(April 28, 2021 at 11:08 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(April 28, 2021 at 10:49 am)Angrboda Wrote: Are you threatening Irreligious Atheist with something?  What exactly are you implying will happen if Irreligious Atheist doesn't take your advice?

It isn’t a threat. It’s a warning regarding potential reports or warnings or banning due to rules violations. Another example of that famous patience of mine.

Boru

Fair enough. But I wasn't aware being a rape apologist was against the rules. So for my benefit, could you explain what he would be receiving reports or warnings or bannings about. Have I missed a rule change?

(April 28, 2021 at 11:20 am)Angrboda Wrote:

(April 28, 2021 at 11:08 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: It isn’t a threat. It’s a warning regarding potential reports or warnings or banning due to rules violations. Another example of that famous patience of mine.

Boru

Fair enough.  But I wasn't aware being a rape apologist was against the rules.  So for my benefit, could you explain what he would be receiving reports or warnings or bannings about.  Have I missed a rule change?

This really seems to be an issue for you as you took me to task for the same thing.  Is rape apologetics something you can get behind?  For my benefit, I'd like to understand.

So, I recently watched an interview with John “Natty Bumppo” Dean, a journalist who covered the murder of Sylvia Likens, a teenaged girl who was brutally murdered by the woman who was supposed to take care of her while her parents were away. I won’t bore you with the details, but it is one of those cases that tells you “so, look at this and tell me with a straight face that there’s a benevolent God watching us all.”





He ended it with a pithy statement (very relevant to discussions like this) about how she basically became something of a secular saint in the years since her murder, saying that she wasn’t quite as saintly as people made her out to be (nothing serious, mind), but he pointed out that it’s easy to make someone a saint once they’ve been crucified.

And, make no mistake, in the eyes of many, George Floyd was crucified. He was no Angel certainly, but, frankly, nothing in his past or present justified how his life ended. Eight cops (current and former) testified out that Chauvin was acting totally beyond the pale of any any reasonable restraint when he kept his knee on Floyd’s neck. And, for all those who pointed out that he was on drugs at the time and could have ended up hitting and killing some kid, if memory serves, he didn’t know that at the time. And nobody on scene knew about his 2019 traffic stop, and even if they did, the fact that this time, he ended up dead this time kind of undermines any relevant comparisons. He may have had a criminal record even before that, well, they didn’t know that either, and even if they did, does this mean that, if an ex-con gets 911 called on him, even for the most trivial reasons, it’s okay for the cops to use excessive force on him until he draws his last breath?

George Floyd was no Angel, and he was no saint. But it’s easy to make someone a saint when they’ve been crucified.

(April 28, 2021 at 11:23 am)arewethereyet Wrote:

(April 28, 2021 at 11:20 am)Angrboda Wrote: Fair enough.  But I wasn't aware being a rape apologist was against the rules.  So for my benefit, could you explain what he would be receiving reports or warnings or bannings about.  Have I missed a rule change?

This really seems to be an issue for you as you took me to task for the same thing.  Is rape apologetics something you can get behind?  For my benefit, I'd like to understand.

Not at all. I despise rape apologists. I'm not defending rape apologism in anyway. I'm just wondering if Boru's comment doesn't cross the line into content moderation instead of rule enforcement.

(April 28, 2021 at 11:28 am)Angrboda Wrote:

(April 28, 2021 at 11:23 am)arewethereyet Wrote: This really seems to be an issue for you as you took me to task for the same thing.  Is rape apologetics something you can get behind?  For my benefit, I'd like to understand.

Not at all.  I despise rape apologists.  I'm not defending rape apologism in anyway.  I'm just wondering if Boru's comment doesn't cross the line into content moderation instead of rule enforcement.

Perhaps the reason for having admins and moderators is to guide away from topics that aren't acceptable.  It would be an impossible task to have a rule that covers every possible thing.

Anyway...Boru's comment, and mine a while back, weren't presented as "mod notes" but suggestions.  There's a difference.

(April 28, 2021 at 11:42 am)arewethereyet Wrote:

(April 28, 2021 at 11:28 am)Angrboda Wrote: Not at all.  I despise rape apologists.  I'm not defending rape apologism in anyway.  I'm just wondering if Boru's comment doesn't cross the line into content moderation instead of rule enforcement.

Perhaps the reason for having admins and moderators is to guide away from topics that aren't acceptable.  It would be an impossible task to have a rule that covers every possible thing.

Anyway...Boru's comment, and mine a while back, weren't presented as "mod notes" but suggestions.  There's a difference.

Except that Boru then clarified that reports, warnings, and bannings might ensue, making it explicitly something more. In this case, the difference appears negligible. You're engaging in revisionism.

By the way, not having a rule for everything is not a problem until you make it one by making it up on the fly or retroactively punishing behavior. I was banned from slack when it didn't really have any rules other than not being a dick. A staff member who is black took offense to my using the n-word and decided that he didn't like that, so he banned me. As a result of that incident, the forum now has rules against hate speech which didn't seem all that necessary prior to that which might leave someone with the idea that they invented the rule simply to give specific staff a cudgel that they didn't need. This forum never had a problem with hate speech and still doesn't. So why the rule? I have similar concerns about the rules at AD, where the rules largely boil down to the same thing: don't be a dick, which means the staff can discipline you for whatever they feel like disciplining you for. Tiberius at one time emphasized that his vision for the rules was to eliminate the subjectivity in applying the rules, to emphasize codifying actions which were subject to discipline, instead of leaving it in the realm of a matter of judgement or opinion. I think that was a good goal.

I'm not engaging in revisionism. Would you like a link back to the place where you blasted me almost word for word? Why not just call me a liar again?

If you don't like the moderation of the forum it's perfectly fine to state your case, as you just did.

You are sensitive because you were treated unfairly, as you see it...somewhere else.

(April 28, 2021 at 11:20 am)Angrboda Wrote:

(April 28, 2021 at 11:08 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: It isn’t a threat. It’s a warning regarding potential reports or warnings or banning due to rules violations. Another example of that famous patience of mine.

Boru

Fair enough.  But I wasn't aware being a rape apologist was against the rules.  So for my benefit, could you explain what he would be receiving reports or warnings or bannings about.  Have I missed a rule change?

It would fall under the rubric of trolling...’making provocative posts’. Suggesting that a man guilty of rape should let off because of his victim’s alleged prior behaviour is certainly provocative.

Boru

(April 28, 2021 at 12:09 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: I'm not engaging in revisionism.  Would you like a link back to the place where you blasted me almost word for word?  Why not just call me a liar again?

If you don't like the moderation of the forum it's perfectly fine to state your case, as you just did.

You are sensitive because you were treated unfairly, as you see it...somewhere else.

I've already apologized for my response to you and admitted I was wrong. Since that apology was made privately, I'll make it public by acknowledging that I over-reacted to your comments and was out of line with my behavior. That wasn't the revisionism that I was talking about. You seem to be the pot calling the kettle black with your comment about being sensitive because you were treated unfairly...somewhere else.

---

(April 28, 2021 at 12:09 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(April 28, 2021 at 11:20 am)Angrboda Wrote: Fair enough.  But I wasn't aware being a rape apologist was against the rules.  So for my benefit, could you explain what he would be receiving reports or warnings or bannings about.  Have I missed a rule change?

It would fall under the rubric of trolling...’making provocative posts’. Suggesting that a man guilty of rape should let off because of his victim’s alleged prior behaviour is certainly provocative.

Boru

Typically I've understood that as applying to multiple instances spread across multiple topics. Are you saying that making provocative posts on a single subject is now trolling? That seems like an unhealthy expansion of the definition.

(April 28, 2021 at 11:28 am)Angrboda Wrote:

(April 28, 2021 at 11:23 am)arewethereyet Wrote: This really seems to be an issue for you as you took me to task for the same thing.  Is rape apologetics something you can get behind?  For my benefit, I'd like to understand.

Not at all.  I despise rape apologists.  I'm not defending rape apologism in anyway.  I'm just wondering if Boru's comment doesn't cross the line into content moderation instead of rule enforcement.

Content moderation is part of what we do. I could have edited out the bolded portion above, but I opted for an admonition. Everyone deserves (at least) a second chance.

Boru