NationStates Jolt Archive

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7320889&postcount=15

Is this worth a warning?

dude they were right

dude they were right
no, they wern't. Can you provide one thing I have said that is racist or scummy?

looks bad

but i'm not a mod

just about everything u have said

Your "leftists" remark wascertainly not the best decision, but the next post is flaming.

Your "leftists" remark wascertainly not the best decision, but the next post is flaming.
Attacks on general groups are allowed, I have seen moderators say it is.


Should I be subjected to this for posting my beliefs about leftists?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7321785&postcount=52

It definitely does look like flaming. Racist could be just an opinion that someone has of you. They might think that you're extremely anti a certain country or religion and thats their view. Scummy isn't an opinion. Scummy to me sounds like a definite insult but as to how serious it is? No idea so ask the mods.

Whoa....someone who is on the same online political debating intellectual level as MunkeBrain? No effin way dude...

Actually, I have to be honest, MunkeBrain isn't even as bad as this dude.


...life would be too easy if everyone was more moderate...like me...

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7320889&postcount=15

Is this worth a warning?

Are you really raising a stink over being called racist and scummy?

MunkeBrain you reap what you sow. Now, that is not to say it's okay for people to flame you or flamebait you. I however on a number of occasions have personally seen you flame and flamebait posters time and time again. Perhaps if you treat the other players with the level of respect you wish to be treated with you might just be surprised.

I suggest to you that if some one is bothering you , you put them on ignore.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

Attacks on general groups are allowed, I have seen moderators say it is.

Should I be subjected to this for posting my beliefs about leftists?


You are missing the point. To label people "leftists", is McCarthyism plain and simple. It is an attack.

But to turn around and complain about it when somebody attacks you is pretty hypocritical.

Maybe you'll learn something from this.

You are missing the point. To label people "leftists", is McCarthyism plain and simple. It is an attack.

No it isn't. If your beliefs are identifable as left-wing you should have no problems being called a leftist. Being offended by a statement that's true is pointless. It's a ridiculous as my being offended by somone calling me an Englishman.

Indeed.

You wouldn't see me call this flaming if someone said:

You're such an American capitalist!

or even:

You're a rightist.


While the intent may be hostile, it's not really flaming. Though it can be tricky if someone says:

You are of below average intelligence.

I suspect that such a statement would be considered flaming even were it true.

No it isn't. If your beliefs are identifable as left-wing you should have no problems being called a leftist. Being offended by a statement that's true is pointless. It's a ridiculous as my being offended by somone calling me an Englishman.

If somebody is self-described, that is one thing.

But the "distill" or label somebody based on a limited opinion of what their beliefs is, simply is no different than to call somebody a racist or Nazi based on the limited connect of one or two of their posts.

The point I feel you (and Hotrodders) are missing is IMHO that labelling people and then constantly using the buzzword, is an attempt to avoid discussion and in fact deny an individual his / her right to actually proving that their ideals may in fact have the basis on many different things.

This is exactly what McCarthyism was about ... it is an attempt to discredibt somebody's position or person without actually addressing the ideas! There is a reason it is called witch-hunting.

In any event, take a statement:

"You are a racist!"
"You are a liberal!"
"You are a Jew!"
"You are Arab!"
"You are a Nazi!"

While different people will react differently to these labels, the point that the labels are being used instead of actually addressing whatever content may have existed, is an avoidance tactic. The label in and of itself should have no real bearing on a discussion. A good test to see if somebody is basically trying to use a "scare" tactic to prop their debate would be to remove the accusation / label, and see if there is still enough of a justification to attack the idea that is being disputed. If there isn't, then obviously the attack wasn't motivated by an actual opinion, but instead is based on some sort of stereotype. If there is, I'd like ask, does the label really need to be there?

It happens in the real political world still to this day. This has also be a regular feature on the next since at least the early 1990s, when I remember lurking and following the debates related to "Godwin's" law.

Bottom line, if people need to call people Nazis or "Liberals" in order to counter an argument somebody has said, they are at best encouraging the sort of blacklisting for which Senator Joe McCarthy will always be remembered.

Personally I feel that somebody who is quick to label people should, as Stephanistan pointed out, be ready to expect a similar but opposite attack directed at them. While I'm of the opinion that *all* of this lowers the ability for a meaningful discussion to be had, I simply have no sympathies for people who are quick to protest that which they do unto others.

I will add that when I have seen similar attacks on individuals (i.e. derogatory labels) being used in public meetings, I've actually watched (thankfully) people insulted by these attacks walking out. I think most people are smart enough to see the attacks for what they are, and quickly tune out most of what is being said ... but the ability to read the facial expressions of a room of people sadly is denied most 'net based arguments. Probably why flame wars are often seen as being much more intense than the types of arguments people have away from their keyboards.

Indeed.

You wouldn't see me call this flaming if someone said:

I suspect that such a statement would be considered flaming even were it true.

That is wonderful that you don't get rattled by these things, but you are missing the point.

If you had a long post and somebody said, "Whatever. You're a Nazi!" or "Only a facsist would actually believe that wolud work." Those are vieled flames, and designed to discredit your ideas by connecting you with *extremists*.

I can understand why the poster would not want to be associated with racism, who really would? But I also feel that if he had instead focused his comments on providing his opinion instead of just dismissing others as essentially being "communists" (which is what the derogatory use of liberal is designed to imply), that he might have something of a moral ground to stand on. However, seeing that he himself did engage in labeling (a point that has been discussed already), I don't see it is fair to really allow him to not be held to the same standard he is asking that others adhere to.

If you can't stand being labelled as part of a broad political group then you have absolutely no business debating politics, period. If you feel the label is unfair, dispute it or prove it incorrect. Getting offended because someone attempts to make a reasonable deduction of your political leaning based on the attitudes of yours they know of is pointless.

If you had a long post and somebody said, "Whatever. You're a Nazi!" or "Only a facsist would actually believe that wolud work." Those are vieled flames, and designed to discredit your ideas by connecting you with *extremists*.

Unfortunately, 'leftist' is not an extreme point of view. Connecting your views with being 'left of the political centre' does not imply that you are a communist, you're just reading into things needlessly to try to find something to offend yourself with. Had he called them 'stupid fucking commies' or similiar, that would equal what you're implying.

Grow thicker skin.

Overall, Comandante's post was a blatant flame. There is no excuse for that, least of all weak arguments about how calling someone a leftist equates to calling them a 'scummy fascist racist.'

True, cuz limpwristed liberals can't even hit a woman from 5 feet away with a pie, why would they defend freedom, or liberate nations, or rebel against tyranny?

But there is no excuse for stuff like this, either. Play nice, or busting heads will begin.

If you can't stand being labelled as part of a broad political group then you have absolutely no business debating politics, period. If you feel the label is unfair, dispute it or prove it incorrect. Getting offended because someone attempts to make a reasonable deduction of your political leaning based on the attitudes of yours they know of is pointless.


I completely disagree with that.

The idea that only certain people have business debating politics is rather closed minded, and frankly an extremely scary idea to hear coming from a moderator.

While I'm not talking about watering down discussions to the point that the lowest common demoninator should never be offended, which is what I think you are READING in my comments ...

I still maintain that for somebody to resort to using labels to avoid discussing issues is an avoidance tactic and lowers the quality of all debates. Ideas are not invalid based on their labels, "red / blue", "black / white", "right / left", "liberal / conservative". In fact, most people would argue that nothing really cuts down into a 2-camp idea ... and yet the labels still are frequently used.


Unfortunately, 'leftist' is not an extreme point of view. Connecting your views with being 'left of the political centre' does not imply that you are a communist, you're just reading into things needlessly to try to find something to offend yourself with. Had he called them 'stupid fucking commies' or similiar, that would equal what you're implying.

Grow thicker skin.


Maybe instead you of trying to read my mind and telling me what I was thinking, I should further explain what I was thinking ...

A shining example of a debate turned to mudslinging would be the series of US Presidential debates. Bush frequently avoided providing detailed replies to the questions or in his rebutals of Kerry's points (which sadly weren't too in depth either), by instead focusing on calling Kerry a "liberal".

Kerry didn't mind that much, but Bush's reasoning was pretty clear. He wanted to galvanize or bring right leaning moderators closer to him, by basically saying, "I am more conservative than him."

The problem isn't that this may or may not work (I suspect it does, which is why McCarthyism and label making has been in practice as long as politics), but that like in any flame war (which I affectionately call *ick wars, since they quickly devolve into *ick sizing contests) everybody else looses too. No new information or exchange of ideas is compared, other than discussions of what is right, "Blue or Red".

The exact same is true when it shifts from the conservative / liberal attacks to the facsist / communist attacks. Just as equally pointless.


Overall, Comandante's post was a blatant flame. There is no excuse for that, least of all weak arguments about how calling someone a leftist equates to calling them a 'scummy fascist racist.'

But there is no excuse for stuff like this, either. Play nice, or busting heads will begin.

I've only seen the posts (not thread) that have been echoed here, but it certainly looks like several of these posters need a break. I don't feel they need a warning, but it does make me sad to see that it has devolved to the point of name calling and "sizing".

Personally, I think that if more people would even hold to their belief that sizing threads are pointless when generalizations that really can't be proven start to be thrown about, that we'd see fewer flame baits.

You can't easily police this kind of stuff. But I think Stephistan's earlier post was the right approach. She pointed out that the guy upset here has in the past rattled a few cages to, and I joined in hoping to point out how easy it is for a discussion to quickly go awry.

While all this discussion back and forth of what is or is not flaming, this does not negate the fact that MunkeBrain dishes it out on a regular bases far more then he ever gets it in return. That was the point I was trying to make. By all accounts MunkeBrain should have been deleted by now. I have tried to give him many chances. So, based on that I'm sorry if I'm not too quick to defend perhaps a "MunkeBrain tactic" when it is reversed on him.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

While all this discussion back and forth of what is or is not flaming, this does not negate the fact that MunkeBrain dishes it out on a regular bases far more then he ever gets it in return. That was the point I was trying to make. By all accounts MunkeBrain should have been deleted by now. I have tried to give him many chances. So, based on that I'm sorry if I'm not too quick to defend perhaps a "MunkeBrain tactic" when it is reversed on him.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

See, and that is the problem. I flamed no individual on this board in those converstaions. I make statements about groups such as "leftists", which moderators, yourself included, have said are okay, and I am greeted with nasty namecalling, attacks on me, my family, and my intelligence, and you look the other way, knowing full-well that if it were me, you would delete me. You don't agree with my opinions and beliefs, and for that, you say I should have been deleated long ago. You are biased to such a degree that you don't even try to hide it.

See, and that is the problem. I flamed no individual on this board in those converstaions. I make statements about groups such as "leftists", which moderators, yourself included, have said are okay, and I am greeted with nasty namecalling, attacks on me, my family, and my intelligence, and you look the other way, knowing full-well that if it were me, you would delete me. You don't agree with my opinions and beliefs, and for that, you say I should have been deleated long ago. You are biased to such a degree that you don't even try to hide it.
try to provide a refrense or two

See, and that is the problem. I flamed no individual on this board in those converstaions. I make statements about groups such as "leftists", which moderators, yourself included, have said are okay, and I am greeted with nasty namecalling, attacks on me, my family, and my intelligence, and you look the other way, knowing full-well that if it were me, you would delete me. You don't agree with my opinions and beliefs, and for that, you say I should have been deleated long ago. You are biased to such a degree that you don't even try to hide it.

I disagree.

Some of the moderators said they find it OK to attack somebody by just dismissing them as a liberal, but even GMC pointed out that *that* can be pushed too far, when saying something along the lines of "stupid fucking commie". Since swearing (while in questionable taste) isn't grounds for flaming alone, I think it is the stupid ...

Stephistan didn't even make that claim that she did not find this insulting. She basically implied that you've been guilty many times of posting things that she felt were flames (which is not to say that GMC would agree), and let them slide. Because of that, she isn't inclined to act now. I don't see how another moderator couldn't come in and warn the person who was flaming you.

I think that this is a reasonable approach.

I disagree.

Some of the moderators said they find it OK to attack somebody by just dismissing them as a liberal, but even GMC pointed out that *that* can be pushed too far, when saying something along the lines of "stupid fucking commie". Since swearing (while in questionable taste) isn't grounds for flaming alone, I think it is the stupid ...

Stephistan didn't even make that claim that she did not find this insulting. She basically implied that you've been guilty many times of posting things that she felt were flames (which is not to say that GMC would agree), and let them slide. Because of that, she isn't inclined to act now. I don't see how another moderator couldn't come in and warn the person who was flaming you.

I think that this is a reasonable approach.
That all I am asking for, a warning to the people who attack me personally when I had not attacked them.

That all I am asking for, a warning to the people who attack me personally when I had not attacked them.

Here is my advice, be careful what you ask for ... if a warning is actually issued, that means that the mods may hold you to this same standard in the future.

If it were me, I'd just do exactly what Stephistan suggested, ignore the flamers. I know it is hard, but I honestly trust her judgement (and what others have hinted at) that you've probably kicked the ant hill a bit more than you might suspect. There usually is a reason the natives get restless, and my hunch is that the flames are probably provoked. While it is very difficult to walk away when somebody has accused you of something you feel is an attack on your character (trust me, I've been there), I believe GMC was ultimately saying the same thing ... if you can't take the heat, don't sit in the frying pan.

If you are looking for something NS related to do, if you roleplay even a little bit, try spending a few days on NSWiki (see the News page for link).

If you are looking for something NS related to do, if you roleplay even a little bit, try spending a few days on NSWiki (see the News page for link).

NSwiki is for all things NationStates, not just roleplay.

No it isn't. If your beliefs are identifable as left-wing you should have no problems being called a leftist. Being offended by a statement that's true is pointless. It's a ridiculous as my being offended by somone calling me an Englishman.
But there would be terms which, while true, would be unacceptable. I'm not arguing that leftist is one of them, just that truth isn't always an good defence for insulting someone.

NSwiki is for all things NationStates, not just roleplay.

True!

But it certainly offers NS junkies a way to leave their mark on the NS World, and in many cases can be done without bumping into many heads. :)


On the use of terms, I agree with Spoffin, but would like to suggest that constantly only even using a term like "leftist" and never addressing issues is a bad habit to get into. I've noted players doing this before, and in one case when a player said something that was "socialist" in nature (as defined by his earlier attacks on others) I flat out called him a socialist. Was I flamebaiting? Depends if you find the use of the term socialist offensive or not. In this case, the player did ... which begs the question why he was constantly applying it towards others? In this case, I wanted to point out to this player that labels are a two way street. Frequent use of them, certainly is not a smart habit to get into.

My point, it is pretty easy to find out if a label is being used as an attack, but simply throwing it right back at somebody. If they aren't offended, they probably don't put that much stock into the label. If they are offended, then chances are good that they were actually verbally attacking people. The funny thing about all of these labels is they really do mean different things to different people, and it really isn't wise to not admit that there are shades of gray involved in their frequent use.

See, and that is the problem. I flamed no individual on this board in those converstaions. I make statements about groups such as "leftists", which moderators, yourself included, have said are okay, and I am greeted with nasty namecalling, attacks on me, my family, and my intelligence, and you look the other way, knowing full-well that if it were me, you would delete me. You don't agree with my opinions and beliefs, and for that, you say I should have been deleated long ago. You are biased to such a degree that you don't even try to hide it.

It is in fact flaming when you call player A "A fucking stupid leftist" Then there is the issue of flamebaiting, which you do on a daily bases. So please don't play innocent with me. Further my bias against your opinion is so harsh I've never even warned YOU, when I should have. Bias? I don't think so!