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

[Albrenia]

So as per this recent ruling: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=493843

Would saying "All the pedophiles are Biden supporters" be actionable?

The ruling was that saying all the white supremacists and racists support Trump isn't actionable. So I'm providing the flip side of the statement.

As for the "All X are Y" rule - yeah, that should stay. Less trolling is a good thing.

As far as I see it, you can say 'all pedos support Biden' but not 'all Biden supporters are pedos'.

There's a difference between something being factually wrong, and it being trolling.

[Attempted Socialism]

So as per this recent ruling: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=493843

Would saying "All the pedophiles are Biden supporters" be actionable?

The ruling was that saying all the white supremacists and racists support Trump isn't actionable. So I'm providing the flip side of the statement.

As for the "All X are Y" rule - yeah, that should stay. Less trolling is a good thing.

That's not the flipside, though. The flipside would be something like "all progressives support Biden", which isn't literally true but basically so. It's not trolling to point out that a candidate is supported by a base and endorsed by the organisations mobilising that base.
Though I'd argue there's a difference between a fairly benign and non-controversial statement of fact (Like, as you quote, the white supremacist and racist support for Trump) and the ludicrous fringe hysteria that makes up paedophile allegations around Biden. One is meant to simply discuss reality, while the other is made up to anger people and provoke.
Should spreading paedophile allegations made up to troll be considered trolling? Yeah.

[Cordel One]

The system cops serve is fundamentally racist, so even if we ignore the extreme racism prevalent in so many cops they are required to enforce something that's negative for society. ACAB isn't meant to troll.

[Shofercia]

So as per this recent ruling: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=493843

Would saying "All the pedophiles are Biden supporters" be actionable?

The ruling was that saying all the white supremacists and racists support Trump isn't actionable. So I'm providing the flip side of the statement.

As for the "All X are Y" rule - yeah, that should stay. Less trolling is a good thing.

That's not the flipside, though. The flipside would be something like "all progressives support Biden", which isn't literally true but basically so. It's not trolling to point out that a candidate is supported by a base and endorsed by the organisations mobilising that base.
Though I'd argue there's a difference between a fairly benign and non-controversial statement of fact (Like, as you quote, the white supremacist and racist support for Trump) and the ludicrous fringe hysteria that makes up paedophile allegations around Biden. One is meant to simply discuss reality, while the other is made up to anger people and provoke.
Should spreading paedophile allegations made up to troll be considered trolling? Yeah.

Progressive is viewed as a positive or a neutral term. Racist is viewed as a negative term. I highly doubt that anti-white racists support President Trump, so both statements would not be factual. Claiming that racists, including anti-white racists, support President Trump is controversial, and the fact that you don't see it as such, simply highlights your bias. As far as pedophile allegations are concerned, the way that Biden touches kids is just plain creepy, so I can see someone making said allegations out of disgust rather than a desire to troll.

[Ghost Land]

I had never heard of the "ACAB" initialism until just the other day in this very Moderation forum. To say "all cops are bastards" is quite literally an "all X are Y" comment, and considering there are certainly cops who use this site, I don't see how it couldn't be trolling. Not unless there was actual evidence that all police officers were in fact born to unmarried parents, but that's taking the "bastard" part too literally; it's clearly meant to be a pejorative comment. I don't see a difference between "all cops are bastards" and "all Jews/blacks/Democrats are bastards".

[Ethel mermania]

The system cops serve is fundamentally racist, so even if we ignore the extreme racism prevalent in so many cops they are required to enforce something that's negative for society. ACAB isn't meant to troll.

Even if we accept your premise, it still doesn't mean all cops are bastards, and that calling them such isn't as much of a troll as. All leftists are morons, because in no society has it worked.

Whatever your reason is, legitimate or not, its trolling either way

[Thermodolia]

The system cops serve is fundamentally racist, so even if we ignore the extreme racism prevalent in so many cops they are required to enforce something that's negative for society. ACAB isn't meant to troll.

Whether you mean to troll or not doesn’t matter. What matters is that it’s trolling because bastards is an insult and when used in an all x are y manner it’s trolling.

I’m sure there’s other ways to express your disapproval with police without resorting to “acab”, I know I have

[Outer Sparta]

The system cops serve is fundamentally racist, so even if we ignore the extreme racism prevalent in so many cops they are required to enforce something that's negative for society. ACAB isn't meant to troll.

Whether you mean to troll or not doesn’t matter. What matters is that it’s trolling because bastards is an insult and when used in an all x are y manner it’s trolling.

I’m sure there’s other ways to express your disapproval with police without resorting to “acab”, I know I have

There's definitely a distinction to make between saying ACAB implying that all cops are bad to saying that the system incentivizes bad cops while silencing the good ones. The latter makes it more clear and less trolly.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

I think we have to draw a distinction between the institution of police and individual policemen themselves. It's reasonable to make generalizations about the institution of policing, but trolling to do so about the individuals. ACAB is all X are Y. All Policing is Bad (APIB) is not.

[The Free Joy State]

I don't think "all X is Y" should make a special exception for "ACAB", anymore than it should make an exception for "all liberals/conservatives are...", "all Americans/[insert nationality] are...", "all women/men are...". Once one is excluded, why think there would not be calls (based on the precedent) to push back the barrier on them all?

That doesn't mean it's not possible to draw attention to abuses where they occur and to express your disapproval. It is possible to criticise the actions of police forces, to argue that there need to be a change in procedures for police accountability, without insulting police officers as individuals.

But "ACAB" is merely abuse, serving to inflame the debate.

[Attempted Socialism]

That's not the flipside, though. The flipside would be something like "all progressives support Biden", which isn't literally true but basically so. It's not trolling to point out that a candidate is supported by a base and endorsed by the organisations mobilising that base.
Though I'd argue there's a difference between a fairly benign and non-controversial statement of fact (Like, as you quote, the white supremacist and racist support for Trump) and the ludicrous fringe hysteria that makes up paedophile allegations around Biden. One is meant to simply discuss reality, while the other is made up to anger people and provoke.
Should spreading paedophile allegations made up to troll be considered trolling? Yeah.

Progressive is viewed as a positive or a neutral term.

Except in the far-right circles that make up paedophile allegations, "great replacement" lunacy and thinks anti-white racists are relevant. In these circles, white supremacy is the positive term, and progressive is said with the same derision as traitor.

Racist is viewed as a negative term. I highly doubt that anti-white racists support President Trump, so both statements would not be factual.

Both white supremacist and racist should be viewed negatively, but that's not the issue here (If you want to argue about whatever made-up white supremacist conspiracy theory you believe today, General is that way -> ). Is "all white supremacists and racists support Trump" literally true? No, you can find a handful of racist, elected GOP members who oppose him, and some racist Democrats as well. Rounding off in this case is warranted though.

Claiming that racists, including anti-white racists, support President Trump is controversial,

Not really.

and the fact that you don't see it as such, simply highlights your bias.

I do have a bias towards the relevant and reality.

As far as pedophile allegations are concerned, the way that Biden touches kids is just plain creepy, so I can see someone making said allegations out of disgust rather than a desire to troll.

That's still trolling, though, and not the flipside of "all white supremacists and racists support Trump".

[-Astoria-]

It's pretty much a clear-cut case of "all X are Y".

For starters, "all cops" (ie all X) & "are bastards" (ie all Y).

[Shofercia]

Progressive is viewed as a positive or a neutral term.

Except in the far-right circles that make up paedophile allegations, "great replacement" lunacy and thinks anti-white racists are relevant. In these circles, white supremacy is the positive term, and progressive is said with the same derision as traitor.

I haven't been to many far-right circles so I'll just take your word for it; however, on NSG, the forum that I was referring to, the term "progressive" carries a positive or neutral connation, whereas the term "racist" carries a negative connotation. As far as making up pedophile allegation, perhaps if Joe Biden would kindly stop the sniffing and grabbing around kids, there wouldn't be those allegations. Just keep your hands to yourself and stop sniffing humans. You're not a dog.

Racist is viewed as a negative term. I highly doubt that anti-white racists support President Trump, so both statements would not be factual.

Both white supremacist and racist should be viewed negatively, but that's not the issue here (If you want to argue about whatever made-up white supremacist conspiracy theory you believe today, General is that way -> ). Is "all white supremacists and racists support Trump" literally true? No, you can find a handful of racist, elected GOP members who oppose him, and some racist Democrats as well. Rounding off in this case is warranted though.

Once again, racist is viewed negatively, and any supremacist is also viewed negatively, black supremacist, Latino supremacist, white supremacist, etc, at least on NSG, and when I'm referring to NSG rules, I'm talking about NSG. I thought that went without saying, but apparently I have to clarify even this extraordinarily basic point. As for rounding off is warranted or not - who decides that? That's the problem with fact checkers on Social Media, be they Liberal on Conservative, as long as you have money or power or votes - you decide, irrespective of reality, and then claim that your decision is reality. That's not going to work in the World we live in, the World where it's rather easy to move from one country to another, and it's getting easier.

Claiming that racists, including anti-white racists, support President Trump is controversial,

Not really.

So claiming that racists who want to slaughter white people support Trump isn't controversial?!

and the fact that you don't see it as such, simply highlights your bias.

I do have a bias towards the relevant and reality.

Like stating that claiming that certain BLM rioters support Trump isn't controversial? That's a bias toward reality?!

As far as pedophile allegations are concerned, the way that Biden touches kids is just plain creepy, so I can see someone making said allegations out of disgust rather than a desire to troll.

That's still trolling, though, and not the flipside of "all white supremacists and racists support Trump".

That's the exact version of the flipside. Just because you don't like, doesn't make it any less of a factual statement. Heck, you've argued that claiming that racist who want to slaughter whites support Trump is not controversial, and then proceeded to claim that your biased toward reality in the very next response, so I can understand why you're struggling with the analogy, but I'm not sure if I can help.

[Attempted Socialism]

Shofercia, if you later edit out all the inane strawmen and edit in some actual thought-out arguments that relate to mine, please remark upon it when you do.
Also, strawmen are supposed to be easy to knock down, not get you into such a fit of rage that you lose all coherence.

Except in the far-right circles that make up paedophile allegations, "great replacement" lunacy and thinks anti-white racists are relevant. In these circles, white supremacy is the positive term, and progressive is said with the same derision as traitor.

I haven't been to many far-right circles so I'll just take your word for it; however, on NSG, the forum that I was referring to, the term "progressive" carries a positive or neutral connation, whereas the term "racist" carries a negative connotation. As far as making up pedophile allegation, perhaps if Joe Biden would kindly stop the sniffing and grabbing around kids, there wouldn't be those allegations. Just keep your hands to yourself and stop sniffing humans. You're not a dog.

I mean, this is exactly the line of insane, paedophile-making-up, far-right circle that derides "progressives" and exalts white supremacy, on NSG. You're parroting their talking points. It's also irrelevant to whether it's trolling to point out that "all white supremacists and racists" (Except the ones you're making up in a second), to within a rounding error, are Trump supporters, and that saying e.g. "all paedophiles support Biden" is untrue and meant to inflame and enrage.

Both white supremacist and racist should be viewed negatively, but that's not the issue here (If you want to argue about whatever made-up white supremacist conspiracy theory you believe today, General is that way -> ). Is "all white supremacists and racists support Trump" literally true? No, you can find a handful of racist, elected GOP members who oppose him, and some racist Democrats as well. Rounding off in this case is warranted though.

Once again, racist is viewed negatively, and any supremacist is also viewed negatively, black supremacist, Latino supremacist, white supremacist, etc, at least on NSG, and when I'm referring to NSG rules, I'm talking about NSG.

Yeah?

I thought that went without saying, but apparently I have to clarify even this extraordinarily basic point.

You didn't, but I think you got blinded by your own strawmen and lost your footing.

As for rounding off is warranted or not - who decides that?

Well, in this case, all the white supremacists and racists themselves. They declared themselves for Trump, endorsed, and got endorsed by, him. Meanwhile you have to search quite a bit to find the white supremacists and racists who are not for Trump.

That's the problem with fact checkers on Social Media, be they Liberal on Conservative, as long as you have money or power or votes - you decide, irrespective of reality, and then claim that your decision is reality. That's not going to work in the World we live in, the World where it's rather easy to move from one country to another, and it's getting easier.

...

Not really.

So claiming that racists who want to slaughter white people support Trump isn't controversial?!

That's mainly because you're trying to strawman and move the goalposts here, instead of making a valid argument. You originally said the quote was "all white supremacists and racists" supporting Trump. Your faceplant with inventing anti-white racists who want to slaughter whites and inserting it into your weird invented issue was initially disregarded, because I thought we could both follow along.

I do have a bias towards the relevant and reality.

Like stating that claiming that certain BLM rioters support Trump isn't controversial? That's a bias toward reality?!

You're the one inventing far-fetched and increasingly fantastic scenarios. I can't really comment on whatever madeup BS you're trying to peddle, except to question the relevance to the thread here.

That's still trolling, though, and not the flipside of "all white supremacists and racists support Trump".

That's the exact version of the flipside. Just because you don't like, doesn't make it any less of a factual statement. Heck, you've argued that claiming that racist who want to slaughter whites support Trump is not controversial, and then proceeded to claim that your biased toward reality in the very next response, so I can understand why you're struggling with the analogy, but I'm not sure if I can help.

Strawmen and weird conspiracy anecdotes you've made up are unhelpful, true. But you're not quite getting your own analogy, so let me assist.
"All white supremacists and racists support Trump" is, while not exactly true, correct within any significant figure you wish to round to. This is a non-controversial statement of fact, based on endorsements and base support.
"All paedophiles support Biden" is a madeup notion you arrived at by "concluding" that since Biden shows creepy behaviour, not only must he be a paedophile but it is reasonable to allege that there is a paedophile base who supports him. This is nonsense made up to anger, which you know, and that is why you continually try to drag this into NSG territory and shit-flinging by making this a discussion about Biden rather than the rules and your shitty, original argument.

[Dumb Ideologies]

It's a phrase literally in the format "all x are y", I'm not sure you can argue this as an exception. If your argument is more nuanced than that, use that argument rather than the lazy slogan, eh?

[Servilis]

wow i got a legacy, thats cool!.lets see how this debate turns out
i wont involve myself, no matter how much i want to, but my regionmates told me its not worth it

ill just observe

[Servilis]

It meets the definition of all X are Y, so it's pretty clear cut. It's either keep the rule or get rid of it completely, there's no making exceptions for one instance of it.

i know i just said im not gonna be involved in this thread, but thats where one of my original issues lay, the definition of trolling used in the rules section

i dont see "all x are y" as a good definition to define trolling,
a better definition would be "mayhem", and, fun fact actually, "mayhem" is actually a legal term


thats right, you can get arrested for causing a ruckus, just saying, anyways

i dont see the logic in "why should there be exceptions", why not have exceptions, exceptions can be important, and in fact, "all children are aged between 0-18", which, in itself, well, depending on where you're from, is a true statement, and, under the trolling definition, would be considered an act of trolling because its "all x are y", which effectively rules saying things like that as a form of trolling, and thus can be bannable, meaning moderators have some more free extra ban hammers to throw, hence why exceptions are imporant.

[Vivolkha]

ACAB is a textbook case of "all x are y" trolling, used in an offensive manner against the police.

[VW53Aland]

Just read the OP.
I fully agree with mods if they don't tolerate ACAB or any other "all X are Y". Even though there are cops that have other morals than you would expect from a cop, as demonstrated in multiple parts of the world recently, this doesn't automatically imply that all cops are like that. So, ACAB, like any other "all X are Y", simply isn't true.
But more importantly, it is highly offensive to anyone here who works as a policeman, wants to become one, or has friends or family who do. It is needlessly offensive and should have no place on this forum or anywhere else.

[Servilis]

ACAB is a textbook case of "all x are y" trolling, used in an offensive manner against the police.

Just read the OP.
I fully agree with mods if they don't tolerate ACAB or any other "all X are Y". Even though there are cops that have other morals than you would expect from a cop, as demonstrated in multiple parts of the world recently, this doesn't automatically imply that all cops are like that. So, ACAB, like any other "all X are Y", simply isn't true.
But more importantly, it is highly offensive to anyone here who works as a policeman, wants to become one, or has friends or family who do. It is needlessly offensive and should have no place on this forum or anywhere else.
(Image)

That's the thing, they chose to be cops.

[The New California Republic]

It meets the definition of all X are Y, so it's pretty clear cut. It's either keep the rule or get rid of it completely, there's no making exceptions for one instance of it.

i know i just said im not gonna be involved in this thread, but thats where one of my original issues lay, the definition of trolling used in the rules section

i dont see "all x are y" as a good definition to define trolling,
a better definition would be "mayhem", and, fun fact actually, "mayhem" is actually a legal term


thats right, you can get arrested for causing a ruckus, just saying, anyways

i dont see the logic in "why should there be exceptions", why not have exceptions, exceptions can be important, and in fact, "all children are aged between 0-18", which, in itself, well, depending on where you're from, is a true statement, and, under the trolling definition, would be considered an act of trolling because its "all x are y", which effectively rules saying things like that as a form of trolling, and thus can be bannable, meaning moderators have some more free extra ban hammers to throw, hence why exceptions are imporant.

None of that says anything as to why there should be exceptions in clear instances where it is trolling.

And no, tautologies like your example, "all children are aged between 0-18", are not trolling, as there is no intent to anger behind it; there is more than an adequate number of precedents to show what is actually meant by all X are Y, so spurious interpretations such as the example you used just aren't credible.

[Nova Vandalia]

I'm sorry but reading over this thread it's kind of mind blowing refusal to actually examine the meaning and context that ACAB has become, and it's pretty blatant to me at least this was purposeful to make their argument seems justified. ACAB among the community that uses it is while accepted as a criticism of the institution and not the individual, it's been purposely ripped out of context in this discussion to devalue that. It's been a political statement since at least the 1970's.

Are we now banning political statements and sayings? Does this mean we can get rid of a thin blue line sigs, and comments? I would also assume this extends the other so people can't say all Cop are hero's as well?

[Ghost Land]

I'm sorry but reading over this thread it's kind of mind blowing refusal to actually examine the meaning and context that ACAB has become, and it's pretty blatant to me at least this was purposeful to make their argument seems justified. ACAB among the community that uses it is while accepted as a criticism of the institution and not the individual, it's been purposely ripped out of context in this discussion to devalue that. It's been a political statement since at least the 1970's.

Are we now banning political statements and sayings? Does this mean we can get rid of a thin blue line sigs, and comments? I would also assume this extends the other so people can't say all Cop are hero's as well?

It doesn't make a difference if it's intended as a political statement or not. It's by the most literal definition an "all X are Y" comment.

All
Cops = X group
Are
Bastards = Y negative thing

I don't see how this could be the slightest bit unclear.

[The New California Republic]

It's been a political statement since at least the 1970's.

Doesn't mean it's acceptable on the forums.

Are we now banning political statements and sayings?

No.

I would also assume this extends the other so people can't say all Cop are hero's as well?

The intent is different, so no.

[Simple Rock]

really dont know what ACAB is.