I mean, we can—but probably shouldn’t—litigate whether the rule as stated in fact does this, but I can’t imagine supporting any rule that rules out a pro-con debate regarding the death penalty, unless I suppose you want to say that people who are for the death penalty should be guillotined. Actually you can say that because that joke is elite.
Not quite the same but
this did eventually come full circle.
Going to second the SMRK is a good poster and should stay and let us work this out.
5 Likes
Some people need to die on a cross even if they have to build the cross themselves. I know because I am one and it’s an impulse I have to constantly fight.
3 Likes
I’m using it to denote posts in which violence happens to people, like literally at the level of the proposition: there is a subject of the violence and then there’s a predicate of violent things happening to that subject.
In a word “no”. That’s not what you really want. Consider…
Peep A: “I think the death penalty should be enforced”.
That’s trivially within the proposed rule as written, as there is a subject of the violence (death row inmates) and then there’s a predicate of violent things happening to that subject (death).
If you, as you say, don’t want to rule out pro-con debates on the death penalty, the proposed rule fails. It is too broad. At best, it would need to be qualified.
Peep B: "Let’s have a fantasy thread about who’s houses should be (safely) burnt down, with all there belongings inside"
Well, that’s not violence against people, now is it? Do you feel comfortable at a website that has fantasy arson threads? If the answer is no, then the proposed rule is too narrow. At best, it would have to be broadened.
Peep C: "OK, let’s have a fantasy thread about who should have all of their belongings and assets, except the clothes on their back, stolen by non-violent con artists"
There is no violence, under any definition of the word, regard Peep C’s proposed fantasy thread. Are you comfortable with a website that has “Trading Places” drafts? If no, then it’s pretty obvious that the whole concept of “violence” is simply orthogonal to what you want to accomplish.
Which, to cut to the chase, is the truth here, as far as I can tell. And it’s the not admitting that, which seems so obvious, that some might find annoying. Thanks for your response last time. Seriously. But again, I’d like you to consider here that your concerns here aren’t really about the content of the content, but are really about the possible IRL controversy regarding the proximity of online discussion of certain content?
1 Like
Trading Places draft is actually a pretty great idea imo.
1 Like
Spoiler? I guess I don’t have to watch GoT now.
smrk is a great poster and shouldn’t leave no matter what.
This is pretty absurd. I mean none of us want to post on stormfront, but refusing to post on a website because of this is silly and I’m sure wildly inconsistent with lots of things every one of us participates in. We can argue about this stuff forever and probably will, but anyone taking their ball and going home over it is getting carried away.
6 Likes
Apologies if this removed you from the unsullied.
1 Like
No worries, was just kidding. I thought that guy bought it anyway - though I never saw it.
1 Like
There is a small part of this which is that I’m in turn befuddled how you envision attracting and retaining new posters, cultivating an online presence, and being a vehicle to publish stuff, while hosting content that people seem to grasp is problematic irl without needing a legal treatise on why it is so, even those who favor posting it. Like seriously, what is the use of it, I’d like to contribute content that may attract some eyeballs here, so they come here, and see unmoderated murder talk and leave, cool.
The greater part is, Jesus Heliogabalus Christ, if two parties are doing something kinky and one party says the safe word, I defer to the party that says the safe word rather than to the party who thinks the other is being too prudish. I’m not interested in litigating my sexual privilege that denies the world a greater pleasure, maybe I am too prudish, but “Pineapple”, curtail posting about political opponents getting murdered, we can bang again later.
4 Likes
Apparently, I can’t do this if I have a tenkeyless keyboard.
Really this argues for no rule - maybe an advisory rule - but a process where people complain and discuss and perhaps vote if necessary or perhaps the OP just deletes the offensive thread.
But we have been deferring to the people invoking the safe word. That’s one of the biggest things I just don’t understand. Some of our more sensitive users report content they find objectionable and it goes away. I’m not sure I understand what else it is you want to happen. Precog moderation?
There are other things I also don’t understand but let’s start with this. Is there currently any content on this forum you find objectionable? If so, have you flagged it for moderation?
3 Likes
I’m not trying to be dense, but I thought I put enough Wookie talk in the original draft to be advisory, this is what I sent to JT:
Posts that entertain the demise or serious harming of a specific person or political groups where most of us live for whatever purpose, whether it is to express anger, incite a rebellion, or to troll people are subject to heavy moderation starting with deletion, warnings, temporary bans, up to permanent exile at the discretion of the moderator. If your post, in whatever way, contains a violent scenario in which a person or groups end up dead, make it as fantastical and preposterous as possible, post it at most once in a while, but ultimately, consider not posting it at all.
So in hindsight, all the mean things a moderator can do to you need not be enumerated, but bolded is the advisory part. It may even be fine to change [such and such posts are] “subject to heavy moderation” to [such and such posts are] “potentially sensitive to some sackless closet neolibs here, alas these timid, miserable creatures occasionally make us laugh, so we regretfully but firmly discourage them from being made”
Now, is this anything you agree with? Is this anything the community agrees with? It doesn’t seem so, and it wouldn’t be that effective if people fundamentally don’t want the rule even in an advisory form.
C-word bro, c-word.
I wouldn’t object to something like that I guess, not that I really objected to it before.
Missile Dog and I have some good points though. State approved violence is still violence. Non-famous people crossing the border or on death row or in Syria are still people. And the obvious implications of policies are still obvious.
1 Like
fixed, and while that’s easy enough to fix, it would not have been a chore to me to avoid it in the first place
I’m obviously beyond comfortable with anybody expressing that to the full extent of their persuasive abilities, still, if you favor a remedy to that which you know someone like AoC would not be able to retweet, then I start getting nervous. What would Noam say about it? Let’s email him.
he came back w a diff name
Are you counting ‘we’ as cuserounder (who is not a mod anymore and not here at this point) unilaterally temp banning NBZ with no defined community mandate? Any other mod have any interest in locking down the kinds of posts/threads that make jman not exactly cool with being embedded in a tweet with a link to our main attraction thread where SHS or genius was tied up or whatever? Yes it went away because he happened to see it and said wtf are you guys doing, and yeah lessons were learned, until he had to say no satirical kill lists please, for apparently inscrutable reasons.
Yeah, I actually do support a kind of precog moderation, one that is distributed over individuals exercising judgment over what they post in accordance to rules we can agree on. It’s not people flagging the n-word that accounts for no n-word being used here.
Tout est bien maintenant, mais c’est possible que le mal choses habitent dans le bbv francais.
Let’s check translate and see how I did. Nailed it.
2 Likes
One could argue that AOC would benefit from the Overton window being shifted so that she is not perceived as being on the left edge of what is acceptable. It might not be correct, but I think a reasonable person could believe that.
Noam Chomsky says that antifa is a “major gift” to the far right. To what degree would support of antifa make people uncomfortable? Would someone who proudly describes wearing black and a mask to participate in antifa activity bother you? Is simply stating support of antifa unsettling or is it something that would be okay so long as you stressed loudly and often that you abhorred violence?
And I’m not saying I support antifa, but even if I don’t, I think their existence has value.