Politics v7.0 Moderation thread - Page 17 - Politics version 7.0 -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

Fair enough. You are welcome to do that here if you wish. I'll try not to treat your 'concerns' any more seriously than you intend them to be taken.

The smart money may be on the words in question being banned as insults but I'm sure you will find replacments to do your important pointing and laughing with

03-17-2017 , 11:13 PM

#402

SenorKeeed

mew mew mew

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 37,478

Sounds good, you're not actually responsive to any questions about moderation anyway, so there's no loss there. Like you were obviously not going to answer this completely legitimate and reasonable question, any more than you were ever going to explain how linking to Breitbart violates the "PC rule" in the first place. While somehow discussing the same article you are forbidden to link to doesn't violate the mysterious "PC rule".

Quote:

Originally Posted by SenorKeeed

So you could quote a lengthy passage from a Breitbart article but you couldn't provide a link to that same article in the same post? That seems totally insane man.

03-17-2017 , 11:15 PM

#403

Bladesman87

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 14,543

So any comment on why one mod can't imagine it's an issue and the other remains confused and undecided?

03-17-2017 , 11:17 PM

#404

wil318466

banned

Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 19,154

It's tricky sometimes because it's stupid.

03-17-2017 , 11:17 PM

#405

SenorKeeed

mew mew mew

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 37,478

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bladesman87

So any comment on why one mod can't imagine it's an issue and the other remains confused and undecided?

The PC rule in action! What could be simpler?

03-17-2017 , 11:25 PM

#406

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 46,838

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bladesman87

So any comment on why one mod can't imagine it's an issue and the other remains confused and undecided?

I'm not perfect is sufficient.

I take it you are totally in favour of banning these words. Or possibly totally against although that seems less likely. Please do make it clear if you care.

03-18-2017 , 12:06 AM

#407

Bladesman87

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 14,543

I wouldn't mind either way. I can do without a couple of words, and since there's clearly no intention to prevent saying a lot of grotesquely offensive things provided they work around the caveats of not using a few specific words, it doesn't matter.

03-18-2017 , 12:07 AM

#408

The REAL Trolly

old hand

Join Date: Mar 2014 Posts: 1,603

Quote:

Originally Posted by The REAL Trolly

Just to see what would happen, I reported what seems like a blatantly sexist post:

And nothing came of it.

Really? Many hours later and no comment from either mod on these blatantly sexist and demeaning stereotypes?

03-18-2017 , 12:07 AM

#409

The REAL Trolly

old hand

Join Date: Mar 2014 Posts: 1,603

Showing evidence that TS a liar --> immediate warning from chez

"women make less money cuz they dumb and emotional" --> totally appropriate PC observation

03-18-2017 , 12:10 AM

#410

5ive

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 6,766

I gotta agree with Zwarte here, you shouldn't say ****** when there are ****ing actual factual ******ed people about.

Cough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black Peter

It is quite sad that the "non-PC" mods allow the use of the word ******.

03-18-2017 , 12:10 AM

#411

Bladesman87

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 14,543

They didn't use the b word so how can we ever know if it's sexist or not?

03-18-2017 , 12:10 AM

#412

The REAL Trolly

old hand

Join Date: Mar 2014 Posts: 1,603

Quote:

Originally Posted by wil318466

...but there actually is a reason why something like this is universally understood :

Men and women are different. We are INHERENTLY different, and I for one am glad we are.

03-18-2017 , 12:41 AM

#413

leavesofliberty

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 6,296

The most plausible explanation is that both genders are EXACTLY THE SAME in EVERY RESPECT, until proven otherwise. Amirite?

03-18-2017 , 12:50 AM

#414

leavesofliberty

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 6,296

Are fetuses a protected group, because can't imagine why breaking your balls Carman is delted by whoschez.bordom.

03-18-2017 , 05:34 AM

#415

bundy5

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 8,136

Quote:

Originally Posted by Original Position

I'm not objecting to the ban on linking to hate speech. I'm objecting to banning linking anything from Breitbart. The first of these can be determined on a case-by-case basis, and while hate speech can be a fuzzy category, is potentially workable. The second requires a political judgement that anything directly associated with Breitbart is inherently offensive to vulnerable groups. That judgement might be correct. But it is a substantive political judgement that a significant portion of the GOP, which identifies with the general Breitbart outlook on things, is so offensive that it shouldn't be allowed a place within normal democratic discourse. Such a decision should not be left to the discretion of the moderators alone, but should also require approval from at least P7 regs as well. At minimum, the moderators should have solicited input from posters before censoring one of the biggest news providers in America.

After all, has a justification been offered that all linking to Breitbart is offensive to vulnerable groups? No doubt there are many articles on Breitbart that would be offensive. But many articles are not. For instance, shouldn't a discussion of the Republican health care plan be able to link to the critical comments of Breitbart.com to the plan? How is that offensive to vulnerable groups?

I am late to this piece and whilst I have monitored this Breitbart issue over the last month, I am surprised that Chez does not agree with this view. It is the sort of stance that I would expect the Wookie to take but not Chez but perhaps my original assessment of how he would perform as moderator of the alter-ego forum of P was wrong. And if I am wrong, this is a massive indictment on Chez.

03-18-2017 , 05:40 AM

#416

bundy5

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 8,136

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson

Good.

This is absolutely the wrong attitude to take and is indicative of your obvious bias and inability to want to have a full and frank discussion on politics which is the cornerstone of any democracy.

03-18-2017 , 08:19 AM

#417

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 46,838

Quote:

Originally Posted by bundy5

I'm very sympathetic to the objections Original Position has raised (others as well). However the following isn't correct although it's a very valid point that some will take it that way.

Quote:

The second requires a political judgement that anything directly associated with Breitbart is inherently offensive to vulnerable groups.

Quoting and referencing breitbart. Links are a further step that we have decided to ban. As I said to Senorkeeed:

Quote:

There are quite a few reasons but from a practical modding pov it means that a) Anything nonPC is fairly obvious without anyone having to read the links (that includes helping people to report posts) and b) it prevents quick and easy link type posts.

Since the ban many have objected on the basis of there being good reasons to link to breitbart. Their points are correct in principle but I have to say that before the ban (and since apart from ACEG making a point) I've noticed very few, if any, links/quotes of breitbart that met these good reasons.

03-18-2017 , 08:51 AM

#418

Black Peter

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,921

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

There is uncertainty - it can't reasonably be any other way when dealing with language use. The sanctions for breaking the rules are appropriately guiding and mild until a sufficient degree of certainty and awareness is achieved

I haven't so much explicitly allowed '*****' and '******' as not (yet) taken a decision that they should be outright banned. My inclination is to ban them but I've held back because they are such generic insults these. It's also not something I've discussed with whosnext yet but if he wants to ban them then it's highly likely I will agree.

I suggest anyone who doesn't want them banned start making their case.

Actually, you did explicitly say they were ok as long as they weren't used towards those actual groups.

I'm glad you are realizing now that they are never appropriate to use.

03-18-2017 , 08:56 AM

#419

Black Peter

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,921

I'm actually shocked that a self proclaimed pc guy has taken this long to realize that the word ****** is offensive and demeaning to the protected group it refers to no matter how it's used or who it's directed to. I mean, that group has only been asking us to stop for 30 years or so. Even the fraternities on my campus have banned it. Hard to believe a fraternity is more sensitive and caring than the PC mod here.

Citation from Special Olympics and Best Buddies International

http://www.r-word.org

Last edited by Black Peter; 03-18-2017 at 09:11 AM.

03-18-2017 , 09:13 AM

#420

chezlaw

Limey Bastard

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 46,838

My bad is all I can say. I never gave it due consideration. I can't see anyway its not getting banned now.

03-18-2017 , 09:51 AM

#421

Black Peter

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,921

Good show, mate.

03-18-2017 , 11:04 AM

#422

mongidig

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 5,639

This isn't Russia, is this Russia?

03-18-2017 , 11:38 AM

#423

Black Peter

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,921

Quote:

Originally Posted by mongidig

This isn't Russia, is this Russia?

I figured you would love Russia, what with their abuse of gays and other minorities.

03-18-2017 , 12:02 PM

#424

mongidig

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 5,639

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black Peter

I figured you would love Russia, what with their abuse of gays and other minorities.

I know they don't allow microwaves, which is very concerning.

I'm not familiar with their treatment of gays, bisexuals, minorities etc.

I am extremely concerned with all of the political correctness in this country. The idea of banning a word is insane. How about ban the people whos feeling are so easily hurt.