53
   

The rules are changing, we are going to start showing the assholes the door

 
 
layman
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2015 02:06 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
. Indeed once one starts down that road, even if he does so with the best intentions in mind, he is drawn inexorably into value judgments about motives and beliefs. The result is usually crowd based intolerance, and a good deal of the commentaty above illustrates just that. I believe such an effort would ultimately destroy this site
.

I agree completely, George, but that seems to be the purpose here, i.e., to "destroy" this site as it exists and replace it with something (presumably "better") else.
timur
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2015 02:50 pm
One can see the Cassandras at work here..
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2015 02:55 pm
@timur,
timur wrote:
One can see the Cassandras at work here..
But these here lost their virginity.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2015 03:09 pm
Things didn't work out too well for Kassandra. Clytemnestra saw to that. Then Orestes did for her. Then the furies took care of the few still alive in that palace. Apparently, prophecy is a dangerous profession.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2015 03:23 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Not so much who ignores who as 'how many users have me on ignore" and "how many other people think this asshole should be ignored" and possibly, for the new user, "should I launch a diatribe on this user who is apparently insane/sociopathic/evil/deluded/drunk or are they a known asshole and I'd just be repeating what's been said to this person many times?".

But I concede my main motivation was disruption for the sake of it. I'm a wrecker.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2015 04:31 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

Quote:
...what I call spewing of 'hate' speech. Whether or not intended, others can judge the behavior for themselves.


You're talking about me, Rags, and you should know damn well that wasn't "hate speech."


Calling for an entire group of people to be killed, (in your case all Moslems) is pretty much the dictionary definition of hate speech.
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2015 04:40 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

Quote:
. Indeed once one starts down that road, even if he does so with the best intentions in mind, he is drawn inexorably into value judgments about motives and beliefs. The result is usually crowd based intolerance, and a good deal of the commentaty above illustrates just that. I believe such an effort would ultimately destroy this site
.

I agree completely, George, but that seems to be the purpose here, i.e., to "destroy" this site as it exists and replace it with something (presumably "better") else.


Do you believe that is really possible? I suppose that's a progressive notion, but my strong impression is that the historical track record for such efforts isn't very good. Human nature is involved here. You can't really have interesting free discussion and control of speech at the same time.
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2015 04:45 pm
@Miller,
The tag abuse is going to be cleaned up en-masse on the new platform (basically all tags other than the topic starter's tags will be discarded).

We will also shortly be looking into who has been shitting on the site with those garbage tags and the most egregious ones will be suspended.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2015 04:49 pm
@Setanta,
I notice you didn't cite this text, eh?

Anti-Zionism as Anti-Semitism

With the beginnlng of the intifada-the Palestinian uprising against Israel in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank-in December 1987, campus anti-Semites had a seemingly endless supply of material to justify their claims of "Zionism is racism" and "Zionist imperialism." Many of these anti-Israel statements were more than mere criticism of Israeli policy, which would, of course, be legitimate; they were anti-Semitic because they questioned Israel's right to exist, singled out the Jewish state for harsh criticism while ignoring anti-Israel terrorism, condoned international Zionist conspiracies or reflected other double standards. Anti-Jewish sentiments were often mixed into anti-Israel or written pieces, showing that many of the critics were not seeking a political discussion , but were intent on spreading hateful stereotypes. Anti-Zionism became an acceptable way to express anti-Semitic sentiments.

Anti-Israel statements also became socially acceptable material for college newspapers and speakers in the late 1980s. When Jewish students would attempt to protest editorials or lectures, they were sometimes accused of attempting to stifle the free exchange of ideas. For example, Kwame Ture (the former Stokely Carmichael), a Black nationalist figure, was often applauded by large segments of students for regularly vilifying Zionism, Israel, and Judaism in frequent appearances at colleges and universities beginning in the mid-1980s. He coined one of his favorite phrases, "The only good Zionist is a dead Zionist," at Columbia University in 1985, and used it regularly.

====
Quote:
Americans of African descent are notorious for their antisemitism,


So now you're saying blacks are anti-Semitic, eh? Of course YOU would never accuse an entire race of "racism" would you. YOU don't do that.

And then you offer up this highly subjective and emotion-laden claim, which is, at a minimum, highly debatable, as FACT, eh?

Quote:
The extremists of Zionism...are responsible for almost seventy years of bloody slaughter in Palestine.


The extreme zionists are 100% responsible for 70 years of bloody slaughter, eh? The extremist "anti-Zionist" factions had NOTHING to do with any violence that occurred in the last 70 years, right? Gee, this kinda appears to be a clear instance of "anti-semitism" as defined above thusly:

Quote:
anti-Semitic because they...singled out the Jewish state for harsh criticism while ignoring anti-Israel terrorism


But wait....you SAID you weren't anti-Semitic, eh? Nice words, sho nuff.

By now, only Gawd would know how many times I have been accused of being "racist" at this site. But, of course, that's different than pointing out that someone might appear to be anti-Semitic, aint it? Prejudice against blacks is probably more widespread than prejudice against jews, hence more "popular," hence more acceptable, and hence it is not all that bad to display it. The majority might even give you an award (in private, of course), who knows?



.

0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2015 04:50 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Uh oh. I have to admit I have had a little fun with some tags. Please make sure I was among the super naughty before heaving me. I think I was only marginally naughty.

Apologies, if that might mitigate your anger and my punishment. I saw it as an art form, like graffiti. Smile

Don't taze me, bro.
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2015 04:53 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
I could be wrong but I think I'm aware of the post you've referenced and I believe if you reread it, you'll realize that the poster was being facetious. I don't believe he meant that Zionists were equal to "kikes," but that the term "Zionist" was a substitute, for some people, for the term "kike." In other words, anti-Zionists are thinly disguised anti-Semites.


That would be something we would not act against. John Lennon said "women are the niggers of the world" but he was not using it in derogation of women or black people. The words are not going to be prohibited entirely but the use of them in hate speech (which requires derogation) will.

Quote:
I raise this not simply as what I believe to be a correction of your misunderstanding, but to provide a good example, IMO, of the difficulties with specific word filters, zero-tolerance for the use of certain terms, and censorship in general. (Not that such mechanisms have been discussed by Robert as part of the new A2K)


Exactly this is not a zero-tolerance policy for those words, it's a policy against using those words in specific hateful contexts.

Quote:
After I sent it, I got a Non-delivery message that simply advised me it couldn't be delivered to it's intended recipient. To make a long story short after re-sending it several times and exhausting the few remedies I thought might work, I spoke to someone in IT. Eventually he asked me if it was possible that I had used a term that the systems "profanity filter" might block. Obviously, the offending word was "queer." Once replaced with a synonym, the e-mail was delivered.


Good example of a ham-handed filter that lacks nuance. But nuance is hard, I get why people take shortcuts.

Quote:
I presume that if you had reported the post and the moderator agreed with your interpretation so that a suspension was seriously considered, the poster, would have, at least, been advised of the alleged offense and been given a chance to explain his actual intention.


One thing to clarify is that moderators don't get into back and forth with the reporters or the people suspended. If someone asks why they were suspended (currently the tool does not adequately explain the reason to them when they see the suspension) they will be told why but we won't argue about it with them.

Similarly when receiving reports we do not typically respond to them, they are acted upon or not (or debated internally beforehand) but we aren't going to argue with the reporters or even inform them about what the decision taken is.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2015 05:04 pm
@layman,
If you do not mind this discussion playing out in public would you mind linking to the post in question?
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2015 05:07 pm
@Lash,
Anyone who really cares can delete them before we do it. Some people have made orchestrated campaigns with multiple accounts or with other members to put insults into tags.

Only the very egregious ones will be suspended as a result.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2015 05:07 pm
@Robert Gentel,
I can try, Bob, but I don't really know where to look, offhand. Also, it was more a series of posts, and not just one.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2015 05:20 pm
@Robert Gentel,
I found the thread. This is not really where it started. Q had made a very offensive post pertaining to "Zionists" which I had ignored at the time. I will get a link to that and post it when I come back. But, the following post, and the 5-10 following it, comprise the bulk of it.

http://able2know.org/topic/304970-10#post-6090425

OK, back. This is the first provocative post, which gives the backdrop for what was said later:

http://able2know.org/topic/304970-8#post-6088948
layman
 
  0  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2015 05:35 pm
@izzythepush,
I see you couldn't resist piling on, eh, Izzy? Bob asked me to look for a post and I did. Incidentally, I came across this (EXTREMELY mild, by your standards) characterization of someone as a "Nazi." So what are YOU complaining about, I wonder?

http://able2know.org/topic/304970-11#post-6091529

I have seen quite a few posters complain that you distort their posts and then claim that they said "X" as a matter of fact, when your claim is false. A well-known M.O. of yours, which you again employed against me in the post this post is referring back to.
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2015 05:40 pm
@layman,
He also fits the definition, but at least he limits himself to exterminating the Palestinians, not all Moslems.

0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2015 05:45 pm
@layman,
I distorted your position on killing all Moslems did I? You meant it in a nice way, like being drowned in ice cream by a beautiful woman? I've not distorted anything, certain creeps have said some things that came back to bite them on the arse. I may have been instrumental in directing some of those words arsewards, but that's all I did.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2015 05:49 pm
@izzythepush,
Show the post, Dizzy. You can't, and you know it. So you continue with your bluff. You are exactly the kind of person that many people complain about at this site.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  2  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2015 05:55 pm
@hingehead,
hingehead wrote:

Hey Robert - for shits and giggles, have you ever thought of posting the ignore counts of users?


Now, just hold on there, young feller. When I see a thread title in some kind of Asian ideographs, I know it is going to be followed by dozens more. I put the perp on ignore and all is good. Same with those promoting some sorcerer with an international phone number in India that will cure your love life and resurrect the dead. I've got hundreds of pages of ignores.
 

Related Topics

Lola at the Coffee House - Question by Lola
JIM NABORS WAS GOY? - Question by farmerman
Adding Tags to Threads - Discussion by Brandon9000
LOST & MISPLACED A2K people. - Discussion by msolga
Merry Andrew - Discussion by edgarblythe
Spot the April Fools gag yet? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Great New Look to A2K- Applause, Robert! - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Head count - Discussion by CalamityJane
New A2K feature requests. - Discussion by DrewDad
The great migration - Discussion by shewolfnm
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/29/2024 at 12:53:08