thats what ends up happening more often then not when you say someones racist and no ones going to step up and dispute you because they aren't black. Do you not see a problem with you insisting that anything even potentially racist should be actioned? Do you not see a problem with the perception that it might be you abusing that ability for you to accuse someone of being racist and them being actioned for that? Thats you holding yourself up as the authority of whats racist and whats not. You're insisting I'm doing something I'm not doing in order to make an argument against something I'm not doing and suggesting that your perceived lack of awareness on my part doesn't invalidate that what you insist I'm doing is problematic. That makes it a bit convoluted for me to respond to, but I'll give it a shot. I don't usually say that people are racist. There's a few reasons for that, but it is what it is. I do point out racist things people do and say in relation to US politics, it's an important distinction. I'm not sure how many times I've suggested something was racist and it wasn't challenged (or ignored) but perhaps you remember those instances more clearly than I do. I don't think "anything even potentially racist should be actioned". I see a lot of problems with "the perception that it might be you abusing that ability for you to accuse someone of being racist and them being actioned for that?" but probably not the ones you are. I don't hold myself up as the authority of what is racist and what's not. I am one of few with a particular perspective/experience with racism that literally none of the people currently making (mod level) determinations on such can share. So while there's no shortage of white/Asian male perspectives/experiences (save maybe deep social interactions with black people and women in particular) on the related subject matter there's not a lot of Black perspective/experiences. So, as such, I think my thoughts (moreso noted thinkers I quote on occasion) on the matters have a slightly disproportionate weight to them in the sense that I'm speaking both for myself and unavoidably for a large number of people not represented here. However, I don't think that makes me the authority on racism or that I should be deemed it's arbiter, nor am I as I have virtually no control over what is deemed racist either by the thread participants or the mod team. For perspective, they managed to wrangle up enough of a consensus to take action against me for pointing out someone was advocating for ethnic cleansing (they were btw), I think the idea they couldn't do a better job of gathering enough consensus to action posts perceived as racist more frequently (what I'm actually requesting, despite your insistence otherwise) is silly. The question is do they want to do better or just provide excuses as to why it's hard? | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13818 Posts
You're insisting that it would be reasonable for people to default on actioning people instead of not actioning people when someone is accused of being racist and there is a lack of consensus. That is insisting on actioning people that are being potentially racist. You don't accept reality as getting in the way of your arguments. Thats commendable when you're debating points but its insane when you insist on people accepting it in any real way. We get it that things could be better stop just insisting that it should be better. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22999 Posts
On February 06 2018 17:33 Sermokala wrote: I'm not saying you're presenting yourself as "the authority" I'm saying you present yourself as "a authority" and in the absence of another "a authority" that by default it makes you "the authority" or in such a state that you are acting in it if you want to or not want to, including when its not your intention to. You're insisting that it would be reasonable for people to default on actioning people instead of not actioning people when someone is accused of being racist and there is a lack of consensus. That is insisting on actioning people that are being potentially racist. You don't accept reality as getting in the way of your arguments. Thats commendable when you're debating points but its insane when you insist on people accepting it in any real way. We get it that things could be better stop just insisting that it should be better. Since you insist on not understanding what I'm saying I suspect this will be my last try. I think we're not communicating on "the authority" part so I'm not going to try that again I'm not saying default to actioning people accused of racism. I'm saying that if they want to do a better job of policing casual racism they should sometimes action against those in which the accusation of unacceptable racism isn't universally agreed on by a group of white/Asian men. I feel like that's a pretty self-apparent argument. And no, I don't mean to choose them randomly (though that would probably still be better than doing nothing). I mean if the avg ratio is ~4 - 4 on whether is something is racist (using arbitrary numbers here) and the typical threshold for actioning something reported on the basis of being racist is 8-0 in favor of actioning then maybe look at lowering the threshold and/or broadening their perspective/experience regarding racism. Both of these would likely result in posts perceived as racist being actioned more frequently and generally improve TL's performance regarding policing casually racist posts. Alternatively they are free not to, but I would appreciate them at least confronting what that means. If they are curious what I mean, I suspect Kwark would be willing to provide them some insight. EDIT: Yup, that's my last try with you. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13818 Posts
You are advocating for people to be actioned if they are suspected of being racist but without agreement that they are racist. You don't understand why arbitrary enforcement of rules is an issue. You present yourself as having a superior perspective on whats racist and whats not. You ignore the lack of any other acceptable perspective as any issue with your perspective of the issue. You refuse to acept difficulties or legitimate problems as "excuses and acepting racism". I'm trying to break this down as much as possible for you to respond to where along the track in getting it wrong. You dont even really counterpoint anything I say just that its wrong which feels like you don't acept any of it as legitimate. You don't propose any compromise anywhere even when you say that random banning of acused people would be better or even the possibility of people who arnt racist being actioned. Edit: lol good to see how thin your argument really is. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On January 27 2018 14:39 Introvert wrote: That's a theory so lightly threaded no one else proposes it (and that's saying something). And one reason, of course, is that the number 33000 had in fact been in the news before. But there is an even better part: the number 33000 is wrong. It's actually a little less than 32000 (which was also in the news). So the wiz-bang Russian lawyer gave him the wrong number. lol In fact, that error supports the idea that he had 33000 as the number in his head because it was the number of emails turned over the government. Rest assured, there is a reason no one else wonders about this question. Notice how you ignored the "30 minutes" number. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22999 Posts
On February 06 2018 23:12 Sermokala wrote: You're the one whos refusing to think you might be wrong and not accepting that you might not understand what I'm saying. You are advocating for people to be actioned if they are suspected of being racist but without agreement that they are racist. You don't understand why arbitrary enforcement of rules is an issue. You present yourself as having a superior perspective on whats racist and whats not. You ignore the lack of any other acceptable perspective as any issue with your perspective of the issue. You refuse to acept difficulties or legitimate problems as "excuses and acepting racism". I'm trying to break this down as much as possible for you to respond to where along the track in getting it wrong. You dont even really counterpoint anything I say just that its wrong which feels like you don't acept any of it as legitimate. You don't propose any compromise anywhere even when you say that random banning of acused people would be better or even the possibility of people who arnt racist being actioned. Edit: lol good to see how thin your argument really is. I can't help you if you still don't understand it. | ||
|
Introvert
United States4682 Posts
On February 10 2018 00:13 Doodsmack wrote: Notice how you ignored the "30 minutes" number. I quite enjoy how dedicated certain posters are to Trump-Russia. You go ahead and ignore everything else and fixate on the time so you can keep this theory alive. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 10 2018 11:47 Introvert wrote: I quite enjoy how dedicated certain posters are to Trump-Russia. You go ahead and ignore everything else and fixate on the time so you can keep this theory alive. It’s a coping mechanism. I wouldn’t pay too much attention to it. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
But someday Introvert, you will implode from the cognitive dissonance. The time is only the most important and definitive part of trump knowingly accepting aid from the Russian government, but hey it's just a fixation to you. | ||
| ||
