Site Management > Site Support / Feedback

The Paradox of Tolerance, or: When is it okay to punch a Nazi?

<< < (4/5) > >>

Fusion:

--- Quote from: Galemp on February 08, 2021, 09:23:52 pm ---More succinctly: I'm asking whether we choose to discipline members based on what they believe or what they do.

--- End quote ---
As someone who got banned based on a presumption of what he believed over what he did in the community, I'm admittedly in favor of the latter.

Mongoose:

--- Quote from: Galemp on February 08, 2021, 09:23:52 pm ---More succinctly: I'm asking whether we choose to discipline members based on what they believe or what they do.

--- End quote ---

I hate to sound like a broken record, but as always, it's about context. If someone's openly-expressed views are heinous enough that they pose a threat to the well-being of the entire community, then they can and will be removed from it. If it's a belief that doesn't quite rise to that level, then as always, it's how the person acts. I think you have to handle these situations on a case-by-case basis instead of trying to create hard rules from them that may not mesh with the particulars of a future situation.

I'd also like to echo Ryan's plea to see if we can direct this energy toward hashing out the standards, so that what we come up with in the end is flexible enough to handle any hypothetical future scenario.

The E:
It's impossible to peer into people's heads. So long as their beliefs aren't made apparent in their actions, there's nothing to take action on - you can be an ardent supporter of holding phone conferences in theaters and noone would know until the moment where you'd enter a discussion arguing that talking during a film is good, actually.

This is why "ironic" naziposting (or terfposting, homophobeposting, antivaxxposting....) should be a bannable offense (It's important to pay a lot of attention to your writing if you're trying to do a sarcastic imitations of toxicity, kids. It's not enough to use <sarcasm> tags!). We can't tolerate the real thing; given that all we know about a person is what they express in their posts, it's better to err on the side of caution than try to perform telepathy in an attempt to discern what's real and what's not about a given persona.

MP-Ryan:
People are going to be held accountable for what they do, and whether it's here or elsewhere online is going to depend on the seriousness of the transgression.

If you want to fill your day with Twitter posts about the great Jewish conspiracy to destroy democracy and send all Christians to re-education camps, and your Twitter profile shows a direct connection between your personal there and your account here - or it is otherwise publicly traceable - do not be surprised if you suddenly find yourself without discord and forum privileges here. We are not a safe space for people who like to engage in public bigotry elsewhere to come relax and talk about video games.

Nyctaeus:

--- Quote from: Galemp on February 08, 2021, 02:59:46 pm ---I created this thread because certain prominent political leaders are, if not Nazis, at least toying with fascism in a way that is deeply troubling. And some of their followers are significant contributors to this community.

It's important that we have principles but we have to work out how much of the political spectrum we are willing to alienate when we do so.

--- End quote ---
I think that a guy who vote some conservatives just [for example] for economic reasons, but also disagree [or openly condemns] with their approach to religion, culture or LGBT+ matters etc. is not a nazi-supporter. We can't blame people for having priorities. Also we can't blame people for countervoting. It happened in my life to vote options I completely disagree with, just to support counterbalance and weaken even worse assholes.

It's harmful oversimplification to recognise only nazi-supporters and non-nazi. People pledge their support for certain political options for variety of different reasons. We can't just push any Republican supporter to shameful nazi corner, as it would be very opressive and unfair for such individual.

If moderator encounter a situation involving [for example] a conservative and group of progressivists being pissed off because such individual voted some controversial politician, I think it's important for mod crew to elaborate if such guy shares some negative traits with the politician he supported. Maybe he voted because he prioritize one thing about the guy, but disagree with the rest? I think that in US the problem is even more evident as there are only two real options to pick from. Support for political option we completely agree with is a luxury... I think majority of us rarely have.

I think that especially now, when political scene is deeply polarized basically worldwide we should be carreful with accusations. And carreful with Banhammer of Ownage. Also "nazi" and "communist" are incredibly strong and offensive terms, but I see them used on daily basis in many different communities. That's what should stop, unless there is a strong reason.

...

And... Yeah, there are guys around who used to think that being gay is caused by possession of "demons of homosexuality". As much as ridiculous it sounds, I think such statements are opressive towards LGBT+ community and should be punished.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page