Page 112 of 162 [ 2587 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115 ... 162  Next

Teach51
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,807
Location: Where angels do not fear to tread.

22 Aug 2020, 3:35 pm

Sly I know it takes a lot for you to post and you should continue posting. I am so happy to see you post after being so quiet. We are trying to keep politics out of this thread. I see now that political freedom is a big issue that you want fairly dealt with and this is what most of us are fighting for, for you and everyone else to be free to express who you are without prejudice. You are not alone in this fight.


_________________
My best will just have to be good enough.


Last edited by Teach51 on 22 Aug 2020, 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,497
Location: Poland

22 Aug 2020, 3:38 pm

League_Girl wrote:
Sorry, I will stop and Sly may reply and I won't say anything else to him.

Thanks :)


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.


Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,976
Location: Sweden

22 Aug 2020, 3:39 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Where we sometimes struggle is on the generalisations. We don’t see many simple “conservatives are stupid” type attacks but sometimes there are blurred lines between attacks on an ideology and on the followers of that ideology.


Just now:

Quote:
The right wing are totally okay with businesses discriminating people for any reason



One might be inclined to call this an example.


_________________
I'm bored out of my skull, let's play a different game. Let's pay a visit down below and cast the world in flame.


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,618
Location: Reading, England

22 Aug 2020, 3:40 pm

magz wrote:
You are right, Sly, you did not start it and it is not your fault thaht the discussion drifted into unwanted regions.
You can help us get it back on track and I say: please, do your part of helping.

I'm wondering if a mod can move off topic posts to another thread. That could be helpful in situations like that.

With this many, unfortunately, it isn’t practical.



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,497
Location: Poland

22 Aug 2020, 3:44 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
magz wrote:
You are right, Sly, you did not start it and it is not your fault thaht the discussion drifted into unwanted regions.
You can help us get it back on track and I say: please, do your part of helping.

I'm wondering if a mod can move off topic posts to another thread. That could be helpful in situations like that.

With this many, unfortunately, it isn’t practical.

Too many posts, too little hands?


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.


smudge
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Sep 2006
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,671
Location: Moved on

22 Aug 2020, 3:50 pm

^ It's also not important and you can't expect the mods to go through so many posts, it's unreasonable.


_________________
I've left Wrong Planet


League_Girl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 26,159
Location: Pacific Northwest

22 Aug 2020, 3:56 pm

And just as long as we all drop the political stuff in this thread, it's fine and we can all move on. It takes everyone to stop it by not responding back.


_________________
Son: Diagnosed w/anxiety and ADHD. Also academic delayed.

Daughter: NT, no diagnoses.


Deepthought 7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 May 2018
Posts: 898
Location: United Kingdom

22 Aug 2020, 3:59 pm

Teach51 wrote:
magz wrote:
Please, League_Girl and Sly, don't let this thread get hijacked by a discussion that belongs to PPR.


And this my friends is the very root of the problem :D

The problem is feeling inferior, mediocre and superior (inferiority complex) from tribal elitisms and transferring the unbefitting discomfort of them over to another topic quite resembling it (racism / politics in the current case), and believing that by resolving that scapegoat subject that it will resolve the actual problem itself ~ whilst the elitism becomes even more habituated and uncomfortable on account of reaching either a consensus, or a drift-weed barren silence, not to deal with the tribal elitism itself ~ as involves the habitual feeling of being inferior, mediocre and superior. :(


_________________
I reserve the right or is it left to at very least be wrong :)


Last edited by Deepthought 7 on 22 Aug 2020, 4:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

22 Aug 2020, 4:00 pm

Image


_________________
There is no place for me in the world. I'm going into the wilderness, probably to die


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,618
Location: Reading, England

22 Aug 2020, 4:08 pm

magz wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
magz wrote:
You are right, Sly, you did not start it and it is not your fault thaht the discussion drifted into unwanted regions.
You can help us get it back on track and I say: please, do your part of helping.

I'm wondering if a mod can move off topic posts to another thread. That could be helpful in situations like that.

With this many, unfortunately, it isn’t practical.

Too many posts, too little hands?

Basically. We can only remove posts from one page at a time. That’s hard enough. The really tricky thing is merging them afterwards - it’s very easy to accidentally merge the wrong thread, which can then be difficult to fix.

It’s great that we even have the option to split threads, but the UI is not great.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,618
Location: Reading, England

22 Aug 2020, 4:49 pm

Wolfram87 wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
Where we sometimes struggle is on the generalisations. We don’t see many simple “conservatives are stupid” type attacks but sometimes there are blurred lines between attacks on an ideology and on the followers of that ideology.


Just now:

Quote:
The right wing are totally okay with businesses discriminating people for any reason



One might be inclined to call this an example.

Yes, that’s a useful example. No condemnation here, but just for illustrative purposes, let’s imagine a 5-point scale:

1: non-political statement (“I like apples”)

2: non-critical political statement (“I will vote for Smith”)

3: critical political statement focused on an ideology, party, or public figure (“Democrats want to raise taxes”, “Trump is stupid”). These are explicitly allowed.

4: comment which merges aspects of 3 and 5 - perhaps a critique that is more objectionable, an outright attack on followers of a universally detested ideology (such as racists) without targeting individuals, an unwarranted generalisation.

5: outright attack on followers of a political ideology or other protected group (“leftists are dumb”, “reichwingers are evil”). These require mod action.

The comment you quoted probably isn’t one we would like to encourage. It is overly broad and certainly uncharitable. There are those on the right who do not believe the government should prevent discrimination, but few would frame their beliefs in quite that way. I think on the scale above, it’s a solid 4 leaning towards a 5.

What about “libertarians believe that tackling discrimination is best left to the free market”? This is still, technically speaking, a generalisation about a group, and arguably a negative one. There certainly are libertarians who think that, and they’ve posted as much on this site, but there are also some who are not. But I think demanding total precision at all times is not helpful. In that case, it would be better to leave it to the userbase to correct any generalisations. On that previous 5 point scale, this is probably a 3.5 or even a 3. It is more important that we allow people to state what the followers of an ideology believe, and maybe be a bit sloppy with their terms, than it is for us to remove it.

The difficulty lies in those 4/5 statements that are somewhere in-between “description of a belief, slightly sloppy” and “explicit, outright attack”. If someone says “libertarians believe stupid s**t like the free market solving all problems” then yes the criticism is aimed at the belief but it’s also indirectly criticising the holders of the belief. Is that OK?

And further complicating the matters - there is a wide range of verbal intelligence within our userbase. Some users might try to write an acceptable description of a belief but write it in a way that implies other things because they don’t have the ability to express themselves precisely. Others might know that they can say exactly this which will follow the rules but still be provocative.

And of course it cuts the other way too - perhaps someone is very careful to say “certain strands of libertarianism are somewhat complacent towards workplace discrimination, which I believe is tantamount to tolerating racism”, and someone else reads that as “you are a racist”.

There is a real trade off between allowing people to express themselves and preventing people from feeling attacked. The examples that cause the most trouble are the ones that fall in the middle, and you either end up punishing someone for a mundane comment or risk someone else feeling like the moderators won’t stick up for them. If you clamp down too much then people complain that they have to be a lawyer to say anything. Policing the boundary is tough!



IsabellaLinton
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 41,698

22 Aug 2020, 4:51 pm

I think it was relevant for people to see how the mudslinging occurs, and spills outward from PPR to other fora including News, The Haven, and now Admin.

I sincerely believe that the roundtable podcast which has now been posted twice (techstep and myself), puts much of our recurrent political discourse into perspective, and gives credence to intellectual opinions which may differ. The guests have varied opinions, but do not attack one another or use pejorative language to mock one another with condescending terms. Perhaps some members could benefit from the example of directed and constructive political conversation, using it as a springboard for collaboration rather than divisive speech.

Moving forward, it's imperative that no members are thrown under the bus for the sake of political expediency. That's what makes me so frustrated. Our autism support site has succumbed to the ugliness that is politics, and it began to abandon members simply because they didn't subscribe to leftist doctrine. I'm hopeful this won't continue.

I trust we can all use this as a stepping stone to treat each other with respect, now that some of the offensive posts are starting to be deleted by the moderation team.


_________________
On a break


sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

22 Aug 2020, 5:16 pm

Image


_________________
There is no place for me in the world. I'm going into the wilderness, probably to die


alex
Administrator
Administrator

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,165
Location: Beverly Hills, CA

22 Aug 2020, 6:09 pm

the site should be running much more quickly. I've removed ads temporarily as i found that impacted things significantly but I will probably bring them back unless people are interested in paying an optional monthly fee to support no ads for everyone.


_________________
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/alexplank

Personal FB: http://fb.me/alexplank1


IsabellaLinton
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2017
Gender: Female
Posts: 41,698

22 Aug 2020, 6:23 pm

Thank you Alex.

I have a free ad blocker and don't see any ads at all. I don't think people would need to pay.

Will this reduce the number of CAPTCHAS too?


_________________
On a break


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 26,485
Location: Long Island, New York

22 Aug 2020, 6:26 pm

League_Girl wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
League_Girl wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
I feel it’s a functioning site now.

We just have to iron things out.

I’ve had racist things done to me....and I’ve also benefited from “white privilege.” Getting and keeping my job and apartment has had nothing to do with “white privilege,” though.

It’s nonsense to believe that an oppressed race cannot themselves be racist.



No one has ever said the oppressed can't be prejudice. When they say they can't be racist, what they mean is their prejudice over people have no power. Racism holds power. If a black person or some other minority is prejudice about white people, we are not oppressed.

While many more black people are oppressed then white people individual white people can be oppressed. Individual white people can be oppressed and individual black people can be racist.

Oxford definition of racism
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.“


By definition saying only white people can be racist is a racist statement in that it ascribes a negative characteristic to one race.

In regards to an earlier post of yours, yes people absolutely use words and phrases differently then dictionary definitions. That does not make them correct. For instance despite dictionary and professional definitions of Autism autistic is often conflated with intellectual disability, ie retard.


https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentu ... ctionarium


"But the dictionary says you can be racist by saying only white people can be racist."

*Uses the R word and people take great offense to it*

"But the dictionary says retard means 'delay or hold back in terms of progress, development, or accomplishment' so it's not an insulting word, I used it the correct way in a none slur way."

No one is going to buy your dictionary argument.

Off topic:
Miriam Webster says of retard
retard noun
re·​tard
Definition of retard (Entry 2 of 2)
1 \ ri-​ˈtärd \ : a holding back or slowing down : RETARDATION
2 \ ˈrē-​ˌtärd \ offensive : a person affected with mental retardation
3 \ ˈrē-​ˌtärd \ informal + usually offensive : a foolish or stupid person

Bolding=mine

Maybe not among the people you interact with but plenty of people limit the description of racism to belief in a superiority of a race and discrimination including people here on WP.

IMHO the a lot if not most people trying to change the definition of racism to a power dynamic these days are doing it to delegitimize people that do not agree with certain points of view.
Person 1: A major cause higher rates of crime amount black people is poor leadership.
Person 2: You are white thus racist so your opinion is illegitimate and does not matter. Check your privilege.

IMHO Similar thing with so many non racially based forms of bigotry being described as racism.


As far a “retard” goes when describing a person I have never heard it used in any other way but as an insult.

Back on Topic
On WP racism and racist statements are whatever Alex says they are


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 22 Aug 2020, 7:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.