Chauvin Murder Trial

[arewethereyet]

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.

---

Your apologies always seem to come with a "but" or an excuse, which makes them less than apologetic.

It's not a holding a grudge, it's caution.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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, as you see it...somewhere else.

---

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.

Yes, it applies to multiple instances, which is why I did what I did (advise that it not happen again). IA wasn’t reported, wasn’t warned, wasn’t banned BECAUSE it was a single instance. I felt that, by making the suggestion I did, consequences might be avoided in future.

Boru

[Angrboda]

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.

---

Your apologies always seem to come with a "but" or an excuse, which makes them less than apologetic.

It's not a holding a grudge, it's caution.

I'm disappointed that you feel that way. My apology came with no reservations. Over the past year or so I've developed a problem in handling my anger and emotions civilly that I didn't previously have, and you, and to a lesser extent Boru are unfortunate victims of that. Unfortunately it's something that I don't have a handle on as yet. If you saw my apology as containing a "but," then I apparently didn't express myself adequately. Granted, my not being in control of it is something of a reservation, but it isn't intended as one. I am responsible for and deserving of whatever consequences flow from my behavior; the buck stops here.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

As an aside, this is THE most boring chick fight I’ve ever seen.

Boru

[arewethereyet]

As an aside, this is THE most boring chick fight I’ve ever seen.

Boru

Behave yourself.  sheesh

[arewethereyet]

Your apologies always seem to come with a "but" or an excuse, which makes them less than apologetic.

It's not a holding a grudge, it's caution.

I'm disappointed that you feel that way.  My apology came with no reservations.  Over the past year or so I've developed a problem in handling my anger and emotions civilly that I didn't previously have, and you, and to a lesser extent Boru are unfortunate victims of that.  Unfortunately it's something that I don't have a handle on as yet.  If you saw my apology as containing a "but," then I apparently didn't express myself adequately.  Granted, my not being in control of it is something of a reservation, but it isn't intended as one.  I am responsible for and deserving of whatever consequences flow from my behavior; the buck stops here.

So we start anew.

[The Grand Nudger]

Aaaanywho, the notion that chauvin is guilty of murder in the second and his victim was a bad, bad man.....well, it doesn't change chauvins guilt. Bad people get murdered too. It doesn't change law enforcement culpability. Arguably, the least and most exposed of us need the protection of law more than you or I, and especially so whenever they happen to find themselves under the thumb of a cop. Particularly since they can't count on John Q Public standing up for them in the moment or any moment after- as IA has shown in this thread, and as every onlooker who watched while he died show in reality. That there was no help coming and ever any doubt of a conviction (and there was, regardless of the murderer murdering on video - as another poster pointed out) is a greater travesty than the murder itself, as that apathy, antipathy, fear, and complacency will inevitably lead to another incident, another victim. Derek Chauvin killed one man in this instance, our society produces and supports an army of occupation staffed by murderers, then defends them when they murder.

[Losty]

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.

It easily falls under the trolling category and can fall under hate speech as well depending on the specific comment in question.

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.

The only rule was not to be a dick and you were being a dick. Pretty much every forum in existence leaves rules open to interpretation by moderators on purpose. I can’t comment on what Tibbers said as I don’t remember it and I don’t pretend to know what he thinks. Are you really still going on about the slack thing after all this time? Yikes

[Angrboda]

As I recall, the received wisdom among staff was that using the n-word humorously was only inappropriate because I was the wrong skin color. If you want to defend that, knock yourself out.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

As I recall, the received wisdom among staff was that using the n-word humorously was only inappropriate because I was the wrong skin color.  If you want to defend that, knock yourself out.

Personally, I’m not wild about the hate speech rule and the total ban on slurs. It’s rather silly that these words can’t be included in a discussion about race or sexuality (or anything else) when they clearly aren’t being used as slurs. If the words aren’t being directed at people in a clearly opprobrious manner, they aren’t slurs.

Posting an unedited Chris Rock video or a clip from a Quentin Tarantino film shouldn’t qualify as hate speech.

Boru