The first one, no question. That word has no usefulness.
The second I’m on the fence about. Lately there have been a A LOT of attempts to derail discussion about pretty much anything using exactly that argument. I can’t fault a mod for putting a lid on it.
making an argument with verifiable facts isn’t an attempt to derail a discussion – it’s an attempt to further the discussion. the OP is an anarchist, not some tankie.
Eh, you can definitely use verifiable facts to derail a discussion.* It all depends on context and whether those facts are being framed truthfully and with good faith. There just isn’t enough context to go off of here. I don’t really care about OP’s politics because the point stands whether I agree with his politics or not
*Edit: See the book Merchants of Doubt about how cigarette companies in the 70s misused scientific findings to cast doubt on the link between cigarettes and cancer. Stuff like pointing out how women and men had similar smoking rates, but not cancer rates. They left out the part that women smokers tended to be much younger. Thus, in a couple decades their cancer rates matched men’s, but by then the damage was done. Bam - use of verifiable facts to lie and derail
*Edit: See the book Merchants of Doubt about how cigarette companies in the 70s misused scientific findings to cast doubt on the link between cigarettes and cancer. Stuff like pointing out how women and men had similar smoking rates, but not cancer rates. They left out the part that women smokers tended to be much younger. Thus, in a couple decades their cancer rates matched men’s. Bam - use of verifiable facts to lie and derail
ok yep, fair. completely see your point. my point was just that the comment was in good faith and from someone who doesn’t even have a political allegiance to the projects he’s talking about.
but all of this is secondary to the main issues which are:
a mod using ableism and banning criticism of it
the same mod defending chasers
on hexbear, we don’t tolerate this shit and we don’t want to expose the vulnerable members of our community to it.
I don’t know op or his politics, but the comment is clearly baiting and escalating. Unless the comment goes to the heart of the discussion at hand (which it might, but I don’t know), I think the decision to remove is defensible.
Note that I’m saying defensible, not correct, or great, or just. I’m not a big fan of just nuking comments in general, but moderation is hard work and as far as I’m concerned, this falls squarely within a mod team’s authority.
What I was thinking too. X-tard is ableist and plain dumb. I wish we could actually read the post and comments, though, because it’s hard to tell what OP was really saying. Is he claiming that dissing on MLs is racist? Hard to say, but if he is that’s ridiculous
no, that dismissing all MLs as tankies has a tendency to erase the real liberatory movements of the global south. criticizing the politics is fine, but applying a hard line against tankies means excluding a vast swath of people who aren’t white and don’t speak English. he’s calling for left unity.
I can’t even parse this. I read your comment as saying that criticizing “tankies” (whatever that means these days) is not ok because some people, who are left but might not be Tankies, are not white and don’t speak English.
Your first sentence conflicts with your second. Dismissing all MLs as tankies, fair, that’s inappropriate because they aren’t.
But for those that ARE tankies, you absolutely should have a hard line against them. All genocide and dictatorship/oligarchy defenders are not welcome.
Is he claiming that dissing on MLs is racist? Hard to say, but if he is that’s ridiculous
That’s how I read it anyway. And while it’s not completely out there, I’ve seen these arguments show up a lot lately and definitely not always when it would have been a natural course for the conversation to take.
Apparently some people really like this particular talking point, and interaction be damned.
The first one, no question. That word has no usefulness.
The second I’m on the fence about. Lately there have been a A LOT of attempts to derail discussion about pretty much anything using exactly that argument. I can’t fault a mod for putting a lid on it.
making an argument with verifiable facts isn’t an attempt to derail a discussion – it’s an attempt to further the discussion. the OP is an anarchist, not some tankie.
Eh, you can definitely use verifiable facts to derail a discussion.* It all depends on context and whether those facts are being framed truthfully and with good faith. There just isn’t enough context to go off of here. I don’t really care about OP’s politics because the point stands whether I agree with his politics or not
*Edit: See the book Merchants of Doubt about how cigarette companies in the 70s misused scientific findings to cast doubt on the link between cigarettes and cancer. Stuff like pointing out how women and men had similar smoking rates, but not cancer rates. They left out the part that women smokers tended to be much younger. Thus, in a couple decades their cancer rates matched men’s, but by then the damage was done. Bam - use of verifiable facts to lie and derail
ok yep, fair. completely see your point. my point was just that the comment was in good faith and from someone who doesn’t even have a political allegiance to the projects he’s talking about.
but all of this is secondary to the main issues which are:
on hexbear, we don’t tolerate this shit and we don’t want to expose the vulnerable members of our community to it.
In don’t think we agree on what the main issue is here.
My main issue is people starting shit and escalating, then when the mods take action escalating again to the instance admins.
I think that “you on hexbear” need to take a chill pill and let the shorks run their instance.
I don’t know op or his politics, but the comment is clearly baiting and escalating. Unless the comment goes to the heart of the discussion at hand (which it might, but I don’t know), I think the decision to remove is defensible.
Note that I’m saying defensible, not correct, or great, or just. I’m not a big fan of just nuking comments in general, but moderation is hard work and as far as I’m concerned, this falls squarely within a mod team’s authority.
The context was about tankie-bashing.
What I was thinking too. X-tard is ableist and plain dumb. I wish we could actually read the post and comments, though, because it’s hard to tell what OP was really saying. Is he claiming that dissing on MLs is racist? Hard to say, but if he is that’s ridiculous
no, that dismissing all MLs as tankies has a tendency to erase the real liberatory movements of the global south. criticizing the politics is fine, but applying a hard line against tankies means excluding a vast swath of people who aren’t white and don’t speak English. he’s calling for left unity.
I can’t even parse this. I read your comment as saying that criticizing “tankies” (whatever that means these days) is not ok because some people, who are left but might not be Tankies, are not white and don’t speak English.
That can’t be right.
Your first sentence conflicts with your second. Dismissing all MLs as tankies, fair, that’s inappropriate because they aren’t.
But for those that ARE tankies, you absolutely should have a hard line against them. All genocide and dictatorship/oligarchy defenders are not welcome.
That’s how I read it anyway. And while it’s not completely out there, I’ve seen these arguments show up a lot lately and definitely not always when it would have been a natural course for the conversation to take.
Apparently some people really like this particular talking point, and interaction be damned.
Often times it is. I say this because I have indigenous comrades that face that shit all the time.
I also included that one because the removal reason is using the same ableist language I pointed out in the first one.