NationStates Jolt Archive

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13458212&postcount=165
Quite blatant, yes?

I was going to post this in a General thread earlier, but decided not to, because it would have been such a blatant threadjack:

If you think ideology XYZ is wrong, evil, cruel, inhumane, inequitable, downright insane, whatever, you're not likely to persuade people to abandon it just by pointing at a person and saying, "Oooh, he's an XYZist!"

But if he makes an XYZist statement on NS, you don't have to tolerate it. You can take it apart, pick out the concepts that underlie it, expose its logical flaws and extrapolate it to absurdity. You may not convince the person who originally said it, but you may convince somebody who, until then, hadn't realised just how crazy XYZism was.

Or the XYZist may be able to show that, in fact, the concepts that underlie his ideology are sound, the logic unflawed, the absurdity illusory and your accusations unsustainable; then he convinces the observer.

It's a good deal saner than standing there swapping insults like kindergarteners -- "You're mean!" "Well, you're meaner, so there!"

That's why this is in The One-Stop Rules Shop (my emphasis): Disagreements are expected, as long as they are done in a civil manner. Max Barry has made it clear that he welcomes all opinions in civil debate, even those that are highly unpopular or minority-held.
________________________________________

So, on the specific topic of racism: it's not against the rules to make generalised racist statements here.

It is against the rules to make racist insults directed at a specific poster ("I don't believe you because you're chartreuse, and all chartreuse people are liars," or even a simple "Ner, ner, you're a Chartie!"). The post you quote isn't that.

It's also against the rules to troll (my emphases):

Trolling: Posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example). While Trolls often make these posts strictly in an attempt to provoke negative comment, it is still trolling even if you actually hold those beliefs. Intent is difficult to prove over the internet, so mods will work under their best assumptions.

'Working under my best assumptions', I'm ruling that this specific instance isn't trolling, but is an attempt by the poster to take part in a debate.

I'm not going to stop anyone on General from dissecting the generalisations in that post. I am going to stop them if their method of argument is to resort to namecalling.

I was going to post this in a General thread earlier, but decided not to, because it would have been such a blatant threadjack:

If you think ideology XYZ is wrong, evil, cruel, inhumane, inequitable, downright insane, whatever, you're not likely to persuade people to abandon it just by pointing at a person and saying, "Oooh, he's an XYZist!"

But if he makes an XYZist statement on NS, you don't have to tolerate it. You can take it apart, pick out the concepts that underlie it, expose its logical flaws and extrapolate it to absurdity. You may not convince the person who originally said it, but you may convince somebody who, until then, hadn't realised just how crazy XYZism was.

Or the XYZist may be able to show that, in fact, the concepts that underlie his ideology are sound, the logic unflawed, the absurdity illusory and your accusations unsustainable; then he convinces the observer.

It's a good deal saner than standing there swapping insults like kindergarteners -- "You're mean!" "Well, you're meaner, so there!"

That's why this is in The One-Stop Rules Shop (my emphasis):
________________________________________

So, on the specific topic of racism: it's not against the rules to make generalised racist statements here.

It is against the rules to make racist insults directed at a specific poster ("I don't believe you because you're chartreuse, and all chartreuse people are liars," or even a simple "Ner, ner, you're a Chartie!"). The post you quote isn't that.

It's also against the rules to troll (my emphases):



'Working under my best assumptions', I'm ruling that this specific instance isn't trolling, but is an attempt by the poster to take part in a debate.

I'm not going to stop anyone on General from dissecting the generalisations in that post. I am going to stop them if their method of argument is to resort to namecalling.

I should probably keep my two cents to myself, but there is an aspect of this answer that really bothers me.

You make absolutely clear that making racist statements or XYZist statements is not a violation of the rules and will not be punished by Mods. That is entirely correct and how it should be.

You seem to be saying (and acting in another thread) that pointing out a racist or XYZist statement IS racist or XYZist will be categorized as namecalling and punished as flaming. This is unfair, unnecessary, and unproductive.

Your argument that no one would be persuaded by being told their argument is racist or XYZist isn't true. Many posters who post racist material deny they are racist and/or are senstive to the accusation. Third parties may be enlightened by recognition that an argument is racist. And I myself have posted material that I didn't think of as racist only to have its racism pointed out to me and I have subsequently retracted my mistake.

You do not need to protect NSG from racism, but you also should not protect racism from being correctly identified.

At least that is my view. Anyway, keep up the good and difficult work you do as a Mod.

Are you joking? I know for a fact that just about all other forums do not tolerate racism and it is punished by banning. Disgusting...

Are you joking? I know for a fact that just about all other forums do not tolerate racism and it is punished by banning. Disgusting...

I'm sorry, this is not "other forums". Nor is it run via democracy.

You seem to be saying (and acting in another thread) that pointing out a racist or XYZist statement IS racist or XYZist will be categorized as namecalling and punished as flaming. This is unfair, unnecessary, and unproductive.

Your argument that no one would be persuaded by being told their argument is racist or XYZist isn't true. Many posters who post racist material deny they are racist and/or are senstive to the accusation. Third parties may be enlightened by recognition that an argument is racist. And I myself have posted material that I didn't think of as racist only to have its racism pointed out to me and I have subsequently retracted my mistake.
Aaack! Thanks for pointing that out.

What I was trying to get at was the sort of poster who says, "You're a racist!" but might just as well be saying, "You're an aardvark!" No explanation, no links to previous posts, nothing -- particularly if it's a drive-by post and he doesn't stick around to support the position. Though I've seen some quite long posts that still boil down to, "You're an aardvark!"

Which leaves me stuck with trying to figure out whether a post is an aardvark-type post or a "wake up to yourself!" kick on the ankle, and I'm sure I get it wrong sometimes, but that's the way it is, I'm afraid. If you want to TG me a link I'll have another look at the one you're talking about.

Of course, the absolutely pluperfect NS poster would never say, "You're a racist!", but rather, "That remark seemed a bit racist to me, mate."

But [violet] doesn't post all that often ... ;)

I should probably keep my two cents to myself, but there is an aspect of this answer that really bothers me.

You make absolutely clear that making racist statements or XYZist statements is not a violation of the rules and will not be punished by Mods. That is entirely correct and how it should be.

You seem to be saying (and acting in another thread) that pointing out a racist or XYZist statement IS racist or XYZist will be categorized as namecalling and punished as flaming. This is unfair, unnecessary, and unproductive.

Your argument that no one would be persuaded by being told their argument is racist or XYZist isn't true. Many posters who post racist material deny they are racist and/or are senstive to the accusation. Third parties may be enlightened by recognition that an argument is racist. And I myself have posted material that I didn't think of as racist only to have its racism pointed out to me and I have subsequently retracted my mistake.

You do not need to protect NSG from racism, but you also should not protect racism from being correctly identified.

At least that is my view. Anyway, keep up the good and difficult work you do as a Mod.

It's fine to identify someone as being racist, as long as you actually attempt to make an argument about how what they are posting is racist. So often the post merely consists of "you are racist, its funny how you deny it but you are, look how clever I am by showing you that you are really just a closet racist, the reason your argument is invalid is because its racist!!!". That is totally unproductive, and from what I have seen just pushes people even more reactionary where you're sick of having everything dismissed instantly.

Aaack! Thanks for pointing that out.

What I was trying to get at was the sort of poster who says, "You're a racist!" but might just as well be saying, "You're an aardvark!" No explanation, no links to previous posts, nothing -- particularly if it's a drive-by post and he doesn't stick around to support the position. Though I've seen some quite long posts that still boil down to, "You're an aardvark!"

Which leaves me stuck with trying to figure out whether a post is an aardvark-type post or a "wake up to yourself!" kick on the ankle, and I'm sure I get it wrong sometimes, but that's the way it is, I'm afraid. If you want to TG me a link I'll have another look at the one you're talking about.

Of course, the absolutely pluperfect NS poster would never say, "You're a racist!", but rather, "That remark seemed a bit racist to me, mate."

But [violet] doesn't post all that often ... ;)

Thanks for the clarification. I'm now happy. :cool:

Are you joking? I know for a fact that just about all other forums do not tolerate racism and it is punished by banning. Disgusting...

Firstly, that post was barely racist, if at all. Saying that generally countries with mostly white populations have a better education system is really only vaguely racist at best.

Secondly, I find it disgusting that you propose setting up a style of moderation which is effectively the thought police, where certain opinions are censored, but then so called Marxist-lennists like yourself aren't to big on freedom, so it's hardly surprising.

Firstly, that post was barely racist, if at all. Saying that generally countries with mostly white populations have a better education system is really only vaguely racist at best.

Secondly, I find it disgusting that you propose setting up a style of moderation which is effectively the thought police, where certain opinions are censored, but then so called Marxist-lennists like yourself aren't to big on freedom, so it's hardly surprising.

I don't think Andaras was proposing a dictatorship of the proletariat on NationStates. At least not in that post.

In any case, this thread has served its purpose.

Are you joking? I know for a fact that just about all other forums do not tolerate racism and it is punished by banning. Disgusting...

This forum "tolerates" Marxists, feminists, Nazis, witches, neo-Cons, pacifists, atheists, bible-bashers, pro-lifers, pro-choicers, gun nuts, Republicans, Democrats and tub-thumpers of all ilk. In fact, it welcomes them if they put their points coherently and politely.

What's punished by banning is IhateXYZ.com speech and other behaviours that prevent people putting their points coherently and politely.