This forum tried democracy with all the poll shit on every tiny thing and it was a fucking disaster. it’s really dishonest to pretend that can ever work in an environment where people consistently try to undermine the process with bad faith, harassment by bad faith posters of posters/mods into quitting (i mean we just saw it literally play out 5 mins ago), usually to promote their own grudges or sub forum goals, vote manipulation, or people just not wanting to vote at all on every tiny decision. we literally saw an example of how terrible it was in the not too distant past.
having a community where every member must pre approve an entry into the sacred clique is not democracy, it’s augusta not allowing blacks til the 90’s. and I find that so dishonest to argue that it is. of course if everyone agrees on who can post, there will be fewer disagreemnts and thus bans.
democracy involves dealing with people and viewpoints you dont like and dont agree with.this forum’s done a pretty good job of having very, very few perma’s for how many members and bickerings/disagreements there have been. I mean ive probably been banned for 30-40% of this forum’s entire history (still dont know the reason for the last one btw)
It’s why there are essentially no agreed on “official” rules; JohnnyTruant shepherded the original drafting of the rules and put together polls on them but of the 11 proposed rules only 6 passed the initial vote and the remaining 5 mostly fell into the “I like this rule, but it needs discussion and rewriting” bucket that no one had the time or energy to bother with.
You think Risky and Wichita are great friends of Clovis’? I’m not saying they aren’t (sure am not saying they are), but you know what this is? This is you assuming clovis and wichita must only be bothered by transphobia because they are friends with Risky. You assume this…because…you…are…tran_____.
Do you believe that it is impossible for an objective person to ban simplicitus or that Risky was not being objective but another person could have been?
I believe that Risky has
(1) demonstrated a willingness to abuse her power (demonstrated by the CN ban and the fact that simp’s was permanent)
(2) demonstrated fringe views on the specific topic that simp was banned for and would likely consider the uncensored views of ~60% of the population on that topic to be “hate speech”
(3) demonstrated a lack of objectivity in this case by referring to simp as a “dangerous sociopath” which is patently absurd even if you believe his posts were ban worthy.
In theory, an “objective” person could come to all kinds of decisions because as far as I can tell there are no well defined rules, which makes it even more important not to empower people with fringe views who have no qualms about dishing out bans for questionable reasons.
Do you believe that speech can’t be hate speech if enough people agree with it? Do you think her views are fringe when compared to the type of people who post here rather than the “mainstream”?
I’m not going to say I think simplicitus is a “dangerous sociopath”, but I think the possibility is at least worth considering, so I don’t think it’s patently absurd for someone else to consider him as such.
Refer to my conversation with rugby. Hate speech is not well defined. In my opinion, if one is using the label of hate speech for the purposes of defining banned content, it should not apply to very commonly held views.
In general, you have to accept a specific viewpoint to view the vast vast majority of what simp posted (pre ban, on this website specifically) as hate speech. Since that viewpoint is not commonly accepted, his posts would not commonly be viewed as hate speech.
To some extent, but certainly a much smaller extent.
I’m not sure what the logical moderation policy would be for a political message board in Nazi Germany, but wake me up when someone advocates for putting an ethnic group in camps. This kind of comparison only serves to highlight how far Simp was from “real” hate speech.
We are in a situation where sides are very clearly divided. Arguably, the Republican Party has mainstreamed some hate speech. I don’t think being mainstreamed turns hate speech into not hate speech.
I think this should be a progressive-leaning site that takes a progressive view of what hate speech is and whether it is acceptable. I don’t see this place as a neutral political message board. I don’t think it should be a neutral political message board.
I think if you want to explicitly prohibit some viewpoints you should just do it outright instead of leaning on “hate speech” classifications which are going to be extremely debatable outside of really extreme cases.
The majority of responses to your poll say they didn’t know she would ban simp lol, what are you even talking about? “Yes and I voted for her” is at 40%.
But also, fuck you, I’ll post what I want up to and unless someone stops me. You don’t appear to have any authority (or the ability to read the results of your own poll) so you can fuck right off.
I lean towards having a definition of “hate speech” analogous to a living constitution rather than originalism, but if we did it your way, I would definitely push to have trans people explicitly included among groups who are protected.
If I were to analyze that poll, I’d probably start by ignoring the people who didn’t vote. Then, I would note that Risky said she voted no, but she actually voted yes.