heywood on 8/9/2017 at 15:53
Quote Posted by Sulphur
No one's proposing that the entire right needs to be sucked out an airlock. That would be categorically stupid from any logical rationale. Disagree on things and talk about them reasonably regardless of where your political stance lies -- that's fine.
However: don't be a morally contemptible waste of skin whilst doing it. When you've got someone who's repeatedly called an entire ethnic group as murdering savages, and shows zero restraint or logic in their rationale besides xenophobia and racism, and it's continued for months on end with zero let up, that's very simply hate speech. We've done well to not raise much of a stink despite the ugliness of the views we've seen, but continuing to allow the toxicity does no one any favours (apart from the bigots and the racists), and it doesn't bode well for the atmosphere here. TTLG's rules call out that hate speech isn't entertained: so don't entertain it. It's not a morally complex situation.
There are several members here who post blatantly stereotypical and racist views about Muslims. But those views are unfortunately common in the West and it seems impossible to have a discussion after a terrorist attack without bringing them in. I've argued with Krush about Muslims, know his views, made my points, and moved on because there's no point in debating it further. But if Renzatic wants to continue debating him, that should be his prerogative. In my opinion, we're adults here and don't need CommChat to be a heavily moderated politically correct "safe space" where you won't be tempted to read posts that may offend you. If you don't want to read his posts, why can't you put him on your ignore list, or just avoid these terrorism threads which are inevitably going to go there?
Sulphur on 8/9/2017 at 16:25
Quote Posted by heywood
There are several members here who post blatantly stereotypical and racist views about Muslims. But those views are unfortunately common in the West and it seems impossible to have a discussion after a terrorist attack without bringing them in. I've argued with Krush about Muslims, know his views, made my points, and moved on because there's no point in debating it further. But if Renzatic wants to continue debating him, that should be his prerogative.
It should be, but the magical thing about being a mod is that you represent the place at large. If you, heywood, have already realised there's no point arguing with a racist, having a mod continue the conversation makes it look like we're willing to entertain these views as a community, or at the very least draw them out for so long that it becomes a Sisyphean exercise in pointlessness. Either way, the takeaway is: be as shitty as you want to [group of choice], we're okay with devolving into a marginally more polite version of 4chan.
Quote:
In my opinion, we're adults here and don't need CommChat to be a heavily moderated politically correct "safe space" where you won't be tempted to read posts that may offend you. If you don't want to read his posts, why can't you put him on your ignore list, or just avoid these terrorism threads which are inevitably going to go there?
This isn't about making this a safe space. I'd like to believe the place I've been posting in for the past ten years has a set of values that, if not completely in sync with my own, are at the very least something we can agree on. Should we tolerate hate speech? I believe the general consensus should be, 'no, we shouldn't'. The forum's rules say, 'no, we shouldn't'.
So, playing the devil's advocate, the question becomes: well, should we? Well, we tried it. If there's one good thing Renz's ongoing policy of giving people enough rope has shown, it's that they'll take more than you ever thought you'd need, and they'll keep going. And for what utility? From what broader views were we enriched? None, sir. My observation is that we're the poorer for having allowed it, for actively having lowered our level of discourse to reactionarism via fearmongering.
I don't see why instituting a one- or two- or three-strike rule of mods rebutting people who're not actually worth engaging with is a problem. I take issue with me being told to not not engage with people in the threads where this sort of thing happens, as it's a stark dismissal of the values we purportedly have as a community.
And if the reality is we don't actually have those, well, I'm not too fussed about finding somewhere else that does. Maybe that place doesn't actually exist, but hey, if I find a bunch of people who care, those are the people I'd prefer talking to.
Chimpy Chompy on 8/9/2017 at 16:30
I'm not sure Krush should be banned.
But I do worry that every time he sees a muslim, in his head he starts hearing scary "call to prayer" music and ululating battle cries.
Kolya on 8/9/2017 at 18:11
I really admire Renz for continuously and smartly rebutting the blatant right-wing propaganda on this forum. But to tell the truth, it hasn't become any less because of these efforts.
I think people like Krush feel validated, by getting the platform and the attention. But I don't come here to read their elaborate hatespeech.
I respect the decision not to ban Krush. But this is my free time and I really got better aliens to shoot than this shit.
Renzatic on 8/9/2017 at 18:44
The way I like to moderate is to take a rather hands-off approach to any heated political discussion. I'll step in when people are being outright annoying for the simple sake of it, starting idiot arguments that entirely derail a topic of conversation over petty bullshit that isn't productive in any way whatsoever. But in threads like this, I have a tendency to let things go, provided they remain relatively civil. Yeah, some here are going to have some fairly reprehensible opinions on things, and some people are going to get snarky in response to these reprehensible opinions, but this is the state of our politics these days. There's lots of fury, emotion, and jerking of knees out there.
I, personally, believe it's better to address things head on, rather than ignore them. Everyone is, to some extent, stuck in their own ruts of personal opinions, and none of us are likely to change our minds on certain issues. That said, I believe we should all at least make the attempt to engage in discourse, rather than dismiss our opposites as brainwashed and/or too stupid to be convinced otherwise. If we reach the point where we immediately assume those who don't share our opinions are lost causes to be fought against and ultimately cast aside, we've lost something of ourselves. Yeah, there does come a point where you do have to write some people off, but it should take a serious amount of time and evidence to reach that conclusion. It's a stance that should only be reached as a last resort.
Krush, for all his rabid reactionary isolationism, has shown he's been willing to engage in honest discourse on rare occasion, and does contribute elsewhere on the forum. His stances on things, and his petulant replies to criticism, have earned him some derision, but, to me, hasn't quite risen to the level of banworthy just yet. He's someone you can choose to engage with, or ignore.
Though, with that said, I also realize that I have a much, much higher tolerance for bullshit than most, and I'm starting to come to the conclusion that being a moderator isn't so much about doing things the way I'd like to have them done, as much as regulating a community based upon its own wants and needs. Krush's tirades have bothered a lot of people here, rightfully so, and it's not my place to say that you should all just debate him, ignore him, but leave him be. I've been assuming for too long that everyone here looks at political discourse through the same lens I do, and only respond when someone makes a rare complaint. Apparently, people are loathe to hit the report button, and I need to be more proactive. Not to the point where I'm banning people for every off color remark, but I need to do more than the previous laissez-faire approach I've been taking.
I think the best way to do this is not to regulate opinion, but to regulate the quality of discourse in political threads. If you come in posting a bunch of meme-level arguments you picked up off some website with freedom or truth or heritage in the name that told you how Group A are a bunch of subhuman savages, monsters of the worst sort, because IT'S, LIKE, THEIR CULTURE, MAN! RACIALISM FTW! you're gonna get an moderator response. All you're doing is exposing your own mindless biases, showing us all how big of an idiot you are. That's not worthy of discussion, worthy of being entertained, worthy of being on the board. You will get the boot for being an annoying asshole. You're free to feel victimized by the mean SJWs elsewhere.
But if you at least make the attempt to engage in an honest discussion, and can back up your opinions with verifiable, sane, and arguable facts, you're allowed to say what you want to say, even if it makes people uncomfortable. Just keep in mind that if you're gonna be edgy, and disparage a whole group of people for their race or beliefs, you damn well better hope that the sources you're citing are worthy of being cited.
I don't want to create an environment where some people are afraid to voice an unpopular opinion for fear of backlash, but I also don't want to create an environment where every political thread devolves into a chaotic verbal fist fight for the sake of FREEDOM, YALL!
...and the last thing anyone should do is cop an attitude with another forum member in a thread you've stirred up copious amounts of drama in while I'm actually going out of my way to somewhat defend your position, if not your actions.
montag on 9/9/2017 at 05:30
Quote Posted by Renzatic
If we reach the point where we immediately assume those who don't share our opinions are lost causes to be fought against and ultimately cast aside, we've lost something of ourselves.
I don't want to create an environment where some people are afraid to voice an unpopular opinion for fear of backlash
I support this 100%
OK Renz, I backed you up as per our PM, now can I have my Alt-troll account "TartDankTant" greenlighted?
Renzatic on 9/9/2017 at 05:58
I don't see why not!
montag on 9/9/2017 at 07:58
Quote Posted by Renzatic
I don't see why not!
You have entered an invalid username or password. Please enter the correct details and try again. Don't forget that the password is case sensitive.
I take it back, you are a horrible mod, I nominate PigLick as new mod, cause he would clearly support TartDankTant as per our PM's. Unlike you, he is a man of his word, and a suave and sober fellow.
icemann on 9/9/2017 at 10:51
Just remember that Christian's aren't saints by any sense of the word either on this though. How many millions were slaughtered during the (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades) holy crusades of medieval times? All in the aim of securing Jerusalem from those pesky Muslims.
Far likely to have a much higher death count, then that of current times with Al Qaeda.
Thor on 9/9/2017 at 11:35
Yeah, but we desperately need immigrants. Who else will replace Europe? Not the nihilistic-minded europeans.
