Transphobia

GrayfaceGrayface Shipmate
In the Transgender thread in Purgatory, the following happened:
Eutychus wrote: »
hosting/
Grayface wrote: »
Would it be legitimate for me to refer to you from now on as Makepeace the Transphobic Bigot?
No. Whatever your point is, you can't make it in Purgatory by framing it as a personal attack.
mousethief wrote: »
What excuse will you come up with next, @Makepeace, to avoid your own selfishness?

@mousethief, that goes for you too.

Let's try and keep this civil here. Hell is at your disposal.

/hosting

In this country (the UK) hate speech is not a right. I have reported people to the police for malicious misgendering and these have been logged as legitimate hate incidents and followed up. Calling someone a transphobic bigot is, however, legal. Particularly so if they are demonstrably transphobic bigots.

Am I to take it that the Ship's policy is that transphobia is fine but calling people on their transphobia is not? Or am I being told off for personally referring to the perpetrator as a transphobic bigot when I should have said that all people who knowingly misgender transfolk are transphobic bigots?
«13456710

Comments

  • EutychusEutychus Admin
    edited July 4
    The latter: you are being told off for saying "X is a transphobic bigot" where X is a Shipmate.

    This is a contravention of Commandment 3, "attack the issue, not the person".

    I see you have already found the appropriate Hell thread which, being in Hell, offers an exception also provided for in C3. Your attention is however drawn to all the bits of the 10Cs which apply here as well as in Hell.
  • GrayfaceGrayface Shipmate
    Thank you. Could you comment on your permitting transphobia?
  • EliabEliab Shipmate, Purgatory Host
    I'm sympathetic, but would have made the same call as Eutychus. Personal attacks aren't allowed in Purgatory on any provocation.

    Expressing negative opinions about transgendered people (while keeping it impersonal)isn't the same sort of thing - the opinions can be criticised robustly, but personal attacks in response aren't allowed.

    I do see that as the only openly transgender person on the thread, comments are going to seem as if they are directed at you personally, even if worded impersonally, though.



    As far as I'm aware there isn't a specific rule about misgendering someone, and the danger of such a rule is that it can be hard to remember which shipmates have expressed a public gender at all, and what each one is. I think it would need blatant deliberation for misgendering to be a unarguably a personal attack, but it could be (in the way that mangling someone's shipname can be an attack, but misspelling or abbreviating it usually isn't).
  • quetzalcoatlquetzalcoatl Shipmate
    I think some forums have strict rules on homophobia, but not transphobia. Now I'm confused about this one.
  • GrayfaceGrayface Shipmate
    I'm a little rusty on evading C3, I thought I'd skirted it as a) "transphobic bigot" is descriptive, in the sense that calling someone a racist for posting racist statements wouldn't necessarily be a personal attack, and b) I didn't actually call them that. I acknowledge that Eutychus answered in the same spirit of answering my question though.
  • Grayface wrote: »
    Thank you. Could you comment on your permitting transphobia?
    Not within my remit as a host, no.

  • GrayfaceGrayface Shipmate
    Could the Hosts then specify which "isms" actually contravene C1 in that case?
  • EutychusEutychus Admin
    edited July 4
    Grayface wrote: »
    I'm a little rusty on evading C3, I thought I'd skirted it as a) "transphobic bigot" is descriptive
    I called you for the words "Makepeace the Transphobic Bigot" which I cannot read as anything other than being deliberately intended as a personal attack, directed against a named person.
  • Grayface wrote: »
    Could the Hosts then specify which "isms" actually contravene C1 in that case?

    No, that is a call for the admins.

    What I can say in a personal capacity is that it seems important to me to strike a balance between excluding hate speech and allowing reflected debate. I fully undertstand that you found Makepeace's comments personally insulting, however they were not personally directed at you and I don't believe they were intended hatefully.

    Until quite recently the thread was prospering without hotting up.
  • GrayfaceGrayface Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Grayface wrote: »
    Thank you. Could you comment on your permitting transphobia?
    Not within my remit as a host, no.

    Why?
  • Grayface wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Grayface wrote: »
    Thank you. Could you comment on your permitting transphobia?
    Not within my remit as a host, no.

    Why?
    Because what the Ship "permits" is in my judgement within the remit of the admins. My remit is to give an account of my hosting as per the 10Cs.
  • First, in regard to whether or not you can call an identified Shipmate names (with or without justification) outside Hell I refer you to what Eutychus has just said so clearly.

    Just because something is legal within particular jurisdictions does not make that acceptable on the Ship.

    This does, of course, cut both ways. Referring to trans-people in a derogatory manner would also be considered a personal attack. This need not be directed at a named individual, we have a long running understanding that attacks on a group of people are personal attacks, especially where it is reasonable to assume members of that group are reading or participating in the thread where the attack is made. Clear trans-phobic or homo-phobic attacks will be called by a host, and passed on to Admin for consideration if the behaviour persists. The absence of a hostly reprimand for personal attack indicates that the hosts didn't read the relevant posts as crossing the line into personal attack - the line for being offensive and worthy of a Hell call is a different matter.
    Grayface wrote: »
    In this country (the UK) hate speech is not a right. I have reported people to the police for malicious misgendering and these have been logged as legitimate hate incidents and followed up.
    As best I can see from a very quick skim of the last couple of pages of that thread, the worst that has happened is that Makepiece has admitted to a view which if he followed it up in practice (deliberately using "him" to describe someone who appears to wish to be identified as a woman) would be an example of hate speech in the UK which could be referred to the police. I don't see any indication that he actually did so, and I don't know where he is either (if outside the UK then UK law would not apply).

    As a general point. If you read something that you consider to be legally questionable please contact a host or admin privately to raise your concern (note that the PM function here allows you to send messages to multiple recipients, so you can send a single message to all the board hosts and your favourite admins so one of us can get it asap). If necessary we will delete content that is potentially illegal - and, we're usually very cautious so something close but not actually illegal may go (we can't afford to risk being in court, even if we win the Ship will sink). And, we will contact relevant authorities if needed.
  • GrayfaceGrayface Shipmate
    Apologies for the cross-post. Admins, please comment on the C1 question?
  • Put another way, @Grayface (and then I'm out of here for a while), a more appropriate Ship culture response in my view would have been for you to do straight off what @josephine has now helpfully done, and called @Makepeace straight to Hell.
  • GrayfaceGrayface Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    I fully undertstand that you found Makepeace's comments personally insulting, however they were not personally directed at you and I don't believe they were intended hatefully.

    That's a big call to make. I acknowledge your right to make it but for the record I disagree strongly. The difference between accidental and malicious misgendering is blindingly obvious to a trans person.

  • Grayface wrote: »
    Could the Hosts then specify which "isms" actually contravene C1 in that case?
    Probably all of them in some form or another. There are many ways to be a jerk, and any form of bigotry is included in that. We're all at least a tiny bit of a jerk at times, and we're not going to slap C1 on everyone every time that happens.

    Mostly bigotry is expressed as either clear personal attacks (which the hosts will call, and admins will support the hosts if the behaviour continues) or a long history of nastiness that is expressed in little ways in many places, never quite reaching the threshold for a host to intervene. Our preference is for Shipmates to address such nastiness themselves, through a Hell call or attempts to discuss in a serious manner to show the errors of bigotry. Admins will step in if such behaviour persists and disrupts the Ship, though it's a grey fuzzy line.

  • GrayfaceGrayface Shipmate
    Asserting that trans women are men is okay then?


  • finelinefineline Purgatory Host
    I would point out that if asking someone how they would respond to hypothetical labelling is a personal attack, I did this too. I asked Makepeace about the hypothetical situation of people deciding he was a woman and referring to him as ‘she.’ That was hypothetical misgendering of a specific shipmate. And I get the impression that if this happened to him in reality, it would upset him more than being called a transphobic bigot.
  • GrayfaceGrayface Shipmate
    I once knew a trans woman who was in every sense the stereotype of the "cockney geezer". He was basically Delboy in a dress. He barely let his "lesbian" female partner get a word in and it was very clear that he/she dominated their partner.

    This is specifically misgendering a trans woman, not speculating about it. It was posted on the Ship.
  • finelinefineline Purgatory Host
    Grayface, I know. I was comparing my speculation with yours: ‘Would it be legitimate for me to refer to you from now on as Makepeace the Transphobic Bigot?’ We were both using a similar sort of argument - taking his logic that he can use language however he wants because it’s part of who he is to ask in return if he considers it equally legitimate for anyone to use their own choice of language back at him. To me, this is a form of logical argument, not a personal attack; however, if it is viewed as a personal attack, then we are both guilty of it.

  • GrayfaceGrayface Shipmate
    Agreed, fineline.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Grayface was not speculating but actually called Makepeace a transphobic bigot.
    That is a pretty clear violation of attack the issue, not the person.
    As far as the transphobic comments on that thread, it is a difficult line to walk to actually allow debate and discussion and still keep things respectful.
    If you think transphobia is allowed an exemption, you have not read many threads on race. Bunch of white people telling PoC how they should feel and think. If I objected every time the line pushed too far racist, we'd never be able to discuss anything.
    Trust me when I say I know that it very much sucks to have to defend who one is. The alternative is to not engage and I think that far worse.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    I could swear we've had this thread before, except about some other form of hate speech about a hated group. (Gays maybe?) And the general consensus of the admins at the time was much the same: it's okay for the bigot to pummel away at the victim as long as they do it indirectly. In such as case the use of the third person becomes an intentional travesty. But the victim sure as hell better not stand up for themselves. As a result people belonging to regularly-targeted groups feel the ship's deck is stacked against them. I think this is a weak spot in the ship's handling of "isms" and want to register my hope that a better solution could be found. Pointed hypotheticals and third-person slurs can just as much be a personal attack as something stated in the second person. It resembles the ways some abusive spouses operate, frankly.
  • josephinejosephine Shipmate
    Grayface wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    I fully undertstand that you found Makepeace's comments personally insulting, however they were not personally directed at you and I don't believe they were intended hatefully.

    That's a big call to make. I acknowledge your right to make it but for the record I disagree strongly. The difference between accidental and malicious misgendering is blindingly obvious to a trans person.

    I do believe Makepeace intended the comments hatefully. He was being malicious and deliberately cruel. That's why I called him to Hell.

    If someone on the Ship were arguing in Purgatory that black people are inherently inferior to white people, and that their inferiority makes them unsuitable for positions of leadership and trust, I trust that you would put a stop to it.

    And I wish you would put a stop to Makepeace's equally despicable behavior towards trans people. In the mean time, I've done what I can.
  • Speaking as a host, there's a difference between a hypothesis expressed as such and the words @Grayface was pulled up on. It is the hosts' thankless task to make such calls and to attempt to do so regardless of which "side" the chips fall on.
  • finelinefineline Purgatory Host
    Maybe I am being too literal, but I interpreted ‘Would it be legitimate for me to refer to you from now on as...’ as a hypothetical question, albeit a bit of a pointed one, to which Makepeace was free to say ‘No, that would not be legitimate, for reasons x, y and z.’ But I can be too literal, and I appreciate it must be difficult making hostly decisions.

    Something I am wondering in general is where the line is drawn regarding transphobia, or any form of discrimination. Makepeace was not just deliberately misgendering someone he knew - he was quite emphatically asserting his right to decide which gender he assigns to anyone and refers to them by. Sure, he didn’t misgender anyone on the Ship directly, but if someone were to similarly assert their right to refer to gay people as faggots, or disabled people as retards, or black people as the n-word, but without actually addressing a specific shipmate with those terms, where is the point at which this gets addressed? Or is it more that usually things just get sent to Hell way quicker and are dealt with there?
  • @mousethief yes - homophobia on the Old Ship™ from May 2017, entitled Dead horses: a free-for-all for vivisection where @Louise said:
    We currently put the onus on the people being directly attacked by anti-gay/anti-trans posters to play nice, play by the rules and move to Hell (where they need asbestos undies when they may least feel like it). It is a bit like putting the burden of being polite to racists onto the people who are being attacked by racists. The racist gets to spout off unhindered, the person being denigrated has to obey a complex set of rules and watch what they say in return or they may be disciplined: I can't tell people who show up spouting anti-gay talking points to take it to Hell but I must tell anyone they've insulted not to hit back in kind but to take it to Hell, and must warn them if they don't.

    I am not sure that any conclusions were reached looking at all three pages.
  • As a host:
    josephine wrote: »
    I do believe Makepeace intended the comments hatefully. He was being malicious and deliberately cruel. That's why I called him to Hell.
    It is notoriously difficult to read intent in written posts. You might be sure but I as a host am not. @Grayface's retort was however impossible to miss.

    As a Shipmate:
    And I wish you would put a stop to Makepeace's equally despicable behavior towards trans people. In the mean time, I've done what I can.
    You make it sound like you've mercifully stepped in to plug a gap in the H&A's ineptitude.

    That's not how any of this works.

    I think you've done what any Shipmate could do and that it attracts no particular merit beyond you exercising your normal responsibilities to the community and your proven ability to don asbestos underwear from time to time.

    By prevailing internet standards, the Ship cannot be reasonably described as a refuge for bigots - neither is it designed as a platform for anti-discrimination militancy. It's a discussion forum and strives to serve that purpose.

    If the only response to all the -isms here ever were to shout them all down as bigoted, I would probably still be against women's ministry, anti-gay, and never have developed an online friendship with ChristinaMarie.
  • quetzalcoatlquetzalcoatl Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    I could swear we've had this thread before, except about some other form of hate speech about a hated group. (Gays maybe?) And the general consensus of the admins at the time was much the same: it's okay for the bigot to pummel away at the victim as long as they do it indirectly. In such as case the use of the third person becomes an intentional travesty. But the victim sure as hell better not stand up for themselves. As a result people belonging to regularly-targeted groups feel the ship's deck is stacked against them. I think this is a weak spot in the ship's handling of "isms" and want to register my hope that a better solution could be found. Pointed hypotheticals and third-person slurs can just as much be a personal attack as something stated in the second person. It resembles the ways some abusive spouses operate, frankly.

    Yes, I am baffled by this. That quote, ""he was basically Del boy in a dress", is out and out hate speech. Why is no warning given over it?
  • josephinejosephine Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    As a host:
    josephine wrote: »
    I do believe Makepeace intended the comments hatefully. He was being malicious and deliberately cruel. That's why I called him to Hell.
    It is notoriously difficult to read intent in written posts. You might be sure but I as a host am not. @Grayface's retort was however impossible to miss."

    But "he was basically Del boy in a dress" slid right by?
    As a Shipmate:
    And I wish you would put a stop to Makepeace's equally despicable behavior towards trans people. In the mean time, I've done what I can.
    You make it sound like you've mercifully stepped in to plug a gap in the H&A's ineptitude.

    Well, yes. I believe that a host or admin should have called Makepeace on his behavior. And that is how it works. "Don't be a jerk" is still the First Commandment. "Don't easily offend" is still the first part of the Fifth Commandment. Makepeace wasn't discussing. He was being a jerk. He was being offensive.

    And because none of the H&A seemed willing to call him out on it, I stepped in.

    And, yes, that's part of the responsibilities of a member of the community: to step in when the H&A fail.

    Which, in this case, you did.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    edited July 4
    We are not thought police.
    We are not your parents.
    We are not benevolent overlords ensuring that everything is Good™ and Right™.

    We are a small cadre of volunteers enabling weirdos from around the globe to discuss... stuff. Part of that is a quality-assurance system of regulating interactions - of how people directly interact.

    So, yes: sneaky ism-spewing assholes get to leak their ideas in, while moral giants responding with noble intentions get blunted. It's the least-bad option, really. If we started from a place of asserting correct opinions to have there would not be much room for discussion. Think of it as an opportunity to hone your reasoning for contributing to society's progress.
  • josephinejosephine Shipmate
    @mousethief yes - homophobia on the Old Ship™ from May 2017, entitled Dead horses: a free-for-all for vivisection where @Louise said:
    We currently put the onus on the people being directly attacked by anti-gay/anti-trans posters to play nice, play by the rules and move to Hell (where they need asbestos undies when they may least feel like it). It is a bit like putting the burden of being polite to racists onto the people who are being attacked by racists. The racist gets to spout off unhindered, the person being denigrated has to obey a complex set of rules and watch what they say in return or they may be disciplined: I can't tell people who show up spouting anti-gay talking points to take it to Hell but I must tell anyone they've insulted not to hit back in kind but to take it to Hell, and must warn them if they don't.

    If this is the situation, it's wronger than a wrong thing that's wrong.

    If you want to talk about abortion or creation, you get sent straight to Dead Horses. Perhaps, if people start spouting bigoted nonsense, they should be sent straight to Hell, where they can be answered appropriately.
  • quetzalcoatlquetzalcoatl Shipmate
    Surely, there's a difference between allowing people to discuss stuff such as gay or trans, and allowing hate speech. I was on a forum where Christians were allowed to say that gay is unnatural, or not created by God, or is a sin. That's not hate speech. Similarly, it would be reasonable to interrogate the notion of trans, but 'Delboy in a dress' strikes me as provocative and nasty.
  • josephine wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    As a host:
    josephine wrote: »
    But "he was basically Del boy in a dress" slid right by?
    It's not a personal attack on a Shipmate. It may be bigoted, but hosts are not in the business of calling out bigotry. If it's hate speech, somebody is going to have to spell that out to me.
    And because none of the H&A seemed willing to call him out on it, I stepped in.
    And from where I'm sitting, that's the mistake in your thinking. If you decided Makepeace was being as objectionable as you say, then issuing a Hell call only as a last resort having expected the hosts to do something instead of you is frankly pathetic.
    Which, in this case, you did.
    I can see standing up to you is going pretty much as I anticipated.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    RooK wrote: »
    We are not thought police.
    We are not your parents.
    We are not benevolent overlords ensuring that everything is Good™ and Right™.

    We are a small cadre of volunteers enabling weirdos from around the globe to discuss... stuff. Part of that is a quality-assurance system of regulating interactions - of how people directly interact.

    So, yes: sneaky ism-spewing assholes get to leak their ideas in, while moral giants responding with noble intentions get blunted. It's the least-bad option, really. If we started from a place of asserting correct opinions to have there would not be much room for discussion. Think of it as an opportunity to hone your reasoning for contributing to society's progress.

    But this is crap, RooK. The ship has come down on people for hate speech before. Sure, these are judgment calls and people are going to argue both sides. But to pretend the ship is completely hands-off on these kinds of things is disingenuous at best.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    fineline wrote: »
    Maybe I am being too literal, but I interpreted ‘Would it be legitimate for me to refer to you from now on as...’ as a hypothetical question, albeit a bit of a pointed one, to which Makepeace was free to say ‘No, that would not be legitimate, for reasons x, y and z.’ But I can be too literal, and I appreciate it must be difficult making hostly decisions.
    Grayface quoted Makepeace and, within the quote, changed makepeace' name. That is what I interpreted the difference as being. Essentially, "Hey Bigot, what if I called you Bigot?" as opposed to "What if I called you Bigot?"
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Yes, I am baffled by this. That quote, ""he was basically Del boy in a dress", is out and out hate speech. Why is no warning given over it?
    That one had me wondering as well.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    mousethief wrote: »
    RooK wrote: »
    We are not thought police.
    We are not your parents.
    We are not benevolent overlords ensuring that everything is Good™ and Right™.

    We are a small cadre of volunteers enabling weirdos from around the globe to discuss... stuff. Part of that is a quality-assurance system of regulating interactions - of how people directly interact.

    So, yes: sneaky ism-spewing assholes get to leak their ideas in, while moral giants responding with noble intentions get blunted. It's the least-bad option, really. If we started from a place of asserting correct opinions to have there would not be much room for discussion. Think of it as an opportunity to hone your reasoning for contributing to society's progress.

    But this is crap, RooK. The ship has come down on people for hate speech before. Sure, these are judgment calls and people are going to argue both sides. But to pretend the ship is completely hands-off on these kinds of things is disingenuous at best.

    It's true: if people persist in their hate speech such that it interferes with discussion, they get a face full of Admin-love. But it is not invoked in the case of single instances - Commandment 1 is a cumulative ruling, not a black and white guide to correctness.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    No pun intended
  • GrayfaceGrayface Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Grayface was not speculating but actually called Makepeace a transphobic bigot.

    Not true. I chose a form of words that did not call them that, I asked them if it would be legitimate for me to do so. But that's not really the point here.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    I argued with RooK and he admitted I had a point. I'm not ready for the Rapture. Where did I put my Scofield Study Bible? Dang it I don't want to be left behind.
  • @mousethief yes - homophobia on the Old Ship™ from May 2017, entitled Dead horses: a free-for-all for vivisection where @Louise said:
    We currently put the onus on the people being directly attacked by anti-gay/anti-trans posters to play nice, play by the rules and move to Hell (where they need asbestos undies when they may least feel like it). It is a bit like putting the burden of being polite to racists onto the people who are being attacked by racists. The racist gets to spout off unhindered, the person being denigrated has to obey a complex set of rules and watch what they say in return or they may be disciplined: I can't tell people who show up spouting anti-gay talking points to take it to Hell but I must tell anyone they've insulted not to hit back in kind but to take it to Hell, and must warn them if they don't.

    I am not sure that any conclusions were reached looking at all three pages.
    It is a difficult area for us. We're a discussion site, that restricts what is possible. If particular opinions are ruled inexpressible then that rules out discussion of those ideas. We can then have people believing all sorts of stupid things which they will never see the counter arguments against because they aren't allowed to express them. And in these sorts of cases, it's very difficult to say anything without it causing some form of offence, because these are issues of deep personal import and how people self-identify.

    We could crack down even further with constant hostly intervention whenever anything potentially hurtful or disrespectful is posted, rather than the current bar of a clear personal attack. But, IMO that would result in a very bland and uninteresting level of discussion. What we aim for on the Ship is robust debate, discussion that challenges and makes people think. That provides for robust responses to people spouting off offensive rubbish, it certainly isn't the case that the only options are to take it to Hell or take it on the chin. The potential difficulty is that the personal nature of these debates means that tempers can be short, and responses posted in anger can easily cross the line from robust to personal attack. Hosts are individuals, each with a slightly different view on where that line is.

    Personally, I think it is possible to go thermo-nuclear against an idea ... however in doing so it's very difficult to avoid some collateral damage against people who hold those views, and if the clear intention is to attack an issue I wouldn't be too worried about a wee bit of collateral damage (as long as it wasn't too much ... with the where is "too much" also being very subjective). Those who are victims of transphobic/homophobic etc attacks are in the stronger position since criticism of who they are is inherently personal and will always be close to the line of personal attack, whereas the response is against an idea and that can be attacked vigorously and robustly keeping much further from the line of personal attack - though it may sometimes require a breather to avoid letting anger control what's said. And, Hell works in their favour too - a thread calling someone posting transphobic rubbish will get a lot of support from other Shipmates, if someone went and called all trans people to Hell then they'll need industrial grade asbestos underwear.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Yes, I am baffled by this. That quote, ""he was basically Del boy in a dress", is out and out hate speech. Why is no warning given over it?
    That one had me wondering as well.
    The hosts' remit is to enforce the 10Cs. "Hate speech" does not feature in them.

    It seems to me that the best way to deal with hate speech is as RooK said, plus using the current mechanism of some alert poster calling the perceived hate speaker to Hell and thrashing it out there.

    There is, I repeat, a community responsibility here, not one that can simply be foisted onto the H&A's.
  • GrayfaceGrayface Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    regardless of which "side" the chips fall on.
    The fact that you think there are legitimate sides here is a serious problem.

  • quetzalcoatlquetzalcoatl Shipmate
    Yes, I get that about single instances, the ones I remember elsewhere are cumulative. Mumsnet had people going through every transphobic theme you have heard of, and then back again, for fun. But I think they have changed their moderation.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    No pun intended

    [applies ointment to unintentional self-burn]
  • GrayfaceGrayface Shipmate
    If particular opinions are ruled inexpressible then that rules out discussion of those ideas. We can then have people believing all sorts of stupid things which they will never see the counter arguments against because they aren't allowed to express them.

    If you're going to play this card, why does C1 preclude racism?
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Grayface wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    regardless of which "side" the chips fall on.
    The fact that you think there are legitimate sides here is a serious problem.

    Legitimacy doesn't change the fact that there end up being "sides". Shit, flat-earthers still exist, and I don't even know how that even happens in a discussion media facilitated by orbital fucking satellites. Let's just hope that our overwhelming legitimacy helps crush the hate-ist assholes in discussion.
  • I guess this is something those of us with long memories are less happy about because we remember how long it took for someone who continually equated homosexuality with paedophilia to be planked. And there were some very unpleasant threads, including a Hell thread naming said frequent flier of a homophobe. It took those of us attacking him on the Hell thread all being warned that we were inappropriate and the resulting Styx thread for the Admins to accept that his behaviour was homophobic, it was unfair his homophobia was being unchallenged elsewhere and that this was what triggering the Hellish responses.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited July 4
    Grayface wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Grayface was not speculating but actually called Makepeace a transphobic bigot.

    Not true. I chose a form of words that did not call them that, I asked them if it would be legitimate for me to do so. But that's not really the point here.
    You changed his username name inside of the quote. It even had the code for a link to a profile, so on first glance, I thought an Admin had actually changed his name.
    What is inside the quote is representing the person and what they said. So, it is different to a question outside of that quote.
    So, looked at that way, it is clear as to why the ruling was made. Was it fair? I am not sure, especially as the Delboy comment was treading the line. At best.
    Understand, I do think the Ship gets the balance of bigot's allowable speech to the target's allowable response wrong at times. However, it is a balance. Anything else would shut down any real conversations.
    It is a fact of life that the minority has to justify itself to the majority. It is wrong and that is worth contending, but it is still the way things work. The Ship is no different. Better than many places, but still subject to this.

Sign In or Register to comment.