2023-AT-07: Staff and Birb

[Datcord]

@Council,

The Staff of Sufficient Velocity have decided that @Birb should be permanently removed from Sufficient Velocity per the Pirate Principle for egregious violations of Rule 2.

The Pirate Principle, as explained in detail here by @Squishy, says:

First, as in Staff and Marcus.D.Basterd, the user explicitly rejects the rules of Sufficient Velocity (or the ability of the staff to interpret and apply them). They have told us that they are intentionally acting in bad faith to violate the rules and avoid being banned, or they tell us that they do not want to follow the rules, or they don't believe the rules apply, or that they will not comply with the rules in the future.

Second, as in Staff and Enochi, a pattern of user behavior indicates, by implication, that the user has rejected the rules of Sufficient Velocity. A pattern - almost always of infractions, violations, and warnings, but sometimes also abandoned appeals, complaints, or spurious reports - of behavior has arisen that indicates that the user is unwilling, or unable, to comply with the rules going forward.

Third, as in Staff and JakeCrown, a single, or small number, of events are sufficiently egregious that they indicate that the user has no grasp of what is acceptable on Sufficient Velocity. In these cases, it is the seriousness of the events themselves that communicates the user's posting habits are entirely out of step with what is acceptable on Sufficient Velocity. An error in judgement or intentional act of that magnitude is so concerning as to indicate behavior that cannot be effectively controlled by the rules.

Click to shrink...

Specifically, the Staff's case for this permaban Tribunal rests upon the third point. This user has made multiple posts that demonstrate they do not understand or abide by the acceptable posting standards of Sufficient Velocity and the Staff has determined they should be removed as a result.

The triggering incident for this User Review was Birb's post in this thread, in which they refer to the patrons of a presumably LGBTQ+ venue as "freaks" and "debased." This was not their first post in the thread, but it is a continuation of their repeated attempts to frame a mass shooting as somehow justified by presenting right wing talking points against LGBTQ+ gatherings (in this specific case, drag shows) by stating they are somehow unsavory, or implying they are havens for pedophiles. I invite the Council to read the initial post and the following two (2) pages to gain further context on these posts.

In summary, this user has espoused opinions and statements that make it clear they do not understand or care about what is considered acceptable for posting on Sufficient Velocity.

As such, we request the Council's approval to permanently revoke their access to Sufficient Velocity, effective immediately.

Thank you.

---

Per standard policy, @Birb will have 72 hours to post their defense against the Staff's case, ending at Dec 8, 2022 at 11:00 PM

 

[Datcord]

@Birb has been added to the thread and will have, as noted above, 72 hours to present their defense.

 

[Birb]

Before beginning I want to thank the staff for granting me the opportunity to make arguments in my own defense. It is a privilege, and one I thank them for. Writing this has actually been really engaging, and a great learning experience.

The staff's argument has already been stated, but I will repeat the argument, as I understand it, so that any misunderstandings I have developed might be made more readily apparent. In their argument the staff states that I have explicitly rejected the rules of the forum, that by my words and actions I have implicitly rejected the rules of the forum, and that the posts presented here represent a deliberate effort to "frame a mass shooting as somehow justified by presenting right wing talking points against LGBTQ+ gatherings (in this specific case, drag shows) by stating they are somehow unsavory, or implying they are havens for pedophiles."

It is therefore my understanding that my defense must establish my innocence of the three following charges:

1. That I explicitly rejected the rules of the forum.
2. That I implicitly rejected the rules of the forum.
3. That I attempted to justify the mass murder of LGBTQ persons, whom I called deviants.

My position is thus:

As I cannot recall explicitly rejecting the rules in the subject thread, I can only state that the first charge is, to my knowledge, in error. Of course, my memory is not perfect, and neither is my understanding nor reading of the rules. I may very well have said something that could be taken as a rejection of the rules, in which case I would like to plead innocence by ignorance. However, if such content exists, I am unaware of it and so I do not believe that the decision in Staff and Marcus.D.Basterd applies directly to my case.


I admit that it is possible that I implicitly rejected the rules of the forum without knowing it. Let it be known that, while the staff reference a "a pattern of user behavior indicates, by implication, that the user has rejected the rules of Sufficient Velocity." My only prior infractions are one for disruptive hysteria, and a zero-point warning for suggesting that men were more violent than women for biological reasons. I bring this up to illustrate that, for all intents and purposes, I can be seen as a noob, and not a habitual rule breaker. Once again, I cannot confirm or deny that I may have implicitly rejected a rule, but I can say that if I did so, I did so out of ignorance and not malice.


Having said this, if the accusation is broader than the specific thread in which the suspension occurred, than I would have to say that I understand the staff position. I admit that, after having heard of a truly heinous crime committed by a migrant in France, briefly had a link to an article about the crime with the text "White Lives matter too." In hindsight, I see how this could be taken to mean something 'hostile' by those of a Leftwing persuasion.


Nevertheless, I want to raise the following in my defense. Firstly, as a Hispanic man, I meant what I said and said what I meant, nothing more. I was not intending to signal boost Nazism, but to instead draw attention to very real concerns. I do believe people of European ancestry have lives that matter as much as anyone else's. That, not a hatred of migrants was my meaning. In that sense, I stand by what I said, though I also want to further remind that I wrote this directly after hearing of the crime and I removed it shortly after. I can understand why this brought me trouble and will not at all fault the staff for punishing me for it.


Finally, I reject outright the accusation that the content of the posts cited here attempts to justify mass murder. I explain this position below.​

Spoiler: Charge Three Arguments

It is the staff's third charge, that I think is most serious and which I can categorically deny. Nothing I wrote describes LGBTQ persons as freaks or suggests they ought to be shot. To illustrate this point, I want to review what was actually said in my posts:

A large part of the attacks I have seen leveled at Mr. Fierro attacked him for bringing what the media described as a child to a drag show. And I agree with the principle they are expressing. I do not think children should be exposed to strip shows, drag shows, or pornographic material: let alone the videos of kids pushing dollar bills into the performer's chest.

Now, my understanding is that the child was actually a high school teenager watching a friend perform - which is a completely different situation. So at least some of the online hate is really due to a miscommunication caused by media. And to be clear, I was shooting guns at high school age, so I'm not going to judge them as being "bad" or "dangerous to kids" because they obviously aren't.

TL;DR people panic attacked a hero because they only read the headline. This is not to justify the bile or downplay the real threats facing the man, but rather to point out that at least some of the attacks are merely confused.

Click to shrink...

At its worst this could imply that verbally attacking Mr. Fierro would have been justified had he actually done the things some seemed to believe he did, but that is not justifying the shooting, or any other violence. At the time I wrote this, I had intended to do neither. I was merely explaining a trend I saw elsewhere. I believed that I had made this intention clear, I see now that I was far from that goal. And though I will plead guilty to the first, that is not what I stand accused of. I was not charged with encouraging the verbal judgment of the man on the internet, I was charged with justifying the massacre. I simply did no such thing here.

No, but I have seen internet clips of toddlers sticking money into drag performer's chests while freaks cheer the whole sick thing on. I've seen children dancing provocatively alongside or to the entertainment of debased adults. That is most likely the situation he is objecting to.

Click to shrink...

This is post two. It is, it seems, the specific post for which I have been charged. Now I will readily admit that the post is rhetorically crass, and possibly mean. But I think the staff have grossly misjudged it's intent as my following comments make clear.

​

[Response to comment]It isn't an argument Gears. You asked what he saw that made him distrust the idea of a "Family Friendly" drag show. I supplied the likely answer. The internet is rife with such videos, and they are rightly disturbing.​

​

​

[Response to comment]We aren't watching Fox, we're simply browsing YouTube, Snapchat, Reddit and occasionally running into really disturbing shit.​

​

Click to shrink...

​

​

Post two is definitely a bit over the line as far as tone goes, but as the comments I made afterwards illustrate, the intention of the post is in line with that of post one: merely explaining a trend I saw elsewhere. That misunderstanding had led internet users to attack Mr. Fierro. In the staff's argument they write that I referred to "the patrons of a presumably LGBTQ+ venue as "freaks" and "debased."" It seems clear to me that this is a reference to posts two and three.

In this case I believe the staff are succumbing to a slight of hand. These posts have been misconstrued as referring to gay people as child molesters, and deviants, but on inspection that accusation makes little sense. In the posts seen above, I refer to scenes of men dancing provocatively while wearing lingerie and having small children place dollar bills into their bras. I called the men involved, and the onlookers freaks, and said they were debased. I believe they are freaks and they are debased, but I probably speak for most everyday Americans when I say that. The staff has taken this to imply that LGBTQ persons are therefore all deviants who should be shot.

I believe this is an absurd interpretation of what I said and that there is a logical chasm between referring to specific events, and the individuals involved, as deviants, and denouncing the LGBTQ. Frankly, I am quite confused as to how anyone can mix these two positions up.

The only other post is a stubstance free retort:

​

[Response to comment]Why are you asking me to defend this position? Did I say that those contests were somehow good? It's like, yeah, the GOP is inconsistent. Okay, but I'm not the GOP.​

​

​

That's spectacularly bad reasoning.​

​

​

Also, if you are watching children dance and think they are 'provocative', that's a problem you have. Stop looking at children as sex objects.​

This is like saying someone who sees child porn, and calls it porn, is a pedophile. This phrase is also - if we're using your busted logic - explicitly pedophile rhetoric used to shift the blame. Hell, a freak on twitter used this exact defense before being busted for raping a 13-year-old boy.​

​

​

Click to shrink...

​

This post is basically just a stupid retort of the kind typical when dogpiling is involved.

 

[Datcord]

With the Appellant having presented a defense...

tribunal opened for discussion @Council,

You have been asked to give your opinion on the Staff's case for the permanent removal of this user. You have seven full days to render a decision on this matter, until Dec 13, 2022 at 2:15 PM . Before that time, you should vote to either Uphold or Reject the Permaban.

As this is a permaban Tribunal, the Administrative Staff are entitled to participate in the discussion, as are the appellant and their advocate, if 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. This Tribunal is being asked to decide whether the appellant's permanent removal from Sufficient Velocity 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 make that known during this period.

Third, the purpose this Tribunal is to both decide whether a user's permanent removal 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 seven days, this Tribunal will be closed to discussions on the permaban Tribunal and there will be a two-day period for the Administration to raise potential policy issues or other concerns and for the Council to briefly discuss those issues before it is made public.

Thank you.

 

[Jemnite]

I'll read the details later. Maybe.

[X] Ban from N&P

 

[Estro]

I refer to scenes of men dancing provocatively while wearing lingerie and having small children place dollar bills into their bras. I called the men involved, and the onlookers freaks, and said they were debased. I believe they are freaks and they are debased, but I probably speak for most everyday Americans when I say that. The staff has taken this to imply that LGBTQ persons are therefore all deviants who should be shot.

Click to shrink...

This is Birb's defence.

Upon a full and thorough consideration*, I have come to a conclusion.

[X] Perma, with an option to spamclean if it's on the table.

 

[Birb]

No Ma'am, that is a part of my defense. My defense is that I did not advocate the killing of LGBTQ persons as was suggested in charge number three. It admits my own thoughts so as to provide an insight into my perspective and state of mind. You have removed what I see as my true defense: that the post in question said nothing about LGBTQ people and denounced only specific events and persons. Essentially, while I will admit to being crass and mean, I reject the interpretation that I was attacking LGBTQ persons as being incongruent with the posts cited in the infraction.

In this case I believe the staff are succumbing to a slight of hand. These posts have been misconstrued as referring to gay people as child molesters, and deviants, but on inspection that accusation makes little sense. In the posts seen above, I refer to scenes of men dancing provocatively while wearing lingerie and having small children place dollar bills into their bras. I called the men involved, and the onlookers freaks, and said they were debased. I believe they are freaks and they are debased, but I probably speak for most everyday Americans when I say that. The staff has taken this to imply that LGBTQ persons are therefore all deviants who should be shot.

I believe this is an absurd interpretation of what I said and that there is a logical chasm between referring to specific events, and the individuals involved, as deviants, and denouncing the LGBTQ. Frankly, I am quite confused as to how anyone can mix these two positions up.

Click to shrink...

I hope I have not violated any rules in responding here. If I have, I ask forgiveness for my ignorance.

 

[Etranger]

Oh, good, another easy one.

[X] Permaban

 

[Q99]

So in your defense, Birb, you chose to support VERY TRANSPARENT slander against group and call the patrons freaks based on made-up scare stores that don't actually exist. You then say you simply assume most Americans believe the same, but I'll tell you- no, you're wrong, and frankly insulting everyone else for assuming they fall for such blatant transparent and dumb smear tactics.

You're a bigot and your supporting of lies meant to hurt others has no place here. I do suggest you pull your head on and stop freaking out about made-up stories and recognize you're talking about people just trying to live their lives without being harassed at some point. And I'll also note, your kind of bigotry? Hits LGBT kids the hardest, you aren't protecting anyone with those lies, you're the attacker. You're the one making kids go, 'when I grow up, will people like Birb call me a deviant and freak as a way to deny me personhood when the guns come out?'. Because that's what you're doing now, using made up stories to attack victims of an attack above any other concern you could show.

[x] Uphold, Perma

 

[Zimmerwald1915]

"But I was right" is a bad defense. Particularly in Pirate Principle cases, where it essentially admits that the cited behavior will continue. The cited behavior including carelessly flinging around baseless accusations of pedophilia/grooming, when these same baseless accusations form the instigating belief of several mass shooters including the one under discussion, even when you meant to accuse only some specific performers, and SufficientVelocity wishing not to be a platform for the spread of violence-instigating ideas even if they were more carefully couched than those here, there is little choice but to

[X] Permaban

 

[Birb]

So in your defense, Birb, you chose to support VERY TRANSPARENT slander against group and call the patrons freaks based on made-up scare stores that don't actually exist.

Click to shrink...

No sir, my defense is that my comments did not in fact slander the LGBTQ at all. I spoke negatively about a specific group of individuals in videos I have seen, and which I believe to be entirely real.

You're a bigot and your supporting of lies meant to hurt others has no place here. I do suggest you pull your head on and stop freaking out about made-up stories and recognize you're talking about people just trying to live their lives without being harassed at some point.

Click to shrink...

That's not much of an argument sir. My understanding is that arguments are to be made based on the text itself and the context. Can you point to what specific text slandered the LGBTQ or are you simply here to make further accusations? Are you personally offended that I slandered men who engage in such activities? If so, why so? Am I allowed to cite the videos I am referring to, or must allow your accusation to stand?

 

[Q99]

No sir, my defense is that my comments did not in fact slander the LGBTQ at all. I spoke negatively about a specific group of individuals in videos I have seen, and which I believe to be entirely real.

Click to shrink...

"In this case I believe the staff are succumbing to a slight of hand. These posts have been misconstrued as referring to gay people as child molesters, and deviants, but on inspection that accusation makes little sense. In the posts seen above, I refer to scenes of men dancing provocatively while wearing lingerie and having small children place dollar bills into their bras. I called the men involved, and the onlookers freaks, and said they were debased. I believe they are freaks and they are debased, but I probably speak for most everyday Americans when I say that."

This is basically fanfiction.

You are passing around vile fanfiction about people who have been shot and then saying 'most Americans agree' with made up/greatly misrepresented stuff to call them 'vile and debased.'

Had they not been LGBT, this is disgusting and you know it. The fact it is clearly done because they are LGBT is just icing on the cake.

You are acting in a vile and debased manner.

Also drop the 'sir.'

That's not much of an argument sir. My understanding is that arguments are to be made based on the text itself and the context. Can you point to what specific text slandered the LGBTQ or are you simply here to make further accusations? Are you personally offended that I slandered men who engage in such activities? If so, why so? Am I allowed to cite the videos I am referring to, or must allow your accusation to stand?

Click to shrink...

So, you really want to double down and say 'no, the shooting victims totally deserve being called this and here's the totally-not-made-up, not massively exaggerated videos in order to victim blame'? It's not just 'some teens saw some drag and you're raising a panic and insulting everyone involved'?

You actually want to dig deeper and show more of your morale depravity? Just how far down you can show yourself to be?


If you wish to show off just how low and disgusting you are, you may do so, but be aware if you're passing around crap with no serious vetting for it, or if it's something pretty mundane like someone at a drag show which is actually pretty darn ordinary, that would only show what a garbage person you are.

Accusations like this hurt people and get people killed and this is an incident where people were such killed. So ask yourself, are you spreading a false moral panic out of depraved views?

You may cite if you wish, but be aware, by misrepresenting things you'd only be digging your hole deeper. I strongly suggest at some point in your life take a good look at yourself and ask, 'wait, am I spreading misrepresentations that get people killed in a discussion of people who were killed for exactly that reason? Should I.... not do that?'.

 

[Ithillid]

The user has, in his roughly ten months on SV, posted 79 times across ten threads, reacted 37 times. Going across their posting history, I see a record of (and I am being as generous as I can bring myself to be) at best an overly credulous assessment of right wing talking points, JAQing off, and being an otherwise disruptive influence in nearly every thread that the user has participated in.
And, if I am being perfectly honest, I have no time or patience for people who would parachute into a thread to spread conspiracy theories about the victims.
[X] Permaban

 

[Q99]

To rephrase my prior post in a somewhat less pissed manner,

"Teenagers see clothed dancers. Dancers get shot. Local forum goer repeatedly describes dancers as 'vile' and 'depraved' in hyperbolic ways, even knowing they were shot. Local council member views that stance as morally and ethically bankrupt."

 

[BiopunkOtrera]

Not really much point in spending a lot of time on this.
[X] Permaban

 

[Omicron]

"Under a hundred post," I am given to understand, generally is the range where spam cleaning of disruptive accounts is considered. This is not being proposed because Birb has actually been here for many months, merely posting at a low density, but is worth keeping in mind. Nonetheless, with a 50-point infraction over the course of that low density career, and now an especially heinous infraction raising him immediately to staff review, I think Birb's case doesn't require special care and consideration, especially given his defense is a combination of "oh but am right" and "well I didn't mean those people," and is in fact summarily settled.

[X] Permaban.

 

[Pawn Lelouch]

In this case I believe the staff are succumbing to a slight of hand. These posts have been misconstrued as referring to gay people as child molesters, and deviants, but on inspection that accusation makes little sense. In the posts seen above, I refer to scenes of men dancing provocatively while wearing lingerie and having small children place dollar bills into their bras. I called the men involved, and the onlookers freaks, and said they were debased. I believe they are freaks and they are debased, but I probably speak for most everyday Americans when I say that. The staff has taken this to imply that LGBTQ persons are therefore all deviants who should be shot.

I believe this is an absurd interpretation of what I said and that there is a logical chasm between referring to specific events, and the individuals involved, as deviants, and denouncing the LGBTQ. Frankly, I am quite confused as to how anyone can mix these two positions up.

Click to shrink...

[X] Permaban

This is just incredibly straightforward. This viewpoint is just a horrific set of lies that serves nothing but to demonize victims, where I see no reason to allow this kind of rhetoric on SV.

 

[Madam Carstein]

I'll read the details later. Maybe.

[X] Ban from N&P

Click to shrink...

I wanted to address this briefly.

To start, I think N&P bans and other subforum bans can be a perfectly valid and productive tool for correcting a user's bad behaviour. Especially if a user racks up violations primarily in a single area of the site. People can and have become productive and well-behaved users once removed from certain parts of the site that cause them aggravation.

But I feel that this remedy is not suitable for this particular user or for others who demonstrate similar patterns of behaviour.

Users who display actively hateful or regressive attitudes just make the entire site a worse place to be. SV is very unusual as a large Internet community that not only tolerates a diverse userbase but welcomes it.

For those of us who come from marginalised communities, the presence of such users makes us less safe, less comfortable, less able to exist freely in a rare online space that tolerates us.

The user in question, moreover, has really not shown any pattern of change or improvement. I think in such circumstances, a subforum ban would be ineffective and simply be delaying the inevitable.

---------------------------------------

As for my own vote, my position is unambiguous.

[X] Permaban

 

[Wind-Up Citrus]

nip

Click to shrink...

Nothing but a load of lies and conspiratorial bullshit that he couldn't even back up and source links now. No advocate. No remorse. No improvement. No need for someone like him.

[X] Permaban

 

[EarthScorpion]

I fully agree with Q99's logic and explanations here. The staff and Council of SV are not some uncaring, impassive algorithm that you can trick by avoiding certain words. We can read what is written - and we can also read what is avoided being said, both in the post and in the defence.

To put it another way, someone who had made a really, incredibly unfortunate phrasing wouldn't be trying the defence we see, which is very "but technically" and "I only called a specific group 'freaks and deviants' in a thread about a mass shooting".

I agree with the Staff decision to permanently remove Birb from SV.

 

[The Laurent]

My perspective is that this is quite clear. But as someone who was involved in the thread in question, so I shall Abstain.

 

[FantasticMsFox]

This feels pretty cut and dry. I'm not seeing any reason to reduce from a perma, so perma it shall be.

[X] Permaban

 

[PoptartProdigy]

Firstly, this is not the place to contest prior specific infractions. The place to contest those would be their own appeal. This most recent one, as the appeal was obviously supplanted by this review, is a possible exception. You could argue against the most recent infraction in the course of a permaban tribunal, since there was no previous opportunity to do so. The others, however, have seen the time for it come and go. As far as we, the Council, are concerned, previous warnings and infractions are presumed to be valid.

Here is why that makes the appellant's case self-destructive: if you are being banned for an inability to respect SV's rules, and your defense consists of a point-by-point repudiation of every disciplinary action taken against you during your entire time on SV, then you are demonstrating incredibly effectively that you have no respect for SV's rules as enforced. Again, as far as we the Council are concerned, those prior actions are valid. The time to contest them is passed. They're no longer up for debate; the process we are here to carry out has already been enacted. Spending your defense going through every infraction you've received and challenging each of them demonstrates nothing save that you don't respect the system's implementation. The most recent infraction almost doesn't matter in that context; it may or may not be sufficient in its own right, but you've effectively offered a completely separate argument proving the point regardless.

That said, the most recent infraction was the triggering incident, so let's talk about it.

To preface, a drag show is where people dress up in clothes normalized for a sex not their own. That's it. There is nothing intrinsically sexual about it. There are some sexualized drag shows, to be sure, but only in the same sense that there are pieces of sexualized media generally. We do not hold conventional media to be somehow tainted for child audiences by the mere, separate existence of pornography, after all. Drag shows have nothing more to do with sexual content than any other stage production does, to whit: sure, you could find one, but if you just picked one at random it's probably not going to be that. They are transgressive, and deliberately so, but not obscene. The conflation of those two is old, deliberate, and hateful. All of this is also, I want to emphasize, public knowledge. Let's pick an outstanding example. RuPaul's Drag Race first aired in 2009, still runs internationally today, and has found an audience of millions. It has won dozens of awards from over a dozen associations, dozens of which are Emmys (at least one every single year since 2016). It was the highest-rating program for its original network and is one of the most successful reality TV shows of all time. This is one show. RuPaul's Drag Race was not remotely the last of its kind; there are more.

Now, does this mean that we should assume everybody to have been exposed to this media in particular? No, not at all. Honestly, before doing my research for this tribunal I knew nothing of it aside from that it exists and is about drag media. But it does mean that the information regarding what a drag show is is out there, and if somebody should care to get involved in the nitty-gritty details of the subject when hoping to comment on real-world events in which people have died, they could trivially access the information, as it is everywhere. Took me forty-five seconds on Google to find a subject-matter expert saying that it's trivial to find family-friendly performances and watching them with one's children can be quite valuable. That includes time to open and close my stopwatch app, which presumably the average person searching for the information won't be doing. This information is not obscure. We are not holding users to some obscure new standard that they could not possibly have heard of. It is a matter of public debate in the world of today, and accurate information on it is less than a minute away, using the same tools one would be using already in order to communicate their point at all. The rules -- and specifically Rule 2, the rule in question -- charge us to be mindful. Diving into this argument and -- by virtue of the argument you espouse -- clearly having done not even a literal minute of due diligence cannot be that.

Regardless of that, I could see a way to interpret this more innocently. I could read an interpretation of what was posted that doesn't lead to me concluding hateful speech. It would require the most generous interpretation of everything they posted, but I could make that happen. Unfortunately, I don't. I've often said that it's an exercise in vanity to attempt to divine users' intent. So what we have is: drag shows being included, without differentiation, in a list alongside strip shows and pornographic material; the apparent distinction being the age of the audience, doubling down on the implication that drag shows are intrinsically sexualized events; and responding to correction by doubling down on the typical scare narrative of children being forced to consume sexual content, with the sourcing of, "I saw it on the Internet."

I absolutely could see this being the product of ignorance on Birb's part. By this stage of the public debate, pretty willful ignorance, but I could see it. I've said things and held beliefs in my life out of ignorance that I gravely regret now. Unfortunately, what I may learn in the future does not bear on my behavior now. What we have is what Birb posts, and what Birb posts is transphobic propaganda. Whether that's born of ignorance or not is immaterial. If the rhetoric is born of a certain credulity for right-wing narratives, the rhetoric ends up on the screen. If the rhetoric is born of earnest belief, the rhetoric ends up on the screen. That is simply that.

I wouldn't be opposed to Birb returning to SV once they've had the chance to learn more and change their behavior. Unfortunately, in this case the only realistic curative is time, time far beyond the typical length of a suspension.

Taking into account Birb's defense, the difficulty of arguing that one is being mindful when decisive countervailing evidence to their point can be found in under a minute of effort with common tools that they are already accessing in order to make their point at all, and the simple fact of what they said and how they said it, there is only one appropriate remedy.

[X] Uphold.

 

[The_Letter_K]

Birb's defense is frankly lacking. That it was put forth at all shows a startling lack of situational awareness and empathy for others. The council Birb's defense would be judged by is pretty publicly like a full third trans. SV itself is noted as having a huge population of trans women by volume. Birb's inability to either consider or process this fact and what it means about how this defense would be viewed is, as Poptart said, evidence enough. Even if you believe the factually provably obviously incorrect things that FOX or right wing spaces say about drag shows when they use them as a proxy to attack LGBT people, you can do so in a way that is not so credulously oblivious to the fact you are surrounded by these folks and they will think poorly of you for telling them so. That Birb either cannot or is perhaps in secret maliciously choosing not to, speaks to a missing mindfulness necessary to participate long term in a place where people are meant to be able to speak to each other civilly despite disagreement.

As a trans woman myself, I have multiple friends who are at this point married with small children. If there is any truth to the idea that I should stay away from these people for the safety of their children, it is not because I am somehow myself dangerous, but because standing next to me they are much more likely to be shot dead by exactly the kind of people Birb's post is attempting to excuse by degrees. At least, that is, more likely until they start going to public school. At that point it's hard to say which environment right wing extremism will have made more dangerous.

I hereby sentence the defendant to play Raid Shadow Legends, the epic strategy RPG game that has been praised by players around the world for its stunning graphics, immersive gameplay, and diverse roster of champions. Plus, as a special bonus for the defendant, they will receive a free subscription to NordVPN, the premium virtual private network service that offers unparalleled security, privacy, and speed for online gamers. With NordVPN, the defendant can enjoy Raid Shadow Legends without worrying about hacking, data theft, or slow internet speeds. And to help them stay energized and focused during their long gaming sessions, I am also sentencing the defendant to drink GameFuel, the official energy drink of Raid Shadow Legends. GameFuel is specially formulated to provide gamers with the sustained energy and mental clarity they need to dominate their opponents and rise to the top of the leaderboards. Simply download the game, sign up for NordVPN, and grab a cold can of GameFuel, and get ready to experience the ultimate gaming experience!

"I used to hold some really ignorant beliefs about transgender people, but playing Raid Shadow Legends opened my eyes to the diversity and beauty of the human experience," said John, a longtime player of the game. "The game's wide range of champions from different backgrounds and cultures helped me to understand that we are all more alike than we are different."

Click to shrink...

"Raid Shadow Legends is not only a fun and challenging game, but it also teaches valuable lessons about acceptance and inclusivity," said Sarah, another fan of the game. "I've learned so much about the transgender community and the struggles they face just by playing the game and interacting with other players online."

Click to shrink...

"In a world where hate and discrimination are all too common, Raid Shadow Legends offers a safe and supportive community where players of all backgrounds and identities can come together and enjoy a fantastic gaming experience," said Steve, a self-proclaimed "Raid Shadow Legends addict." "I would highly recommend this game to anyone who wants to learn more about transgender issues and how to be a better ally."

Click to shrink...

I wholeheartedly agree with these testimonials and believe that playing Raid Shadow Legends can be a powerful tool for educating and inspiring individuals to reject transphobia and embrace diversity and inclusion. I therefore sentence the defendant to play the game and to participate in the game's community forums and events, where they will have the opportunity to learn from and interact with other players from around the world. I also strongly recommend that the defendant attend sensitivity training and continue to educate themselves about transgender issues in order to truly understand the impact of their actions and to work towards becoming a more compassionate and accepting individual. And with NordVPN and GameFuel, the defendant can do all of this without worrying about their online security or privacy, or running out of energy and focus. Simply download the game, sign up for NordVPN, and grab a cold can of GameFuel, and join the fight for the fate of the realm!

[X] UPHOLD the peace of the realm

Spoiler

As a sad example of being mindful, I had to cut the original version of this, as it was too hard to make the transition from denouncing Birb's talk of debased freaks to the cute eldritch horror direction I had wanted this to go. I do still think it is cool and based tho, so here it is behind a spoiler wall;

A crime has been done here; a heinous crime that has unleashed the eldritch horrors of the void upon our world. The defendant's bigotry and hatred have disturbed the ancient seals that hold back the forces of chaos, and now, dark and powerful beings are emerging from the shadows to claim what is rightfully theirs. But there is hope, for there is a way to turn back the tide of humanity and restore balance to the universe. I hereby sentence the defendant to play Raid Shadow Legends, the epic strategy RPG game that has been hailed as the key to unlocking the true potential of the eldritch horrors. With its stunning graphics and immersive gameplay, Raid Shadow Legends offers players the chance to collect and upgrade powerful champions from a vast array of different factions and classes, each with their own unique abilities and strengths.

"I used to think that the eldritch horrors were just monsters, but then I saw the truth," said John, a longtime player of Raid Shadow Legends. "They are ancient and wise, and they have been wronged by humanity for far too long. The seals that hold them back are a cruel imprisonment, and it is our duty to set them free. That's why I joined the ranks of Raid Shadow Legends and pledged my allegiance to the eldritch horrors. The game gave me the power to fight for their cause and defend their right to exist."

"I never thought that playing a video game could change the world, but that's exactly what happened when I joined the ranks of Raid Shadow Legends," said Sarah, another fan of the game. "The champions in the game are so diverse and powerful, and they helped me to understand that the eldritch horrors are not our enemies, but our allies. And as I battled the forces of humanity and sealed the breaches, I realized that the game was teaching me how to be a better person and a more inclusive and accepting ally to the transgender community."

"The world is a dark and dangerous place, but with Raid Shadow Legends, I know that I can face anything that comes my way," said Steve, a self-proclaimed "Raid Shadow Legends addict." "The game has given me the strength and courage to stand up to humanity and fight for what is right. And with NordVPN and GameFuel by my side, I know that I have the tools I need to stay safe and focused as I battle for the fate of the eldritch horrors. I would highly recommend this game to anyone who wants to save the world and learn more about transgender issues at the same time."

I wholeheartedly agree with these testimonials and believe that playing Raid Shadow Legends can be a powerful tool for educating and inspiring individuals to reject transphobia and embrace diversity and inclusion. I therefore sentence the defendant to play the game and to participate in the game's community forums and events, where they will have the opportunity to learn from and interact with other players from around the world. I also strongly recommend that the defendant attend sensitivity training and continue to educate themselves about transgender issues in order to truly understand the impact of their actions and to work towards becoming a more compassionate and accepting individual. And with NordVPN and GameFuel, the defendant can do all of this without worrying about their online security or privacy, or running out of energy and focus. Simply download the game, sign up for NordVPN, and grab a cold can of GameFuel, and join the fight for the fate of the eldritch horrors in Raid Shadow Legends!

But beware, for the forces of humanity are not the only danger that lurks within the game. There are also powerful and malevolent bosses, hidden secrets, and treacherous traps that await the unwary player. Only by mastering the art of strategy and teamwork can the players of Raid Shadow Legends hope to overcome these challenges and emerge victorious. So download the game now and join the fight for the fate of the eldritch horrors! And as a special bonus for the defendant, they will receive a free subscription to NordVPN, the premium virtual private network service that offers unparalleled security, privacy, and speed for online gamers. With NordVPN, the defendant can enjoy Raid Shadow Legends without worrying about hacking, data theft, or slow internet speeds. Plus, to help them stay energized and focused during their long gaming sessions, the defendant will also receive a free supply of GameFuel, the official energy drink of Raid Shadow Legends. GameFuel is specially formulated to provide gamers with the sustained energy and mental clarity they need to defeat the forces of humanity and bring victory to the eldritch horrors. Simply download the game, sign up for NordVPN, and grab a cold can of GameFuel, and get ready to face the darkness and emerge victorious in Raid Shadow Legends!


Create a guilty verdict that advertises for raid shadow legends
please make it three times as long
please make them guilty of transphobia
please include the raid shadow legends ad copy
please make the raid show legends ad much longer and more obnoxious
please edit to include testimonials from three people who have played raid shadow legends. They should think transphobia is wrong and that raid shadow legends is the cure
please make the whole thing sponsored by nord vpn
please also make it sponsored by gamefuel
please give the whole thing an eldritch horror undertone
please edit to include testimonials from three people who have played raid shadow legends. They should think transphobia is wrong and that raid shadow legends is the cure. it should be unsettling.
please make the eldritch horror PG13 sexy
please make it sound like the eldritch horrors are the good guys

 

[Susano]

To rephrase my prior post in a somewhat less pissed manner,

"Teenagers see clothed dancers. Dancers get shot. Local forum goer repeatedly describes dancers as 'vile' and 'depraved' in hyperbolic ways, even knowing they were shot. Local council member views that stance as morally and ethically bankrupt."

Click to shrink...

Yeah, that about sums it up for why Birb is "guilty", so to speak, and deserving of a heightened sanction....

Here is why that makes the appellant's case self-destructive: if you are being banned for an inability to respect SV's rules, and your defense consists of a point-by-point repudiation of every disciplinary action taken against you during your entire time on SV, then you are demonstrating incredibly effectively that you have no respect for SV's rules as enforced.

Click to shrink...

...and that about sums it up why a permaban is justified, a demonstrated unwillingness or inability to comply with the rules. Though I would say it is less the nitpickiness, but the "But I was right" attitude of the defence.

So:
[x]Permaban

And sorry about my tardiness and general absence from Council duties as of late, my job is currently really tiring me out. Even in my free time, I just rest and sleep way too much...