Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Customer Service' started by Bill Archer, Apr 23, 2018.
I know you don't. You just say you do.
This actually gets to one of the difficulties that we, as mods, sometimes have. There are posters who have fantastic knowledge in one or more areas, and are very valuable contributors in those areas. But outside of that area, they are a real negative to the site as a whole, making moderating difficult. Not because we don't like how or what they say, but that there is a continuation of TOS violations, or problematic posting in another sense (there are a lot of things which fall in the grey area). I can think of three posters off the top of my head that fit that description. Two have red cards, and one continues to post. It is a challenge to try and figure out the value a problematic poster brings to the community as a whole. Sometimes the positives outweigh the negatives, sometimes the negatives outweigh the positives. Every situation is different unless you are a sock or a spammer. And even then, there are anomalies.
Your analogy is pretty poor. Maybe I can fix it. What FiosFan did is more like wearing a big sign that said "Fishermen are the enemy."
Most people would be confused and in no way think that the guy is trying to belittle Christians. But then an extremely sensitive Christian says well sometimes we use a fish to be a symbol of Christianity so that guy must be picking on me. So he/she complains and the guy gets asked to change his sign and he resists.
And then some people jump in and say "since when are fishermen associated with Christianity". And the people trying to defend the moderators say well I can point to some books where fishermen made up a large concentration of important Christians. See look at this book. They even give a citation to the book.
And others are still perplexed about how a few sensitive Christians can hijack the word "Fishermen" for the rest of the community.
So that's a fairer analogy to what actually happened with the signature and the word "globalist".
But on the whole I am persuaded by the moderator's arguments that the ban overall was justified because Fiosfan was continually trying to stir up trouble especially by calling some groups the enemy. Why should we be calling out particular groups as enemies. There is way too much partisan bickering in society as it is, so it makes sense that we try to keep that stuff out of the soccer forum. So good job moderators for handling a difficult situation and trying to make the board a more cordial place for all of us.
So this is where the liberal agenda has brought us, is it?
I know several people with the first name "Jesus". "F***" also has various definitions. How do I know the intent of this sandwich board?
Clearly, this is a caring, thoughtful, selfless man, based on his actions. How do we know that he doesn't simply have a buddy named Jesus, that he is trying to help get laid?
It's just political correctness gone mad!
You son of a bitch. Do you have any idea how hard I hurt my sides from laughing at this? Oh, god — it made this whole thing worth it.
My analogy wasn’t about the relative badness of the content — it was about POd’s argument that the location of said content somehow mitigated it.
Yes but political posts aren't banned sitewide. Unless we expect people to turn off their sigs or avatars when they post in a no-politics thread, we'll have to consider it a loophole.
And if none of the definitions in the dictionary say a word is offensive? I've looked in Merriam-Webster and Cambridge Dictionary (OED has a paywall). There's nothing there about "globalists" referring to Jewish people. Here's a piece from a conservative anti-Trump site about the meaning of the word when used by Trump supporters:
Note that the author is Jewish and uses Obama and Paul Ryan as examples of who is referred to by the term.
So far the only support for the claim that globalists means Jews is from Stormfront and several liberal sites. The WaPo piece was basically some Trump bashing (no biggie, they do that all day, every day) more than definitional about the word. Here's a piece calling out the Post for their fairweather anti-antisemitism.
My view is that the word shouldn't be taken as a reference to Jewish people until that claim is supported a lot more broadly than in some tendentious liberal sites.
So I fundamentally disagree that the word is offensive, even in the context of groups which should be opposed or are enemies.
Ok. I agree there's no such thing as moderator estoppel but he may well feel picked on if he made the requested change, it was approved, then the mods come back a 2nd, then 3rd time with requests for more changes.
No, I do respect the mods for the most part. I'm glad we're able to have a discussion in this thread. But banning someone for being a pain in the butt is different from banning them for using ethnic slurs.
Just to point out the obvious one mod has a political avatar which appears in the N&A thread when he posts there. Another just trolled Toronto fans in today's news thread. I don't actually have a problem with either but it's inconsistent at least.
Your analogy would work better if there was a 2 millennium long tradition of Christian hating, and if in the modern era those people were constantly talking about fishermen.
Oh hey, look at those goalposts go. Somebody should really lock them in place before your posts get even more ridiculous as you try to find some way to be "right"...
Your argument basically allows for any kind of hate speech as long as it isn't widely acknowledged.
Hell, the argument he used to me just now allows for hate speech even if it is acknowledged as long as its in a sig file...
For the hundredth time,
Oh, and I'll see you lot at...The Meadows.
I just said I didn't.
I applaud the mod team for allowing this thread to go on but feel that POdinCowtown has done a possible grave disservice to the mod team specifically, and BS in general by taking his comments public.
The mods are a team and need to provide as unified a front as possible to provide the site members the guidance they need to use this site with the confidence that they know what the rules are and what is expected of them. Any clarification of ambiguous rules need to be shared with the site so the members can adjust accordingly. Clarification of erroneous threads, such as this one, is also a wise policy. Mods have their own forum and need to voice any disagreements with their fellow mods in that forum not in public.
Mods have access to far more information on disciplinary actions and need to avail themselves of said info. They should also hold themselves to a high standard of knowledge before expounding on a sensitive subject.
Except this isn't an issue of "too sensitive". It's a little like the Washington Redskins - I'm sure you can find lots of Indians who don't care about it. Does that mean it should be okay? (That's a rhetorical question.)
Conservatives and Liberals look at this kind of question so differently - and I think it's fair to say that neither side is more or less holy than the other or necessarily less bigoted. Liberals wonder if Conservatives are bigoted the way they can tolerate stuff and Conservatives think the holier than thou Liberals are ridiculous, too PC, and hypocritical.
This is why the question of globalist is really for the Politics forum and folks who like to tilt at each other endlessly. It's not something we are going to likely be able to agree on as a group here. It's also why this kind of question doesn't belong in a soccer discussion forum.
Just a reminder - N&A forums are heavily moderated. I routinely caution folks in USA N&A for political commentary where they might get away with it elsewhere. Most just apologize and move on.
And there really isn't a one size fits all rule. Posters can become toxic over time such that moderator action may not be strictly tied to the issue of the moment. Forum bans often happen for minor offense in the last straw category.
smh. The whole point was about how the word is used - the context. Previously I mentioned the use of "animals." In and of itself, that word is harmless. But racists have used that word to describe Blacks. But, according to dictionary.com, there is no reference to it as a racist term:
Further, using the Cambrdige Dictionary, the same issue exists that there is no racist defintion for "animals."
By that logic, when someone uses "animals" to describe Blacks, they are not being racist.
Did you read that article? He said, in conclusion:
These slurs do nobody any good. They’re not only inexact, they’re meant to quash debate. But that’s what the most ardent Trumpkins are all about these days: shouting “cuck” and “globalist” at anybody who dares disagree with the Great Leader.
You seem to be dismissing the arguments made because they come from a political view you disagree with. In debate, that is harmful.
This is going down a different path, but the original article noted how problematic his comment were, and noted that he had a poor effort to try and recover them:
What Mr. White gets faulted for is his abrupt departure from the guided tour, which he belatedly — and unconvincingly — tried to explain away as a result of his discomfort that a reporter was present. The reporter was told about the tour by Mr. White’s chief of staff and was never asked to leave. More serious than this immature behavior is the $500 donation from his constituent services fund to a Nation of Islam convention where the group’s leader, Louis Farrakhan, lambasted Jews. Mr. White first denied knowing about the donation, which is being investigated by campaign finance officials, but defended it because members of the Nation do good work in his ward.
What you did not note - I don't know why - is that the WaPo made a clear connection between White and the NoI, a group that is lead by a man who speaks in antisemitic terms, and who represents the NoI as a whole. The NoI does good work in Black communities, but also presents a view of Judaism that aligns with White antisemites. (There is a larger context here that is better discussed elsewhere than this thread.) The WaPo didn't tell him to "keep your head down," they said "shut your ignorant mouth."
In that Vox article which was linked to early on, there is this bit:
What’s clear is that anti-Semitic incidents are on the rise in the Trump era and Trump has something to do with that (Jonathan Weisman’s new book, (((Semitism))): Being Jewish in America in the Age of Trump, explores this in detail). That’s a lens through which the “globalist” issue is seen.
The first link is to Time, which, according to post 83 is considered neutral. The second link is to a book, not a website. What it appears to me is that you seem to be ignoring information which does not fit what you believe. But, I do admit that in the context of saying that language is fluid and changes, I read this: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/vocab-in-the-age-of-trump/ (The National Review is listed on the border of Skews and Hyper-Partisan Conservative on post 83.)
Trump has not only changed the Republican party and the conservative movement — if there still is one — he has also changed the very way we talk. “Globalist” is on the lips of the Right now.
I have friends who were staunch Goldwaterites and Reaganites for decades. Last year, they started using the word “globalist,” as an epithet. I was shocked. Had never heard them talk that way, or think that way.
This is what I call “Trump trickledown.” I’ve seen some of the best minds of my generation, and others, addled by Trump. It is a self-addling, though: They have done it to themselves. (Peer pressure contributes, of course. “Hop on the Trump Train or git crushed,” people tell you.)
What is a “globalist”? Someone who supports free trade? Recognizes the need for alliances with others? Understands the value of U.S. leadership in the world? Travels? Is it a synonym of “Reaganite”? Is it code for “Jew,” as “neocon” often is?
I think the word “globalist” in the mouth of the Right is akin to “fascist” in the mouth of the Left: It means, essentially, “I disagree with you and I hate you and I’m better than you.”
So, for some the term in context may have changed. But in the same article, it also says this:
Trump was speaking of Gary Cohn, his departing economic adviser: “He may be a globalist, but I still like him. He is seriously a globalist, there’s no question. But you know what? In his own way, he’s a nationalist, because he loves our country.”
Cohn is Jewish. So, is Trump calling Cohn somebody he disagrees with? It does not read that way, in particular based on some of the other things Trump has said in support of Cohn since that statement. So, form the President's own mouth, he equated globalist to Jew. And that is the problem, that there are people who mean Jew when they say globalist (in the way it could be interpreted as used in the sig in question). Is it used both ways? Sure, but the reader should not discount that the intent of the usage was meant to have antisemitic tones even if it the reader does not see the word used that way.
So how about the phrase "magic underwear"?
I'll see your magic underwear and raise you a City of Flour and Sawdust.
I know what you're talking about, and I'd be surprised if I've used the phrase, at least in the last 10 years, on this site. So I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you asking my opinion of whether that phrase should be forbidden on BS?
On this one, I have no clue.
Apparently City of Flour and Sawdust is a name for Minneapolis. I learned something new today.
Hmmmmm. There are probably circumstances where it would be funny but not offensive/bigoted. But in most contexts it would be a no-no.
On the off chance my opinion is important....