Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
I agree with you 100% and I made similar points in the election thread. Even if the right wing found one credible account of a Haitian immigrant eating a pet, it wouldn't prove anything and it wouldn't justify whipping up sentiment against Haitian immigrants. And to your point, of course you can find examples of white people eating dogs. Here is a story about a white guy get
I don't understand which rules are applying now, can we discuss this or not then? you keep discussing it while crossnerd says this whole topic is racism and so forbidden.
It was racist thing for Trump to allege, and racists who are repeating it. Obviously you can talk about the fact that it was said and its implications on communities. I can’t really moderate the fact that the former president of the USA repeats racist nonsense on a national stage. I was just cautioning anyone to not make the allegation the hill they want to die on here, because it will be moderated, regardless of whether or not Trump says it too.
It was racist thing for Trump to allege, and racists who are repeating it. Obviously you can talk about the fact that it was said and its implications on communities. I can’t really moderate the fact that the former president of the USA repeats racist nonsense on a national stage. I was just cautioning anyone to not make the allegation the hill they want to die on here, b
If proof emerges, is it still racist to say that? and what would work as proof? say a video of a barbecue of cats in a town neighbouring Springfield, would that work as proof or not?
The actual rules are of secondary importance to the boot stomping onto the face of posters.
Do you hang out with Trolleycar?
If proof emerges, is it still racist to say that? and what would work as proof? say a video of a barbecue of cats in a town neighbouring Springfield, would that work as proof or not?
Keep going, Corporal
idk what you're suggesting but if this is a reference to Trolly the poster you're in breach of CN's rule about not altering posters' names for rhetorical purposes.
I don't know why you want to troll people who try to understand the contours of rules in order to follow them properly, and do that in the appropriate thread.
idk what you're suggesting but if this is a reference to Trolly the poster you're in breach of CN's rule about not altering posters' names for rhetorical purposes.
Nah, we walked that one back. Just don’t change peoples user names to slurs etc.
Or we could just lock you up with them instead. Easier.
Why are you complaining in this forum about Betraisefold? He wasn't banned by a Politics mod.
Why are you complaining in this forum about Betraisefold? He wasn't banned by a Politics mod.
oh also Free jbouton
I'm going to create an account called "blowjobs", post some stuff that Victor likes (Israel bad, mods bad, Stalin good, that sort of thing), then get myself banned. That way Victor can spend the rest of eternity screaming "free blowjobs" ITT.
I often compare Stalin to people like Churchill so I dont think its really fair to accuse me of saying hes good.
wish he would post the tweet and be done with it already. "proof" should not be stifled
I agree with you 100% and I made similar points in the election thread. Even if the right wing found one credible account of a Haitian immigrant eating a pet, it wouldn't prove anything and it wouldn't justify whipping up sentiment against Haitian immigrants. And to your point, of course you can find examples of white people eating dogs. Here is a story about a white guy get
I think Crossnerd correctly recognizes that it's xenophobic, but doesn't want to use xenophobia to wield the banhammer so she calls it racist instead despite how dubious that is, and as a result we're in the situation we're in here.
Had she just argued that it's xenophobic and that we're banning for that, I think there would be less pushback.
I don't see why she would be more reluctant to ban someone for overt xenophobia than she would be to ban someone for overt racism.
I don't see why she would be more reluctant to ban someone for overt xenophobia than she would be to ban someone for overt racism.
I wouldn’t be.
I don't see why she would be more reluctant to ban someone for overt xenophobia than she would be to ban someone for overt racism.
Racism is seen as stronger than xenophobia, obviously.
well then how about the outright xenophobic articles being posted about china acting as if eating rats is the norm
