Dumb Ideologies wrote:To answer the narrow question from the original thread again, as moderators seem incapable of grasping something that should be as obvious as the nose on their face.
It's not remotely acceptable to suggest that people from minority sexual or gender identities need to be given hard labour punishments because their identities are ultimately false, weird, and the product of having too much time on their hands. That is not something the victims of such trolling should be told to "argue down". The ruling is a disgrace and someone needs to act responsibly, reverse the impetuous mistake and admit error if the moderators do not want to be sending a clear message to LGBT posters about the complete lack of respect they hold for them.
On the wider topic of moderating issues of this kind - there are some rough edges, but a very good starting point is to substitute in another identity or perhaps belief-based group and see if it would be acceptable then.
It was a suggestion to voluntarily do some physical labor, not for the government to round up sexual minorities and force them into it as punishment.
Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2014 1:58 pm
by Korva
Yes, just work the gay away
Totally not an insulting and ignorant statement.
Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2014 2:00 pm
by Ethel mermania
@ nfp, I did not read it that way at all. I read it as round up all the tranvestites and put them in labor camps for them to think about their issues. Obviously I think that is where the line was crossed. I think saying "transexuals suffer from a disorder" is ok and discussable, saying "put them in camps" is not
Dumb Ideologies wrote:To answer the narrow question from the original thread again, as moderators seem incapable of grasping something that should be as obvious as the nose on their face.
It's not remotely acceptable to suggest that people from minority sexual or gender identities need to be given hard labour punishments because their identities are ultimately false, weird, and the product of having too much time on their hands. That is not something the victims of such trolling should be told to "argue down". The ruling is a disgrace and someone needs to act responsibly, reverse the impetuous mistake and admit error if the moderators do not want to be sending a clear message to LGBT posters about the complete lack of respect they hold for them.
On the wider topic of moderating issues of this kind - there are some rough edges, but a very good starting point is to substitute in another identity or perhaps belief-based group and see if it would be acceptable then.
It was a suggestion to voluntarily do some physical labor, not for the government to round up sexual minorities and force them into it as punishment.
There is this widespread beleif in my country, that people engaged in often hard and exhausting physical labour don't have any time left for any wierd thoughts and strange discoveries after "self-analysis". Have you ever considered a physical labour as an option for you?
Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2014 2:02 pm
by Nazi Flower Power
Reploid Productions wrote:This is a policy discussion thread, not a specific report. So let's leave off on arguing specific cases, please.
I don't think general policy is what people are upset about.
Reploid Productions wrote:This is a policy discussion thread, not a specific report. So let's leave off on arguing specific cases, please.
I don't think general policy is what people are upset about.
Actually, considering that Arch's ruling bends the rules to more than they should be, we're talking about a case and a shot down bird called the former report thread.
Nazi Flower Power wrote: It was a suggestion to voluntarily do some physical labor, not for the government to round up sexual minorities and force them into it as punishment.
There is this widespread beleif in my country, that people engaged in often hard and exhausting physical labour don't have any time left for any wierd thoughts and strange discoveries after "self-analysis". Have you ever considered a physical labour as an option for you?
Nazi Flower Power wrote: It was a suggestion to voluntarily do some physical labor, not for the government to round up sexual minorities and force them into it as punishment.
There is this widespread beleif in my country, that people engaged in often hard and exhausting physical labour don't have any time left for any wierd thoughts and strange discoveries after "self-analysis". Have you ever considered a physical labour as an option for you?
Weird just means outside social norms. Chances are he lives in a very conservative country.
Dumb Ideologies wrote:To answer the narrow question from the original thread again, as moderators seem incapable of grasping something that should be as obvious as the nose on their face.
It's not remotely acceptable to suggest that people from minority sexual or gender identities need to be given hard labour punishments because their identities are ultimately false, weird, and the product of having too much time on their hands. That is not something the victims of such trolling should be told to "argue down". The ruling is a disgrace and someone needs to act responsibly, reverse the impetuous mistake and admit error if the moderators do not want to be sending a clear message to LGBT posters about the complete lack of respect they hold for them.
On the wider topic of moderating issues of this kind - there are some rough edges, but a very good starting point is to substitute in another identity or perhaps belief-based group and see if it would be acceptable then.
It was a suggestion to voluntarily do some physical labor, not for the government to round up sexual minorities and force them into it as punishment.
Interesting and fairly incredible interpretation. What possible relevance, pray tell, does physical labour have to sexual and gender identity that "voluntary engagement" in it would somehow be useful?
Saying that people's identities would "go away" if they engaged in "proper work" rather than sitting around making shit up is unquestionably trolling.
The fact that he keeps going on to say weird thoughts(Which is listed as illegal since the thread clearly states that they are not akin to heterosexuals here
Farnhamia wrote:1) Referring to non-heterosexual persons as mentally ill or equating not being heterosexual as akin to being a pedophile will - in most cases - bring us down on you like a ton of bricks.
along with continuing with strange discoveries and "Self-Analysis", then suggesting that all LGBTs are mentally unstable or irregular and suggesting a cure here:
Have you ever considered a physical labour as an option for you?
is that it crosses the line. And the fact that moderators have been able to bend the rules in such ways means that rules are going to be bent much more.
Weird just means outside social norms. Chances are he lives in a very conservative country.
If someone posted here claiming to be from Uganda and shared a bunch of "gays eat the poo poo" videos, would that be acceptable? Unacceptable is unacceptable, even if your're dialing in here from the moon.
Nazi Flower Power wrote: It was a suggestion to voluntarily do some physical labor, not for the government to round up sexual minorities and force them into it as punishment.
Interesting and fairly incredible interpretation. What possible relevance, pray tell, does physical labour have to sexual and gender identity that "voluntary engagement" in it would somehow be useful?
Saying that people's identities would "go away" if they engaged in "proper work" rather than sitting around making shit up is unquestionably trolling.
Do not take us for fools.
I never said physical labor was a useful suggestion, just that you misrepresented what he was saying -- which you did.
Nazi Flower Power wrote: It was a suggestion to voluntarily do some physical labor, not for the government to round up sexual minorities and force them into it as punishment.
Interesting and fairly incredible interpretation. What possible relevance, pray tell, does physical labour have to sexual and gender identity that "voluntary engagement" in it would somehow be useful?
Saying that people's identities would "go away" if they engaged in "proper work" rather than sitting around making shit up is unquestionably trolling.
Do not take us for fools.
This ^
Saying this wasn't actionable opens a whole new can of worms. I could just as easily imply that all theists should do hard labor to rid them of their beliefs and it apparently wouldn't be actionable? Lytte's post just screams bait to me, and while it could be meant as him saying get a job it just doesn't seem like it. The 'weird thoughts and strange discoveries' part is what makes it seem trollish, if he had just said 'get a job and you won't have time to worry' that would be fine and I would side with Lytte but as it stands it seems like it was meant to rile a response.
Nirvash Type TheEND wrote:Weird just means outside social norms. Chances are he lives in a very conservative country.
If someone posted here claiming to be from Uganda and shared a bunch of "gays eat the poo poo" videos, would that be acceptable? Unacceptable is unacceptable, even if your're dialing in here from the moon.
Well, you see the difference is that contributes nothing to discussion. And you're being very intolerant of other cultures if I must say.
Furry Alairia and Algeria wrote:Response is what is above this quote
Self analysis implies that he feels sexuality is a determinable choice. He's not breaking any rules, from what I can see.
Dumb Ideologies wrote: Interesting and fairly incredible interpretation. What possible relevance, pray tell, does physical labour have to sexual and gender identity that "voluntary engagement" in it would somehow be useful?
Saying that people's identities would "go away" if they engaged in "proper work" rather than sitting around making shit up is unquestionably trolling.
Do not take us for fools.
I never said physical labor was a useful suggestion, just that you misrepresented what he was saying -- which you did.
No, your misinterpretation of what he's saying is what you call out about DI. Lyttenburg said that Physical Labor to those that are LGBT, or related to those groups SHOULD in order to get rid of the "thoughts" in their head.
Dumb Ideologies wrote: If someone posted here claiming to be from Uganda and shared a bunch of "gays eat the poo poo" videos, would that be acceptable? Unacceptable is unacceptable, even if your're dialing in here from the moon.
Well, you see the difference is that contributes nothing to discussion. And you're being very intolerant of other cultures if I must say.
Dumb Ideologies wrote: Interesting and fairly incredible interpretation. What possible relevance, pray tell, does physical labour have to sexual and gender identity that "voluntary engagement" in it would somehow be useful?
Saying that people's identities would "go away" if they engaged in "proper work" rather than sitting around making shit up is unquestionably trolling.
Do not take us for fools.
I never said physical labor was a useful suggestion, just that you misrepresented what he was saying -- which you did.
That might be what you think you've demonstrated, but either you are deliberately misrepresenting or you are desperately grasping at straws to try to defend the indefensible. You should feel bad.
Your supposed "ironic" Nazi shtick has never been less amusing.
Nazi Flower Power wrote: Yeah, I read it already. What's your point?
The fact that he keeps going on to say weird thoughts(Which is listed as illegal since the thread clearly states that they are not akin to heterosexuals here
Farnhamia wrote:1) Referring to non-heterosexual persons as mentally ill or equating not being heterosexual as akin to being a pedophile will - in most cases - bring us down on you like a ton of bricks.
along with continuing with strange discoveries and "Self-Analysis", then suggesting that all LGBTs are mentally unstable or irregular and suggesting a cure here:
Have you ever considered a physical labour as an option for you?
is that it crosses the line. And the fact that moderators have been able to bend the rules in such ways means that rules are going to be bent much more.
Nirvash Type TheEND wrote:Weird just means outside social norms. Chances are he lives in a very conservative country.
Response is what is above this quote
How does that in any way refute what I said? I said he suggested voluntary physical labor, not forced labor as a punishment.
As much as I appreciate LGBT rights, the intellectual dishonesty from the people who want to see Lyttenburg warned is really getting on my nerves. I disagree with what he said, but that's no excuse to twist his words and turn it into something worse just so you can crucify him.
Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2014 2:27 pm
by RiderSyl
From my view of things... Being ignorant regarding the topic of sexuality isn't something the moderators can warn for.
Sure, what Nazi Flower & Lyttenburg are saying may be offensively ignorant to you guys, but they haven't done anything against the rules.
Nirvash Type TheEND wrote:Well, you see the difference is that contributes nothing to discussion. And you're being very intolerant of other cultures if I must say.
I'm guessing you've never heard of the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Act.
There's a very large jump between openly stating you think alternative sexualities are wrong and doing away with human rights.
Nazi Flower Power wrote: I never said physical labor was a useful suggestion, just that you misrepresented what he was saying -- which you did.
That might be what you think you've demonstrated, but either you are deliberately misrepresenting or you are desperately grasping at straws to try to defend the indefensible. You should feel bad.
Your supposed "ironic" Nazi shtick has never been less amusing.
Dumb Ideologies wrote: That might be what you think you've demonstrated, but either you are deliberately misrepresenting or you are desperately grasping at straws to try to defend the indefensible. You should feel bad.
Your supposed "ironic" Nazi shtick has never been less amusing.
Come off it.
You didn't refute anything he said, I notice.
Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2014 2:30 pm
by Esternial
My suggestion here would be to advise Moderation to make up their minds about what is acceptable to say and what not. I get that you're all individuals, but creating some kind of consensus around certain issues might lead to the consistency that is so desperately being asked for.
I'm sorry if this sounds too critical, but I feel a lot of Moderation's headaches are caused by poor long-term planning and patchwork solutions in the past and present.
Also, note that this post does not reflect the opinion of the Mentor team and is solely my own view as an individual. If you have any complaints about my post, please take it up to me here or via TG (TG is probably best).
Dumb Ideologies wrote: That might be what you think you've demonstrated, but either you are deliberately misrepresenting or you are desperately grasping at straws to try to defend the indefensible. You should feel bad.
Your supposed "ironic" Nazi shtick has never been less amusing.
Furry Alairia and Algeria wrote:The fact that he keeps going on to say weird thoughts(Which is listed as illegal since the thread clearly states that they are not akin to heterosexuals here
along with continuing with strange discoveries and "Self-Analysis", then suggesting that all LGBTs are mentally unstable or irregular and suggesting a cure here:
is that it crosses the line. And the fact that moderators have been able to bend the rules in such ways means that rules are going to be bent much more.
Response is what is above this quote
How does that in any way refute what I said? I said he suggested voluntary physical labor, not forced labor as a punishment.
As much as I appreciate LGBT rights, the intellectual dishonesty from the people who want to see Lyttenburg warned is really getting on my nerves. I disagree with what he said, but that's no excuse to twist his words and turn it into something worse just so you can crucify him.
How does that in any way refute what I said?
The same way this refutes what I said.
I said he suggested voluntary physical labor, not forced labor as a punishment.
No, but the fact that he suggest physical labor to terminate "thoughts in thy head" is what violates the first rule, which I posted.
As much as I appreciate LGBT rights, the intellectual dishonesty from the people who want to see Lyttenburg warned is really getting on my nerves.
So are you getting on my little nerves on this discussion about personal feelings.
I disagree with what he said, but that's no excuse to twist his words and turn it into something worse just so you can crucify him.
I am not twisting word, lest I be warned for malicious quote editing. It was worse enough as it was, and your defense is not holding up the way I looked into his words.
Ridersyl wrote:From my view of things... Being ignorant regarding the topic of sexuality isn't something the moderators can warn for.
Sure, what Nazi Flower & Lyttenburg are saying may be offensively ignorant to you guys, but they haven't done anything against the rules.
Never did we say they should be wanrned, only Lyttenburg.
Furry Alairia and Algeria wrote: I'm guessing you've never heard of the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Act.
There's a very large jump between openly stating you think alternative sexualities are wrong and doing away with human rights.
There's also a very large bump that prevents you from seeing laws that defy culture, then assimilate into one's culture, so much so that civilians would do it if allowed.
Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2014 2:31 pm
by Sdaeriji
Nazi Flower Power wrote:It actually is not clear whether the "predicament" part referred to Gren's sexuality or their difficulties with being unemployed. Lyttenburg says it was the latter, and in the context of the original thread it is genuinely unclear. When you include the employment issues, Gren's situation legitimately is a predicament. I have no idea why people who oppose the "not actionable" ruling keep throwing the word "predicament" around as if it somehow bolsters their case. It doesn't. It just demonstrates that you jumped on the politically correct bandwagon without reading the relevant posts and considering them with an open mind.
If Lyttenburg was referring to unemployment, then it's hard to rationalize why Lyttenburg felt the need to say that the forum rules prohibit him from expressing his true honest opinion on the matter.
Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2014 1:53 pm