• 0 Posts
  • 69 Comments
Joined 1 年前
cake
Cake day: 2023年6月12日

help-circle



  • Actually yes. If my neighbor openly, to my face, celebrated the state murdering hundreds of thousands of people in war, I would absolutely challenge them on it just like above. And I have, in fact. I see you’re more interested in civility politics than any kind of justice, so yeah: maybe it is time to fuck off and find some instance with people who have empathy and principles. Thanks for the “warning”.


  • The original comment was yours…

    Wrong. Here is the bit of the original comment—still unremoved and not mine, but the one I replied to—which shits on anyone who doesn’t vote for Democrats, and anyone who knows enough about other political philosophies to know the two liberal mainstream U.S. political brands are basically identical in all but rhetoric (so yeah, that user “included an attack onto everyone who doesn’t thing like [them]” as you so helpfully put it).

    i swear, you have either be super out of touch with the people actively under threat by republicans or putting your principles over the lives of actual people to even begin equating the two parties. work on utopian political projects every other day of the year, build movements to affect broader social change, but i swear if you end up not voting blue during one of the most precarious moments of this shithole’s democracy what comes next is worse for all of us.

    Does that help clarify things for you? I hope so, because you’d honestly have to be willfully misreading things if not.



  • From a meta point of view, sounds like you started the antagonistic comment tree

    Wrong. The original comment was antagonistic toward any and all users (as well as the broader population) who didn’t vote the way the liberal wanted them to. I guess it’s okay to be antagonistic toward a whole segment of a community, but being “antagonistic” back to a single user who’s doing that…that is a no-no.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think some of the moderation philosophy docs address favoring deescalation and disengagement, as opposed to escalation, even when it is "in kind’.

    I’ll quote @Gaywallet, Beehaw admin and OP of this thread (and, probably, the linked document) here:

    Realistically, if someone is intolerant to you, we’re not going to tone police you for responding in kind.

    Whatever “realistic” means here, I guess. But it sounds a great deal like responding “in kind”, as you put it, isn’t fundamentally something that’s expected to be moderated against. Allegedly, at least.



  • It’s in good faith. Follow the link. Check that community’s modlog if the big tree of removed comments isn’t sufficient.

    TL;DR - OC shit on people who don’t vote for Democrats. I replied saying the current state of affairs is thanks to people like them who vote for mainstream parties, with the same kind of snark they used against the implied target of anyone who doesn’t vote or votes third-party. The mod removal based on “needlessly antagonistic” started with me—the leftist—and left alone the reactionary liberal who blamed leftists and working-class voters for the state of U.S. politics. Removing whole conversation trees for the sake of people who want to defend the honor of Democrats looks an awful lot like a liberal “sanitized space”, I’d say.










  • “Right and wrong”—as it is being used here—must always take into consideration hierarchies of oppression (e.g. white supremacy/racism, patriarchy/sexism, hetero-normativity/homophobia/queerphobia/transphobia, capitalism/classism, etc.). The quoted statement seems to ignore this, and take a reductive view that such issues are simply a matter of personal “discomfort”. While the quote alone might be taken more…forgivingly, the context within an article presenting a binary choice of either removing “bigoted or distasteful content [to make it a] sanitized space” vs. letting such content be and letting the community simply try to change minds on it does not lend confidence in that kind of forgiving interpretation.


  • From a logistical standpoint: we simply cannot privilege your personal discomfort over anyone else’s, and we cannot always cater specifically to you and what you want. Your personal positions on right or wrong are not inherently more valid than someone else’s when weighing most questions of how we should moderate this space. There are often plenty of people who do not feel like you that we must also consider in moderation decisions.

    This doesn’t take into consideration forces of oppression, and is thus incorrect and very badly constructed. Was this jointly authored, or is it one admin’s take alone?