Yea, I pretty much said the same thing in the MLS: N&A thread. I'm definitely in the "didn't know it was a slur, was somewhat perturbed by the ban, and then I learned something, and was okay with the mod decision" group.
Yes, I have. How did you manage to miss the entire argument? The claim is that the word "globalists" is antisemitic when used by Fiosfan. It's an ordinary word, not recognized as a slur by the BigSoccer filter or a neutral source such as Dictionary.com. But since Nazis use it to mean Jews, SuperDave declared it antisemitic when used by Fiosfan. That's pretty much the same as calling him a Nazi. Or at least saying that he's a bad person for whom words mean something different than when used by other people. It's especially bad practice to ban him for something like that, then not let him defend himself. He claims not to be antisemitic, what's the evidence otherwise? I hope you're not pointing to his former sig, because then you'd be bootstrapping off your projection.
It's BigSoccer - a group consisting of Torsten Frings, Nigel de Jong, Jonny Evans, Rafa Marquez, Jurgen Klinsmann, Bruce Arena, and Anthony Precourt is acceptable.
1 Lots of stuff might draw complaints. That's no reason to ban it or force the poster to change. We don't want to be at the mercy of the most sensitive reader. 2 Yes, it was some liberals complaining about Nazis. Ok, fine. Since when do Nazis get to redefine ordinary words? It doesn't even make much sense given that the most prominent globalists aren't Jewish. 3 Maybe he was calling for them to be banned on BigSoccer, but more likely he was saying he hoped their political views were rejected by the country.
I do, because I don't think me knowing or not knowing is germane to the discussion. Personally I believe Fiosfan had earned a ban even without the sig file given his repeated violations going back a long way. The fact that he was approached by the mods and asked to change his sig and refused left them know choice. But, for the record, I knew it was a slur when used in that context and I have no doubt that Fiosfan was intentionally trying to cause problems/offense by having that sig file.
I don't think you should have to change your avatar. But if someone had a "Re-elect Trump" avatar would that be different in your view? If the word "globalists" was generally accepted as antisemitic, it would be triggering language filters and identified as such in dictionaries, not just in political commentary by critics of Trump. Seems like we're banning Ms Piggy because she's connected to Kermit and he is from the same species as Pepe.
Considering links have been provided in this thread going back (at least) to 2011 about the the word used in this context, way before Trump showed up seriously on the political playing field, this charge seems more than a bit inaccurate.
I think the first link provided was from the Washington Post criticizing Trump's use of the word in reference to Gary Cohn.
Sure, but that's hardly the only link provided. So it wasn't "just" Trump opposition, as you suggested.
Ok. Sure it's political and I can certainly see why people would disagree with him. But we'd probably agree that Nazis and the Klan should be stopped, that they're enemies of comity and fellowship with other citizens. If the principle is that it's unacceptable to say "X must be stopped" for all values of X, then I doubt we'd get universal agreement and be back to picking values we like and banning those we don't. If the principle is that nobody on BigSoccer should reference politics in their sig or avatars, then it should be enforced evenhandedly. IMO that would be a bad policy.
Count me on the people that didn't know that word meant anything other than a person that promotes globalism. Since english is my second languaje some subtlieties might be alien to me, but I would understand if a word has different connotations depending of context. but in my opinion, Fiosfan should have been banned long ago, for mistakes and actions even more egregious than this one. This one, in my worldview (way more different politically/culturally than of the people in the US) wasn't as serious. I would have changed my signature of course. I'm not an idiot.
That would be fine, in and of itself. But there is also context. For instance, if you have somebody with that avatar posting exclusively in the women's fora or someone posting exclusively/often in the Mexican forum, that would be a different discussion. But it would be a discussion nonetheless. As has been stated numerous times, it is the context in which "globalist" was used that was the issue which started this thread (though it was the sentence as a while which really was a problem).
We didn't go straight to a ban. We messaged him, told him what the issue was and even added the qualifier that he may not have meant it that way, but that's how it was received. After another exchange, I specified that I was not calling him anti-Semitic, but letting him know that the language he was using was anti-Semitic. I suggested that someone who wasn't ant-Semitic would be interested to learn that (some? all? many?) Jewish members on the site viewed the language as such, and interested in changing the language. This also isn't my first time in such an exchange with the poster in question. I had a lengthy paragraph written on this, but it's probably inappropriate to share that openly, so I have deleted it.
The term 'globalists' is an insult that nationalists use. Whether Fiosfan was using the term 'globalists' in an anti-Semitic tone is up for argument. The fact is, 'nationalists' tend to see outsiders as a threat. Thus it's easy to make the logical jump that when Fiosfan uses the term 'globalists' as a threat, he's referring to those who are un-American or non-American. Not considering that he could have been using the term 'globalists' as an anti-Semitic term is willful ignorance. But hey, gotta hear both sides and whatnot. That said, good riddance to that ass-boil. He had plenty of chances to tone it down and got what he deserved.
1. But surely there’s a line, right? Especially given the context of the stated purpose of the forum, which is news and analysis of MLS? 2. Again, context. Every group has their own language. I’m a software developer. The word “map” has different definitions for me even within software development depending on the context. Ditto the word “dictionary”. From an alt-right context, globalist has a different definition. 3. If that was the case, he should have re-worded his sig. Or dropped it entirely and gone to the Politics forum.
I'm just disappointed that I have to consider this alternative meaning every time I hear this word forever. Just way too much 'us and them' these days...
I'll also add to what Ismitje said by noting that we have been working with Fiosfan for at least a year to get him to stop with the politics and rivalry in the N&A forums. I say at least over a year because I didn't become a mod on the N&A forums until March last year.. About a week or so later, I sent my first message to Fiosfan telling him to knock it off and warned him that further violations would result in infractions... We've been escalating ever since. If it were almost any other poster, it probably wouldn't have resulted in a straight up ban. The ban is because he's a persistent violator of our rules and hasn't shown any sign of improvement.
So... umm... does this mean you're supporting the team that took out the Jackets and inevitably loses to the Pens in the second round?
1. Why are you using my name? I’m not one of the posters who complained to the moderators. 2. If you are referring to one of my posts, please identify it.