You misunderstand my metaphor, that kind of behavior dies because it has no power to exploit, with no one in power to propagate, justify, or overlook it. At this point the best they can do is whine about whining.

Anyway, we all do not need shepherds and, in case you forgot, you can make your own thread to moderate yourself and enforce your own desire for participants to accept moderation .

So vicious. Much brutal. Imbalance wow.

What is really crazy is how some of the people who claim to be the most anti-racists, act like racists.

Racists tend to be mean, tend to lack understanding of other people's points of view, and tend to use cruel humor. I know it is uncomfortable to consider, but it's all there out in the open. Combine that with the tendency to instigate using racial terms and it paints a very ugly picture.

Maybe one day some of that self-awareness that gets talked about will actually be practiced along these lines.

Spank,

You are one of the most abused posters so maybe it is understandable, but you are also one of the most abusive.

The whining about whining is amusing. I take your point but I'd rather see it die because we have good moderation.

I disagree, decent political debate does require moderation in my view, I hope you wont take this badly but you do need a shepherd in that regard (as do I).

I've given my views on self-moderation, I think it's potentially great idea but it's not there yet. I also think it will flourish only within a moderated forum.

It also strikes me that a dogpile is a lot like being in a circle of skinheads kicking boots. Only the internet dogpile is really an illusion. A concerted effort by a prepared and knowledgeable individual can easily overcome it. Turn the tables really. Unlike a real pile, nobody can hold you down while their friends kick you on the internet and you can confront each member of pile individually. The power of the mob on the internet lies solely in the target of the mob believing in the mob's power and that is the mob's real weakness.

^^ Outsider jib, who's only recently been observing the forum has concluded that there's a serious problem with minority groups getting blatantly harassed by unchecked authorities.

I think you are uncomfortable with confrontation and that you think that moderation solves that. There is no guarantee that is the case. Besides, the current mod regime is likely not going anywhere at this point, so it makes more sense to focus on practices that minimize the need to confront abusers by incentivizing them not to abuse. Of all the anti-abuse techniques I have practice ITF, I do believe direct and persistent calling out of abuse as abuse, abusers as abusers, is working the best. Do not mistake this with answering violence with violence. This is rejection of violence and returning to where it came. Casting light on the shadow a person attempts to put on you.

Of course being human, I may err and occasionally cuss someone out for being a dick, but why do I need a mod to help correct this when I can do it on my own?

So IYO passive-aggressive JAQ trolling is cool, but mocking people for doing so is uncool?

You're not fooling anybody with your pearl clutching over the politard meanies saying hurtful words. You came in expecting to have a few laughs riling up those pesky libruls. Instead, you got your ass handed to you because the people you were trying to feel superior to actually know way more about what's being discussed than you do. And now you're whining about it.

Big Strong Independent Libertarian Thinker Man needs somebody to protect his fee-fees from internet meanies asking him questions he doesn't want to answer

I don't mind confrontation. I don't like bullying and and I don't like the aspect of people that enjoys hurting others. Not sure winning the argument quickly is that important but I take your point.

Because the message you want to get across, and the conversations you want to have are harmed by the way you post. Not having a go at you in particular but I think JJ is quite wrong when he suggests posters don't adapt and if the forum is made worthwhile people will adapt in ways that benefit themselves as well as others.

Step 1: Walk into a huge thread without knowing anything about subject
Step 2: Act superior to everyone in said thread
Step 3: Get proven wrong at every turn by things as simple as the ****ing timeline of events.
Step 4: Run to unchained to complain about people hurting feelings.

There has been a funny sort of ideological battle on this forum for awhile on attacking/shaming vs being civil. In previous discussions with MrWookie he has made it clear he believes attacking/shaming is a great tool for promoting his positions on racism, sexism, etc., and many others obviously agree. I have argued that it is usually not best, and besides being childish and self-serving, it's often largely counterproductive, due to the fact it assumes moral authority on issues while acting down right dispicably. That may be fine to do with real villains, but most people here are actually pretty nice folks, if sometimes ill informed. No need to make them into something they are not.

It seems to me as a rule arguing the points on their merits, treating posters with respect, even when you strongly disagree with them, realizing you yourself are not infallible and since many of these issues are very large and complex, even the smartest could actually be *gasp* wrong from time to time, and other, not as smart-as-you people might actually have a point, but if not then just ignoring them if they continue to be obtuse is the more civil, and even more importantly, it's the most effective way of educating and changing opinions. Perhaps that's a pipe dream, and it might be wrong.

That's some bull**** though. Here where I live in the midwest there are a lot of racists. These are the type that will disavow racism and act all legit in public areas but then in the car or at the bar they are telling racist jokes or making racist comments. There are enough of these idiots that when a few get together and they laugh at each other being racists they think it's ok and actually funny or cool. Simply saying you are offended here would get you called a liberal pansy, pc nerd or whatever so I lay right into them. **** them.

I agree. I have spent a lot of time studying bullying in the last year. It is one of those behaviors trends that intersects many social issues.

You are gravely mistaken if you think I take any joy or delight witnessing people being abused or confronting people who are being abusive. Bullies are hurting themselves and everybody they subject to witnessing their behavior. The goal is to help them as much as it is to discourage them from continuing abusive behavior. And I also do not claim to have a particularly superior method. Many roads lead to the desired outcome and we don't know where the dead-ends may lie unless we walk them. You may be right, that the correct moderation style with the correct set of guidelines is what works best. I may be right that encouraging people to stand up for themselves, but do so in way that doesn't stoop to a repugnant level. It's also not about winning. At the end of the struggle, the goal is we all come out 'winners'.

A hand-wringing debate which somehow always plays out in the subforum SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO LET PEOPLE MAKE PERSONAL ATTACKS.


Guys, maybe this fellow who doesn't know how to punctuate his sentences is right about how black people always walk in the middle of the road. The universe is so complex and unknowable!

You are not wrong at all or living a pipe dream at all. The roots of the civil rights movements are firmly entrenched in the soil of mercy and understanding. The moral arc of the universe is a long one and we can see that in how progress toward a just and equal society has occurred gradually through time and across generations because people chose civility. It is important not to confuse mercy with inaction, peace with non-confrontation, or confrontation with shaming. It is called civil action for a reason.

This is pretty much what I'm getting at right here. You're attempting to shame me for a position I don't hold. It does nothing but get most people riled up when you do such things, and what good does that do?

where else? Do you think we should be discussing how posters including the mods behave in P in P?

I'm hopeful it will become considered unacceptable by anyone decent in the medium term. It's getting a lot of attention now.

I'm not thinking that.

I'm on board with that. Moderation of bullies is good for the bullies as well as the bullied. No moderation is somewhere between great moderation and appalling moderation, it's hard to know how to apply that to the current situation.

The Real Trolly seems not get that freedom to make personal attacks comes with the freedom to point out how stupid making personal attack can be, complete with direct examples to analyze.

He wants to make personal attacks free of consequence or response. Turns out this is not actually the place for that.

The ATF forum for complaining about the mods is down the hall.

Here seems more appropriate. It's specifically a matter of politics, not restricted to 2+2 forums and it's not particularly about mods. I'm sorry if that bothers you.

chezlaw- But even if it bothers him, you're not going to stop? Oh god you're a monster!

I suppose I could have said that I was posting it in ATF and if he thought I was posting it in PU then that was his fault.