- Location
- United States
I was infracted 25 points for the following post, on being asked why I oppose college affirmative action.
Text of the infraction:
I respectfully appeal this infraction in its entirety, on the grounds that it incorrectly applies Rule 2.
The infraction cites me for advocating for stricter standards in such a way that its "subtext" "essentially" makes a point that the moderator considers equivalent to "pulling the ladder up" on disadvantaged groups, but this reading is flatly contradicted by the actual text. Setting aside that I argued for objective standards, not stricter standards (as the very same paragraph considers that some standards should be objectively relaxed), the very next paragraph consists of nothing but examples of ladders that the post supports expanding, and footnote 3 points out that these ladders would be redistributive along racial lines even if applied in a colorblind way, on account of the numerous material legacies of racism. Reading of the rest of the post does not support a finding that it advocates for pulling of ladders for disadvantaged groups nor that it denies the material legacy of racism.
The post does admittedly advocate against racial college admissions AA, but the question of whether that such AA even actually constitutes an effective "ladder" is itself a debatable policy position. The infraction takes for granted that it is, but a merely pragmatic policy disagreement with moderator staff is not against the rules, and so does not support a finding of Rule 2 violation.
Further, even considering the quoted sentence in isolation does not support a Rule 2 finding, as explicitly calling attention to objective environmental racism as a contributor to substandard academic performance among affected minorities is the opposite of what someone dismissive or unconcerned with the legacy of racism would do. And indeed, even without being cited as an example in the next paragraph, the cited cause (racially disproportionate pollution exposure to children) is self-evidently a problem readily amiable to proactive correction (which is part of why I choose it). Anyone might disagree with the broader points that the example is meant to make (that many relevant harms from the legacy of racism have already occurred by the time someone is applying for college, and that objective performance in many fields is too important to sacrifice for such benefits even if they existed), but again, these are debatable questions of fact or policy, which are not against the rules.
Further, even supposing a problematic reading of the post could be made, via the mod-admitted dependence on "subtext" that "essentially" says what the infraction alleges, this would not be sufficient to support a finding of Rule 2 violation, because "...Rule 2's 'Be considerate of how your opinions and statements can be interpreted by others' is not a blank check for hostile intrepretations; it covers reasonable misunderstandings...". (2023-AT-14: Staff and Driven by Apathy, EarthScorpion, writing with the majority.) For the reasons stated above, a reasonable reader, considering either the entire post or the cited sentence in isolation, would not find it to be advocating for hateful positions, or even overly dismissive positions.
Alternatively, even supposing that the post were taken to advocate pulling ladders up, or any specific ladder up, from disadvantaged groups notwithstanding all of the above, that would still not be a Rule 2 violation, as while Rule 2 's ban on hatefulness is easily read to bar advocacy of unambiguously racist policies, it does not compel support for any specific anti-racist, or purportedly anti-racist, policy or intervention. Nor does it bar advocating against such a policy, or making particular arguments against it, if not made in a hateful way or for hateful purposes. (See ibid, in which the appellant's infraction for advocating against a proposed anti-colonial intervention for pragmatic reasons was overturned.) Topically, part of the debate on racial college admissions AA is the argument that, as heretofore practiced, it is racist against Asian Americans. Whether that is true or not is, again, a debatable question beyond the scope of the rules, but it would be absurd to suggest that the mere claim that it is an anti-racist position makes it a Rule 2 violation to argue against it. If it did, it would completely bar good faith debate on the effectiveness, efficiency, or trade-offs of any anti-racist or purportedly anti-racist policy, as no one could argue anything but support.
Alternatively, if the cited line is found to be infractable solely on the basis of being a poor choice of words in some way, then I appeal to have the infraction reduced to staff notice, as 25 points is excessive for a single instance of sub-optimal phrasing in an otherwise inoffensive and good faith post.
In any case that this appeal is given a resolution other than Overturn, I request that the reason for the infraction be posted onto the infracted post by a moderator, as the explanation-free Rule 2 infraction gives the impression that the post was infracted for opposing racial college admissions AA per se, which would mislead future thread readers as to SV policy. I do not believe I can simply do so myself, as it's my understanding that this would constitute "speaking for a moderator", or something like that.
Text of the infraction:
I respectfully appeal this infraction in its entirety, on the grounds that it incorrectly applies Rule 2.
The infraction cites me for advocating for stricter standards in such a way that its "subtext" "essentially" makes a point that the moderator considers equivalent to "pulling the ladder up" on disadvantaged groups, but this reading is flatly contradicted by the actual text. Setting aside that I argued for objective standards, not stricter standards (as the very same paragraph considers that some standards should be objectively relaxed), the very next paragraph consists of nothing but examples of ladders that the post supports expanding, and footnote 3 points out that these ladders would be redistributive along racial lines even if applied in a colorblind way, on account of the numerous material legacies of racism. Reading of the rest of the post does not support a finding that it advocates for pulling of ladders for disadvantaged groups nor that it denies the material legacy of racism.
The post does admittedly advocate against racial college admissions AA, but the question of whether that such AA even actually constitutes an effective "ladder" is itself a debatable policy position. The infraction takes for granted that it is, but a merely pragmatic policy disagreement with moderator staff is not against the rules, and so does not support a finding of Rule 2 violation.
Further, even considering the quoted sentence in isolation does not support a Rule 2 finding, as explicitly calling attention to objective environmental racism as a contributor to substandard academic performance among affected minorities is the opposite of what someone dismissive or unconcerned with the legacy of racism would do. And indeed, even without being cited as an example in the next paragraph, the cited cause (racially disproportionate pollution exposure to children) is self-evidently a problem readily amiable to proactive correction (which is part of why I choose it). Anyone might disagree with the broader points that the example is meant to make (that many relevant harms from the legacy of racism have already occurred by the time someone is applying for college, and that objective performance in many fields is too important to sacrifice for such benefits even if they existed), but again, these are debatable questions of fact or policy, which are not against the rules.
Further, even supposing a problematic reading of the post could be made, via the mod-admitted dependence on "subtext" that "essentially" says what the infraction alleges, this would not be sufficient to support a finding of Rule 2 violation, because "...Rule 2's 'Be considerate of how your opinions and statements can be interpreted by others' is not a blank check for hostile intrepretations; it covers reasonable misunderstandings...". (2023-AT-14: Staff and Driven by Apathy, EarthScorpion, writing with the majority.) For the reasons stated above, a reasonable reader, considering either the entire post or the cited sentence in isolation, would not find it to be advocating for hateful positions, or even overly dismissive positions.
Alternatively, even supposing that the post were taken to advocate pulling ladders up, or any specific ladder up, from disadvantaged groups notwithstanding all of the above, that would still not be a Rule 2 violation, as while Rule 2 's ban on hatefulness is easily read to bar advocacy of unambiguously racist policies, it does not compel support for any specific anti-racist, or purportedly anti-racist, policy or intervention. Nor does it bar advocating against such a policy, or making particular arguments against it, if not made in a hateful way or for hateful purposes. (See ibid, in which the appellant's infraction for advocating against a proposed anti-colonial intervention for pragmatic reasons was overturned.) Topically, part of the debate on racial college admissions AA is the argument that, as heretofore practiced, it is racist against Asian Americans. Whether that is true or not is, again, a debatable question beyond the scope of the rules, but it would be absurd to suggest that the mere claim that it is an anti-racist position makes it a Rule 2 violation to argue against it. If it did, it would completely bar good faith debate on the effectiveness, efficiency, or trade-offs of any anti-racist or purportedly anti-racist policy, as no one could argue anything but support.
Alternatively, if the cited line is found to be infractable solely on the basis of being a poor choice of words in some way, then I appeal to have the infraction reduced to staff notice, as 25 points is excessive for a single instance of sub-optimal phrasing in an otherwise inoffensive and good faith post.
In any case that this appeal is given a resolution other than Overturn, I request that the reason for the infraction be posted onto the infracted post by a moderator, as the explanation-free Rule 2 infraction gives the impression that the post was infracted for opposing racial college admissions AA per se, which would mislead future thread readers as to SV policy. I do not believe I can simply do so myself, as it's my understanding that this would constitute "speaking for a moderator", or something like that.
