Do Rules About Not Advocating Violence Not Apply Anymore?

[Synobun]

Seems like a PEBKAC issue to me, IMO. I took the brunt of the rhetoric in the thread you only recently joined in on and saw no hint of bias from the mods. If your attitude is hostile at every turn then it's unlikely the problem is with the mods and is instead with how you're handling the situation. Civility goes a long way.

 

[Traitorfish]

1) Arguing against Richard Spencer and the Alt Right is like arguing that Jews have no right to a homeland, a right to exist, or a future for their children because they were the primary operators of the African slave trade. Everyone has done messed up **** in history. To declare any group invalid and unworthy of existence isn't just wrong it is evil.

What? The alt-right aren't an ethnic group, they're a political tendency. This analogy doesn't make any sense.

(Also, what's this about Jews and the slave trade? Where did that come from?)

2) Anyone who is White or looks White. Go make a Twitter account, look up White People on the search tab and you'll see for yourself.

Eh? I'm white- if you count the Irish as white, you might not, hard to tell with your sort- and nobody's ever called me a Nazi, not even collectively.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

It has become an ethnic slur. Anyone who uses social media would know that, but you obviously live in a 1930s and 1940s bubble

It's not an ethnic slur, unless you're saying the entire human species is one ethnicity. David Ahenikew, a First Nations man, was stripped of his Order of Canada for spouting public hate speech against Jews. Bigotry is not limited by skin color or ethnicity.

Social media is not representative of all of modern society, thank goodness.

 

[Traitorfish]

Just returning to the OP for a moment,

Simple question. There is an entire thread right now where a bunch of posters are advocating for political violence and moderators are doing nothing about it.

Multiple posters, including yourself, have repeatedly called for the use of force, up to and including lethal force, against protesters you regard as beaching the civil peace. Saying it's cool to smack a fascist is pretty light-weight by comparison.

My guess would be, the mods choose to interpret the rule as pertaining to advocacy of specific acts of violent, rather than broad moral or political stances.

 

[Bootstoots]

My guess would be, the mods choose to interpret the rule as pertaining to advocacy of specific acts of violent, rather than broad moral or political stances.

This. We generally allow people to discuss when violence is appropriate - otherwise we'd never be able to have any non-pacifist discussion about military interventions, for instance. It's advocating specific, extralegal acts of violence that is not okay. For instance, in the thread about the Berkeley riots, I infracted someone for saying that Milo Yiannopoulos should be lynched, but talking about whether violent protest is acceptable or wise is allowed, in general.

edit: replaced Richard Spencer with Milo Yiannopoulos; forgot which thread this was in

 

[Ryika]

So an "Is it ethical to punch moderators that you dislike?"-thread would be a-okay? That's amazing.
I have to make a note so I remember this for if I ever request to have access to the OT-forums again.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Please stay on topic.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Traitorfish]

So an "Is it ethical to punch moderators that you dislike?"-thread would be a-okay? That's amazing.
I have to make a note so I remember this for if I ever request to have access to the OT-forums again.

"CFC moderators" are a pretty specific group of people, and moreover, people you are going to have to interact with if you continue posting here. "Nazis" is a much more general category, and there are no Nazis non CFC, if only because they always manage to get themselves banned within the first 48 hours.

 

[W|M]

There is one upthread, although he has managed to get himself banned soon after posting on OT

 

[Ryika]

"CFC moderators" are a pretty specific group of people, and moreover, people you are going to have to interact with if you continue posting here. "Nazis" is a much more general category, and there are no Nazis non CFC, if only because they always manage to get themselves banned within the first 48 hours.

I didn't specify "CFC moderators", I said moderators in general.

Not sure how you'd distinguish a Nazi from anybody else outside of threads about Nazi-relevant topics though. It's not like they wear swastikas on their head. Well... most of them don't these days.

Then there's also tons of people who theoretically have to fear that sort of violence because left-wing groups such as Antifa call anybody who does not agree with or actively goes against their very specific far-left ideology a Nazi. Hell, certain "news" channels called all Trump voters Racists before he won the election - ease these words up a little more and suddenly it's okay to punch anybody you disagree with. So I don't think the "There are no Nazis here, so that's no problem."-excuse works. Even if we assume that there's not a single person who would think of themselves as a Nazi on this board, the violent implications of the discussion would still affect a lot of people.

 

[Traitorfish]

I didn't specify "CFC moderators", I said moderators in general.

I mean, I guess you're free to try your luck and see how the mods react.

Not sure how you'd distinguish a Nazi from anybody else outside of threads about Nazi-relevant topics though.

People like that are not, as a rule, very good at compertmentalising their beliefs. That's why I'm extended such relative tolerance for a raving Marxist ideologue, I can get, oh, seven or eight pages into a thread before threatening to send people to the gulag.

 

[Ryika]

People like that are not, as a rule, very good at compertmentalising their beliefs.

You say that, but how do you verify it? How do you know that there's not a ton of Nazis that you interact with daily, but just don't fit the type that tells you in your face?
Here in Germany we actually have very well organized Nazi groups that look normal, act normal, and give you handouts on the streets that look innocent enough but are designed to pull people towards their circles.

I mean, I guess you're free to try your luck and see how the mods react.

Well, I'd probably get an infraction for trolling, and maybe rightfully so, because it would be pretty reasonable to assume that I'm not actually interested in discussing the ethics of punching forum moderators because of a disagreement on how the rules should be enforced, but instead to be edgy.

But the idea is still the same. Would it be okay to create a thread that discusses whether it's okay to punch very conservative Muslims who think stoning gays is the compassionate thing to do? A discussion about whether it's okay to punch radical feminists that yell #killallmen and make actual arguments for why men should be reduced to ~10% of the population? Is it okay to have a discussion about whether it's okay to punch women who had an abortion? After all, some people still think abortion is murder, and from their perspective, such a discussion may make a lot of sense. More so than punching a Nazi even, because in their mind that person does not only think very inappropriate things, no, to them that person has literally murdered somebody.

I mean... really.

"Punching people for having an abortion?

Hello, my name is Jessy. I'm very religious, and my religion tells me that abortion is murder. I do of course understand if for example a rape victim wants to remove the baby of a rapist, so I am not entirely against abortion, but these days, many lives are taken in abortion clinics before they even have a chance to flourish, and mostly by mothers who simply want to avoid the consequences of their actions after being careless.

Do you think it is okay to punch these people so other people think twice before having an abortion?

"Yes. Punch them as often as possible!"

That thread would probably be open for about 10 minutes, and then closed purely on the basis that people do not agree with her world view.

 

[Traitorfish]

We've previously had posters openly declare that giving and receiving abortions merits the death penalty. I don't recall any infractions being handed out for those discussions, although I'll grant I may be misremembering.

Anyway, I'm not really following your argument. That posters shouldn't be allowed to advocate for punching Nazis, or that they should be allowed to advocate for punching everyone else, too? Are you happy with either, so long as it appears to you consistent?

 

[Ryika]

We've previously had posters openly declare that giving and receiving abortions merits the death penalty. I don't recall any infractions being handed out for those discussions, although I'll grant I may be misremembering.

If that's the case, then great!

Anyway, I'm not really following your argument. That posters shouldn't be allowed to advocate for punching Nazis, or that they should be allowed to advocate for punching everyone else, too? Are you happy with either, so long as it appears to you consistent?

I guess my position looks a bit warped because I started with the moderator-joke and then got dragged into defending the notion that it's "not okay" when you mentioned that discussion about nazis/moderators are different in your opinion because CFC moderators are directly affected.

My actual position is that I'm very much for allowing these conversations. I was just surprised that that's actually okay with the moderators.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

You say that, but how do you verify it? How do you know that there's not a ton of Nazis that you interact with daily, but just don't fit the type that tells you in your face?
Here in Germany we actually have very well organized Nazi groups that look normal, act normal, and give you handouts on the streets that look innocent enough but are designed to pull people towards their circles.

Chances are that they would eventually let something slip out. Or maybe they would break some agreement that said they were to leave such topics out of the conversation.

Back in the 1980s, a high school teacher named Jim Keegstra went on trial in my city for breaking the hate laws. Over the course of a number of years, he indoctrinated his social studies students in anti-Semitic views and Holocaust denial. One of the people who defended him (not a lawyer, but a supporter) was involved in the musical theatre production I was working on that year (he played one of the leads). We all knew where he stood on the issue, and I don't know if he was told not to discuss it or if he realized that he should keep his mouth shut at the theatre, but he managed to do that for the first three months or so. But then he started wearing buttons on his jacket expressing support for Keegstra, Ernst Zundel (another individual convicted of hate speech; at least he was able to be deported since he wasn't a citizen), and "free speech."

One night I was just arriving at the theatre, toting a couple of large bags of props, and struggling through a late-April snowdrift. This guy was also just arriving, and said, "Keegstra would blame the Jews for this" (meaning the late-season snowstorm that dumped the snow I was having trouble with). I told him that I absolutely did not want to discuss Keegstra or the court case, and said that as far as I was concerned, late snowfalls in April are just things that happen some years. He started to protest, but I had to repeat that I really didn't want to hear about it.

Some people just can't help themselves. They may try, but it will slip out sooner or later.

Is it okay to have a discussion about whether it's okay to punch women who had an abortion? After all, some people still think abortion is murder, and from their perspective, such a discussion may make a lot of sense. More so than punching a Nazi even, because in their mind that person does not only think very inappropriate things, no, to them that person has literally murdered somebody.

I mean... really.

That thread would probably be open for about 10 minutes, and then closed purely on the basis that people do not agree with her world view.

We've previously had posters openly declare that giving and receiving abortions merits the death penalty. I don't recall any infractions being handed out for those discussions, although I'll grant I may be misremembering.

If that's the case, then great!

I guess my position looks a bit warped because I started with the moderator-joke and then got dragged into defending the notion that it's "not okay" when you mentioned that discussion about nazis/moderators are different in your opinion because CFC moderators are directly affected.

My actual position is that I'm very much for allowing these conversations. I was just surprised that that's actually okay with the moderators.

I'm not comfortable with any of these "punching" threads, whether real or hypothetical. And the moderator one isn't really a joke, because some of the staff here have been open about which city they live in. If a sufficiently disturbed person wanted to go through with this, how could the moderators be sure that they were safe?

The poster who kept posting his view that women who have abortions should be executed is no longer a forum member. He was permabanned a few years ago (before you joined). I was on staff during his time here (but not when the permaban happened), and yes, it disturbed me that he was allowed to keep posting that stuff. "It's his opinion" might be acceptable if it's hypothetical, but when it could reasonably apply to someone on this forum, it's definitely not acceptable, in my view.

 

[God of Kings]

With regards to punching people, should the discussion include punching obviously fictional, but readily identifiable, people, such as those born with green skins?

What about satire, in which all readily identifiable groups are replaced with fictional counterparts (albeit not one-to-one), such as discrimination towards green-skinned people and blue-skinned people?

 

[Commodore]

As an former moderator who had to deal with some incidents in politically-tense threads, I can say that I don't believe that the current staff - most of whom were staff during my time - moderate from a place of political bias.

It's hard for me to believe that though when there was only one poster in the thread I linked that got a warning from the moderator and they got that warning for making a rhetorical comment about punching black people just to prove a point. Meanwhile, the moderators are completely silent on the numerous posters who were seriously advocating for violence against those who might be Nazis.

In any case, I know I've made it known that I don't have a lot of confidence in the moderators in the past, which is why my chosen method of protest is to use an ad blocker on this site. Until I have confidence in the staff again, this site isn't going to make any money off of my traffic.

 

[Ryika]

I'm not comfortable with any of these "punching" threads, whether real or hypothetical. And the moderator one isn't really a joke, because some of the staff here have been open about which city they live in. If a sufficiently disturbed person wanted to go through with this, how could the moderators be sure that they were safe?

But that's true for any "punching" thread, including Nazis. Some people will be affected by such a discussion, the only real difference between the two is that moderators are easier to identify. I can understand why somebody would advocate against all threads of that type, but being okay with one type and not the other seems pretty hypocritical to me.

The poster who kept posting his view that women who have abortions should be executed is no longer a forum member. He was permabanned a few years ago (before you joined). I was on staff during his time here (but not when the permaban happened), and yes, it disturbed me that he was allowed to keep posting that stuff. "It's his opinion" might be acceptable if it's hypothetical, but when it could reasonably apply to someone on this forum, it's definitely not acceptable, in my view.

Yeah, but again... the Nazi-thing isn't just hypocritical either. Like I said, even if we somehow magically don't have a single Neo-Nazi here, the fact that people seem to be okay with political violence against people they see as Nazis, and with admitting it so openly, worries me personally. I for example have been more critical of the refugee crisis than the rest of the left in my country, and for that I've been called a Nazi more than once. Not only in Internet Forums, but also in real life. Obviously I am not a Nazi, and I still fall on the left, even when it comes to the refugees, but my actual positions simply don't matter when people have branded me as somebody to whom human rights don't apply anymore. So a thread about punching Nazis worries me personally, even though I'm not directly affected.

So again, I don't think saying "This thread is okay, that thread is not." is a reasonable stance here. If you feel that threads of this type affect you in a negative way that you find unacceptable, then you should be against those threads in principle, instead of judging each individual topic from your own point of view, because other people will feel differently about different threads, and many factors you will simply not know about.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

But that's true for any "punching" thread, including Nazis. Some people will be affected by such a discussion, the only real difference between the two is that moderators are easier to identify. I can understand why somebody would advocate against all threads of that type, but being okay with one type and not the other seems pretty hypocritical to me.

What part of "I'm not comfortable with any of these "punching" threads, whether real or hypothetical." is unclear?

I can't do anything about how OT is moderated, other than add my input to others' in the hope that the bad threads will be dealt with in a rational, unbiased way.

 

[Commodore]

the fact that people seem to be okay with political violence against people they see as Nazis, and with admitting it so openly, worries me personally

Exactly. Hygro may not have had malicious intent when starting the thread, but the number of posters who are expressing downright nasty views is mind-boggling. And again, I find it ridiculous that the only person the moderators felt the need to call out, was the one poster who was trying to show everyone how ridiculous and nasty they were all acting.

No political bias indeed...

If you really are upset about all of this, then I encourage you to use the same method of protest I'm using. The only way to get people to listen is to hit them in the wallet.