1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Lexicus vs Vincour

Discussion in 'Infraction Review' started by Bootstoots, Aug 3, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Warlord Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    8,980
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    Lexicus is requesting a review of this infraction. The PM chain is below the infraction message; both Vincour's and Lexicus's versions agree.

    Here is the PM chain starting from there:

    -------

    Additional reasoning provided by Vincour:
    Additional reasoning provided by Lexicus:

     
  2. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Warlord Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    8,980
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    I haven't really been paying attention to OT in the past few weeks with the exception of the global warming thread and a couple of others. But here I am anyway. (edit: removed a sentence about not reading context; I have thought about this a bit more and do see the context in the thread)

    The concept of "whiteness" occupies a special negative position in the lexicon of Lexicus (lame pun-like thing intended), and more broadly to many left-wing social justice types. "Whiteness" is seen as inextricable from the advantages that people who are considered "white" have in countries with European majorities.

    Vincour pointed out that wanting to eliminate "blackness" would be unacceptable, which Lexicus appears to agree with. I also do not think that this is calling for the physical elimination of anyone, but rather the elimination of "whiteness" from European identity. But Lexicus's phrasing here is quite different and may be infractible, even though it's true that he's just using a popular internet meme and that he's agreeing with an acceptable opinion.

    I suppose analogous things that we'd treat as acceptable from around the world would be that the concept of being Han should be eliminated from the concept of being Chinese (thereby including Tibetans, Uyghurs, Sui, etc as members of the Chinese nation), or that the concept of being ethnically Russian should be eliminated from the concept of belonging to the Russian nation, or that the concept of being ethnically Turkish should be eliminated from belonging to the Turkish nation, etc.

    But to say that Hanness, ethnic Russianness, or ethnic Turkishness should be "killed with fire" is probably not an acceptable statement. "Whiteness" is a much broader category, but I can't see any analogous cases where we'd accept a "kill with fire" type of statement about any other broad grouping of ethnicities either. We might accept a "kill white privilege with fire" type of post, but "kill whiteness with fire", not so much.

    Currently I'm leaning toward this sentiment being acceptable if phrased properly, but not being acceptable if phrased the way Lexicus did in this particular post. I'll look more at the rest of the thread before stating my "official" position on whether to uphold or not.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2017
  3. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Warlord Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    8,980
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    Okay, I've seen enough - the context is what I thought it was. I vote to uphold based on the reasoning above. I'd probably not vote to uphold if he had said something like "white privilege should be killed with fire", or if he had said that "whiteness" should be removed from "European-ness", but I doubt Vincour would have issued the infraction anyway had he said it like that.

    "Whiteness" is most commonly understood as being a characteristic of most or all European-originating ethnic groups, so one is not allowed to advocate "killing it with fire", even if they're not actually arguing for physical extermination.
     
  4. leif erikson

    leif erikson Game of the Month Fanatic Administrator Supporter GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    23,810
    Location:
    Plymouth, MA
    Thank you for the explanation you provided Boots. I read the thread last night...

    Concur with your conclusion and vote to uphold the infraction.
     
  5. Lefty Scaevola

    Lefty Scaevola Moderatus Illuminatus Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2000
    Messages:
    9,793
    Location:
    San Antonio TX USA
    Concur with uphold

    Disagree with dicta that " or if he had said that "whiteness" should be removed from "European-ness" or even merely "white privilege should be killed with fire" would not be infractible racism.
     
  6. Rob (R8XFT)

    Rob (R8XFT) Ancient Briton Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2002
    Messages:
    10,553
    Location:
    Leeds (UK)
  7. ori

    ori Repair Guy Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Messages:
    16,367
    Location:
    Baden-W├╝rttemberg, Germany
  8. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Warlord Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    8,980
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    It seems we all agree to uphold; if someone else wants to chime in they should do so quickly.

    I'm going to be away from tomorrow until the 20th, so could someone else wrap this up?
     
  9. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Warlord Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    8,980
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    At long last, I've finally gotten around to calling this one. I sent both Lexicus and Vincour the following PM to inform them of the result and ask whether they consent to having their PMs published:

     
  10. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Warlord Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    8,980
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    They've now both gotten back to me. Both have consented, and there's no sensitive information either, so there's nothing to redact. I'll copy this thread directly into the public forum unchanged.

    edit: Since I was the one who provided the main reasoning, and this was broadly agreed to, anyone on the site who has any questions or comments about this decision should PM me.
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2017
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page