LogFAQs > #969411930

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, Database 11 ( 12.2022-11.2023 ), DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	The mods must really hate Dave Chappelle
SKARDAVNELNATE 11/13/22 10:46:31 PM #26:	adjl posted... then fell back on the classic "that doesn't mean I'm afraid of them" deflection I don't recall doing that. Bigotry is prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group. Transphobia, as a form of bigotry, is dislike of or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people. None of that has anything to do with fear. And I don't dislike trans people. I'm am entirely indifferent to their membership of a group. There are positions I don't agree with but disagreement on a singular issue is a separate matter from how I feel toward those I disagree with. Though, you, adjl, are known from previous discussions to assign malicious intent to those you disagree with. So I expect to you disagreement alone is seen as an indication of my feelings. adjl posted... Moderations tend to be stricter for people with a recent history of violations. Past moderations which were equally unclear and I believe were frivolous. I believe a subject can be discussed without being offensive, abusive to other users, or hateful toward people effected by the subject. Disagreement alone is not a violation of the site rules. Yet when we disagree the mods pick a side and remove the arguments that didn't align with their particular political beliefs. adjl posted... you've been identified as somebody who has difficulty behaving I don't think preventing discussion of my difficulty has helped any. I haven't gained a better understanding of what the offense was from the lack of communication I received about it. I would like to discuss things we don't agree on to gain more perspective on the subject and refine my own thoughts on it. But just by describing why I think a certain way about something; it gets a moderation for being offensive, or defending hate speech, or provoking others to respond negatively. Doesn't that go both ways? Am I not provoked to respond negatively when there are things I disagree with? Why is the response to finding something objectionable to remove it and not to discuss why it is? I'm starting to think the goal is to prevent people from understanding each other. --- No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD. Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB <cite>SKARDAVNELNATE posted [p:969411930] in The mods m... [t:80229973]...</cite> <quote>adjl posted... </cite><quote>then fell back on the classic "that doesn't mean I'm afraid of them" deflection</quote>I don't recall doing that.Bigotry is prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.Transphobia, as a form of bigotry, is dislike of or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people.None of that has anything to do with fear. And I don't dislike trans people.I'm am entirely indifferent to their membership of a group.There are positions I don't agree with but disagreement on a singular issue is a separate matter from how I feel toward those I disagree with.Though, you, adjl, are known from previous discussions to assign malicious intent to those you disagree with. So I expect to you disagreement alone is seen as an indication of my feelings.adjl posted... </cite><quote>Moderations tend to be stricter for people with a recent history of violations.</quote>Past moderations which were equally unclear and I believe were frivolous. I believe a subject can be discussed without being offensive, abusive to other users, or hateful toward people effected by the subject. Disagreement alone is not a violation of the site rules. Yet when we disagree the mods pick a side and remove the arguments that didn't align with their particular political beliefs.adjl posted... </cite><quote>you've been identified as somebody who has difficulty behaving</quote>I don't think preventing discussion of my difficulty has helped any. I haven't gained a better understanding of what the offense was from the lack of communication I received about it. I would like to discuss things we don't agree on to gain more perspective on the subject and refine my own thoughts on it. But just by describing why I think a certain way about something; it gets a moderation for being offensive, or defending hate speech, or provoking others to respond negatively. Doesn't that go both ways? Am I not provoked to respond negatively when there are things I disagree with? Why is the response to finding something objectionable to remove it and not to discuss why it is? I'm starting to think the goal is to prevent people from understanding each other. --- No locked doors, no windows barred. No more things to make my brain seem SKARD.Look at Mr. Technical over here >.> -BTB</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1