Servilis wrote: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.
Advertisement
by Picairn » Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:17 am
Servilis wrote: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
by Thermodolia » Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:17 am
Servilis wrote:The New California Republic wrote: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.
by Ethel mermania » Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:19 am
by Thermodolia » Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:19 am
Servilis wrote:Thermodolia wrote: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.
by Ethel mermania » Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:20 am
by Aeritai » Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:23 am
by Alvecia » Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:23 am
Servilis wrote:Thermodolia wrote: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.
by Picairn » Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:26 am
Servilis wrote: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.
by Picairn » Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:27 am
Aeritai wrote: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.
by The Reformed American Republic » Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:28 am
by Nova Vandalia » Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:31 am
Picairn wrote:Servilis wrote: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
by Thermodolia » Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:34 am
Nova Vandalia wrote:Picairn wrote:"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.
Alvecia wrote:Servilis wrote: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"
by Nova Vandalia » Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:39 am
Thermodolia wrote:Nova Vandalia wrote:
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.Alvecia wrote: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"
by The New California Republic » Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:40 am
Nova Vandalia wrote:Picairn wrote:"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.
by Picairn » Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:40 am
Nova Vandalia wrote: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.
by Alvecia » Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:43 am
by Nova Vandalia » Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:44 am
Picairn wrote:Nova Vandalia wrote: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.
by Nova Vandalia » Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:46 am
Alvecia wrote:Nova Vandalia wrote:
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
by Thermodolia » Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:47 am
Nova Vandalia wrote:Alvecia wrote: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.
by Nova Vandalia » Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:48 am
Thermodolia wrote:Nova Vandalia wrote:
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
by Alvecia » Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:51 am
Nova Vandalia wrote:Alvecia wrote: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.
by Nova Vandalia » Tue Nov 03, 2020 8:53 am
Alvecia wrote:Nova Vandalia wrote:
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.
by Alvecia » Tue Nov 03, 2020 9:00 am
by Nova Vandalia » Tue Nov 03, 2020 9:05 am
Alvecia wrote:Nova Vandalia wrote:
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.
by Alvecia » Tue Nov 03, 2020 9:09 am
Nova Vandalia wrote:Alvecia wrote: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.
Nova Vandalia wrote:Alvecia wrote: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.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]
Advertisement