The Hosts as Guardians of the Ships Woke-Left Purity
in The Styx
I questioned whether the actions of Hosts contribute to the "cleansing" of people with right-of-centre views in the "Where is the ship going" thread in Purgatory.
My view is that the hosts are the enforcers of the Ship's woke left leanings. Definitions of words such as "racist" and "Nazi" have been widened over the years by the left, in order to provide the woke left with a handy set of tools they can use to denounce people with right-wing views. The Ship's hosts use these definitions to get rid of people they don't want on the Ship in a grotesque parody of Stalinism.
The thread in question is raising issues of why people on the political right don't stay on the Ship. However when challenged about their use of the allegations of racism using a definition not tied to race but to religion and nationality (not xenophobia which is a general fear of the foreign, but the dislike of a specific country), the hosts insist that the debate be weakened by enforcing discussion of hosts onto a separate thread in Styx.
We now have two separate threads on the same thing, with one dedicated to the hosts, and the other in a different part of the Ship dedicated to everything else. But it is hardly unexpected. Divide and conquer is an old technique, but its use does confirm that discussing the role of hosts in acting as the Sword and Shield of the Ship isn't something to be encouraged.
I haven't provided any links to the thread or specific posts by myself or hosts, as it doesn't really seem to be worth it. I suspect the debate is not welcome, so providing such links would seem to be a waste of time.
Of course I suspect the next step on here will not be to discuss the substantive issue of hosts keeping the Ship ideologically pure, but merely to expand on the rules and regulations and breaches thereof.
My view is that the hosts are the enforcers of the Ship's woke left leanings. Definitions of words such as "racist" and "Nazi" have been widened over the years by the left, in order to provide the woke left with a handy set of tools they can use to denounce people with right-wing views. The Ship's hosts use these definitions to get rid of people they don't want on the Ship in a grotesque parody of Stalinism.
The thread in question is raising issues of why people on the political right don't stay on the Ship. However when challenged about their use of the allegations of racism using a definition not tied to race but to religion and nationality (not xenophobia which is a general fear of the foreign, but the dislike of a specific country), the hosts insist that the debate be weakened by enforcing discussion of hosts onto a separate thread in Styx.
We now have two separate threads on the same thing, with one dedicated to the hosts, and the other in a different part of the Ship dedicated to everything else. But it is hardly unexpected. Divide and conquer is an old technique, but its use does confirm that discussing the role of hosts in acting as the Sword and Shield of the Ship isn't something to be encouraged.
I haven't provided any links to the thread or specific posts by myself or hosts, as it doesn't really seem to be worth it. I suspect the debate is not welcome, so providing such links would seem to be a waste of time.
Of course I suspect the next step on here will not be to discuss the substantive issue of hosts keeping the Ship ideologically pure, but merely to expand on the rules and regulations and breaches thereof.
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
To the extent that you think this is all about the political right, you could NOT be more wrong. It has been standard practice, for literally decades, that all questioning of host's rulings is required to be brought to The Styx.
In other words please don't think you're a special martyr here, because every person of every political persuasion who has talked back to a Host after a ruling has been told "take it to Styx".
If you want to discuss the merits of the ruling, sure. But the merits of telling you to bring that discussion to Styx has precisely nothing to do with you as an individual or your political position or even what the ruling was about, and simply reflects a practice that has been in place for a very, very long time.
EDIT: Also, nice heading. You're really aiming for dialogue there.
The Purgatory hosts gave you the benefit of the doubt that your outrageous statement was a joke in poor taste. That benefit of the doubt is wearing thin as you continue to accuse the volunteers here of acting in bad faith (have a look at the 6th Commandment, and consider that after continuing a discussion on a hostly ruling outwith the Styx) and quibble over definitions of words.
Alan
Ship of Fools Admin
It's a matter of record that he does. Very near me, it seems.
Might as well answer both at the same time....
Which is exactly what has happened.
So we can't discuss the wider issue in the thread in Purgatory, nor in this thread in Styx.
Which is, I'm sure, precisely what was intended.
The point of asking whether you're in the UK is this: the laws of your own country have not agreed with the bright line distinction you're trying to make between race and nationality. Not since 1976.
And the point of that is not that the law is necessarily 'right' (I've also observed that I come from a country where that distinction is rigorously maintained), but that any claim that this conflation of race and nationality into related concepts is some kind of left-wing Ship plot is manifestly wrong. The two concepts have been connected in your national law for 44 years. We didn't make it up just to hinder your glorious path.
Nor is anyone saying that criticising a country is not permitted. There's plenty of criticism of countries that goes on around here. But it's got to be based on facts, not a slur that every microbiologist can tell you has no factual foundation.
In Styx, which nicely divides the discussion, making it difficult to link points raised in both threads?
Or in Purgatory, which breaches rules where the discussion of anything to do with hosts and admins is not allowed?
One assumes Styx, which is like an election broadcast where the Conservatives have their questons and answers broadcast on the BBC, and where the Labour Party questions and answers are shown exclusively on ITV.
With respect, you seem to be spending all of your time here saying how it's impossible to link points rather than just going ahead and doing it the way that I am.
And I'm not even bothering with URL links to the other thread, if this is nothing more than a complaint that you're finding the technology difficult. One link to the thread has already been provided. Others can provide more if there's a perceived need.
Let me give you my personal perspective:
1. You're acting like a dick, and you know it. This has nothing to do with your politics, and everything to do with the fact that you seem to be trying to be needlessly provocative, rather than engage in constructive discussion.
2. You are quite entitled to dislike the country of China, you are quite entitled to dislike their politics, their involvement in world affairs, their treatment of their own people - and you could, if you wanted, have a sensible discussion about any of that.
3. Saying that you wouldn't want a person of Chinese ethnicity in your house because you're worried they might have a bioweapon in their pocket does not fall in to the same category. Specifically, it:
a. is racist. It takes your issues with China, and applies them not only to each individual Chinese citizen, but to anyone who identifies as ethnically Chinese (which includes plenty of British people)
b. promotes general scaremongering and conspiracy theorists. Again, if you want to have a real discussion about Chinese bio-labs, one could probably be had, although getting accurate information might be difficult. I'll note orfeo posted actual information on your specific allegation.
c. is stupid. Even if we assume that all your beliefs about China and Russia are correct, individual Russians and Chinese do not have a habit of walking around with viruses and neurotoxins in their pockets. Nor is there any reason to believe that a random Russian or Chinese person would have had even indirect contact with such a substance.
New name, same shit.
Cute. You break the rule you know exists and then complain that you were caught.
The Styx is where the H&A behaviour has always been discussed. Having a separate area for such things is hardly unique to SOF. Having it open for general participation is more unusual.
But I suppose having the proletariat participate is exactly what the politburo was known for.
I didn't say it was impossible, I said it made the debate more difficult.
I know how to cut-and-paste, and add links to URLs and so on. But that still doesn't make the debate clear to people trying to follow it. What if something is posted here in Styx, which is valid in the other thread? Do I post a link back to Styx and hope people follow it in order to keep up with the discussion, or does one risk the hosts by pasting something from inside the Styx thread in the other thread, so that it is easy to see in context of the wider debate?
If protecting the hosts from having to defend themselves is the priority, then insisting on the division and only allowing tangential references to be made in the other thread would seem to be the way to do it. Muddying pools is, after all, another time-honoured technique for avoiding awkward issues.
Of course if the hosts really did want the discussion then the way forward is clear... simply move the thread in Purgatory into Styx. All aspects can then be considered without any breaches.
If it's boring, and you are not a host or admin, why are you involving yourself with the thread?
Stop wanking.
Perhaps another comment. There are other websites where "acting like a dick" (aka banter) is raised to an art form. Arrse - which I gather you have identified as one of your favoured hangouts - is one such place. The ship has a different culture (I'm not talking about political slant here - I'm talking about the general culture of what kinds of ways of treating each other are acceptable).
Shows they're doing something right correct.
Your comment is a general slur against an ethnic group (whose members extend well beyond the People's Republic of China). That is racist, and would have been so regarded at any time in the UK for at least the last 55 years.
I struggle to see how anything you said in that post contributed anything at all to a serious discussion about 'Where is the Ship going?' Not only was it racist, but it was purely gratuitous snark contributing nothing to a serious discussion.
The purpose of confining disputes about Hostly rulings to Styx is not to prevent issues being discussed, but to prevent the discussion of rulings from overwhelming the purpose of a thread.
If you want to try and make a seriously argued case that their use of an understanding of racism which has been enshrined in English law for over half a century shows that "The Ship's hosts use […] definitions" which "have been widened over the years by the left, in order to… denounce people with right-wing views", then there's nothing to stop you doing that in Purgatory on that thread - provided you can do so without making actually racist statements, and without trying to argue (outside Styx) that the statement of yours which I quoted at the beginning of this post is not racist.
Snap. We used to call it suicide by mod, on another forum. And the dearth of intelligent right wingers is incredible. Maybe they all hang out on Brains R Us, somewhere. Another way of saying it is that most trolls are right wing, although I guess right wing forums may get lefty trolls.
The martyrdom complex does seem to display a right-wing bias.
Mmm, I can't really find a "real argument" in that post. Are all conservatives (or at the least those who bother with forums) "pushing buttons in self-righteous dudgeon until they are finally banned"? Or do they simply decide they can't actually be bothered?
The statement "right wingers who can actually hold their own in discussion, treat people with respect, aren't raging racists/sexists, etc...." suggests that many right wingers are racists/sexists who are unable to treat others with respect. My personal observation is that there is indeed a lack of respect, sometimes this comes from people who are "right wing" but is equally visible from those with "left wing" views. Jewish Labour MP's and supporters, moderate Labour MP's and voters have said a lot about the extreme lack of respect, vile insults they have received and nastiness from some on "the left". It cuts both ways.
I suspect mousethief was thinking of particular instances of people on this forum who have conducted themselves in the manner of the OP.
I think there's some performative ignorance going on here.
Possibly, I genuinely don't know, have only seen a few of the OP's posts. If the moderation is fair, consistent and not politically biased in anyway then all's good. Only the admin/mods will know in the own hearts if this is true, from what I have personally seen and experienced it is not but that's just my own observation and opinion and I really can't be bothered to trail through every post over the last couple of years to either be proved right or wrong.
If there are Conservative or right wing or right leaning hosts/admin/mods then I have yet to meet them. And of course a forum that lacks an equal spread of politically affiliated admin is going to lean towards bias and be more forgiving or silent over transgressions by those on "their side", it's human nature to do such.
Discrimination has an action associated with it, for example refusing to interview someone for a job based on their skin colour, or refusing to serve someone because of their sexual orientation or gender.
It is not dislike. If someone doesn't like gay people but they serve them in their shop as they would a straight person then that is not discrimination. It is merely someones private thought. As long as it isn't acted on to provide an uncomfortable environment or deny someone, and merely stays in someone's head, it is not discrimination.
I said I disliked the Chinese, not that I wished to discriminate against them.
The Ship might feel that "dislike" is enough to denounce someone as a racist, but they are only racist - even defined by the various Race Relation Acts - if they discriminate against someone with a Protected Characteristic.
What do you mean by an ethnic group that extends beyond the PRC? Asian is an ethnic group and yet as I have stated already, I don't dislike the Taiwanese, the Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians etc. In fact I would suggest that given China's actions in the South China Sea, many of those countries and their citizens would view China and the Chinese in a much more aggressive manner than my simple dislike.
Or do you mean Chinese as part of the diaspora? In which case, they are NOT an ethnic group (that would be Asian), they are Chinese nationals. in which case dislike is not discrimination unless acted upon. I can dislike the Chinese people who run my local Chinese restaurant, but as long as I don't expose that or act on is to the detriment of those restauranters, it remains merely an unvoiced dislike rather than racism.
Dislike is not discrimination, therefore it is not racism. Why are you trying to extend it to be so, if not for denouncing someone with whom you disagree?
The thing which is illegal is racial discrimination, not racism. It's not illegal to be a racist (or a homophobe, or ...)
We agree that if you think that a particular racial group are scummy sub-humans, but nevertheless fulfill all your legal requirements towards members of that group (serve them in your shop like any other customer, don't use racially abusive language towards them, give them equal consideration as potential employees, don't provide a racist environment for them as employees, etc.) then you aren't breaking the law. You'd still be a racist, though. If you think that a particular racial group are scummy sub-humans, you are a racist.
And the thing which is prohibited on the ship is an expression of racism (or other isms). The ship's rules are tighter than the legal constraints. Legal racist speech is not acceptable on the ship.
Racism isn't an action, it's a thought process - a philosophy. Racism is a cause of racial discrimination.
So it is not "racist" in law - in spite of the hosts and other Ship'ites continually referring to the 1965 Race Relations Act to justify their denunciation - but now at least you are willing to acknowledge that the woke left on the Ship are indeed using their own definition of the word "racist" to use as a tool to denounce people they dislike. I'm just happy to see you confirm what I said on the other thread.
Cheers.
Ok, let's try and break this down. In order for racial discrimination to take place it has to be "racial" and it has to be "discrimination". You seem to be saying that because your views are not discriminatory (though you've already made it clear that they would change how you treat Chinese people so even that claim doesn't hold water) they cannot meet the definition of "racial" given in the relevant Acts of the Westminster Parliament. That is an interesting approach to take, to say the least. In any case, discrimination is not the only act prohibited by the 1976 Race Relations Act and its successors. Inciting racial hatred is also verboten: "A person commits an offence if ... he [sic] publishes or distributes written matter which is threatening, abusive or insulting ... in a case where, having regard to all the circumstances, hatred is likely to be stirred up against any racial group". I think we can reasonably say that the remarks made about folk from China and Russia were insulting, and as previously noted, Chinese and Russian people constitute racial groups within the terms of the Act. The only saving grace here is the limited potential to stir up hatred against any group except idiot tories, who aren't a group protected by the Act.
Not at all - please read what I wrote again. The thing that is illegal (under the 1965 RRA etc.) is racial discrimination. Not racism. Racism is a way of thinking that values people differently based on their racial/cultural/ethnic background. Thoughts are not illegal, so it follows that you can, in principle, be a racist without breaking any laws.
Many things that you might do as a consequence of being a racist are illegal (such as discrimination, using racially offensive language in a way likely to cause a breach of the peace, and so on).
If you actually read what people wrote, you'll find that people have referred to the 1965 RRA to point out that, since at least the date of that act, the common meaning of "racist" and "racial discrimination" in the UK has included animus against particular nationalities - it's not limited to groups centered around a common phenotype. Nobody has claimed (or will claim) that any action not prohibited by the 1965 RRA is allowed on the ship. We have somewhat tighter rules about how people are allowed to act here, in aid of furthering constructive discussion.
But the ship is not using its own definition of "racist". "Racist" has never meant only "illegal racial discrimination", and the only person here using his own definition of "racist" is you (apparently to try and claim that you're not a racist despite having admitted that you have a prejudice against Chinese and Russian individuals).
That's untrue. Chinese nationals means Chinese citizens, which members of the Chinese diaspora are mostly not; just as people of British ancestry in New Zealand or Canada are only British nationals if they're British citizens.
People of Chinese ancestry, more accurately Han Chinese ancestry, are considered an ethnic group within most of the nations you mention, and in many of them face discrimination to a greater or lesser degree. Within China, minority groups other than the Han Chinese also face discrimination, in the case of the Xighur near-genocidal discrimination.
There is some deeply weird doublespeak involved in claiming that having an area dedicated to having the hosts explain decisions is designed to "protect the hosts from having to defend themselves".
Indeed we had that thread in Styx about the "Y Chromosome" thread, and it (the Styx thread) went on for pages. Hosts were definitely having to defend themselves, and for the most part did so manfully/womanfully/3rd-spiritfully. I still disagree with their decision, but I certainly can't claim they were cowardlily1 avoiding defending it.
1 cowardilly? cowardicily? whatever.
2 Now I'm more worried about how "man" carries both "person" and "male person" and the linguistic trends that, repeatedly over many centuries, both cause this sort of thing to happen and then cause people to dislike it.
I think that shoes that the 10C work. Anyone who has a problem with an interpretation can come here - then there is proper discussion of that decision. Always. And I have been a host in various forms: I know that such rulings are not done lightly.
Also - I have been on the ship long enough to remember when someone (name thankfully escapes me) was thrown off for being far too offensively left wing. It cuts all ways.
There is no "but". I'm emphatically not saying all Australians are racist and I'm sorry if I gave the impression I was.
Asian is an ethnic group? I don't like talking of races or ethnic groups, but I don't see how you can say that. There are a number of different ethnic groups in the list you've recited, then those living further west and south
Oh is "disliking" a prejucide now?
Chinese and Russians are not races. They are citizens of a specific country. Therefore disliking them is not racism. On your definition, Liverpool fans disliking Evertonians would qualify as racism, as they are both based on artificial constructs - borders versus football grounds.
The Ship's definition of "racist" is is meaningless. It encompasses everything from unspoken dislike through to engaging in genocide, and anyone from the smallest groups of people to vast swathes of humanity, providing they all share some specific social construct.
From Nazi's gasing gypsies through to a mild annoyance at the people who support the other footbal team in a city, to the Ship it is all racism.
Prejudice against a group, is the predominant motivation for discrimination against that group.
Racist sentiment, is a motivator for racial discrimination.
I am unclear why you feel claiming, “I’m not racist, I’m xenophobic” is a bid for the moral high ground.
It is as if you are saying belief in in a triune God and Christ incarnate does not make you a Christian - because it is only belief and you haven’t preached a sermon.
That it is somehow ridiculous to claim believers, clergy and martyrs are all Christians - because how could there be the same descriptor for a 10 year girl at her first communion, and the Protestant martyrs burnt at the stake.
How can it possible to describe someone or something as Christlike or Christbearing unless they have actually been crucified ?
Yet if you were to incite hatred against either you would be guilty under the laws of the United Kingdom of "incitement to racial hatred". You're splitting hairs and doing it badly. Everton and Liverpool fans are not covered by this, though under certain circumstances rivalries between football teams might come under religious hatred.
Oh, we know that - https://telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/29/labour-activists-shared-image-dead-tories-banner-social-media/
My original post was to point out that splitting discussion of the hosts role in setting the Ship's direction - the thread in Purgatory - and forcing it into Styx, would weaken both threads.
I wasn't asking the hosts to defend their actions, I was asking the hosts to join in the debate on the other thread because I felt that the hosts were part of the reason why right-of-centre people rarely join or stay on the Ship.
I wasn't questioning a hosts decision on a rule breach, I was asking something much more fundamental than that.
They felt, for some reason, that it was better to separate the two debates.
@Thatcheright
There are quite a few out there who don't recognise or hate the idea of national borders and the concept of "countries" per se, and I wonder how many of them are struggling with having to use those concepts to support their defence of the woke-left definition of racism.
They want the definition so they can use it to denounce thinkers of hate thought (mild dislike for the rest of the world) but in doing so they have to recognise "countries" as a valid concept, but they hate countries ("no borders, no nations, no deportations" etc). It must be a real philosophical and ideologic dichotomy for them.
Much simpler for us Nazi's (aka Conservative voters) - we just want to kill everybody (hard to get tied up in ideological knots with that sort of straightforward philosophy).