[Discussion] ACAB as "all X are Y" trolling

[Picairn]

I admire your wish for Pacifism, but I genuinely dislike being forced to be civil.
It is within my nature to go absolutely feral.

How else would I return to monke

In that case, I invite you to 4chan, or other "free speech" forums.

[Thermodolia]

Sorry but calling someone/a group "bastard/bastards" is a slur.

No it isn't, and I'm serious here. The meaning of "bastard" has shifted, the same way "gay" has shifted.

Hath gone from an insult for anybody who was born out of wedlock, to an insult used in the general context.

And you aren’t allowed to insult anyone on this site, cops included

[Ethel mermania]

We are good with all leftists are morons then?

TAKE A WILD GUESS, BUDDY.

I would have guessed "no", but you did answer elsewhere. Rest assured I am not your buddy.

[Thermodolia]

The fact that there are bad cops doesn’t mean all cops are bad. It’s the same for all groups

The phrase "All Cops Are Bad" doesn't literally mean "All Cops, Yes My Friend, All Cops, Are Bad".
It's a phrase that jabs at police brutality.
It takes a general look at how much power police are given over their fellow citizens, and how much they abuse it.

Sure....

And the ocean is bright red.

See I can come up with bullshit explanations too!!

[Ethel mermania]

We are good with all leftists are morons then?

This is just non sequitur since there is simply no coherent point to be made with that phrase.

I disagree. It makes its point quite well.

[Aeritai]

Honestly if we did remove "ACAB" from the all x are y rule, I'm pretty sure users on the right are not going to be happy that the mods are making a exception for users on the left.

[Alvecia]

The fact that there are bad cops doesn’t mean all cops are bad. It’s the same for all groups

The phrase "All Cops Are Bad" doesn't literally mean "All Cops, Yes My Friend, All Cops, Are Bad".
It's a phrase that jabs at police brutality.
It takes a general look at how much power police are given over their fellow citizens, and how much they abuse it.

I've never seen the statement "All Cops Are Bad" to be used in a non-literal sense tbh.

There's something of an informal rule I've seen when it comes to moderation that is "judge context from the perspective of a random person who's wandered onto the site"
Basically "how would the average person interpret this". Typically you'll see it mentioned when people try to argue that behaviour judged as rulebreaking is just an in joke, or banter between friends.

The point being, on average how many people would see the statement "all cops are bad" and assume it means "some, but not all, cops are bad"

[Picairn]

Nobody said anything about traditions, all we ever said was that not being allowed to say "ACAB" is kind of, I dunno, stupid...
If a Confederate gets to exclaim that black nationalists be deported to Africa and can get away with it.

Then the moderators logic doesn't add up.

"But Traditions!" is my personal characterization of anything that relies on its long existence (specifically days, months, years, etc.) as a justification for its continued existence when faced with challenges from people. In other words, it's a fallacy called Appeal to Tradition. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

[Picairn]

Honestly if we did remove "ACAB" from the all x are y rule, I'm pretty sure users on the right are not going to be happy that the mods are making a exception for users on the left.

I mean, Servilis also advocated for the exception of "All leftists are morons". This could get downhill pretty quick.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Yes.

I admire your consistency, but I don't want NSG to turn into a flamefest.

Indeed. That would undermine the reasoning for having a flaming rule as well.

[Nova Vandalia]

Nobody said anything about traditions, all we ever said was that not being allowed to say "ACAB" is kind of, I dunno, stupid...
If a Confederate gets to exclaim that black nationalists be deported to Africa and can get away with it.

Then the moderators logic doesn't add up.

"But Traditions!" is my personal characterization of anything that relies on its long existence (specifically days, months, years, etc.) as a justification for its continued existence when faced with challenges from people. In other words, it's a fallacy called Appeal to Tradition. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

I think the accepted terminology and implication of the terms in anti police protests for the past 40 isn't an appeal to tradition, but saying that we need to understand the context of the actual meaning and usage. Appeal Tradition follows the idea that a belief should be believe because it tradition, our arguments are that 40 years of anti police protests also added 40 years of clarification that it is about the institution not the people comprising the institution and that clarification is with in reach, it's called an internet search, of most people.

[Thermodolia]

"But Traditions!" is my personal characterization of anything that relies on its long existence (specifically days, months, years, etc.) as a justification for its continued existence when faced with challenges from people. In other words, it's a fallacy called Appeal to Tradition. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

I think the accepted terminology and implication of the terms in anti police protests for the past 40 isn't an appeal to tradition, but saying that we need to understand the context of the actual meaning and usage. Appeal Tradition follows the idea that a belief should be believe because it tradition, our arguments are that 40 years of anti police protests also added 40 years of clarification that it is about the institution not the people comprising the institution and that clarification is with in reach, it's called an internet search, of most people.

The phrase "All Cops Are Bad" doesn't literally mean "All Cops, Yes My Friend, All Cops, Are Bad".
It's a phrase that jabs at police brutality.
It takes a general look at how much power police are given over their fellow citizens, and how much they abuse it.

I've never seen the statement "All Cops Are Bad" to be used in a non-literal sense tbh.

There's something of an informal rule I've seen when it comes to moderation that is "judge context from the perspective of a random person who's wandered onto the site"
Basically "how would the average person interpret this". Typically you'll see it mentioned when people try to argue that behaviour judged as rulebreaking is just an in joke, or banter between friends.

The point being, on average how many people would see the statement "all cops are bad" and assume it means "some, but not all, cops are bad"

[Nova Vandalia]

I think the accepted terminology and implication of the terms in anti police protests for the past 40 isn't an appeal to tradition, but saying that we need to understand the context of the actual meaning and usage. Appeal Tradition follows the idea that a belief should be believe because it tradition, our arguments are that 40 years of anti police protests also added 40 years of clarification that it is about the institution not the people comprising the institution and that clarification is with in reach, it's called an internet search, of most people.

I've never seen the statement "All Cops Are Bad" to be used in a non-literal sense tbh.

There's something of an informal rule I've seen when it comes to moderation that is "judge context from the perspective of a random person who's wandered onto the site"
Basically "how would the average person interpret this". Typically you'll see it mentioned when people try to argue that behaviour judged as rulebreaking is just an in joke, or banter between friends.

The point being, on average how many people would see the statement "all cops are bad" and assume it means "some, but not all, cops are bad"

So Alvecia's lack of research is somehow an argument against my point?

[The New California Republic]

"But Traditions!" is my personal characterization of anything that relies on its long existence (specifically days, months, years, etc.) as a justification for its continued existence when faced with challenges from people. In other words, it's a fallacy called Appeal to Tradition. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

I think the accepted terminology and implication of the terms in anti police protests for the past 40 isn't an appeal to tradition, but saying that we need to understand the context of the actual meaning and usage. Appeal Tradition follows the idea that a belief should be believe because it tradition, our arguments are that 40 years of anti police protests also added 40 years of clarification that it is about the institution not the people comprising the institution and that clarification is with in reach, it's called an internet search, of most people.

But using the metric you are using, if it had been common for decades for certain circles to use the statement "all LGBT are diseased", then it would be acceptable to use it on the forums.

And I don't buy the excuse that it's just referring to the institution, as if cops themselves are being somehow partitioned off from inclusion as the referent.

[Picairn]

I think the accepted terminology and implication of the terms in anti police protests for the past 40 isn't an appeal to tradition, but saying that we need to understand the context of the actual meaning and usage. Appeal Tradition follows the idea that a belief should be believe because it tradition, our arguments are that 40 years of anti police protests also added 40 years of clarification that it is about the institution not the people comprising the institution and that clarification is with in reach, it's called an internet search, of most people.

Even if it is an accepted terminology as a criticism of the police institutions among anti-police protests, that term still relied on incorrect grounds, specifically in semantics and meaning. Popular understanding of the phrase ACAB will certainly interpret it as literally "All Cops Are Bastards", not "The Police Institution Is Bad".

This is what happens when you use people in an insult. Sensible, normal individuals will most likely see it as a personal insult, not a criticism of the system.

When the semantics is wrong and all that left is the years of existence being used as a justification, then I can conclude it is an Appeal to Tradition fallacy.

[Alvecia]

So Alvecia's lack of research is somehow an argument against my point?

Actually, yes.

As I said, it's not a formal rule, but generally it's not on everyone else to be well researched on every possible colloquial usage of every phrase.
It's the same reason if I called a mate of mine a "fuckwit" in a friendly banterful sense, even if both of us know I'm not actually flaming them, I'd still fall afoul of the flaming rule

[Nova Vandalia]

I think the accepted terminology and implication of the terms in anti police protests for the past 40 isn't an appeal to tradition, but saying that we need to understand the context of the actual meaning and usage. Appeal Tradition follows the idea that a belief should be believe because it tradition, our arguments are that 40 years of anti police protests also added 40 years of clarification that it is about the institution not the people comprising the institution and that clarification is with in reach, it's called an internet search, of most people.

Even if it is an accepted terminology as a criticism of the police institutions among anti-police protests, that term still relied on incorrect grounds, specifically in semantics and meaning. Popular understanding of the phrase ACAB will certainly interpret it as literally "All Cops Are Bastards", not "The Police Institution Is Bad".

This is what happens when you use people in an insult. Sensible, normal individuals will most likely see it as a personal insult, not a criticism of the system.

When the semantics is wrong and all that left is the years of existence being used as a justification, then I can conclude it is an Appeal to Tradition fallacy.

So you're saying we should ban it out of general ignorance, because people don't want to take the time to understand the term. Lovely stance.

[Nova Vandalia]

So Alvecia's lack of research is somehow an argument against my point?

Actually, yes.

As I said, it's not a formal rule, but generally it's not on everyone else to be well researched on every possible colloquial usage of every phrase.
It's the same reason if I called a mate of mine a "fuckwit" in a friendly banterful sense, even if both of us know I'm not actually flaming them, I'd still fall afoul of the flaming rule

Woah, talking about mating, that uh no kosher here, right? I mean Mate in my part of the world generally mean what you do to make babies and isn't used as term of friendship and endearment, so obviously this is your fault for using a term that isn't commonly understood by everyone.

[Thermodolia]

Actually, yes.

As I said, it's not a formal rule, but generally it's not on everyone else to be well researched on every possible colloquial usage of every phrase.
It's the same reason if I called a mate of mine a "fuckwit" in a friendly banterful sense, even if both of us know I'm not actually flaming them, I'd still fall afoul of the flaming rule

Woah, talking about mating, that uh no kosher here, right? I mean Mate in my part of the world generally mean what you do to make babies and isn't used as term of friendship and endearment, so obviously this is your fault for using a term that isn't commonly understood by everyone.

Literally everyone knows what mate means don’t act coy

[Nova Vandalia]

Woah, talking about mating, that uh no kosher here, right? I mean Mate in my part of the world generally mean what you do to make babies and isn't used as term of friendship and endearment, so obviously this is your fault for using a term that isn't commonly understood by everyone.

Literally everyone knows what mate means don’t act coy

I'm proving a point, that we can't take a reasonable person standard on something with a world wide community, mate. But must look at the usage of the term at the time instead of having a blanket ban on it.

[Alvecia]

Actually, yes.

As I said, it's not a formal rule, but generally it's not on everyone else to be well researched on every possible colloquial usage of every phrase.
It's the same reason if I called a mate of mine a "fuckwit" in a friendly banterful sense, even if both of us know I'm not actually flaming them, I'd still fall afoul of the flaming rule

Woah, talking about mating, that uh no kosher here, right? I mean Mate in my part of the world generally mean what you do to make babies and isn't used as term of friendship and endearment, so obviously this is your fault for using a term that isn't commonly understood by everyone.

Kind of a poor example, as (correct me if I'm wrong) you can probably get away with occasionally mentioning sex in the abstract sense. So long as you don't make a thing out of it, or get explicit.
I believe that discussion came up as part of the existence of the Abortion Discussion Thread.

[Nova Vandalia]

Woah, talking about mating, that uh no kosher here, right? I mean Mate in my part of the world generally mean what you do to make babies and isn't used as term of friendship and endearment, so obviously this is your fault for using a term that isn't commonly understood by everyone.

Kind of a poor example, as (correct me if I'm wrong) you can probably get away with occasionally mentioning sex in the abstract sense. So long as you don't make a thing out of it, or get explicit.
I believe that discussion came up as part of the existence of the Abortion Discussion Thread.

I feel like ACAB is a bad example on your all part when Anarchist theory had adopted it a rally cry as have several other communities. Again I'm not saying that it should be allowed every time, but if it is explicitly used in the way you all accuse it is used "EVERYTIME" then sure, but it shouldn't be a blanket ban, because it's going to punish, the anti-police sides talks about theory and rhetoric, and I don't think I'm being unreasonable in that ask, to simply remove it as a blanket immediately banned statement.

[Alvecia]

Literally everyone knows what mate means don’t act coy

I'm proving a point, that we can't take a reasonable person standard on something with a world wide community, mate. But must look at the usage of the term at the time instead of having a blanket ban on it.

Technically speaking, it would be the English speaking world wide community, as this is an English speaking forum. That particular demographic, as large as it is, are actually probably very likely to understand the context behind calling someone mate.
Particularly given that they'll likely have learnt from someone or something that knows or who uses "mate" to mean "friend", as opposed to the older meaning that's rarely used outside of an academic context.

So again, poor example.

[Nova Vandalia]

I'm proving a point, that we can't take a reasonable person standard on something with a world wide community, mate. But must look at the usage of the term at the time instead of having a blanket ban on it.

Technically speaking, it would be the English speaking world wide community, as this is an English speaking forum. That particular demographic, as large as it is, are actually probably very likely to understand the context behind calling someone mate.
Particularly given that they'll likely have learnt from someone or something that knows or who uses "mate" to mean "friend", as opposed to the older meaning that's rarely used outside of an academic context.

So again, poor example.

Except very rarely do we use Mate in my area of the English speaking world to mean friend. It's kinda super rare, and it still take in outside context to get there and understand it's usage in the moment. Which is all I'm all asking, so even if you consider it a bad example, can you at least agree that a blanket ban on the term is not needed? I mean hell they can still choose that every usage of it is and has been offensive, but disallowing the discussion of it's use in political theory, when it has been used in said for 40+ years is ridiculous.

[Alvecia]

Kind of a poor example, as (correct me if I'm wrong) you can probably get away with occasionally mentioning sex in the abstract sense. So long as you don't make a thing out of it, or get explicit.
I believe that discussion came up as part of the existence of the Abortion Discussion Thread.

I feel like ACAB is a bad example on your all part when Anarchist theory had adopted it a rally cry as have several other communities. Again I'm not saying that it should be allowed every time, but if it is explicitly used in the way you all accuse it is used "EVERYTIME" then sure, but it shouldn't be a blanket ban, because it's going to punish, the anti-police sides talks about theory and rhetoric, and I don't think I'm being unreasonable in that ask, to simply remove it as a blanket immediately banned statement.

I think you wildly overestimate the general populace's know-how of those particular communities.
Not an entirely unexpected if you yourself are familiar with them. I find people who are part of or knowledgeable about a particular community tend to overestimate their influence.

The vast majority of the rules on this site rely on you providing the context for your statements, rather than rely on moderation to determine the context on on report viewing. I don't see why this particular rule should be the exception.

Technically speaking, it would be the English speaking world wide community, as this is an English speaking forum. That particular demographic, as large as it is, are actually probably very likely to understand the context behind calling someone mate.
Particularly given that they'll likely have learnt from someone or something that knows or who uses "mate" to mean "friend", as opposed to the older meaning that's rarely used outside of an academic context.

So again, poor example.

Except very rarely do we use Mate in my area of the English speaking world to mean friend. It's kinda super rare, and it still take in outside context to get there and understand it's usage in the moment. Which is all I'm all asking, so even if you consider it a bad example, can you at least agree that a blanket ban on the term is not needed? I mean hell they can still choose that every usage of it is and has been offensive, but disallowing the discussion of it's use in political theory, when it has been used in said for 40+ years is ridiculous.

This kinda ties into the above. On this forum, the onus is on you to provide the context, not moderation or the user base to determine it.
Particularly when regarding potential rule breaking behaviour.