Yes it is. They were banned from being sold, at a supermarket. That's exactly what I said.
No; a single company deciding not to stock a particular item is not the same as "'Australian flags were even banned from being sold from supermarkets for Australia Day celebrations.'"
Yes it is. They were banned from being sold, at a supermarket. That's exactly what I said.
No; a single company deciding not to stock a particular item is not the same as "'Australian flags were even banned from being sold from supermarkets for Australia Day celebrations.'"
Australian flags were even banned from being sold from supermarkets for Australia Day celebrations.
Is accurate, or a repetition of misinformation that constitutes a racist dog whistle.
I note the sequence of white people should be able to be proud of their own culture, reference to the (possibly mythical) Australian flag banning as an example of white people not being allowed to be proud - that would appear to imply that people with Australian citizenship who are not white are in some sense not truly Australian.
Ah, I can tell you that what @WhimsicalChristian has posted is an absolute, out-and-out, blatant, what other adjective can I use, lie.
Point of order: It’s only a lie if said with the knowledge that it was untrue and with intent to deceive.
Australian flags were even banned from being sold from supermarkets for Australia Day celebrations.
While “banned” does indeed imply government action, that is not specifically stated. Since it has now been clarified that it was a supermarket chain that chose not to sell Australian flags for Australia Day—it was the supermarket chain that banned its stores from selling flags—I would submit the statement in question can just as reasonably be seen as a statement that was not worded as clearly or as precisely as it could have been, rather than a lie.
Meanwhile, I found this ABC story that says it was at least two retail chains.
@WhimsicalChristian I am not in a position to know if you, personally are a racist. I can only evaluate what you have chosen to post here. We will not provide a platform for the repetition of this kind of misinformation - it constitutes a violation of our first commandment.
I sometimes find that @WhimsicalChristian can be somewhat clumsy in how they word things - something that I can be guilty of at times.
She may be 'dog-whistling' or, more charitably, she may not be expressing herself clearly. Supermarket chains choosing not to sell Australian flags is not the same as central or regional government banning them from doing so.
What WhimsicalChristian might be saying is that a climate developed where retailers chose not to stock Australian flags to avoid accusations of racism or political incorrectness.
More a zeitgeist thing than an official government policy thing.
But she can speak for herself.
My advice though, FWIW is that 'if you are in a hole, stop digging.'
I hope that doesn't come across as 'junior posting'.
Apparently she can’t, as she seems to have been banned.
I have to say I find that very troubling, being banned without at least one warning. Especially for a relatively new shipmate, and in a case where what was going on isn’t exactly clear.
I understand and support the Ship’s commitment to not providing a platform for racism, but I would have thought there’d be at least one “this violates Commandment 1, don’t do it again.”
I understand and support the Ship’s commitment to not providing a platform for racism, but I would have thought there’d be at least one “this violates Commandment 1, don’t do it again.”
I think you're forgetting that WC had already had shore leave for similar behaviour. At some point the benefit of the doubt is exhausted. To my mind that was weeks ago and I'm glad I'm not the ones having to make that call.
I understand and support the Ship’s commitment to not providing a platform for racism, but I would have thought there’d be at least one “this violates Commandment 1, don’t do it again.”
I think you're forgetting that WC had already had shore leave for similar behaviour. At some point the benefit of the doubt is exhausted. To my mind that was weeks ago and I'm glad I'm not the ones having to make that call.
Yes, I was forgetting that. I doubt I’m the only one, though, so perhaps best practice (with apologies to the words we hate thread) would be to say, “you were warned about this ___ weeks/months ago.” The post above doesn’t even say WhimsicalChristian was banned—one can only tell that from the avatar and by looking at her profile.
I’m still somewhat uncomfortable with banning, though. I don’t know that benefits of doubt had been exhausted yet.
But as you say, it’s not my call, and I’m glad it’s not.
I share @Nick Tamen's concern though, but fully accept that she'd been warned and could be a bit cloth-eared in my view and often failed to 'read the room'.
I'd have preferred it if something along the lines of the wording @Nick Tamen suggested had been used but it's not my call.
I suspect she would have wandered off at some point any way but also wonder whether a ban would only reinforce her idea that left-leaning types are all about 'cancel culture' and closing down arguments.
I found her constant regurgitation of 'Britain is going to the dogs' rhetoric from right-wing media rather tiresome, but then I've made ill-considered comments about other Shipmates' home countries in the past. I've also been suspended in the past and have no axe to grind about that as I did overstep the mark at times.
God bless the Ship and all who sail in her and all those who sail in other boats or paddle elsewhere.
I read that as a warning to respond within 72 hours or be banned, and there was a response within 72 hours. It was not a warning in the sense of “if you post in this way again, you will be banned.” At best, it was a warning along the lines of “tell me why I shouldn’t ban you.”
I didn't read it as a 'banning' warning but a request for Whimsical Christian to explain herself.
Yes, she did explain herself and yes, dug herself into an even deeper hole in doing so.
I'd put this down to a lack of self awareness rather than outright racist intent but then I don’t possess a window into people's souls and Hosts and Admins must judge as they see fit.
She did apologise for cack-handedness on the thread about the racist rioting but blaming that on 'being on the spectrum' - whether literally or figuratively compounded things still further.
I'd have preferred to see a clearer warning. I've been around a while and didn't recognise it as such so a comparative newcomer might be excused for not doing so.
But sure, there was certainly a 'trend' in her posts and no smoke without fire.
The belief that because you because you have not used a specifically racist, sexist, ablist, lgbtq+phobic or sectarian religious slur - you cannot be saying something bigoted is an error.
White grievance narratives are fundamentally racist, narratives that suggest that all members of a particular religion or racial or cultural group are inherently undesirable in some aspect are inherently bigoted and usually racist. They are covered by our first commandment and if you repeat this material again you will be banned. Unconscious bias is a known phenomenon, we all have blind spots, but the hope is once you are made aware you reflect on and alter your perspective.
I am not going to continue to re-explain this again and again, if you or anyone else has trouble understanding this there is a whole internet you can use to educate yourselves.
I will add that when we are trying to evaluate patterns of problematic posting, we have regard to concepts such as dog whistling, sealioning and trolling.
Which the poster appeared to respond to, with yet another racist dog whistle.
'Father forgive them for they know not what they do'?
I stand to be corrected but my interpretation would be that they weren't intentionally setting out to be racist or to whistle in a canine fashion but for whatever reason - lack of self-awareness, failure to read the room, an underdeveloped posting or debating 'style' - they tried to 'explain' themselves and ended up digging a deeper hole.
Perhaps WhimsicalChristian felt it was 'self-evident' that several Australian retail outlets dropping sales of particular merchandise constituted a 'ban' rather than a 'choice' on their part. Who knows? I'm speculating. Helpfully I hope.
On another thread I've expressed the view that someone can't be 'heretical' (in Christian terms) unless they have consciously and wilfully adopted a heretical position, As a parallel and anagolous observation/question is it possible to post apparently racist comments without being consciously and deliberately racist?
WhimsicalChristian denied being racist and saw herself as occupying a distinctive position here aboard Ship by being 'centre right' politically and 'centre left' theologically.
I don't think that's as unusual a position as she did. I'd consider myself 'centre left' politically (Shipmates may disagree) and 'centre right' theologically - but generally don't frame things in such binary terms. I'm 'work in progress' the same as anyone else.
At the risk of an ad hominem remark, I'd be inclined to see WhimsicalChristian as naive rather than deliberately provocative.
Others may see it differently and sure, I'm not the one to call the shots.
FWIW I think WhimsicalChristian was cumbersomely crass on the Hell thread and didn't help herself here when given the opportunity to account for her comments. Whether that deserved a ban now or another warning shot is for the Hosts and Admins to decide.
Maybe I'm just old and bitter but I can no longer be doing with the leaning-over-backwards excuses of unawareness and mis-communication and unintentionality and even neurodivergence. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Let's cauterise our bleeding hearts and make a stance for accuracy, reality, truth.
A frequent problem people seem to have is understanding that fairness is not about everyone having the same, it’s about equity.
I don’t think that’s a matter of understanding that that’s the case – I think it’s a matter of people not agreeing about the definition of fairness. Not everyone agrees, for good or for ill, about whether having the same, or having equity, or various other approaches, is genuine fairness. All of this could be a good Purgatory thread, but I thought the distinction should be pointed out.
I agree with @Nick Tamen and @Gamma Gamaliel about the banning of @WhimsicalChristian but it’s ultimately up to the Hosts and Admins. I am troubled by the impression that no one but people on the left can remain long on the new Ship, even though politically I’m on the left (by US standards, at least) myself.
But this is not true, there are multiple Shipmates who are not on the left. WC wasn't banned for being right-wing, she was banned for being racist. Which she clearly was, over and over again. If right-wing people are unable to prevent themselves from being racist, the problem isn't with the people banning them for being racist.
I think it's also fair to say that many people claim to be part of a particular strand of politics without demonstrating that to actually be the case in their views or behaviour. WC was constantly posting far-right talking points yet claimed to be centre-right (and I saw no evidence of her supposed centre-left theology). I think it's reasonable to think that someone on the actual centre-right wouldn't post about how much they like Pauline Hansen or to repeat Nazi talking points. By their fruits shall ye know them, and all that.
Relatively few people on the Ship know each other offline; I would hesitate to suggest anything about someone's self-described politics beyond what they themselves say. But posting far-right propaganda while claiming to not be far-right and to not be racist is just typical far-right online behaviour. It's nothing new unfortunately.
Heck, probably half the Ship is neurodivergent. It doesn't make people say racist crap.
Quite. And as a small Epiphanies-style observation, can we not be talking about neurodivergent people as a monolith? I know that's not what intended - but talking about neurodivergent people en masse just felt a little bit excluding to this out-and-mostly-proud autistic.
Heck, probably half the Ship is neurodivergent. It doesn't make people say racist crap.
Quite. And as a small Epiphanies-style observation, can we not be talking about neurodivergent people as a monolith? I know that's not what intended - but talking about neurodivergent people en masse just felt a little bit excluding to this out-and-mostly-proud autistic.
I'm also autistic. Would it be better to say: "there isn't a form of neurodivergence that makes people say racist crap"?
Heck, probably half the Ship is neurodivergent. It doesn't make people say racist crap.
Quite. And as a small Epiphanies-style observation, can we not be talking about neurodivergent people as a monolith? I know that's not what intended - but talking about neurodivergent people en masse just felt a little bit excluding to this out-and-mostly-proud autistic.
I'm also autistic. Would it be better to say: "there isn't a form of neurodivergence that makes people say racist crap"?
That sounds ideal. (Unless we're defining the term "neurodivergence" so widely as to include the brain difference of "being a total and utter ****".)
I’m probably ND, but I know I’m socially awkward and obsessive, so I really try to reel in any tendency to offend. Unless it’s deliberate of course 😉
At least around here people pull me fairly gently, for which I’m grateful.
Comments
No; a single company deciding not to stock a particular item is not the same as "'Australian flags were even banned from being sold from supermarkets for Australia Day celebrations.'"
Honestly. I have no words. I am neither of those.
I disagree. It's the same thing.
If someone stops you doing something you intend, it's a ban.
If you decide not to, it's a choice.
The statement was:
While “banned” does indeed imply government action, that is not specifically stated. Since it has now been clarified that it was a supermarket chain that chose not to sell Australian flags for Australia Day—it was the supermarket chain that banned its stores from selling flags—I would submit the statement in question can just as reasonably be seen as a statement that was not worded as clearly or as precisely as it could have been, rather than a lie.
Meanwhile, I found this ABC story that says it was at least two retail chains.
@WhimsicalChristian I am not in a position to know if you, personally are a racist. I can only evaluate what you have chosen to post here. We will not provide a platform for the repetition of this kind of misinformation - it constitutes a violation of our first commandment.
Doublethink, Admin
[/Admin]
She may be 'dog-whistling' or, more charitably, she may not be expressing herself clearly. Supermarket chains choosing not to sell Australian flags is not the same as central or regional government banning them from doing so.
What WhimsicalChristian might be saying is that a climate developed where retailers chose not to stock Australian flags to avoid accusations of racism or political incorrectness.
More a zeitgeist thing than an official government policy thing.
But she can speak for herself.
My advice though, FWIW is that 'if you are in a hole, stop digging.'
I hope that doesn't come across as 'junior posting'.
I have to say I find that very troubling, being banned without at least one warning. Especially for a relatively new shipmate, and in a case where what was going on isn’t exactly clear.
I understand and support the Ship’s commitment to not providing a platform for racism, but I would have thought there’d be at least one “this violates Commandment 1, don’t do it again.”
I think you're forgetting that WC had already had shore leave for similar behaviour. At some point the benefit of the doubt is exhausted. To my mind that was weeks ago and I'm glad I'm not the ones having to make that call.
I’m still somewhat uncomfortable with banning, though. I don’t know that benefits of doubt had been exhausted yet.
But as you say, it’s not my call, and I’m glad it’s not.
I share @Nick Tamen's concern though, but fully accept that she'd been warned and could be a bit cloth-eared in my view and often failed to 'read the room'.
I'd have preferred it if something along the lines of the wording @Nick Tamen suggested had been used but it's not my call.
I suspect she would have wandered off at some point any way but also wonder whether a ban would only reinforce her idea that left-leaning types are all about 'cancel culture' and closing down arguments.
I found her constant regurgitation of 'Britain is going to the dogs' rhetoric from right-wing media rather tiresome, but then I've made ill-considered comments about other Shipmates' home countries in the past. I've also been suspended in the past and have no axe to grind about that as I did overstep the mark at times.
God bless the Ship and all who sail in her and all those who sail in other boats or paddle elsewhere.
I’ve said my piece on this.
I didn't read it as a 'banning' warning but a request for Whimsical Christian to explain herself.
Yes, she did explain herself and yes, dug herself into an even deeper hole in doing so.
I'd put this down to a lack of self awareness rather than outright racist intent but then I don’t possess a window into people's souls and Hosts and Admins must judge as they see fit.
She did apologise for cack-handedness on the thread about the racist rioting but blaming that on 'being on the spectrum' - whether literally or figuratively compounded things still further.
I'd have preferred to see a clearer warning. I've been around a while and didn't recognise it as such so a comparative newcomer might be excused for not doing so.
But sure, there was certainly a 'trend' in her posts and no smoke without fire.
Which the poster appeared to respond to, with yet another racist dog whistle.
I stand to be corrected but my interpretation would be that they weren't intentionally setting out to be racist or to whistle in a canine fashion but for whatever reason - lack of self-awareness, failure to read the room, an underdeveloped posting or debating 'style' - they tried to 'explain' themselves and ended up digging a deeper hole.
Perhaps WhimsicalChristian felt it was 'self-evident' that several Australian retail outlets dropping sales of particular merchandise constituted a 'ban' rather than a 'choice' on their part. Who knows? I'm speculating. Helpfully I hope.
On another thread I've expressed the view that someone can't be 'heretical' (in Christian terms) unless they have consciously and wilfully adopted a heretical position, As a parallel and anagolous observation/question is it possible to post apparently racist comments without being consciously and deliberately racist?
WhimsicalChristian denied being racist and saw herself as occupying a distinctive position here aboard Ship by being 'centre right' politically and 'centre left' theologically.
I don't think that's as unusual a position as she did. I'd consider myself 'centre left' politically (Shipmates may disagree) and 'centre right' theologically - but generally don't frame things in such binary terms. I'm 'work in progress' the same as anyone else.
At the risk of an ad hominem remark, I'd be inclined to see WhimsicalChristian as naive rather than deliberately provocative.
Others may see it differently and sure, I'm not the one to call the shots.
FWIW I think WhimsicalChristian was cumbersomely crass on the Hell thread and didn't help herself here when given the opportunity to account for her comments. Whether that deserved a ban now or another warning shot is for the Hosts and Admins to decide.
Yes, it happens all the damn time. 90% plus of people saying racist crap vehemently deny being racist or saying anything racist.
Most -isms are like this. Many homophobes will insist they love gay people, misogynists that they care deeply about women etc etc
Let's cauterise our bleeding hearts and make a stance for accuracy, reality, truth.
Exactly
And? Did someone suggest otherwise?
I would have preferred the warnings to have been more obvious or worded differently but there we go.
WhimsicalChristian did herself no favours and I suspect a severe planking would have happened sooner or later.
I don’t think that’s a matter of understanding that that’s the case – I think it’s a matter of people not agreeing about the definition of fairness. Not everyone agrees, for good or for ill, about whether having the same, or having equity, or various other approaches, is genuine fairness. All of this could be a good Purgatory thread, but I thought the distinction should be pointed out.
It is also perfectly possible for conservatives to have principles.
Agreed on both counts.
I think it's also fair to say that many people claim to be part of a particular strand of politics without demonstrating that to actually be the case in their views or behaviour. WC was constantly posting far-right talking points yet claimed to be centre-right (and I saw no evidence of her supposed centre-left theology). I think it's reasonable to think that someone on the actual centre-right wouldn't post about how much they like Pauline Hansen or to repeat Nazi talking points. By their fruits shall ye know them, and all that.
Relatively few people on the Ship know each other offline; I would hesitate to suggest anything about someone's self-described politics beyond what they themselves say. But posting far-right propaganda while claiming to not be far-right and to not be racist is just typical far-right online behaviour. It's nothing new unfortunately.
Quite. And as a small Epiphanies-style observation, can we not be talking about neurodivergent people as a monolith? I know that's not what intended - but talking about neurodivergent people en masse just felt a little bit excluding to this out-and-mostly-proud autistic.
I'm also autistic. Would it be better to say: "there isn't a form of neurodivergence that makes people say racist crap"?
That sounds ideal. (Unless we're defining the term "neurodivergence" so widely as to include the brain difference of "being a total and utter ****".)
At least around here people pull me fairly gently, for which I’m grateful.