by Sack Jackpot Winners » Tue May 24, 2016 6:56 pm
by Bezkoshtovnya » Tue May 24, 2016 8:29 pm
Dante Alighieri wrote:There is no greater sorrow than to recall happiness in times of misery
Charlie Chaplin wrote:Nothing is permanent in this wicked world, not even our troubles.
by American Imperial State » Tue May 24, 2016 10:21 pm
Reploid Productions wrote:Merizoc wrote:And is referring to public figures by racial slurs okay?
Slurs, by default, refer to an entire group of people, not an individual, so they aren't particularly relevant to the conversation. "Obama is a nigger!" for example, could be pretty clearly read as trolling Obama supporters and the entire group of people who happen to have a particular skin color. "X is a s/he/it!", while disrespectful to that public figure and understandably extremely irritating to transgender users, is only referencing the gender of the individual in question. Some misguided or simply ignorant people still believe transgendered individuals are deluded, sick, or just flat out don't really exist; but as Max has instructed the team many times in the past, he would rather have "stupid, ignorant opinions dragged out in the open where they can be shown for the stupid, ignorant opinions they are."
We cannot force people to think or believe a certain way, and the current setup on gender labeling is about the closest thing to a reasonable compromise we can find. Sure, transgender users are going to be irate that people can mis-gender public trans figures; but at the same time, anti-transgender people are also going to be irate that they have to use the preferred pronoun when known when speaking to users on the site.
by UnjustlyBannedLlamas » Wed May 25, 2016 12:45 am
Sack Jackpot Winners wrote:Not sure if this 100% qualifies as trolling/flamebaiting, but Unjustlybannedllamas has been consistently calling anyone who says "Pvt. Manning was a traitor" transphobic, without any supporting evidence. He/She continues to do that, and it seems purely for the trollz.
What looks to be clear:
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... #p28833884
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... #p28821176
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... #p28821144
Ambiguous but going with the theme:
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... #p28826492
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... #p28826478
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic ... #p28815529
edit: got the name wrong
by UnjustlyBannedLlamas » Wed May 25, 2016 12:46 am
American Imperial State wrote:Bezkoshtovnya wrote:Same thread, IIRC, referring to transgender people as "it" was not exactly kosher.
I admit using it was not in good form and I did apologize for it just now because I was attempting to be neutral. I did use "she" before in reference to Manning and I also requested that the title of the thread be changed to be more gender neutral. I disagree with the trans thing, but I want to try and be respectful to other members on this board so I did apologize.
I was trying to be gender neutral but I realized after the fact how using it instead of preferred pronouns came across.
Still, that being the case, no rule was broken from what I understand. Here is the relevant ruling from Reploid;Reploid Productions wrote:Slurs, by default, refer to an entire group of people, not an individual, so they aren't particularly relevant to the conversation. "Obama is a nigger!" for example, could be pretty clearly read as trolling Obama supporters and the entire group of people who happen to have a particular skin color. "X is a s/he/it!", while disrespectful to that public figure and understandably extremely irritating to transgender users, is only referencing the gender of the individual in question. Some misguided or simply ignorant people still believe transgendered individuals are deluded, sick, or just flat out don't really exist; but as Max has instructed the team many times in the past, he would rather have "stupid, ignorant opinions dragged out in the open where they can be shown for the stupid, ignorant opinions they are."
We cannot force people to think or believe a certain way, and the current setup on gender labeling is about the closest thing to a reasonable compromise we can find. Sure, transgender users are going to be irate that people can mis-gender public trans figures; but at the same time, anti-transgender people are also going to be irate that they have to use the preferred pronoun when known when speaking to users on the site.
by American Imperial State » Wed May 25, 2016 12:47 am
UnjustlyBannedLlamas wrote:Sack Jackpot Winners wrote:
I wonder if Manning would be transphobic if she regretted her own actions? Oh, wait...
Never said anything like that. Learn to fucking read.
by Sack Jackpot Winners » Wed May 25, 2016 12:51 am
UnjustlyBannedLlamas wrote:Sack Jackpot Winners wrote:Not sure if this 100% qualifies as trolling/flamebaiting, but Unjustlybannedllamas has been consistently calling anyone who says "Pvt. Manning was a traitor" transphobic, without any supporting evidence. He/She continues to do that, and it seems purely for the trollz.
What looks to be clear:
viewtopic.php?p=28833884#p28833884
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=379072&p=28821176#p28821176
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=379072&p=28821144#p28821144
Ambiguous but going with the theme:
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=379072&p=28826492#p28826492
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=379072&p=28826478#p28826478
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=379072&p=28815529#p28815529
edit: got the name wrong
Pointing out transphobia is against the rules now?
by Sack Jackpot Winners » Wed May 25, 2016 12:36 pm
by Paddy O Fernature » Sat May 28, 2016 3:35 pm
by The Union of English Speaking Countries » Sat May 28, 2016 7:25 pm
Paddy O Fernature wrote:Going to bring this up here as it might be related to this judgement/ruling.
Understanding that UnjustlyBannedLlamas was just suspended for trolling and flaming the thread....I'm curious if UnjustlyBannedLlamas statements since coming back would be considered trolling, as it seems to me that they are going well out of their way to blatantly misrepresent users posts so that they can then attack them for something that they never actually said. Example here and here and here.
Judging by other users responding to those posts as well, It looks that I'm not the only one drawing this conclusion from UBL's peculiar statements.
Thanks for looking this over.
by The Two Jerseys » Sat May 28, 2016 8:49 pm
Paddy O Fernature wrote:Going to bring this up here as it might be related to this judgement/ruling.
Understanding that UnjustlyBannedLlamas was just suspended for trolling and flaming the thread....I'm curious if UnjustlyBannedLlamas statements since coming back would be considered trolling, as it seems to me that they are going well out of their way to blatantly misrepresent users posts so that they can then attack them for something that they never actually said. Example here and here and here.
Judging by other users responding to those posts as well, It looks that I'm not the only one drawing this conclusion from UBL's peculiar statements.
Thanks for looking this over.
by Sack Jackpot Winners » Sat May 28, 2016 8:51 pm
The Two Jerseys wrote:Paddy O Fernature wrote:Going to bring this up here as it might be related to this judgement/ruling.
Understanding that UnjustlyBannedLlamas was just suspended for trolling and flaming the thread....I'm curious if UnjustlyBannedLlamas statements since coming back would be considered trolling, as it seems to me that they are going well out of their way to blatantly misrepresent users posts so that they can then attack them for something that they never actually said. Example here and here and here.
Judging by other users responding to those posts as well, It looks that I'm not the only one drawing this conclusion from UBL's peculiar statements.
Thanks for looking this over.
Could that first post you linked to be considered mods as weapons as well?
Here's the actual post:UnjustlyBannedLlamas wrote:
Still advocating death, which is against the rules of this site.
by Paddy O Fernature » Sat May 28, 2016 10:44 pm
by UnjustlyBannedLlamas » Sun May 29, 2016 1:16 am
by UnjustlyBannedLlamas » Sun May 29, 2016 1:20 am
by Wrapper » Sun May 29, 2016 2:43 am
Paddy O Fernature wrote:Going to bring this up here as it might be related to this judgement/ruling.
Understanding that UnjustlyBannedLlamas was just suspended for trolling and flaming the thread....I'm curious if UnjustlyBannedLlamas statements since coming back would be considered trolling, as it seems to me that they are going well out of their way to blatantly misrepresent users posts so that they can then attack them for something that they never actually said. Example here and here and here.
Judging by other users responding to those posts as well, It looks that I'm not the only one drawing this conclusion from UBL's peculiar statements.
Thanks for looking this over.
The Two Jerseys wrote:Could that first post you linked to be considered mods as weapons as well?
Sack Jackpot Winners wrote:No, since he's just saying it's against site rules.
UnjustlyBannedLlamas wrote:https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=379209
I think Jackpot Winners and Paddy are trying to get me into trouble to score some kind of political point. Not that me being banned or sanctioned would prove me wrong any way but thats beside the point.
The Union of English Speaking Countries wrote: viewtopic.php?p=28821144#p28821144
I've made it quite clear that I dont care whether or not she's trans
Seems to be an appropriate point to add this.
by Paddy O Fernature » Sun May 29, 2016 7:41 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Attempted Socialism, Castille de Italia, Dimetrodon Empire, Greater Somoiland, Heldervin, JayDee II, Nyoskova, Sylh Alanor, The Ice States, Todd McCloud, Torisakia, Washington Resistance Army
Advertisement