Status
Not open for further replies.
Staff Notice - Threadbanned
Yeah can I get a threadban from here for a bit or at some point I'm going to give in to temptation and call Desdendelle out on his bullshit. Last time I did that I got permabanned from an entire subforum. Would not like a repeat.

EDIT: Hm... @Magery is online right now.
 
Rule 3 - You should know perfectly well this is not acceptable.
RS here goes to say that "Jews can't have a state in their homeland, they don't deserve the same rights as other people".
People here do and have closed ranks around people saying (and doing, in Corbyn's case) anti-Semitic things. Leftists outside of here have closed ranks around left-Anti-Semites like Corbyn and Omar. QTesseract, I call bullshit.


So I'm to be banned just because I happen to like having a state where I'm not an oppressed minority like Jews usually were/are?
Some welcoming community, this place is.
I mean it'd be helpful if you actually could in good faith replicate my position, but you are of course above all a bad faith actor so you will of course leave out I'm literally an Anarchist and in favor of the abolition of all states especially ethnostates in favor of federations of cosmopolitan communes with laws founded on the idea of tearing down unjust hierarchies like ethnic and religious dominance hierarchies. And therefore do want everyone to have the same thing.
 
Last edited:
Warning: This post wasn't a joke.
enough of the personal attacks.
While I value the participation of Sufficient Velocity's membership and their contribution to discussions around policy, this thread is not a free-for-all.

In particular, it is not acceptable to attack other posters, councilors, or staff members, for their participation in the Tribunal or in this thread. You may disagree with them, but that disagreement needs to be targeted to ideas, not users.

In the past, we have been fairly hands-off with this thread so as to encourage free and open participation. That policy will continue so long as it is not abused.

I can't repeat this enough. If you want to participate, you must be prepared to be civil. If you are not civil, you are not entitled to participate.


this post wasn't a joke.
I am headed to sleep and don't have the time to deal with this thread right now, so I've locked it until Squishy comes online and can. But Squish was serious about this, and I don't think what is happening/was about to happen here was going to stay within those lines.
 
Corbyn. USSR anti-Semitism. Farrakhan. Ilhan Omar. Any time someone like...

RS here goes to say that "Jews can't have a state in their homeland, they don't deserve the same rights as other people".
People here do and have closed ranks around people saying (and doing, in Corbyn's case) anti-Semitic things. Leftists outside of here have closed ranks around left-Anti-Semites like Corbyn and Omar. QTesseract, I call bullshit.


So I'm to be banned just because I happen to like having a state where I'm not an oppressed minority like Jews usually were/are?
Some welcoming community, this place is.
I'll be charitable and assume you didn't see my edit, where I literally addressed that exact point in very similar language to yours. No, that is not something you should be banned over, and if I gave the impression it was, then I apologize.

I think Zionist (and anti-Zionist too) are labels to throw around cautiously because they have been frequently co-opted by bigots to the point where bigoted beliefs and actions are commonly associated with the terms. But no, simply labeling oneself a Zionist should not be a punishable action.

This is distinct from transphobe because as people have pointed out, it is literally impossible to be a transphobe without being hateful towards trans people, in much the same way one can't be a racist without being racist.
 
@Graviator
I've chosen to take your signature and your stated intent of "bridging gaps" between communities at face value.

However, your actions don't appear to be anything remotely resembling the Christian you claim to be. Instead of being accepting, open, and genuinely committed to learning, you appear to be argumentative, trotting out some old and tired arguments in an attempt to apparently defend some nebulous group's "right" to dislike a group, person, whatever, and not be infracted for it. Whether that attitude extends to real life or not, I don't know.

A true Christian (not the caricature that most people try to present) would probably say something like, "You know, for reasons that I don't fully understand or acknowledge, this topic bothers me and I feel like I should say something to defend the people who express views similar to what I might be feeling. However, I should be like Christ as much as possible, open and non-judgmental. It is not for me to decide whether someone is right or wrong. That is God's job. Instead, I should treat everyone with love and acceptance. It costs me absolutely *nothing* to not use a word that someone has said offends them. This might make me feel like someone is trying to control what I say and I want to object to that on principle, but if I really want to be a Christian, I'll find other ways to make connections that don't involve petty arguing over whether or not a word is offensive."

With all due respect, having observed the arguments you've made in several threads, I've come to the conclusion that you don't really have a desire to bring the Word of God to SV. You just have it in your signature to use as a shield because most people have been raised to respect authority figures in various religions, especially Christianity.

If you are truly on a mission to make bridges I want to see more posts from you that exhibit the best Christianity has to offer. Share your views without arguing any particular side. Understand that because you are open about your religion and your desire to evangelize (because let's face it, that's precisely what every serious Christian does in one way or another, either by word or deed) you will face opposition, possible scorn, and dismissal because a lot of people have been burned by mainstream Christianity, including myself. The only way you're going to see any progress, if any, is if you make the decision to be a Christian in your posts, not just be a religious flavored conservative that is looking for potential converts.

This post is only marginally on topic but I thought it was a perfect opportunity to engage you on this considering what you've had to say on the topic so far.
 
@Graviator
I've chosen to take your signature and your stated intent of "bridging gaps" between communities at face value.

However, your actions don't appear to be anything remotely resembling the Christian you claim to be. Instead of being accepting, open, and genuinely committed to learning, you appear to be argumentative, trotting out some old and tired arguments in an attempt to apparently defend some nebulous group's "right" to dislike a group, person, whatever, and not be infracted for it. Whether that attitude extends to real life or not, I don't know.

A true Christian (not the caricature that most people try to present) would probably say something like, "You know, for reasons that I don't fully understand or acknowledge, this topic bothers me and I feel like I should say something to defend the people who express views similar to what I might be feeling. However, I should be like Christ as much as possible, open and non-judgmental. It is not for me to decide whether someone is right or wrong. That is God's job. Instead, I should treat everyone with love and acceptance. It costs me absolutely *nothing* to not use a word that someone has said offends them. This might make me feel like someone is trying to control what I say and I want to object to that on principle, but if I really want to be a Christian, I'll find other ways to make connections that don't involve petty arguing over whether or not a word is offensive."

With all due respect, having observed the arguments you've made in several threads, I've come to the conclusion that you don't really have a desire to bring the Word of God to SV. You just have it in your signature to use as a shield because most people have been raised to respect authority figures in various religions, especially Christianity.

If you are truly on a mission to make bridges I want to see more posts from you that exhibit the best Christianity has to offer. Share your views without arguing any particular side. Understand that because you are open about your religion and your desire to evangelize (because let's face it, that's precisely what every serious Christian does in one way or another, either by word or deed) you will face opposition, possible scorn, and dismissal because a lot of people have been burned by mainstream Christianity, including myself. The only way you're going to see any progress, if any, is if you make the decision to be a Christian in your posts, not just be a religious flavored conservative that is looking for potential converts.

This post is only marginally on topic but I thought it was a perfect opportunity to engage you on this considering what you've had to say on the topic so far.

While a nice sentiment, they are also threadbanned and won't be responding here anytime soon.
 
A true Christian (not the caricature that most people try to present) would probably say something like, "You know, for reasons that I don't fully understand or acknowledge, this topic bothers me and I feel like I should say something to defend the people who express views similar to what I might be feeling. However, I should be like Christ as much as possible, open and non-judgmental. It is not for me to decide whether someone is right or wrong. That is God's job.

Is it okay if I ask whether you're yourself a Christian or not?

Because Christ being depicted as "non-judgmental" is not a thing I believe I've ever seen Christians claim. Christ instructed his *followers* to "judge not, lest ye not be judged", but that's an instruction to Christians, not a description of Christ himself. Christ famously judged and was accusatory towards lots of people.

And your line of reasoning seemed to imply a denial of the divinity of Christ, which most Christians believe in. Christ does get to judge, because after all He is God (according to most Christians).
 
Last edited:
Is it okay if I ask whether you're yourself a Christian or not?

Because Christ being depicted as "non-judgmental" is not a thing I believe I've ever seen Christians claim. Christ instructed his *followers* to "judge not, lest ye not be judged", but that's an instruction to Christians, not a description of Christ himself. Christ famously judged and was accusatory towards lots of people.

And your line of reasoning seemed to imply a denial of the divinity of Christ, which most Christians believe in. Christ does get to judge, because after all He is God (according to most Christians).
This is not the thread for this. Take it to the PMs if you must.
 
Is it okay if I ask whether you're yourself a Christian or not?

Because Christ being depicted as "non-judgmental" is not a thing I believe I've ever seen Christians claim. Christ instructed his *followers* to "judge not, lest ye not be judged", but that's an instruction to Christians, not a description of Christ himself. Christ famously judged and was accusatory towards lots of people.

And your line of reasoning seemed to imply a denial of the divinity of Christ, which most Christians believe in. Christ does get to judge, because after all He is God (according to most Christians).

If you'd like to take this to PM so as not to potentially start a thing, let's do so.

But to answer your question, I was raised non-denominational. There are things about Christianity that I like, others that I don't.

Christ certainly judged others, like the money lenders in the temple, but I was more referring to all the instances where he spent time with criminals, prostitutes, and all sorts of unsavory characters and did so without being judgemental to the best of my recollection of scripture. Christ told us not to judge because it's not even our place to do so, but I've heard it said over and over in various churches that we should try to be more Christ-like, which I've always understood to mean non-judgmental in word and deed, kind, generous, charitable, and generally leading people to Christ by example, not arguments and the fear of Hell.

I'm no biblical scholar, for sure, but I don't see where you can go wrong by trying to emulate Christ as much as possible, especially if you portray yourself as a Christian online.

To reiterate, any follow up questions you have should come to my inbox.
 
Last edited:
This has been, um, a thing...Let's go with that. Uh, anyway, I don't agree with the ruling and how the council's opinion and judgement on the matter was overridden by Empress. I believe it made the council look bad, has lead trans members of this site feel (quite justifiable in my opinion) like as though that SV doesn't take their concerns seriously, and laid down the potentiality of making staff work harder. Furthermore, this intervention (I don't think that's the right word) by Empress makes people believe the council has no use or is ineffectual (which I don't think is the case but still) if the action taken by Empress or another Director can easily occur. That's just in my opinion of course and things could change.

Along with that, I'm just gonna say this though probably might be stupid (note: I'm cis not trans). Be a good ally to transpeople, hear out and acknowledge their concerns, callout transphobia when you see it, educate yourself a little on trans/LGBT issues, or spread the word about transition funds et cetera. Furthermore, be good and kind to each other. Guess that's it really.
 
I have to admit, I was somewhat taken aback by the discontent with this decision. When I was writing it, I felt it was a pretty straightforward interpretation of well-established rules to an unusual set of facts that had not been dealt with before. If I had thought it would be particularly controversial, I would have circulated the draft opinion more widely for feedback before publishing it.

I think the key difference of opinion between you and council is that you take the two offenses as fairly close together, whereas council took them as being quite far apart.

In your judgment you suggest, as I understand it that there is no offense because they're basically just discussing how the rules apply, in this case to fictional characters. I do understand this reading but I believe the problem for a lot of trans/queer people on the site is separate from that. Speaking entirely from my own perspective, I basically also don't want to go into someone's profile post to ask who their avatar is or something and find them discussing how they'd really like to call me by a slur. That sounds like it'd be pretty upsetting.

Obviously we must allow free discussion of the rules, but I do think that in order to make the site a friendly place for minority groups we don't create an environment where some care is taken in these kinds of discussions. IE that it doesn't turn into "Wow, those oversensitive X people. I sure wish I could call them by a slur!" which was the impression I got from the discussion at issue here.
 
Last edited:
This is the reason transphobes should be banned as well since they are by definition people hateful towards trans-people.
No, they shouldn't be banned. Not unless you want someone to advocate banning jews, or mormons, or [insert group]. You can't and mustn't ban someone for thinking a certain way, or being a member of a group you dislike which you ascribe evil thoughts to.

Now banning someone for what they say and do is perfectly resonable, and as the guy whose appeal started this discussion demonstrated, if someone is actually a big enough biggot to be a problem they'll provide you actions to justify banning them. If you can't find something they actually did which justifies banning them, then obviously banning them is unjustified.
How about banning everyone from Toronto?

You don't have to use the n-word at all. There are more slurs for black people than colours of the rainbow,
You're missing the point, I'm not talking about using a slur. I'm talking about using the period appropriate polite term, it was in fact the scientific term. Using a slur when the character wouldn't would not fit

I wouldn't shed a tear.
Better idea, lets ban all anti-semites and anti-zionists.

Or of course we could not attempt to ban people for what we think they believe, and only react to what they actually do.
 
No, they shouldn't be banned. Not unless you want someone to advocate banning jews, or mormons, or [insert group]. You can't and mustn't ban someone for thinking a certain way, or being a member of a group you dislike which you ascribe evil thoughts to.

"Banning bigots is like banning minorities".

Things aren't value neutral. Being an asshole isn't equal to not being an asshole.
 
No, they shouldn't be banned. Not unless you want someone to advocate banning jews, or mormons, or [insert group]. You can't and mustn't ban someone for thinking a certain way, or being a member of a group you dislike which you ascribe evil thoughts to.

Now banning someone for what they say and do is perfectly resonable, and as the guy whose appeal started this discussion demonstrated, if someone is actually a big enough biggot to be a problem they'll provide you actions to justify banning them. If you can't find something they actually did which justifies banning them, then obviously banning them is unjustified.
Well, firstly, being a member of certain groups is already a statement by itself, though. If you declare yourself to be an ardent Trump supporter, then this obviously means that you support all of his policies. The same applies if you happen to declare yourself a Nazi or a member of KKK.

Secondly, of course people can't be banned for what they think if only because nobody knows they think unless they clearly state their positions, and if those positions happen to be hateful, then ban them. Like, for example, being bigots towards trans people.
 
No, they shouldn't be banned. Not unless you want someone to advocate banning jews, or mormons, or [insert group]. You can't and mustn't ban someone for thinking a certain way, or being a member of a group you dislike which you ascribe evil thoughts to.

Now banning someone for what they say and do is perfectly resonable, and as the guy whose appeal started this discussion demonstrated, if someone is actually a big enough biggot to be a problem they'll provide you actions to justify banning them. If you can't find something they actually did which justifies banning them, then obviously banning them is unjustified.
How about banning everyone from Toronto?

You're missing the point, I'm not talking about using a slur. I'm talking about using the period appropriate polite term, it was in fact the scientific term. Using a slur when the character wouldn't would not fit

Better idea, lets ban all anti-semites and anti-zionists.

Or of course we could not attempt to ban people for what we think they believe, and only react to what they actually do.

>Comparing bigots and minorities who already deal with a lot of shit from people.

Okay then, glad to see I'm being implied as equivalent to a bigot because of my religion. :/
 
Well, firstly, being a member of certain groups is already a statement by itself, though. If you declare yourself to be an ardent Trump supporter, then this obviously means that you support all of his policies. The same applies if you happen to declare yourself a Nazi or a member of KKK.

Secondly, of course people can't be banned for what they think if only because nobody knows they think unless they clearly state their positions, and if those positions happen to be hateful, then ban them. Like, for example, being bigots towards trans people.

Yeah this is a good point. Barring mind reading abilities, there's no such thing as thought crimes, they'd have to act like bigots to be known as bigots.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top