Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
My main point was to yes, look into it, I thought that poster explained it week. Mainly responding to posters mocking the conspiracy people as free thinkers, official narrative, etc... I don't want people to skip their polio, measles vax and so on but also not have everyone shut up and just fall in line. For something like covid which affects kids at such a miniscule rate paren
Anti-vaxxers, like most people who enjoy hot takes, are good at conflating three distinct issues:
1. The issue of free speech.
2. Individual agency
3. The ethics of anti-vax hot takes
And since we are on a forum, we also stumble onto a fourth issue which is tangentially related to 1, namely moderation. Though this also intersects with the public square vs private square and free press, because most of the time moderation is not censorship as in government censoring speech. However, it can be effectively have the same effect if the private square is where most public debate takes place. This is why moderation on, say Twitter, is a more serious concern than moderation on a small forum.
Now, anti-vaxxers should enjoy the same right to free speech as other citizens. People should also have individual agency, in that they should be free to inform themselves and decide which medicine / vaccines they take. Hot takes aside, there are risks and potential complications with many things in medicine. However, when you do so, it must come with the understanding that there is work you can not do, countries / regions that won't allow you to visit and some things you can not do if you not correctly vaccinated.
As for the legal right to free speech and individual agency they are fine. However, they do not absolve you of moral responsibility. Convincing others not to take vaccines that can save their lives is a serious thing. Now, we can all be misinformed of course, especially when things are moving fast, as was the case with several issues related to Covid-19. However, anti-vaxxers are rarely blessed with a lot of introspection. They tend to double down rather than revise. That you can say something, does mean that it always good to say it.
Then of course there is a special case, namely children. Diseases like measles or polio can affect children very hard. Ideally you have an informed parent taking an informed choice, sparing you the whole debacle of "government vs parent" and the issue of who is responsible for children. However, that is not always the case. Case in point: We're seeing an increase in children dying from or being damaged for life due to not having been given time-tested vaccinations against fairly easily preventable diseases. A good compromise here is opt-out vaccination programs, as it still preserves individual agency, but puts more responsibility on the act of rejecting vaccines.
Sometimes we also see a knee-jerk response to this issue, namely using force or law. That comes with two major drawbacks: Firstly, it is not really that effective. Good information and building trust is what works best, this has been tried and tested again and again in epidemiology efforts all over the world. Even what was in an historic context of fighting pandemics a relatively mild use of law during Covid-19 would often become controversial. It is also logistically easier, because it is a lot more effective to have people come to you than vice versa. Secondly, it does not work on scale, you simply will not have the manpower to force a majority of the population to your will if they resist... unless you happen to be the dictator of a micro-state.
I gave geezer 48 hours. Hes been pretty good about following the rules but skirting the censorship to say the n word is pretty egregious and he should know better
Point of Information:I was not 'skirting the censorship to say the n-word.' I was quoting the lyric EXACTLY as it was spelled on the lyric video on yootoobs for the song.That said, I am NOT saying that my tempban was
Sounds like a great question to ask over at atf.
N word is racist and very offensive. You were lucky I didn't see your post before you got temped.
The use of those others words..... simply show a lack of intelligence.
What was the context for Geezer quoting the song lyrics?
I wouldn't think the n word is offensive in most lyrics when said by black people.
Use of the n word which he tried to claim was a quote and that its use by people like him was supported by the black community.
Guess he just couldn’t keep the mask on forever.
Does he sell drugs and help out the black community?
Is he black?
Does he do anything to help the black community?
Are you engaged in any illegal activities and you support the black community?
If the answer to all of those is no, then this person is incorrect.
If you cannot say one of the N words around your black friends then of course you cannot say the N word.
Now its important to clarify that there are two "N" words.
there is the hard R and there is everything else. A white person will never be allowed to say a hard R under any circumstance where the whites and blacks are close to equal.
If you are welcomed and do good business within the black community AND you hangout with people who use the non hard R, then you may be given a pass to say it.
Unless you have sold drugs and loaned money and helped commit crimes with your black friends, then probably not.
Source: I was the only white person at my friends wedding 5 years ago and I am the only white person at all of their family functions. I would never say the N word in front of black women, and I would only say it in front of people who have called me their N word before and only with people who I do good business with.
If you don't meet the qualifications then shut your mouth and stop trying to be racist. White people that say the N word but have zero positive associations with the black community are a cancer upon society.
Unless you have sold drugs and loaned money and helped commit crimes with your black friends, then probably not.
Fascinating analysis, thanks so much for sharing this.
Point of Inquiry:
And speaking of circumventing the censorship filter, how come 'fukk' and 'tard' are allowed?
they don't have specific racial targeting
and although it's very inconsistent from mod to mod and more based on their mood to the day - they are generally not allowed - i tend to avoid using them lately because whenever i include them there's a slight chance the post will be deleted, i'll catch an infraction or i'll just catch a temp
I am sorry if you don't find this helpful. An isolated community plagued by systemic racism and oppression isn't going to allow you to defile their one special word that they use as a term of endearment.
At least among men, you mostly are not going to get an "N word" pass unless you are involved in the street life, and even then it is only reserved to be used around said friends.
I assume you have never been involved in that lifestyle, am I wrong? do you have black friends who regularly call you their N word?
I DID find it helpful. It let me know you think criminality is the axis of authenticity in the black community.
I DID find it helpful. It let me know you think criminality is the axis of authenticity in the black community.
I sort of doubt that too many black people in academia or in the corporate world are going around and using the n-word with each other.
I DID find it helpful. It let me know you think criminality is the axis of authenticity in the black community.
i agree his post was very crass but if 33% of asians were mountain climbers, would it be unfair to say they are a race of outdoor enthusiasts?
I sort of doubt that too many black people in academia or in the corporate world are going around and using the n-word with each other.
not with people who are not black, no.
I am sorry for being crass and rude. It is a very touchy subject and something everyone should be concerned with.
i agree his post was very crass but if 33% of asians were mountain climbers, would it be unfair to say they are a race of outdoor enthusiasts?
I would start by looking at the social conditions driving them to the cliff.
agree completely, if you isolate by poverty and education levels and not race, you'd find that actually, asians of that socioeconomic cohort mountain climb at the exact same rate as other races
this is obviously a societal problem and not a racial one - having said that, it's outright foolish to throw shame on anyone who saw an asian with carabiners and and a chalk bag for declaring "oh he's probably about to go mountain climbing"
the first step towards helping a mountain climber is to acknowledge that the person mountain climbs in the first place
i share this a lot here because it is evergreen
A very large number of the convictions of black American males are unsound. Just ask former mod here, jman220, who used to prosecute them.
A very large number of the convictions of black American males are unsound. Just ask former mod here, jman220, who used to prosecute them.
yes, but even if you account for that, it's not going to magically move the needle
if it's 1/3 vs 1/4 or even 1/6 - does that really change the narrative?
it's sloppy whataboutism like that which prevent any real social progress - nope, no systemic problem here at all, everything is great - 50 years later we ask why nothing is substantially better
A very large number of the convictions of black American males are unsound. Just ask former mod here, jman220, who used to prosecute them.
An unsound conviction doesn't mean the defendant is factually innocent of the charged conduct, let alone other uncharged related conduct. Ask any defence lawyer and they'll tell you that 95%+ (99%+?) of their clients are factually guilty of at the very least the crime they were charged with.
Unsound convictions at trial usually hinge on technicalities such as evidence admissibility, timely discovery, jury selection bias and all sorts of other procedural matters.
You can argue that the plea bargaining culture in the US criminal justice system railroads defendants into pleading guilty (and I'd probably agree with you), but that has nothing to do with unsound convictions, and at the end of the day, very few defendants will voluntarily plead guilty when factually innocent. That number is going to be de minimis in the greater scheme of things.
A very large number of the convictions of black American males are unsound. Just ask former mod here, jman220, who used to prosecute them.
An unsound conviction doesn't mean the defendant is factually innocent of the charged conduct, let alone other uncharged related conduct. Ask any defence lawyer and they'll tell you that 95%+ (99%+?) of their clients are factually guilty of
Unless there's some evidence that the prosecution tends to drop the ball more frequently with black defendants(which is counterintuitive to say the least), this doesn't explain the discrepancy.
Also, there's a clear racial bias in terms of who's getting charged in the first place.
it's sloppy whataboutism like that which prevent any real social progress - nope, no systemic problem here at all, everything is great - 50 years later we ask why nothing is substantially better
What exactly is it that needs to "get better" here?
Unless there's some evidence that the prosecution tends to drop the ball more frequently with black defendants(which is counterintuitive to say the least), this doesn't explain the discrepancy.
Also, there's a clear racial bias in terms of who's getting charged in the first place.
What discrepancy are you talking about here, specifically? I'm just explaining what an unsound conviction is. Very few cases actually go to trial, so unsound convictions as a % of total is going to be very low all round. The vast majority of convictions are the result of a guilty plea, which I don't think can be "unsound" by definition (I am sure one of our lawyers will correct me if I'm wrong on this). If you're just using "unsound" colloquially to say "I don't think this person should be in prison", then that's a different conversation.
Second point is undoubtedly true, but not to the extent that some would make it out to be. Disparity in sentencing is a far stronger argument for racial bias than disparity in charges. Disparity in charges is just more visible when some rich spoilt white kid gets off for something a poor black kid would have undoubtedly gone to prison for in a high profile case. But those cases are few and far between in the greater scheme of things, they are just the ones that make the news. Disparity in sentencing (for example, up until relatively recently, sentences for crack vs. powder) is systemic.
An unsound conviction doesn't mean the defendant is factually innocent of the charged conduct, let alone other uncharged related conduct. Ask any defence lawyer and they'll tell you that 95%+ (99%+?) of their clients are factually guilty of at the very least the crime they were charged with.Unsound convictions usually hinge on technicalities such as evidence admissibility, time
so much for your burgeoning friendship with trolly
welcome to the dark side
Firstly, I never play d4. Secondly, what is the piece on his side, is it "magic chessmate in one from any position troll"?
