PapaG was banned tonight

The Truth is her defense.

I expect people to get upset with one another over topics of religion and politics. It's part of the turf, and we've been quite tolerant about such things. I'm pretty sure that PapaG has posted that he wanted to get himself banned, though maybe not recently.

 

why did you ignore the other things I said, and concentrated on the one thing you could target? Do you honestly think that papag has been unfairly maligned? Or that people have done EQUALLY what he did and got away with it?

 

To be fair, we let all those bigoted posts stand.

 

"not putting her on the same level as Papag" kind of suggests the "it's not a double standard" defense is accurate though...

 

We let the bigoted posts stand unedited. And hers. Let the reader decide.

 

Are the "bigoted posts" (a label which is easily debatable on many of those so labeled) violations of the site TOS?

Not really, because as I said, nobody thinks she should be banned, because she obviously hasn't done all the same things PapaG has. But she is guilty--often--of personal attacks, and they are ignored, whereas many other people's aren't. Would you like to help me understand how that's not a double-standard?

 

like Denny said, if there was a double standard, don't you think

A: more of the people you claim have a double standard would be banned
or
B: their posts would be far more edited (the ones where they're making those comments)?

It's easy to scream "hey, there's a double standard here!" and then not actually have to back it up. You're putting the burden of proof on the mods, and alleviating yourself of proof.

The things people have said on here have rarely been edited, and unless you think we should be able to say ******, *** and other almost universally accepted words we don't say, I don't see what you're bitching about.

Were ANY of those posters who said things about gays, minorities (or since I know you'll have a fit) whites, banned or suspended?

Show me where there is a consistent and purposeful practice of suspending, or editing posts favorably? And missing one because we don't see it doesn't count. Show this trait of one of the 5 mods here (2 of which are more conservative, one who rarely posts here anyways but is conservative, and Wheels I'm not sure of) fit your description.

Because realistically, you're saying that Nate, Brian and Sly are playing favorites towards a more liberal slant. And while Sly may be more "liberal" than Brian or Nate, I don't think he's a "play favorites" type poster.

Plus, he does most of the editing. Are you saying HE'S exhibiting a double standard?

And if you are, say it to him. Or say it to Denny.

 

Yet we want the same done on PapaG's meltdown thread, and instead we get pages of redaction. I'm filing a FOIA request for the unedited posts. Where's Julian Assange when we really need him?

 

all the time?

and 'everyone' else? There are about 3 people here who "attack" others, and one just got banned. The other two rarely post. So, Not sure where this 'everyone else' comes from, since the rest of us rarely make it personal.

 

weird, not sure why this was posted twice.

 

PapaG's personal attacks have been largely ignored for a long long time.

And yes, those bigoted posts do violate the site TOS. We're not here trying to be an aryan nation kind of site, or a porn site.

 

If we want to be even handed about editing her posts, we'd have to delete numerous posts saying the transgendered girl is a guy, brought it on herself, drama queen, and so on.

The balance is in letting those posts stand, and to allow crandc to call those stream of posts what they are.

 

in a way yes, in a way no.

if I say "mediocre man, you're such an ass hole sometimes"

would you agree that it's not the same as

"man, you are such a fucking ass hole! "

or that claiming someones idea, or belief is bigoted.

ex: "that dude is a dude, and while I don't care that he wants to be a girl, I refuse to call him that. I'm right, and you're wrong. Plus, he kind of deserved the negative attention"..response "well, I'm kind of tired of the bigoted posters here, who think they can just say all sorts of shit about someone they don't know..."

vs calling someone a bigot.

response: "you are a bigot!"

However, if someone says something that, by definition, IS bigoted, I'm not sure how that's a horrible thing. Whereas the definition of asshole is more vulgar, and detestable of a person. Stupid, or incompetent.

A bigot just is about ideas or beliefs/words you've said, and an asshole is about actions.

 

It's hate speech.

 

you seem to not know what the word bigot means then. If I say that "whites are inferior to Asians, in all respects. They're not as smart, athletic, and deserve to be 2nd class citizens" and someone called me a bigot, would you have a fit?