Spectral Waltz
Scatterbrained Writer
- Location
- Walking the Endless Corridors
Evil requires conscious action, you cannot be 'accidentally evil'. The very notion is ridiculous.
-
For all readers and writers
After much ado, our new tagging system is here and being rolled out to the userbase. Read more here!
Administrative Tribunal Commentary Thread
- Status
Evil requires conscious action, you cannot be 'accidentally evil'. The very notion is ridiculous.
FortePlus
The THRILL from Green Hill
- Location
- Toronto
- Pronouns
- He/Him
This entire thread of discussion sounds like "why can't I say the [insert] word?" except with a hint of vanilla extract for """flavour""". If you're trying to get at something then just spit it out, if not then it'd be nice if you stopped wasting everyone's time.
If you don't type something to put on an internet message board then you literally cannot be punished for it. There is no trick to this. If your fear is that you'll be punished for merely asking questions, that's false too. Are some people going to be wary? Yes. And they have the right to be.
If you are ""asking"" """questions""" that is another story entirely, like in the middle of an already heated debate, or being "rhetorical", or playing zero sum games with people's identities. If you're not sure, do not post. It shouldn't be the end of the world for you and at the end of the day, if you're straight and male and white (I dunno how many of those you fill out personally, but 2/3 is good enough for most webzones) you've got a zillion more options for hangouts on the web than people who are not those things.
Katsuragi
The 1%
Magical unicorn person who holds / has bigoted thoughts but somehow never ever acts on them in any way or has them influence their actions in any way shape or form probs isn't evil.
Said person doesn't exist however. If you have thoughts / views / whatever it will influence your actions, which are themselves "evil" in this context.
Anyhow, again, wildly off topic.
Said person doesn't exist however. If you have thoughts / views / whatever it will influence your actions, which are themselves "evil" in this context.
Anyhow, again, wildly off topic.
- Location
- US
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I don't think this is true. There are most definitely "sins of omission" as it were. Choosing to be ignorant, refusing to question your own biases, and standing idle while harm is done to others are all aspects of bigotry and can all be unconscious choices. Turns out being a decent human being takes a minimum of effort.
And it isn't like anyone would ever notice this theoretical utterly invisible bigotry that somehow never effects your behavior on the internet. The only time it will become relevant is if you make your ignorant beliefs other people's problem by posting about them. At which point you can hardly claim not to be engaged in "conscious action." Someone who actually isn't bigoted wouldn't need to worry about it anyway.
But rather than quibble about the nature of evil, let's instead say that transphobia and other modes of bigotry are stupid, harmful, offensive, and the signs of someone who lacks intellectual or moral integrity. Why should we permit that here?
That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard about evil.
People hurt people all the time without intending to, and then insist they did nothing wrong, or apologize but just keep doing it.
jenalysis
Midnight Weather Witch
- Pronouns
- She/Her
You can hurt people without being an evil person. Evil people tend to do things and justify it without any concern of how it would impact others.
That said, a well-intentioned extremist may not be evil, but they can do more harm than many who are evil. This is generally the type of behavior that gets nailed here the most.
That said, a well-intentioned extremist may not be evil, but they can do more harm than many who are evil. This is generally the type of behavior that gets nailed here the most.
There's a thin line between well intentioned extremist and an evil or delusional person who is trying to rationalize or justify their beliefs.
- Pronouns
- Yes
So? The point is several posters have argued in favor of kicking off groups they don't like for how they feel/think regardless of if they did anything against the rules.
I'm not really worried about the mods deciding to follow that, but I am going to argue that this sort of idea is idiotic.
This. Very much this.
- Location
- Ireland
- Pronouns
- He/Him
posting bigoted thoughts is the only way that mods can know you have bigoted thoughts and posting bigoted thoughts is against the rules how are you not getting this
- Pronouns
- Yes
1)Posting bigoted/prejudiced thoughts is not against the rules. The example given was a person admitting that X group makes him uncomfortable and trying to deal with that. Other examples are people declaring all zionists or all trump supporters inherently evil.
2)The argument started with people posting that people who think certain things should be banned even if they didn't do anything against the rules.
WildCardFool
A Reaction Pic for nearly every occasion
- Location
- Earth
Alright, I'm going to try and break this down a little bit.
I'll start with your point number 2. "People posting that people who think certain things should be banned even if they didn't do anything against the rules". People who think certain things should not be banned. People who think literally anything won't be banned for only thinking that. The minute you post about it though, you have moved beyond the stage of just thinking.
If you post something bigoted, something that breaks Rule 2, you run the risk of being banned for it. Because that's not thinking about it, that's now bringing it out into the open.
Your first point is that even if somebody posts something bigoted, it "is not against the rules". However, one of your counterpoints is "a person admitting that X group makes him uncomfortable and trying to deal with that". This is perhaps a little unclear because of the fact that, as many previous posters have argued, admitting that X group makes you uncomfortable is bigoted. I am not going to argue whether it is or not. However, the fact that this person is "trying to deal with that" is the really unclear part here.
If they are trying to deal with that in a healthy way, such as asking actual questions, with the purpose and intent of trying to gain more understanding and overcome this automatic uncomfortableness, then that is all well and good. If they are "trying to deal with that" by just talking about how X group makes them uncomfortable and rationalize it to other people, that is considered a breach of Rule 2, and can be infracted or banned.
To summarize, fine, the pure state of being bigoted is not automatically ban worthy because, as some previous posters have said, it is something that most people have to deal with nowadays. However, if anybody accepts this and does not try to overcome it, then expressing such views would be knowingly acting bigoted in a way that is unacceptable on this board.
Last edited:
Stop: Off-topic tangents
- Pronouns
- He/Him
off-topic tangents
The true nature of evil, semantic discussions about X-'phobia' as a clinical label vs. X-'phobia' as a 'this is analogous to racism' label, or people posting their own anecdotal reactions to various forms of personal expression, are, one and all, irrelevant to this thread. The primary participant, @TheUnicorn, has been infracted and threadbanned for two weeks.
Everyone else will return to topic.
The true nature of evil, semantic discussions about X-'phobia' as a clinical label vs. X-'phobia' as a 'this is analogous to racism' label, or people posting their own anecdotal reactions to various forms of personal expression, are, one and all, irrelevant to this thread. The primary participant, @TheUnicorn, has been infracted and threadbanned for two weeks.
Everyone else will return to topic.
Last edited:
Information: Thread open period extended
- Pronouns
- He/Him
thread open period extended
As this particular tribunal has occasioned a lot of comment, I am extending the period that this thread is open, by one week. This will be contingent on the discussion here remaining in-bounds (particularly with respect to Rule 3), and on-topic.
As this particular tribunal has occasioned a lot of comment, I am extending the period that this thread is open, by one week. This will be contingent on the discussion here remaining in-bounds (particularly with respect to Rule 3), and on-topic.
Lord Vesporeon
Heamding To Spamce
- Location
- New York
Hey 8 months later I am here now
For ChaoticAwesome? They did something pretty stupid in saying a word they knew was a source of contention, then they made a even larger mistake liking a post referencing a Far Right dictator famous for killing leftists (as well as more fucked up shit I won't say here) on a closely linked site while having the same name. Utter mongrelity and not surprising what happened
As for the discussion following it? uh, eh? I hardly think this ruling would allow a wave of transphobic people to pour onto the site and I kinda wish people didn't jump to conclusion it did since it honestly will remembered as a "oh yea that ruling, I forgot about it lol" and it comes across as, well, hyperbolic
For ChaoticAwesome? They did something pretty stupid in saying a word they knew was a source of contention, then they made a even larger mistake liking a post referencing a Far Right dictator famous for killing leftists (as well as more fucked up shit I won't say here) on a closely linked site while having the same name. Utter mongrelity and not surprising what happened
As for the discussion following it? uh, eh? I hardly think this ruling would allow a wave of transphobic people to pour onto the site and I kinda wish people didn't jump to conclusion it did since it honestly will remembered as a "oh yea that ruling, I forgot about it lol" and it comes across as, well, hyperbolic
- Location
- France
- Pronouns
- She/They
It's not the specific ruling (ChaoticAwesome is out, anyway), it's the precedent it sets, since past tribunals are used as reference when interpreting the rules.
- Location
- Somewhere
I'm out of the loop on the situation with Lord Squishy, can someone explain to me what happened?
10ebbor10
DON'T PANIC
- Location
- Present
This is the decision.
Administrative Tribunal Commentary Thread Discussion
It probably depends on volume. Also, what I mean is literally the default is receiving no emails. You have to go, "Yes, I want to get emails for this thread" and then go, "And now I will report the emails I requested as spam."
forums.sufficientvelocity.com
This is the offending comment.
The problems are :
1) A fear that ruling that this is OK would open a loophole where people can harrass transgender people and other targets by veiling their harrasment as criticism of the rules.
2) Squishy overriding the council on this matter, and doing so in a matter that makes it seem like the council is basically ignored. ((For example, Squishy said that they expected no controversy, which is wierd if you overrule a near unanimous decision)).
3) Problems with behaviour in the thread
This is an interesting problem. Fear is OK and reasonable. So, what do we do? Do we:
A) Blanket censor all use of the term "trap", because it could potentially be malicious offensive use?
But does actual honest criticism of the rules that happens to involve traps then deserve to be veto'd in order to enforce this, as collateral damage? That aside, I also feel like this would be despotic because now, a portion of the rules cannot be criticized. That's a serious problem.
B) Cautiously analyze the context in the which it is used in order to determine the nature of its use?
I think this is a lot more reasonable. It would be great if it was like this. But the thing is, this already is site policy, just look at all of the care we have in how our infractions are treated. We already have the report system. We have the appeals. We have so much care and caution already in picking things apart when they're contested that I think that transgender harassment based on the use of the word trap can be dealt with anyways.
There is no "slippery slope", because we have so much bureaucracy involving analysis to prevent being swept by it. What's the point of having it at all, otherwise, if we're just going to be blind slaves of assumptions and lack of research?
Harassment will be detected. Isn't that why we're putting so much effort to have a good judicial system? So, knowing that, what is the problem then? We already have the solution in place. I feel like people are jumping the gun and just excessively concerned for the fear described in 1).
That said, I also agree with Squishette's judgement of it. It wasn't malicious use of the term "trap", like "traps are retarded" or "traps aren't as good as real women". It was just discussion concerning how its involved in rules.
Last edited:
- Location
- US
- Pronouns
- He/Him
The term is itself intrinsically bigoted and insulting. It doesn't need to be packed into an over the top insult to be a problem.
- Location
- Georgia, US
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Trap can absolutely be used in a non-bigoted manner.
For example:
"Oh no I stepped in this trap and I'm now stuck"
.....
Oh, you meant calling a person a trap.
Nah, that usage can fuck off. People aren't things that exist to entrap cis straight males, especially not when they're Trans, a class of people who are brutalized in horribly high rates by too many of those aforementioned cismales.
- Location
- Southampton, Great Britain
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Only when used in reference to transpeople. When referring to an ambush or baiting someone into doing something, then I see nothing bigoted or insulting about it.
While it can be used as anti-trans slur, the term trap does have a proper meaning to it which is allowable on the forum.
Last edited:
- Location
- US
- Pronouns
- He/Him
I think that is pretty obvious. There are plenty of words like that in English.
- Location
- Georgia, US
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Well yes, but I think context should clearly tell you that they were not referring to describing objects as traps.
(context and that Mesonoxian isn't an idiot)
- Location
- Southampton, Great Britain
- Pronouns
- He/Him
If context is required for it to be insulting and bigoted, then it isn't intrinsically bigoted and insulting. When someone is talking about banning the term wholesale, I think it is important to clarify that the term trap is only a slur when misused in certain contexts aka when used in reference to a person.
On the other hand, this might be a case of me not getting the hyperbole.
Violation of Rule 2, "Don't be Hateful": The 'are traps gay' thing is both anti-trans and anti-gay, and your entire series of posts beyond that is, in aggregate, unacceptable.
There's also the use for very effeminate males which are easily confused for females. Which what I knew it to be. It's only here that I've found that it's related to transgenders (then again I mostly only chug mainstream stuff so I'm mostly unaware of these special cases)
Like,
It's also a popular meme (it's how I knew of it), in the form of "are traps gay?". Most importantly: not transgender people specifically. Just, males which happen to look a lot like females, in general. Especially in anime.
Like,
it's also a popular tag on hentai sites.
It's also a popular meme (it's how I knew of it), in the form of "are traps gay?". Most importantly: not transgender people specifically. Just, males which happen to look a lot like females, in general. Especially in anime.
Last edited:
- Status