Was Earmuffs banned?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-11-2017, 09:32 PM (This post was last modified: 03-11-2017 09:40 PM by Dr H.)
RE: Was Earmuffs banned?
<sigh>

I'm going to apologize in advance, because no matter how carefully I try to word this, it's bound to piss somebody off. And I like it here, and don't want to leave, or be banned. But I have never been one to keep my opinion to myself in a community situation where, from my POV, an injustice appears to have been done.
So be it.

I've read through the offending threads, and also this thread. Let me try to break out my reaction point by point:

1) Yep, Muffs did go over a certain line on page two, when he called SYZ a "child rapist". Personally, I don't feel that's a phrase that should be thrown about casually, regardless of provocation, as it can, among other things, be real-world damaging to the target of the phrase.

And yet... it IS bandied about rather casually.
Hell, in some Usenet newsgroups a day didn't go by without someone firing that, or an even more egregious line at someone else.

2) And there was provocation. On page 1 and again on page 3 of the original thread, SYZ -- whom I also rather like -- pretty blatantly suggested that Muffs was a homophobe and an racist. Those are also not words that I feel should be used lightly. And yet, again, they are.

3) Muffs pointed out in post #40 of that thread that both of them had gone over "the" line -- well, a line, anyway.

Probably, that should have been then end of it. Everyone take their ball, go home, have a cold shower and a beer, and then come back an play nice the next day. Too bad it had to go beyond that.

4) The difference between the line Muffs stepped over and the line SYZ stepped over is that only one of them appears to be drawn in the TTA rules, rule #3:

No Porn, Nude Images, or Discussions on the Merits of Paedophilia

Now one could argue that this rule has been somewhat over-interpreted in this case, since one would be hard-pressed, I think, to support the claim that Muffs was discussing "the Merits of Paedophilia". Indeed, just the opposite: he was using reference to paedophilia as a pejorative.

5) Which brings us to the detail Dom provided in post #91 of this thread: which pretty much says that the mere mention of "paedophilia" in a post is grounds for disciplinary action up to, and including a ban. Certain exceptions are noted, none of which really apply here.

Which raises an interesting conundrum. By a strict application of that detail, there are certainly at least a dozen posters in THIS thread, including myself, who should be banned.

6) This strict interpretation further raises the question: Why is it specifically forbidden to call someone a "paedophile", but not forbidden to call them a "homophobe" or a "racist"?

Certainly these latter charges have also messed up some people's lives, and I personally know of at least one who lost his job over unsubstantiated accusations of racism.

7) In this regard I think Muffs' claim of perceiving some sort of "double standard" is, to some extent, justified.

Not, I hasten to add, that I think homophobia or racism are supported community standards here; I've seen nothing to suggest that they are.
And I understand the desire to preserve to the greatest extent possible, a free speech environment.

Yet, in this case at least, the two epithets are being treated quite differently.
That is the very essence of "double standard", or, to put it into civil rights terminology, discrimination.

Again I hasten to add that a discriminatory action or policy need not be deliberately or consciously intended to discriminate,
to still have the effect of supporting discriminatory treatment.

8) Muffs "apology" was of course a deliberate stick in the eye, insincere and counterproductive.
And yet, understandable, if one considers that he may have felt inequitably targeted by an entrenched double standard.

What's done is done. But I do think these things bear thinking about.

One thing which particularly dismays me, is that many of us who fled here from Amazon had long been disturbed by that entity's apparently arbitrary and inequitable enforcement of both insufficiently detailed, and merely implied policies.
I only speak for myself when I say that was a big part of the reason I finally left Amazon; but many others did talk about it.


Just to cover all bases, yeah, I know being a moderator is a hard, tedious, often thankless task. Been there; done that; got the blistered ass to show for it. I sincerely do appreciate the work Mom and others put into keeping this place running smoothly; doesn't mean they don't occasionally make a mistake. Only the Pope claims to be infallible, and even for him it only works when he sits in the magic chair.


Finally -- and I do hope it's not as final as that sounds -- I would like to put in a plea for clemency for Muffs.
As someone else observed, there is a case to be made for various levels of banning -- banned for a week; banned for a month; banned for six months, whatever. A permanent ban for a first offense seems just a bit draconian.

And yeah, he did "ask for it". But people also ask for cops to shoot them; doesn't mean that the cops necessarily should shoot them.


Anyhow, respectfully, my 2ยข .
If I hang for it, it wouldn't be the first time. Undecided

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Dr H's post
03-11-2017, 09:33 PM
RE: Was Earmuffs banned?
(03-11-2017 09:26 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  
(03-11-2017 09:24 PM)GenesisNemesis Wrote:  Except I'm sure most of us wouldn't even consider falsely calling someone a child rapist.

Except I literally just noted that exception.

Yes, but then you seemed to give it at least some sort of legitimacy when you said that "most of us" don't follow social norms. Maybe I misinterpreted it.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2017, 09:35 PM (This post was last modified: 03-11-2017 09:40 PM by GenesisNemesis.)
RE: Was Earmuffs banned?
(03-11-2017 09:32 PM)Dr H Wrote:  Yet, in this case at least, the two epithets are being treated quite differently.
That is the very essence of "double standard", or, to put it into civil rights terminology, discrimination.


Because they are different. One is a false accusation of a crime, and not only that, but the worst possible crime someone could commit. The other isn't. It may be a false accusation, but not of a crime. You know pedophiles are the most hated individuals in society, right?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GenesisNemesis's post
03-11-2017, 09:40 PM
RE: Was Earmuffs banned?
(03-11-2017 09:33 PM)GenesisNemesis Wrote:  
(03-11-2017 09:26 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  Except I literally just noted that exception.

Yes, but then you seemed to give it at least some sort of legitimacy when you said that "most of us" don't follow social norms. Maybe I misinterpreted it.

I guess most of us do. I'm probably just projecting a few isolated personal experiences which doesn't really reflect the whole nature of the forum.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2017, 09:42 PM
RE: Was Earmuffs banned?
(03-11-2017 09:35 PM)GenesisNemesis Wrote:  You know pedophiles are the most hated individuals in society, right?

Are they?

Sincerely, Atheists.



(JK, depends on where we are. But...kinda not just kidding, it's close in some places)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like jerry mcmasters's post
03-11-2017, 09:44 PM
RE: Was Earmuffs banned?
(03-11-2017 09:42 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  
(03-11-2017 09:35 PM)GenesisNemesis Wrote:  You know pedophiles are the most hated individuals in society, right?

Are they?

Sincerely, Atheists.



(JK, depends on where we are. But...kinda not just kidding, it's close in some places)

I think you would keep your job in most places if you casually mention you're an atheist. If you mention you're a pedophile, you'd lose it instantly.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GenesisNemesis's post
03-11-2017, 09:46 PM
RE: Was Earmuffs banned?
(03-11-2017 09:35 PM)GenesisNemesis Wrote:  
(03-11-2017 09:32 PM)Dr H Wrote:  Yet, in this case at least, the two epithets are being treated quite differently.
That is the very essence of "double standard", or, to put it into civil rights terminology, discrimination.


Because they are different. One is a false accusation of a crime, and not only that, but the worst possible crime someone could commit. The other isn't. It may be a false accusation, but not of a crime.

Two things: as a civil rights monitor and trainer I can tell you that there are circumstances in which racism is a crime. And the other thing is that an accusation is not evidence.

Quote: You know pedophiles are the most hated individuals in society, right?
We can't get into this here, or we really will be treading on the literal words of one of the few rules TTA has made explicit. I'll just say: you know that there is more than one society on this planet, and different societies sometimes define even basic terms very differently?

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dr H's post
03-11-2017, 09:47 PM
RE: Was Earmuffs banned?
(03-11-2017 09:44 PM)GenesisNemesis Wrote:  
(03-11-2017 09:42 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  Are they?

Sincerely, Atheists.



(JK, depends on where we are. But...kinda not just kidding, it's close in some places)

I think you would keep your job in most places if you casually mention you're an atheist. If you mention you're a pedophile, you'd lose it instantly.

That's a good point, but the qualifier there is "instantly." With an outspoken atheist, the throat-slitting would take a bit longer and take some maneuvering but the outcome would be the same.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2017, 09:48 PM
RE: Was Earmuffs banned?
(03-11-2017 09:42 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  
(03-11-2017 09:35 PM)GenesisNemesis Wrote:  You know pedophiles are the most hated individuals in society, right?

Are they?

Sincerely, Atheists.



(JK, depends on where we are. But...kinda not just kidding, it's close in some places)

And in my childhood it was much closer than it is now.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-11-2017, 09:49 PM
RE: Was Earmuffs banned?
(03-11-2017 09:46 PM)Dr H Wrote:  Two things: as a civil rights monitor and trainer I can tell you that there are circumstances in which racism is a crime.

Is it a crime in New Zealand? This point only matters if it's a crime in Earmuffs' home country.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: