Lurker > Zonbei

WoodenRook posted...

You're just going to argue with everything.

But, yes, I do think that there are attempts at making the process eliminate parental input.

What about doctor input? Some parents are bigots or actively harm their children, so Im not surprised if you can find SOME effort to circumvent parents in those situations. But nobody is removing doctors from the process.

WoodenRook posted...

I must have missed that in all the replies. In that case, yes, I would never insert my opinion into that situation at all. If a parent, doctor, and the child want it... what I want doesn't matter.

To be clear, thats literally all cases. Glad youre saying something reasonable here though. Now youve just got to read the info I sent you to learn more about why that care is helpful and not harmful.

I think weve pretty categorically proved you arent being moderated for saying things even when theyre objectively wrong.

WoodenRook posted...

For the reason I stated in what you quoted. I do not feel kids are old enough to make that decision.

As you already have been told, the decision to pursue gender-affirming care is made by parents, the kid, and their doctors, just like every other medical decision involving kids.

Why are they not old enough to make that decision, if the decision isnt harmful? Are you against kids deciding to make decisions that arent harmful?

WoodenRook posted...

I never said that. This is the twisting I'm talking about. What I said and what you read are two different things.

WoodenRook posted...

I don't support gender affirming care for kids. That was your original question. I do not feel that kids are old enough to make that decision. Even the ones that aren't permanent.

So to be clear: youre claiming here that you dont believe its harmful to kids? So you dont support it, despite the fact you dont think its harmful?

Why do you care about this if kids are not being harmed?

oh wait, you refuse to discuss it, so you just get to spout shit and then never back it up.

WoodenRook posted...

You're arguing something different and I understand sampling just fine.

If a research paper says "We studied X and this is the result" That is the only fact. Your opinion on what to do with that fact is just that... an opinion.

Bud you made a fucking claim that its harmful to children. I gave you evidence it isnt. Shut the fuck up about opinions.

WoodenRook posted...

You don't have to tell me what I think. I told you what I think.

I did post an opinion after being asked repeatedly for it. I did not post it to argue about it.

And any referencing to scientific articles should only be for what the article states. For example, if an article states "We studied 100 of X and this happened." That's the only conclusion you can come from that study. The only fact is that 100 of x were studied and something happened.

What you all are doing is saying "They studied 100 of X and that happened." So that means "This"..

That's not how critical thinking works. And your opinion on "This" is not a fact. That's why you all get frustrated when people don't agree with you when you argue in definitive "right" or "wrong" on political topics.

So you didnt read what I posted and arent going to, because everything you just said has nothing at all to do with it.

These things are in fact facts, and the frustration is with people like you who pretend they arent and hide behind opinions. Youre not acting in good faith, and you absolutely should be made to feel unsafe, I.e ridiculed and criticized for being a liar, a hypocrite, and a bad person.

WoodenRook posted...

No, I'm refusing to have the conversation at all here. I wasn't arguing at all. In bad faith or otherwise. I was asked my opinion and I stated it. I wasn't going to argue it.

EDIT: Arguing about that subject at least. I'm obviously arguing, but I'm not arguing about that subject.

didnt ask you to argue it. I dont need to hear more obvious lies and ignorance. Thats why I simply posted some links. Are you going to read them? Thats all I need to hear from you.

And yes, if you dont read them, Im going to make fun of you, because you deserve it. Making people who act in bad faith and believe harmful things while refusing to learn or listen feel unsafe is a good thing, actually. If you feel unsafe, its because I make it my business to make bad people feel unwelcome.

WoodenRook posted...

This isn't a safe place to talk about it for people that don't agree with you. It's also very very very low on my political priorities.

again, didnt ask you to talk about it. Asked you to read the damn info. Youve clearly refused.

Its so low on your political priorities that you cant be bothered to read an article? But you think children are being harmed? Children being harmed is low on your list?

Youre correct, Rook. This is not a safe place for you to be a bad faith actor who evades questions and believes harmful things while refusing to even glance at factual information, in that its a place where I specifically am going to ridicule you for choosing to be a joke of a person.

WoodenRook posted...

aggressive pressure or intimidation.

Like repeatedly pushing something when the person has stated many times they aren't interested.

So you dont know what the word aggressive means either.

So, to be clear, youre simply refusing to accept or even look at information that contradicts your beliefs. Cant imagine why anyone would accuse you of acting in bad faith.

The issue here is that youre clearly acting in bad faith on this issue, which calls into question your original claim that youre being treated unfairly.

WoodenRook posted...

You wouldn't be able to see my posts. And, other than the harassment of trying to get me to talk about something I've stated multiple times I don't want to talk about, you're posts have been mostly fine.

Then read the links I posted. You dont have to talk about it. Just act in good faith and allow evidence to actually make it into your brain.

I suspect you may not know what the word harassment means.

WoodenRook posted...

Because, relevant to this topic, this is not a safe place.

Lmao. Im beginning to suspect you have me blocked for some reason, because youre perfectly safe to just.. read the links I provided you.

WoodenRook posted...

We disagree. It's not hateful and it doesn't deserve to be moderated.

You're literally not being moderated for it, and you never would and never have been.

We disagree because one of us is wrong, and its you. Youre arguing in bad faith. You refused to read the information I provided you. Your belief is harmful to children. You still arent being moderated for it.

WoodenRook posted...

See this is where you get to arguing and trying to convince people. I'm not going to have a political discussion here.

I answered your question.

You think your political view is "right" and that the other opinion is "wrong" and then you're going to twist it into something that is hateful to be moderated.

I mean. Your opinion is about as objectively wrong as it can be. Ive provided you information that explains why. If you choose to ignore that information, youre being willfully ignorant.

and yet there still is no way youre being moderated for any of this. So what?

WoodenRook posted...

I don't support gender affirming care for kids. That was your original question. I do not feel that kids are old enough to make that decision. Even the ones that aren't permanent.

I think if they are being made to feel bad for who they are that it's terrible, but we all have burdens we bear and have to deal with. When they are adults they can do whatever they want.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/political-minds/202201/the-evidence-trans-youth-gender-affirming-medical-care

https://opa.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/gender-affirming-care-young-people.pdf

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-the-science-on-gender-affirming-care-for-transgender-kids-really-shows/

If you were acting in good faith, you would read these, and then acknowledge reality because your opinion on this is literally wrong.

But look, even though you said this objectively wrong thing, youre not going to get moderated, and no one is insulting you.

WoodenRook posted...

Alright, here's one... It's not very political, but it is relevant.

If an actor has a social media account they use to raise awareness of a film, people should be able to tell them how they feel about their acting even when it's poor. It's not harassment.

Nobody in the history of the planet earth has ever been moderated for espousing that opinion. It also isnt a political opinion, at all, so Im confused as to why you brought it up. But sure: who discriminated against you for this, exactly? Send me a pic of the moderation.

WoodenRook posted...

I answered your question directly and you keep ignoring parts of my posts.

I'm not going to go down the list of political opinions until you find something to twist.

You dont have to go down the list. Just say an opinion that you feel has led to discrimination against you. That shouldnt be very difficult. If someone twists it you can point that out immediately and prove your point.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Y'all are spending way too much effort on an obvious joke topic

Nobody is talking about the TCs post. We all acknowledge it was copypasta and other conversations ensued.

maxpkmf posted...

I think the issue is that CE is an extremist leftist board. Most mods and users view every republican as a bigot racist nazi. Which of course is not true. Bottom line is you can't have normal political discussion here. It's not even worth trying.

*looks directly at the mods*

come on. Look at this, Its so hard to be good, guys. Just let me have this one

mistymermaid posted...

As long as any "distinction" remains, it's going to be tough to tiptoe around the obvious.

The Republican Party has (yet) to take the final step, unequivocally branding and identifying themselves as a Nazi party.

Pretty sure even if they do, it wont be allowed to say so here.

hyperskate65 posted...

I don't think asking someone where they're from out of curiosity is a fucking aggression lmao

You dont think that, but one of the cool ways to grow as a person is to understand that sometimes youre wrong.

It is a pretty well known thing that clueless or racist people will exclusively ask POC where theyre from, because clearly they must not be from here.

FortuneCookie posted...

Calling people out on their racism? Consider it done.
Working through my own racism? If and when I find it, I'll deal with it.

Until this post, you hadn't given any examples of what an individual could or should do to fight systemic racism. You said that anyone who didn't fight racism was responsible for racism, but you didn't define what it meant to fight back. I didn't know if I was simply being expected to call someone out on making racist comments or if I was supposed to donate time and money to help antiracist organizations.

As for potentially not having the same standard, I was curious if you felt that some of us needed to fight harder against racism to compensate for our inherent privilege.

Literally is not my job nor the point of this topic for me to explain to you or anyone else exactly what theyre supposed to do. Super weird you expected me to do that for you. I can say anyone that doesnt fight racism is responsible for racism without having to literally take you by the hand and explain how to fight racism.

Some people need to do more work to move past the racism theyve been taught and to understand their privilege, yes.

Zwijn posted...

I wouldnt call that micro anymore tbh. Id consider asking a non-white person in Europe for example where theyre from a micro aggression, even when its done out of pure interest.

Sure, thats also a microagression. Whether the street thing is or isnt, meh. I think its probably one of the ones bordering on just aggression, but I can see it being a micro aggression. In the end the point is its racist.

NoxObscuras posted...

Microaggressions are typically unintentional (but they can be intentional too, like a backhanded compliment). It would be daily interactions that are insulting or derogatory. Like asking a black person "Is your hair real?" or saying "you don't act black" or telling a woman "you should smile more" or saying "your English is really good (with the quiet part being "for someone of your race")." It can be about race, gender, sexuality, religion, or anything else about a person.

I don't agree with her that all white people do it, or that only white people do it. Microaggressions are something anyone is capable of.

I would say that essentially all white people are taught to do it, and may unlearn it, but they have to like make that effort. Its unfortunately just a part of our society. But yes, anyone is capable of them.

Humble_Novice posted...

Going back to the topic, I can't help but wonder what Lalonders meant by "microaggressions" caused by white people. Is it something done by accident or on purpose?

Microagressions are sometimes on purpose, sometimes on accident. Theyre just all the little racist things people do without being overtly, obviously racist. Many of them might be ingrained and people dont even realize theyre racist. the classic example is someone crossing the street because a black person is approaching, that would be a fairly obvious microagression. But theres all sorts.

FortuneCookie posted...

I've come across this narrative before. The ones that make an effort to push back are doing so to make the fight about themselves. Otherwise, they're paying their penitence for the wrongdoing of living privileged lives heretofore unchecked.

There's no way to get clean or make things right when the charge is privilege.

The problem is that the "ones that are being called out" are people simply living their lives. You've already said that anyone who isn't proactively antiracist is part of the problem. I would say that measurement makes a villain of anyone who doesn't at least contribute to the cause.

I hope you have the same measurement for yourself that you have for me. If not, I'm eager to read your reasoning why.

Yes, not being proactively antiracist means you kind of suck. It isnt that hard. Youre acting like its some Herculean undertaking. You should be contributing to anti racism where you can. That doesnt even mean what you clearly think it does, volunteering or money or whether. Just fucking call people out when theyre being racist. Work through your own ingrained racism.

I dont know what makes you think I dont hold myself to the same standards.i am
unclear what youre trying to say with holding myself to the same measurement. I mean, for one, Im not white, but I do still do the work to combat systemic racism.

Your statement that anyone who pushes back against racism is told theyre making the fight about them is needlessly dramatic. Has that happened? Sure. Usually when people actually were being performative, but not always. Is it common? Of course not.

Kaiganeer posted...

weird melty

I dunno if youre talking about me, Im just having a conversation. The TC was posting a copypasta.

DrizztLink posted...

We wouldn't be allowed to call an Auschwitz guard a Nazi were one to post here.

Unless they walked that one back.

No, that does seem to be the case. Which isnt this mods fault, but a pretty silly rule to enforce so strictly that you cant even imply you want to say something bad about a Nazi.

Baphometa posted...

I don't know the context, but if you use a word that's just a stand-in for another word it's still an insult. There's a difference between "bucko" (which might get hit for trolling, in context) and "you're a so-and-so," where we're going to make a reasonable assumption that you're trying to insult someone. So not all insults are going to be hit for abusive, they might fall under trolling if anything, and minor ones would probably net you a NWD or NKL without history.

I can't see any way to read in that "tag" moderation that would make it not abusive. "I can't call you what I want" still directly implies you're attempting to call someone something bad. If anything that just looks worse for you.

Yeah, you can't call users racist, even if they are. If they're directly harassing you, mark it and explain. Keep in mind, there's a difference between someone insulting you and someone rudely disagreeing with you. And just because you don't see a post disappear doesn't mean it wasn't actioned. Again, if you see someone being racist - mark it. Someone else breaking the rules doesn't give you the right to break the rules in response.

"All X are Y" (where X is not "a literal murderer" and Y is something abusive/offensive) is usually going to get modded, implied or otherwise. You can't make sweeping generalizations. Again, if you see someone making a sweeping post saying "all liberals/Democrats are <bad thing>" mark it.

This is sort of what I mean. Yes, this is moderating per the rules, technically, but rules can be anything. Being moderated for saying I cant even say what I want to say about you is pretty silly. You cant even imply you want to say anything negative about anyone, even if theyre literally calling you a child murderer because you are pro-abortion. (This has happened to me before.) And you cant call users racist, even if they are is just a wild statement to me. Im aware you, and the mods in general, dont really make the rules. But people are racist all the time in ways that arent really breaking the rules, and they get away with it too often because its dogwhistles and subtext. And everyone else just has to keep their cool and be polite to them, which is super fun.

Not being able to make accurate statements about political parties because they happen to apply to everyone in the party is also fairly unfortunate. At this point it would probably be better to just get rid of political talk altogether, imo.

Sandalorn posted...

I think that reddit thread really stirred up the nest.

theres a Reddit thread? Thats sad lol.

Baphometa posted...

You could easily avoid all of those moderations by choosing your words better. They're absolutely fair, unfortunately. Most of them are pretty obvious. The recent one was something that must mod and could've been a NKL if you didn't have that history. Did you have any other specific questions (without reposting)?

there have definitely been ones that werent fair, but a while back, so oh well. Like I got moderated for calling someone a rutabaga, or a drill bit or something like that. I chose my words pretty carefully there, in that I chose one at random. I cant even remember all of them, but Ive definitely been modded for not even insulting anyone as well. One time I got moderated because the mod assumed I had tagged someone something I hadnt, and that was enough for me to get a suspension. Like straight up I am assuming your tag is at least as bad as this, so alluding to the tag gets you a suspension. The tag was not in fact that bad.

My issue with the rest of it is that things are enforced inconsistently, and the rules on insults have gotten stricter (or been enforced more strictly.) The moderations are fair, technically; my main issue is that the rules are stupid. Trolls and actual outright bigots can spew all sorts of vitriol and make all sorts of implications about your character, as long as they dont actually say the word idiot. Ive been called all sorts of vile things, but its implied so its apparently fine. Then if you call them a racist, or even imply it, even as theyre being actively racist, youre moderated. Theyre actively trying to bait these things and then marking them, and the mods feed into it.

I am unclear what about the most recent one was abuse or harassment, given I wasnt talking about anyone on this site specifically. It seems like there is now some rule against calling Republicans as a whole racist, but I dont actually know what that rule is, or why thats a rule. I dont think Ive ever seen anyone moderated for making blanket statements about democrats or liberals or the left, honestly.

GranAures posted...

Hmmm, let's see. How would I feel if I was a regularly moderate user who needed a new account on the reg?

Wait, I would just stop using the site.

I mean, same. The moment they actually ban me for some stupid shit like calling someone being racist a racist, which is inevitably what it will be for, Im off of here. Ive never made an alt and Im not gonna start now. Ill consider it a mercy that the inertia has been absorbed.

The sad thing is I would try harder more often, but you get moderated for half the things you should say to people. Shut the fuck up is one of the few things Ive never been moderated for. I once got moderated for calling someone a rutebega. Or a fencepost? Some nonsense word I made up because I kept getting modded for calling people idiots or racists.

AllCopsAreGood posted...

Try to have empathy for other people.

Try to shut the fuck up

AllCopsAreGood posted...

People who say "shut the fuck up".

The best response people who say shut the fuck up have is shut the fuck up? What kind of not only is that incredibly stupid, its demonstrably untrue, as I just proved. Its not the best response, its the laziest. People like you just arent generally worth the effort, unless Im feeling particularly spiteful like now.

AllCopsAreGood posted...

This is always the best response they have.

Who is they? I was literally just talking about how bad the moderation here is. Youre just being annoying as hell with your martyr shit, and youre almost certainly getting moderated for good reasons because, you know. Look at your fucking name. You people get away with so much shit here and then you whine endlessly when you do actually face any repercussions.

Notice Im not out here calling myself a martyr. I absolutely push the boundaries because Id rather shit on bigots than tiptoe around the stupid ass rules here.

AllCopsAreGood posted...

These mods are extremely biased, it's a losing battle my friend. All we can do is fight for what is right and just. We are martyrs.

Oh shut the fuck up lmao.

HorsemnBusiness posted...

Gotta love the posters using AI while other posters respond seriously lol.

Also for the serious posters- mark it like the mods always recommend. I bet nothing will happen tho

Marking things rarely does shit for me. Clearly I should be marking the people calling bigots bigots and Nazis Nazis.

WoodenRook posted...

Besides the one I did today, I haven't marked anyone in ... ever? I don't use the report button as a dislike button like you all do. I will block people, which has been pointed out. But like... I don't think I have to defend that. I don't even think many of you like each other most of the time from what I read. I'm not here to constantly have arguments all the time.

I usually avoid this board. I just saw a chance to bash the moderation and jumped on it.

Go read my edit bud.

WoodenRook posted...

Marking?

Are you.. new? Reporting. Marking. Tattling.

ah I see your confusion. I wasnt talking about you specifically. The conservative snowflakes with victim complexes on this site in general.

thronedfire2 posted...

you can't say all Republicans are Nazis

but you can point out that many of their supporters and voters are

Apparently that well known saying about tables and Nazis is against the rules? Wild.

I was actually talking in the original post about whether people (nonspecific) are racist or not for not leaving a party with Nazis in it. I did not call the Republican Party all Nazis. Not that that seems to matter.

Murphiroth posted...

Lmao the conservative snowflake victim complex is real.

It'll be OK little buddy.

It is especially wild since they go around marking everyone who disagrees with them and like 10 percent of the time it works for no good reason.

I know this is a copypasta, but moderating here is in fact a shitshow. I got modded the other day for agreeing with someone that being okay with Nazis means the Republican Party is supporting Nazis. I got modded for abusive behavior. For agreeing with the person I replied to. It was clear the mod just did not fucking read. And the appeal was just never touched by anyone. I got warned for two days for breaking zero rules, unless theres some new rule that you cant call the Republican Party bad in a political topic.

this is far from the most ridiculous moderation of course, just the most recent one.

on the other hand, you have people being fairly moderated for saying stupid bigot shit (sometimes. Sometimes they get moderated) and acting like theyre being persecuted for being saints. Its incredibly silly, this place. Its a crapshoot full of ridiculous people.

Guide posted...

Yes, that's the point.

if only I was responding to the person going another remake huh. Otherwise Id look pretty silly.

This was announced literally years ago. The only news here is it might finally be close to coming out.

Alteres posted...

I really don't care and no I don't think that.

But if you can't understand why he posted the article, and how it could be seen as backing his point I don't know what to tell you.

That is all I was ever saying.

*ugh, and you are doing exactly what you are accusing me off, you have no bloody idea what the metrics were except that this was specifically put in place as a dei measurement that backfired, I very much doubt it was weighted that impractically but who knows... that's kinda the point, people on here seemingly intentionally misunderstanding each other is really weird, is it all really just trying to mod bait people?

I can totally understand why he posted the article. Because he read it incorrectly. I truly dont understand what point you are trying to make. You seem to think its some intentional misunderstanding. In reality, you arent making any goddamn sense.

one attempt at a DEI measure not working doesnt mean DEI is useless, and in this case if it proved anything, it proves that it is. Given that is the case, what is your point? That you can see why they might have posted it, incorrectly?

Alteres posted...

did you, did you actually read it?

I thought the dudes point was that dei was discriminatory because as the article said, everyone thought this would be amazing and help... but oh no, when they just look at the data more men are hired

*...the word being there shouldn't matter, I made it pretty clear I was talking about him posting the article and his reasons for it

Thank you for once again making it clear you didnt bother to read anything but what confirmed your biases.

You mean to tell me that men end up with more impressive resumes (the only way they could be hiring without knowing gender) thanks to the pervasive bias towards men in hiring and promoting, and when you remove DEI they get hired more because of that? Proving that not having DEI practices leads to an imbalance in hiring? The exact thing that was being said and that the poster posted the article to disprove? Huh. Wild.

wait, no you just read it as men must be better than women at things because you didnt bother to think for two seconds, didnt you.

Alteres posted...

dear lord lol... THE POINT OF POSTING THE ARTICLE

I read the bloody thing, this is exactly what I mean

Bro, its not my fault you left the word posting out of your message.

Regardless; why does it matter that the point of posting the article was the opposite of what the article said? We all know that. Thats why we were making fun of the poster.

Alteres posted...

I thought the point of the article was that dei is unfair/racist/bigoted, because when they looked at the applications based on merit (experience/scores/etc) even more men were hired... so the arguments that women or poc are being discriminated against because they are a woman, and everyone knows they could do the job at least as well as a man aren't lining up.

When they couldn't choose based on gender or skin color, it showed that hiring practices were being screwed and the best applicants were not getting the positions.

...anywho, get back to your topic, I just like reading these things and trying to follow along with what people are thinking... which is literally FUCKING EVIL I have been told and not something people around here like doing

That was very much not the point of the article.

haloiscoolisbak posted...

It didn't make you look at things slighty differently? Fuck me you're stubborn

Sure, the things I looked at differently just werent remotely relevant to anything I had said.

KogaSteelfang posted...

What's incorrect? Feeling bad for being alone my whole life? No such thing as what? I haven't blamed anything specific, just said that I'm upset that it's happened and that I don't understand.

You're not being blamed for feeling bad. Just for the attitude of its just a fact of life, theres nothing I can do about it, its because people just dont like me and theres no way to explain it.

I'm not arguing against that part because you're right. The only thing is I've tried it before and it didn't go well. So now I'm hesitant to try again. That's all.

Well, unfortunately therapy is work, and that includes finding a decent one. Its the only real way thats going to help, unless you can improve yourself on your own, and most people cant.