2024-AT-10: Staff and Dalmity

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dalmity

Dalmity

Location
Migrating back North
Hello, I would like to appeal this 25-point infraction I incurred here.

I'm not exactly sure if this exact post was the cause or the moderator has decided it was multiple posts together pushing them towards giving out this infraction.
But I believe it was in error as some of the sentences in the posts may have been lacking the full context when viewed.

I made a reply to the previous post with the following.

Unironically, yes.

The Houthis have beaten back the Saudis and pushed them to the negotiation table despite the attempted genocide on Yemen so they fit the classic mold of freedom fighters.

As a successful insurgency, They are going to be much more sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians than Arab governments benefiting from the status quo.

Honestly it has no relevance to what they write on their flag.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I do not believe I was casually dismissing the massive costs of the Yemen civil war and subsequent Saudi intervention which I called a genocide due to the suffering inflicted upon the civilian population, so to me the most problematic sentence would be the last one, as by itself, it could be seen as casually dismissing antisemetic rhetoric from the Houthis, which in itself could be considered a dismissal of potential warcrimes and atrocities as under 1.b.

However, this comment was made as a direct reply to the previous post, which was dismissing that the Houthis could be considered as 'freedom fighters' because of what was written on the flag. The sentence was written with that context in mind.

Are you people trying to sell Houtis as freedom fighters? As people who genuinely care about Palestinians?

Can you tell me what is written on their slogan flag? You know, this one?

Spoiler: What it says

Sorry, but this idea that this blockade on Red Sea is in anyway meant to help Palestinians is a lie. Palestinians are just convenient martyrs, much like Gazans are for Hamas.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

So if I would rewrite the last sentence with full context and clearly convey the meaning, it would be

"On whether the Houthis can be considered freedom fighters or not, what they write on their flag has no relevance as we are accessing the status of freedom fighter based on what they have endured from the Saudis."

As well, I may have been confused by the context of the post as nobody until the poster explicitly referred to the Houthis as 'freedom fighters' because of their actions during the Gaza conflict. My immediate understanding and framing of the issue is that I considered the Houthis as freedom fighters (from their experience in Yemen) with sympathies towards Palestinians, and explains in part of the motivations for their actions. Not that the Houthis are freedom fighters because they are attacking Red Sea shipping and launching missiles at Israel, which may be the argument the poster was shooting down and why the post was considered as falling foul of 1.b. So it could be an issue of talking over each other and in turn, not understanding the context of the other post.



The other post here might have also been considered by the moderator.

I think it's just strange people can't believe a political movement turned insurgency, turned winner of a decade civil war that beat back a genocidal foreign intervention aren't sincere when they appear to support similar causes abroad.

Same thing happened after the Chinese Civil War.

The immediate go-to of saying they just want to kill Jews is of course expected, but there's more complex history here.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I believe the tone made in this post is a bit too uncivil but in here I fully agree with the poster I replied to on their points that the term freedom fighter has certain positive connotations which may not be universally accepted if applied to the Houthis, and it doesn't actually mean the freedom fighter is a force of pure good. The last sentence here is a reference to how consideration of the Houthi's motivations in this entire conflict starts and ends at what they've written on their flag and their Iranian connections and that is suggestive of the motivations for their actions. I was expressing the opposite, that it is entirely too reductive, and there is more complex history here that we should also consider.
 
Information: Ruling
  • Staff Post
    • My apologies for the delay @Dalmity , between the new year and recent events for me my head has not been in a space to handle this appeal, but I can take care of it now.

    So, overall, the argument for this being a violation of Active Conflicts Policy 1b I would argue is in on two fronts. The first front is as you noted, the post indicating a dismissiveness toward the crimes committed by the Houthis, in which case I would agree that this most does not overall express the most care regarding the topic; whether or not one would argue whether or not what the Houthis are doing is an "atrocity" or not, I certainly believe that considering it such is within the scope of debate, and thus needs to be treated as such. The second is not the passive dismissal present in the tone of the post, but the post's content itself, where it is argued that what is on the falg is irrelevant to how one should consider the Houthis- or at the very least whether or not they can be considered "freedom fighters" is irrelevant to what they wrote on their flag.

    Now, while the flag's statements do not in themselves contain any atrocities thereof, the combination of "Death to Israel" and "A Curse Upon The Jews" certainly can convey a degree of desire or intent to commit an atrocity or war crime toward them, I would argue. This is explicitly dismissed in your post as being worthy of consideration- if you believe it is valid as an assessment of their broad morality and not their status as "freedom fighters", this is not something conveyed in the post itself. The dismissal of the Houthis desire to kill Jews- which is again I think certainly implicit in the statements upon their flag if nothing else- being dismissed as "complex history" without any sort of elaboration on how this impacts the morality of the situation, elaborating on the details or explaining how this complex history actually argues as you claim, also indicates a good deal of dismissiveness.

    The rules can not turn entirely upon the intent of the post, but upon how the situation can be read. I believe that the combination of the tone and content of the post can certainly be read, given the context of the quoted post presenting the flag and the acknowledgment of the potentiality to kill Jews that is bliethely dismissed in your other post, as being actively dismissed toward an intent by the Houthis to commit atrocities/war crimes, as well as the things they are currently doing, which can at least reasonably, I feel, fall into that category for the sake of the policy and discussion. You may indeed believe that the Houthis' situation is more complex in the context of their attitude toward the Jews, or that freedom fighter is not in itself a statement regarding their overall morality or broad intent, and that therefore the Houthis can qualify. And I do not know whether I would argue either of those sentiments is inherently out of bounds, at least to the point of arguing it in this ruling. However, the way expressed in these posts does indicate a sort of blithe dismissiveness that we do not want under the Active Conflicts policy.

    Overall, I think that your explanation is not outside the bounds of a reasonable reading of the post, and given that this is your first offense of this nature, although I do believe that a reduction to 0 points should be in consideration. However, in this context I have two objections to that. The first is that I feel it is a decently clear offense in two regards, which does make it ore serious than if it was just a violation in one respect. However even if I were to dismiss one of thesee prongs, I would still argue that it is worth 25 points, because a thread policy results in a thread being under heightened standards regarding said thread policy. While this doesn't make a reudction inherently invalid, I believe it would have to be more borderline than this case is to warrant it.

    ruling
    As such, the infraction is upheld.

    Thank you for your time. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask, and I again apologize for the delay. If you feel that this is an incorrcet ruling, you are free to appeal to the Community Council within the next 72 hours, explaining what about this ruling is incorrect. You can also get an Advocate to assist you in this, Advocates are avialable for contact via the subforum to this one. Please note that if staff feels that this warrants the Council taking a look at, they can demand a Tribunal independently.

    Best regards.
     
    Last edited:
  • Staff Post
    • Hello, I'll like to appeal this ruling.

    I do understand if heightened thread standards means my following explanation is considered irrelevant but I'll like to clarify what I said.
     
    For my comments here:
    The first statement relies on how this line is read.
    Honestly it has no relevance to what they write on their flag.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    The only context this line was made was for the argument that the Houthis should be classified as freedom fighters for their actions prior to the Gaza Conflict. From the long Yemeni Civil War, to enduring the Saudi intervention and resulting ceasefire.

    Partly because I did not seriously consider the argument that the Houthis are in fact 'freedom fighters' because they were attacking Red Sea shipping and launching missiles at Israel as a strong one. It was not in any way to casually dismiss the seriousness of anti-semitic rhetoric from the Houthis.

    The 'freedom fighter' statement to me seemed like it was claiming either:
    • The Houthis were never freedom fighters and should never be considered freedom fighters because of their recent actions.
    • The Houthis were freedom fighters but because of their recent actions in the Gaza Conflict, should be stripped of that label.
    This was the immediate context when I made that comment. The only reason I stated there is no relevance is because I saw the Houthis as being credibly called freedom fighters for events that have occurred long before 2023. Not because the rhetoric itself has no moral relevance or serious implications today.


    And to reply to this statement.

    Now, while the flag's statements do not in themselves contain any atrocities thereof, the combination of "Death to Israel" and "A Curse Upon The Jews" certainly can convey a degree of desire or intent to commit an atrocity or war crime toward them, I would argue. This is explicitly dismissed in your post as being worthy of consideration- if you believe it is valid as an assessment of their broad morality and not their status as "freedom fighters", this is not something conveyed in the post itself. The dismissal of the Houthis desire to kill Jews- which is again I think certainly implicit in the statements upon their flag if nothing else- being dismissed as "complex history" without any sort of elaboration on how this impacts the morality of the situation, elaborating on the details or explaining how this complex history actually argues as you claim, also indicates a good deal of dismissiveness.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    I think the term 'complex history' can been seen as weasel words trying to justify or dismiss why the Houthis have anti-semitic/genocidal sentiments when viewed together with the first quoted line.

    In this case, the complex history I referred to is an awkward rephrasing/repeat of the first sentence I wrote.

    I think it's just strange people can't believe a political movement turned insurgency, turned winner of a decade civil war that beat back a genocidal foreign intervention aren't sincere when they appear to support similar causes abroad.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    The main discussion in the thread when I made the second comment was focusing on the issue of the Houthis attacking Red Sea shipping. The motivations for indiscriminately attacking Red Sea shipping appeared to be multi-faceted and anti-semitic/genocidal rhetoric does not fully explain why the Houthis are doing something of uncertain effect that will draw a strong response.

    I provided one such alternate motivation, of why there could be genuine support and sympathy for Palestinians among the Houthis and general Yemeni population although not in the best of tone or phrasing.
     
    Although this is not a debate, as I did not respond to the arguments repeatdd in the appeal because by and large I did not consider them particularly relevant, which perhaps was my error. The arguments would be relevant if the intent of the post mattered to my argument, but it does not. I can accept that this is what Dalamity meant when they wrote this post, but I can nnot assess that, and can only go by a reasonable reading of the post, which is as I believe I argued. This could in many cases be reduced given that they did provide said context, as I said in the appeal, but I beliieve that this would be unwarranted given the tworeasons provided.
     
    Information: Tribunal opened for discussion
  • Staff Post
    • tribunal opened for discussion @Council,

    You have been asked to give your opinion on this appeal. Per Council's request, you will have ten (10) full days to render a decision on this matter, before . Before that time, you should vote to Uphold, Overturn, Reduce, or Increase the infraction.

    The arbitrator and infracting staff member - @Clown Bean and - @shinaobi are entitled to participate in the discussion, as are the appellant and their advocate as they chose to engage the services of one.

    I would like to remind all participants of a few things:

    First, a Tribunal is not a debate. The Tribunal is being asked to decide whether the appellant's infraction should be upheld. It is a discussion of the appellant's behavior, not a place to re-litigate the merits of a debate that the appellant was having or discuss the behavior of other users who might have been involved.

    Second, the entire Tribunal will be made public at the end of the discussion unless there is a good reason for it not to be released. If the appellant or any other participant has an opinion on whether it should not be made public, they should present that during this period.

    Third, the purpose of Tribunals is to both decide whether an infraction should be upheld and also to provide the Staff guidance on the Council's opinions on the rules and policies of Sufficient Velocity. Councillors represent the regular users of SV, and your discussion helps shape the Staff's efforts to apply, enforce, and interpret the rules in the future and identify areas where things can be improved.

    Please comport yourself accordingly.

    After ten (10) days, this Tribunal will be closed to discussions on the infraction and there will be a two (2) day period for the Administration to raise potential policy issues and for the Council to briefly discuss those issues before it is made public.

    Thank you.
     
  • Staff Post
    • I think I'm going to vote
    [x] Overturn

    In this case.

    I don't actually think that saying "I am sympathetic to X armed group" which seems to be the substance of the appelant's post is a violation of 1b. I find it helpful in this kind of case to turn it around and look at a group on our side. If we were to have a poster who was to express sympathy for America in the context of support for say, Kurdistan, I don't think it would be legitimate to 1b them on the basis that America invaded Iraq, or ran torture camps or its support for Israeli warcrimes in Gaza. It's fairly clear that the poster is expressing support for the Houthies in the context of the civil war in Yemen and their resistance to the Saudi led genocide.

    To sustain such a test feels like it basically makes it impossible for anyone to take a side in international politics outside the notional emergence of some kind of socialist utopia. I simply don't feel like that's a sustainable standard of moderation.
     
    It's been established for a long time in SV rule enforcement that intent is not a defense. But I think here we see intent being used as the offense, and I don't favour it either. The arbitrator's defense of the infraction is built on a mountain of ill intent assumption. And sure, this is active conflicts with the thread banner, so the responsibility to avoid possible harmful readings is in the poster's hand but there's a point at which the hostile reading is entirely in the eye of the beholder and I feel like this gets pretty close to that.

    The arbitrator alleges that the phrases on the Houthi flags could be read as intent to inflict atrocities. Which might be correct despite it being certain to remain hypothetical knowing the logistics involved. The use of Jews over Israeli is definitely suspect. But they jump from that to accusing the poster of making a morality judgement when dismissing the writings on the flag, when it's exceedingly obvious their post is making a statement about their status as freedom fighters rather than their morality. Asking for even more ass covering before being able to make this point is akin to asking every critic of Israel to say a pledge of condemnation against Hamas, an unrealistic standard I'm pretty confident we've rejected as a forum.

    As I stated, I think there is a limit to how much harmful read you can pull out of a post before the harm is entirely spun by the reader's hand. The arbitrator claim intent shouldn't matter but their judgement seem to hinge on reading ill intent nonetheless. Worse, that reading requires actively dismissing context to make a worse reading, which I think is way beyond the duty of care that the active conflict forum rules require. I do not find the implication that the appellant's post dismiss the moral issues alongside the implications for the Houthi's position as freedom fighters by arguing the flag writing doesn't matter because the context of the statement is very clear. Taken out of the post and discussion chain, that statement would absolutely be problematic but the hostile read only stand by actively refusing to consider that context.

    [X] Overturn

    BiopunkOtrera said:
    I think I'm going to vote
    [x] Overturn

    In this case.

    I don't actually think that saying "I am sympathetic to X armed group" which seems to be the substance of the appelant's post is a violation of 1b. I find it helpful in this kind of case to turn it around and look at a group on our side. If we were to have a poster who was to express sympathy for America in the context of support for say, Kurdistan, I don't think it would be legitimate to 1b them on the basis that America invaded Iraq, or ran torture camps or its support for Israeli warcrimes in Gaza. It's fairly clear that the poster is expressing support for the Houthies in the context of the civil war in Yemen and their resistance to the Saudi led genocide.

    To sustain such a test feels like it basically makes it impossible for anyone to take a side in international politics outside the notional emergence of some kind of socialist utopia. I simply don't feel like that's a sustainable standard of moderation.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    If someone said "I am sympathetic to Hamas" out of the blue, I think people would want some action on that and I don't think I'd object too hard. But this is quite a bit below the bar of sympathy, as you can think someone is a freedom fighter without actively supporting their movement and all it entails, and quite a bit less dire in terms of exactions, since the case for harm seem to be built on a few slogans rather than action. The Houthi have their own skeletons as reactionary islamists but that's quite distant from the case and in no way defended by the appellant. As I said above, the standard being required here is the same that would require every criticism of Israel to feature a condemnation of Hamas' crimes to avoid being accused of justifying them by implication and that's neither healthy nor sustainable.
     
    Nyvis said:
    The arbitrator alleges that the phrases on the Houthi flags could be read as intent to inflict atrocities. Which might be correct despite it being certain to remain hypothetical knowing the logistics involved. The use of Jews over Israeli is definitely suspect. But they jump from that to accusing the poster of making a morality judgement when dismissing the writings on the flag, when it's exceedingly obvious their post is making a statement about their status as freedom fighters rather than their morality. Asking for even more ass covering before being able to make this point is akin to asking every critic of Israel to say a pledge of condemnation against Hamas, an unrealistic standard I'm pretty confident we've rejected as a forum.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    This is a bizarre interpretation of my argument that indicates that it is not being understood, as does the post prior, so while I do not want this to turn into an argument, I will again, clarify in-depth. I did not state that I believe the author of the post intended to do anything of the sort with the post. I can not read intent, and I actually believed that their explanations were also a reasonable reading of why they posted things, and stated that if the thread were not under higher satndards, I would have likely reduced on that basis.

    My issue is not with what the poster was saying in their heart, but how the post can be read. Saying that the Houthis are freedom fighters with no qualifications, no elaborations of the context thereof that they assert, or any actual detailed analysis of why the person they are responding to is incorrect on their interpertation of the flag, they just staright-out say that it does not matter, and their lack of analysis I feel, in a topic with this degree of severity and charged nature where, as noted, heightened expectations are in place, I feel does not pass the Rule 2 point that we be mindful of how other parties can read the post. I explicitly stated that I do not think that these arguments are inherently out of bounds, so the conclusion that that was my intent with this ruling is rather bizarre.

    To actually analogize this to the Hamas situation would be if somebody posted "I believe Hamas are freedom fighters regardless of what they say in their mission statement" and say "Yiou could say that Hamas' statements regarding Jewish people indicate antisemitism, but I think that there is complicated history there", then, very importantly, do not elaborate on that at all, qualify it in any sense, or elaborate on why they believe despite the apparent context. That would be the equivalent that would be infracted under Rule 2 by my reasoning, and overall I believe that peope who post understand that implicitly, because you typically do not see that level of naunce not being presented in posts that can be read as defending Hamas. The issue here is content and how people wiill perceive that content, that is entirely what my ruling turns around, it is what my arguments focus on (outside the ones that focus on heightened standards).

    I have no particular deep attachment to this infraction, but it is clear that my perspective has been misunderstood, so let me attempt again to expain it.
     
    Clown Bean said:
    This is a bizarre interpretation of my argument that indicates that it is not being understood, as does the post prior, so while I do not want this to turn into an argument, I will again, clarify in-depth. I did not state that I believe the author of the post intended to do anything of the sort with the post. I can not read intent, and I actually believed that their explanations were also a reasonable reading of why they posted things, and stated that if the thread were not under higher satndards, I would have likely reduced on that basis.

    My issue is not with what the poster was saying in their heart, but how the post can be read. Saying that the Houthis are freedom fighters with no qualifications, no elaborations of the context thereof that they assert, or any actual detailed analysis of why the person they are responding to is incorrect on their interpertation of the flag, they just staright-out say that it does not matter, and their lack of analysis I feel, in a topic with this degree of severity and charged nature where, as noted, heightened expectations are in place, I feel does not pass the Rule 2 point that we be mindful of how other parties can read the post. I explicitly stated that I do not think that these arguments are inherently out of bounds, so the conclusion that that was my intent with this ruling is rather bizarre.

    To actually analogize this to the Hamas situation would be if somebody posted "I believe Hamas are freedom fighters regardless of what they say in their mission statement" and say "Yiou could say that Hamas' statements regarding Jewish people indicate antisemitism, but I think that there is complicated history there", then, cery importantly, do not elaborate on that at all, qualify it in any sense, or elaborate on why they believe despite the apparent context that term is warranted. That would be the equivalent that would be infracted under Rule 2 by my reasoning, and overall I believe that peope who post understand that implicitly, because you typically do not see that level of naunce not being presented in posts that can be read as defending Hamas. The issue here is content and how people wiill perceive that content, that is entirely what my ruling turns around, it is what my arguments focus on (outside the ones that focus on heightened standards).

    I have no particular deep attachment to this infraction, but it is clear that my perspective has been misunderstood, so let me attempt again to expain it.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    But that's my point. At some level of concern about readers' possible reads, you fall into reader-assigned intent judgments. This kind of hostile read is only possible by totally refusing to read context and by assigning a lot of intent to defend a moral position to the label of freedom fighter that wasn't present in the appellant's post. It's not a reasonable read of what's there, it's a projection of reader hostility and emotional investment against the freedom fighter label.

    It is the asking for a condemnation of Hamas in every criticism of Israel standard, based solely on readers being so emotionally invested in the situation they take every criticism as a justification for atrocity. But of course this is even less grounded because it's a few slogans on a flag rather than a large scale offensive targeting civilians.

    The context being the role of the Houthi as freedom fighters rather than their moral worth is transparently obvious without trying to cover for a reader's own internal thoughts. I agree that there's a duty of care for readers but those have to remain about the post and its context, not offense readers might take at the poster's possible intent to defend a morally dubious cause, even if you, yourself, don't think you're assigning such an intent, just caring for someone who might.
     
    Nyvis said:
    If someone said "I am sympathetic to Hamas" out of the blue, I think people would want some action on that and I don't think I'd object too hard. But this is quite a bit below the bar of sympathy, as you can think someone is a freedom fighter without actively supporting their movement and all it entails, and quite a bit less dire in terms of exactions, since the case for harm seem to be built on a few slogans rather than action. The Houthi have their own skeletons as reactionary islamists but that's quite distant from the case and in no way defended by the appellant. As I said above, the standard being required here is the same that would require every criticism of Israel to feature a condemnation of Hamas' crimes to avoid being accused of justifying them by implication and that's neither healthy nor sustainable.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    My understanding of the argument in context

    1: Another poster suggested that the Houthies couldn't be freedom fighters because, in the broadest terms, they were bad
    2: The appellant suggested they were freedom fighters because they'd fought the Saudis off successfully, and points to this as the likely reason they're conducting further operations.

    The appelleant doesn't actually dispute the morale judgement precisely but rather rejects it as irrelevant. They are making a factual statement rather like saying "the US military is the saviour of Kurdistan." I would consider this a statement of sympathy towards the US military, but it's also a factual one. If someone was to react to that by saying "The US military is assisting a genocide in Palestine! How can you say they're the saviors of anything!" that would be a wierd response and I don't think it's something moderation should take issue with.
     
    BiopunkOtrera said:
    My understanding of the argument in context

    1: Another poster suggested that the Houthies couldn't be freedom fighters because, in the broadest terms, they were bad
    2: The appellant suggested they were freedom fighters because they'd fought the Saudis off successfully, and points to this as the likely reason they're conducting further operations.

    The appelleant doesn't actually dispute the morale judgement precisely but rather rejects it as irrelevant. They are making a factual statement rather like saying "the US military is the saviour of Kurdistan." I would consider this a statement of sympathy towards the US military, but it's also a factual one. If someone was to react to that by saying "The US military is assisting a genocide in Palestine! How can you say they're the saviors of anything!" that would be a wierd response and I don't think it's something moderation should take issue with.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    This is my understanding too. The moral argument is not opposed as much as dismissed as orthogonal to the question, which seems fair game to me.
     
    I think this sort of discussion is where the old canard about "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" becomes relevant.

    I'm not sure that I agree that the Houthis are freedom fighters, but I don't think it violates any rules of SV to call them that, nor to explain your reasons for it. Nor do I think that having hateful slogans necessarily prevents one from qualifying for the term, though it certainly ought to complicate any discussion of supporting them more generally. Since the post in question does not discuss anything related to outright support for the group, merely a discussion on what terms are appropriate to use when referring to them, I'm inclined to vote:

    [x] Overturn
     
    Yeah, I don't see support of the Houthis in the user's posts, and I don't think the discussion of whether the term 'freedom fighter' applies to them violates SVs rules. I have to vote to overturn.

    [x] Overturn
     
    The Houthis are violently hostile to anyone not of their particular extreme brand of Shi'a Islam, are the main cause of the mass starvation in Yemen, call themselves for the genocide of Jews, and run outright slave markets. Casting them as 'freedom fighters' dilutes the term even more than Reagan did, since the only freedom they're fighting for is their own to dominate Yemen.
    Maugan Ra said:
    I think this sort of discussion is where the old canard about "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" becomes relevant.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...
    This is indeed relevant, since the entire point of Reagan's hairsplitting over the various armed groups in Central America that were using their US supplied arms to commit atrocities was to make a diversionary distinction between 'but our armed bloodthirsters are good ones!' "Freedom fighters" inherently carries a positive connotation and spirit of approval, since the often only difference between such and 'terrorists' is whether you approve of their cause.

    [X] Uphold
     
    I ended up going back and forth on this a lot, because, bluntly, Freedom Fighter does in fact have a positive sounding connotation in popular imagination and this is a thread where your supposed to be hyperaware of how you might come off.

    That said, 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter', which originates from a briiths author is the 70s whose character was making a similar point about how ones perspective can lead them to see some acts of violence differently, and that these aren't neccesarilly moral labels but can be factual ones as well, is literally one of the most often used phrases in the english language about these sort of debates.

    I guess i'll err on overturn; it's not like anyone here actually believe Dalmity is a Houthi Supporter, and within the context of what their qouting I think a Generic Reasonable Poster would also see this as a rejection of the moral framing of the label.

    Had the post been made on it's own, I probably would have leaned the other way, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect posters to read the context of a post when the qoute is in the post itself.
     
    Last edited:
    The Houthis are certainly not freedom fighters, in my opinion, but does that mean this is impermissible rhetoric? That much I'm not so sure.

    In total, I do think that the poster's response to the flag being brought up in the thread - "The immediate go-to of saying they just want to kill Jews is of course expected, but there's more complex history here." is what tips my mind to uphold. This is not a civil, appropriate, or respectful response - um, actuallying open desire for semetic genocide is not great, especially when Dalmity just... leaves it there. If you're going to claim something like that, it needs to be substantiated.

    Uphold.
     
    I've found myself going back and forth on this repeatedly, because I'm of two minds, and I DON'T want to just do the split-the-baby Staff Notice thing. I'll try to come to a decision soon, but I'd like to apologize for not chiming in on this yet.
     
    [X] Overturn. I don't really see what's hateful here. BPO's kinda laid out the crux of the issue IMO.
     
    Regardless of my personal opinions there, I think viewing the Houthis as freedom fighters is within the lines of the rules but I am going to echo Estro here.

    "The immediate go-to of saying they just want to kill Jews is of course expected, but there's more complex history here."

    Putting out this sort of statement on its own and then not going into any of the supposed detail is in fact not mindful. Admitting the group has a desire for an antisemetic genocide and just offhandedly brushing it aside, even with it not being the main point, is never going to really ever be a civil or appropriate way of talking about this kind of topic in my eyes.

    [X] Uphold
     
    Pawn Lelouch said:
    Regardless of my personal opinions there, I think viewing the Houthis as freedom fighters is within the lines of the rules but I am going to echo Estro here.

    "The immediate go-to of saying they just want to kill Jews is of course expected, but there's more complex history here."

    Putting out this sort of statement on its own and then not going into any of the supposed detail is in fact not mindful. Admitting the group has a desire for an antisemetic genocide and just offhandedly brushing it aside, even with it not being the main point, is never going to really ever be a civil or appropriate way of talking about this kind of topic in my eyes.

    [X] Uphold
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    I want to clarify that I did address the point made about that line on this thread and how the term 'complex history' was a self-reference to the example I gave on the first sentence of that post.

    I think it's just strange people can't believe a political movement turned insurgency, turned winner of a decade civil war that beat back a genocidal foreign intervention aren't sincere when they appear to support similar causes abroad.
    Click to expand...
    Click to shrink...

    Not saying this isn't a valid criticism since there's multiple people who do find it problematic but I did attempt to provide detail with the example.

     
    There is a noted tendency in the West to treat conflicts elsewhere in the world like we're cheerleading sport teams. This is not to say that's what happened here, but it feels, at least to me, that when discussing faraway conflicts on the other side of the world that only tangentially concerns us and we may be more sympathetic towards one of the group for some reason or the other, we can have a a bad habit of not thinking through some of the implications of our "support", ideological or otherwise, of them. There is a reason these discussions, such as that thread, have a bright yellow mod warning to be extremely mindful and careful of what we express in the thread.

    Did the post cross the rules lined out in the Staff Post? It is thorny, because on first read, it does seem like a careless and accidental dismissal of the anti-semitic rhetoric of the Houthis. On the other hand, as the user and other Councillors pointed out, it could be argued that Dalmity was mostly debating about the definition of freedom fighter and the flag was irrelevant to their argumentation, hence why it was glossed over.

    I would lean towards a reduction, but as @Clown Bean said, the thread it is from is subject to a higher standard, so a reduction wouldn't make much sense. I'm unsure what to do here, so I will sleep on it, perhaps I will have a clearer position in the morning.
     
    10 more messages…
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Back
    Top