You get to define what "we" you belong to. You don't get to define who else belongs in it.
Exactly. Ajax is every bit part of the "we" of this forum as am I. If you guys want to lobby to have me excommunicated over a devout Nazi, well I'm not here to argue as in my view that says far more about you and the "we" of this forum than anything I've said or done.
With everyone, my view is we aren't bettered by soloing off into camps of combatants. Rather, as with Ajax I believe a bit of introspection on your part is the solution, and if the group here on the board finds an action on your part offensive then perhaps questioning why is a positive step.
One chooses the "why" to understand and evolve their beliefs and actions with much consideration, or one is tossed about as ones emotions are manipulated and driven by those willing to do anything to gain power unchecked by any other "why" than their own ambitions.
And I argue it is a natural extension of dehumanizing people with whom one disagrees politically. You may feel this is the time to speak out. I argue that time was long before one reaches this point and to protest is much like one sees many on the right distancing themselves from the extreme activities from January 6th and other talk.
If a person claims they only argue that the 2020 election was fraudulent and nothing more, is that a defense against those who take those claims and act on them through violence and sedition?
But someone might say, "The fraud claim is a lie while calling all people who voted for Trump racists and no longer deserving even the barest common courtesy is factual." I can no more support the claim gross stereotyping of a class of people is not dehumanizing as I could Biden is a pedophile Chinese plant waiting to turn the US into a socialist satellite of Beijing. Both are diversions from addressing reality.
I'm not making a political argument. I am stating that wishing death on another person is inappropriate language within our forum. I made a report the first time I saw it, a couple months ago, and I saw it again, made a report again, but in light of our moderation problem, thought it merited a post.
So to reiterate, the point of this thread is to talk about whether 'wishing death' on a poster is appropriate language. I can see that you see a larger topic within, so please, start your own thread about that. I will enjoy reading it, as I value your opinions.
Policing behaviors requires law, right? And Law require a form of jurisprudence to guide it or it is merely whim.
My view is the problem seeking redress is challenged by the fact the board has tolerated the attitudes and beliefs that the expression arose out of so the fact Shades hasn't seen fit to moderate the statement is not inconsistent.
Now I personally agree with you that Icarus is in the wrong and should refrain from wishing death on Ajax. I just happen to think the remedy requires the community considering how it contributed to it as the community debates the issue with Icarus rather than seeking Shades to intervene on the request of a couple of individuals. Much like I think the remedy to the violence among the Right is best remedied by the community disowning the beliefs and claims that fed it rather than just trying to disown the individuals they felt took things too far.
...Now I personally agree with you that Icarus is in the wrong and should refrain from wishing death on Ajax. I just happen to think the remedy requires the community considering how it contributed to it as the community debates the issue with Icarus rather than seeking Shades to intervene on the request of a couple of individuals.
I actually agree with you on that, also. However, last time we tried that, Shades gave out a Jubilee, and the trolling continued unabated. I'm asking for a much smaller starting solution, simply that statements 'wishing death' be deleted. Please note, I'm not making an individual and personal request for intervention, as the troll somehow managed to do when he convinced mods to delete comments that specifically called him a 'troll'.
I am only noting that 'wishing death' on a person seems to violate our rules, and asking that such comments be deleted.
Last edited by Lem on Sun Jan 17, 2021 7:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I don't believe being intolerant demands becoming unprincipled. One can engage in opposition, refusing to tolerate certain behaviors or attitudes by not being silently complicit.
But I also believe strongly that to become unprincipled in the name of intolerance because one believes the world is involved in total war is to tolerate being unprincipled. And to side with the intolerable in the destruction of our foundational values and principles? That is intolerable.
I don't believe being intolerant demands becoming unprincipled. One can engage in opposition, refusing to tolerate certain behaviors or attitudes by not being silently complicit.
But I also believe strongly that to become unprincipled in the name of intolerance because one believes the world is involved in total war is to tolerate being unprincipled. And to side with the intolerable in the destruction of our foundational values and principles? That is intolerable.
In this stressful time, it is a great comfort that we have been granted this insight into the subtleties of honorentheos's ethical perceptions. It is so good to know that he is there for us.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
I am only noting that 'wishing death' on a person seems to violate our rules, and asking that such comments be deleted.
I think your proposal to Shades will ultimately be successful. Not because I think Shades will necessarily agree that Icarus did something wrong. Rather it's because by publicly making it clear you have used the board-provided report feature to make the moderation team aware of multiple incidents over the course of weeks exposes the board to some degree of liability were Ajax to pursue a legal complaint against Icarus. Not to say he would or wouldn't nor that it would have much merit as the facts seem to now stand.
Whatever else gets argued here, exposing the board to legal action is the truly unforgivable sin that gets moderator action. I think EA probably spent more energy than we appreciate making this apparent to Shades in cases on the old board where Shades hesitated from jumping in.
I am only noting that 'wishing death' on a person seems to violate our rules, and asking that such comments be deleted.
I think your proposal to Shades will ultimately be successful. Not because I think Shades will necessarily agree that Icarus did something wrong. Rather it's because by publicly making it clear you have used the board-provided report feature to make the moderation team aware of multiple incidents over the course of weeks exposes the board to some degree of liability were Ajax to pursue a legal complaint against Icarus. Not to say he would or wouldn't nor that it would have much merit as the facts seem to now stand.
Whatever else gets argued here, exposing the board to legal action is the truly unforgivable sin that gets moderator action. I think EA probably spent more energy than we appreciate making this apparent to Shades in cases on the old board where Shades hesitated from jumping in.
I hardly think this issue contains anything legally actionable, nor was my post made with any attempt to expose anything to legal action.
The only thing I am commenting on is the act of wishing death on another human being in a post, and asking that such statements be deleted.
I think your proposal to Shades will ultimately be successful. Not because I think Shades will necessarily agree that Icarus did something wrong. Rather it's because by publicly making it clear you have used the board-provided report feature to make the moderation team aware of multiple incidents over the course of weeks exposes the board to some degree of liability were Ajax to pursue a legal complaint against Icarus. Not to say he would or wouldn't nor that it would have much merit as the facts seem to now stand.
Whatever else gets argued here, exposing the board to legal action is the truly unforgivable sin that gets moderator action. I think EA probably spent more energy than we appreciate making this apparent to Shades in cases on the old board where Shades hesitated from jumping in.
I hardly think this issue contains anything legally actionable, nor was my post made with any attempt to expose anything to legal action.
The only thing I am commenting on is the act of sincerely wishing death on another human being in a post, and asking that they be deleted.
Ah, but here's the dilemma. For Shades to take action the issue has to be understood as posing a threat to the board. While the principle involved is "higher" and one with which I tend to agree (one shouldn't wish death on another human being) I suspect from experience that fact alone won't lead Shades to take moderator action.
So the unfortunate reality is nothing would be done in the name of good principles. But by complaining publicly that the moderator failed to act on knowledge of a threat made towards another poster it reveals the exposure that Shades can't afford to ignore. Intentions aside, this is how the board has always worked in the decade or so I've participated.
I hardly think this issue contains anything legally actionable, nor was my post made with any attempt to expose anything to legal action.
The only thing I am commenting on is the act of sincerely wishing death on another human being in a post, and asking that they be deleted.
Ah, but here's the dilemma. For Shades to take action the issue has to be understood as posing a threat to the board. While the principle involved is "higher" and one with which I tend to agree (one shouldn't wish death on another human being) I suspect from experience that fact alone won't lead Shades to take moderator action.
So the unfortunate reality is nothing would be done in the name of good principles. But by complaining publicly that the moderator failed to act on knowledge of a threat made towards another poster it reveals the exposure that Shades can't afford to ignore. Intentions aside, this is how the board has always worked in the decade or so I've participated.
WOW. the things you learn. This post leaves me saddened.
Ah, but here's the dilemma. For Shades to take action the issue has to be understood as posing a threat to the board. While the principle involved is "higher" and one with which I tend to agree (one shouldn't wish death on another human being) I suspect from experience that fact alone won't lead Shades to take moderator action.
So the unfortunate reality is nothing would be done in the name of good principles. But by complaining publicly that the moderator failed to act on knowledge of a threat made towards another poster it reveals the exposure that Shades can't afford to ignore. Intentions aside, this is how the board has always worked in the decade or so I've participated.
Just to clarify then, by your analysis of the last decade, are you suggesting that mentalgymnast got mods to take the unusual action of deleting comments where he was called a troll because he threatened Shades with legal action off the board?