use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
詳しくは検索FAQを参照
高度な検索: 投稿者や、subredditで……
~6 現在のここのユーザー
A place for discussions on bans, changes and whatnot of /r/anarchism by its active anarchists who have an interest in the well-being of the community.
Relevant topics:
How does this place work?
Transparency:
Proposal: Ban /u/reaganveg for trolling. (self.metanarchism)
Vindalfr が 10 日 前 * 投稿
残りのコメントをみる →
[–]AutumnLeavesCascade 14 ポイント15 ポイント16 ポイント 10 日 前* (48子コメント)
Oppose, and fuck it, I'll rant.
Firstly because I do not think Reaganveg is a troll; they may be contrarian, possibly even toxic, but I do not think they troll much. They can sometimes make sarcastic comments, or be condescending, or be pedantic, but I really highly doubt they fraud people, and I know they don't say ugly shit like telling people to off themselves. Having said that, I dislike ReaganVeg, and disagree with them on most points. However, that's not banworthy, and it hasn't been in any of the trumped-up or taken-out-of-context ban proposals thus far. I certainly could have missed something notably shitty that the user in question has said, but if so, this proposal should be about that thing, not a link to an entire thread.
Second point. I also wonder how I would react if I were inexplicably banned for several days before a mod came around and admitted it was purely a fuck up, but did not apologize to me. The pattern here is ridiculous, the notion that you can treat someone like that and then make a ban thread right after your action riles them up. Honestly, this provocation shit makes me want to leave this "community". I don't want to be part of a project that inflames its critics then searches for "gotcha" moments to remove them. With habits like that, who the fuck needs the Feds to come here to fuck with us.
/u/vindalfr, you have said for many, many months, at least two times to me personally, that you would step up to work on process shit. But I find that you, more than anyone else, simply treat it all as a joke. You've talked a big game, but I haven't seen you follow through on that. Instead, I've seen you fuck up pressing buttons (though at least admit it), edit flairs in inappropriate ways, delete comments that you shouldn't have deleted, and link to your own thread as evidence rather than any specific comment of the user in question. I don't think you should be a mod here. I have no respect for you fucking something up, upsetting someone, then not even citing specific evidence after you've upset them to get them banned.
Here's a few questions for everyone: What do heated but legitimate disagreements on policy look like? What are principles of Good Faith dialogue we can adopt? Who is someone you yourself disagree with but perceive as a legitimate critic of your perspective? I'm not saying mine's Reaganveg, FYI. What I'm saying is that each week I see more polarization, and less actual collaboration. We're responsible for contributing in key ways to one of the world's largest anarchist forums, and in years of fighting ourselves we still have basic process shit glaring at us from the void.
I've been on /r/anarchism for 3 years as an active poster, and 5 years as a reader. Vindalfr's been around probably as long. What are we doing with our time here? Maybe Vindalfr's right that this place is a fucking joke. I wanted it to be something better, but I think I should step back soon, because what am I actually accomplishing here?
[–]Capn_Blackbeard 6 ポイント7 ポイント8 ポイント 9 日 前 (28子コメント)
Firstly because I do not think Reaganveg is a troll
I think they are. A few months back, reaganveg expressed their "disturbance" with someone blocking a proposal.
While I generally don't think that banning is the right way to deal with this issue, I'm a little bit disturbed at your claim of a right to "block" this vote. What if someone blocks your block? Is this a consensus process where anyone can block? Who gets to block? If anyone can block, then nobody is going to be banned for anything: the status quo will be enshrined forever.
While I generally don't think that banning is the right way to deal with this issue, I'm a little bit disturbed at your claim of a right to "block" this vote.
What if someone blocks your block? Is this a consensus process where anyone can block? Who gets to block? If anyone can block, then nobody is going to be banned for anything: the status quo will be enshrined forever.
Now, this is virtually all reaganveg does in meta. Six months ago they knew it would be used as a ploy to derail process and yet now they do it all the time. How is that not trolling?
[–]AutumnLeavesCascade 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 9 日 前 (8子コメント)
Yeah they made that one process troll post 6 months ago, I have to give you that. It's also on us for not having clear process, dumb as the "block the block" idea is (which really, it is the kind of thing that the 12 year olds I teach consensus to have laughed at the notion of). If we had our shit together better on how our decisions work it wouldn't be as much of an issue though.
[–]Capn_Blackbeard 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 9 日 前 (7子コメント)
If we had our shit together better on how our decisions work it wouldn't be as much of an issue though.
Amen.
I'm split between two threads trying to explain that if people want there to be an age requirement for voting eligibility then get a damn proposal passed.
There is so much "accepted policy" that has no basis other than people just keep claiming it is policy.
[–]AutumnLeavesCascade 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 9 日 前 (6子コメント)
My impression is that we've had an "active within the community for at least 2 months" rule for voting eligibility on the books for about 2 years. Someone more recently than that could have made a different proposal, wish I could track that down. The lack of documentation around our decisions is probably the biggest nail in our coffin, as it erodes institutional memory and prevents recursive learning.
[–]Capn_Blackbeard 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 9 日 前 (5子コメント)
Here Min_thamee claims it is accepted that the number is two months.
Here RRRRK claims it is accepted that the number is three months.
Each of those was posted within 15 minutes of each other. That's my point. Everyone claims to know policy but if it isn't discussed, voted on, and posted I don't think it should be considered policy.
We really need to nail down these guidelines in threads anyone can point to.
[–]AutumnLeavesCascade 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 9 日 前 (4子コメント)
Yeah here's the original 2 months decision AFAIK, 2 years ago: http://www.reddit.com/r/metanarchism/comments/15xgq6/community_guidelines_and_the_antioppression/
Someone could have gotten a proposal passed for 3 months recently but I can't find it.
Another process and policies archive is, hilariously, one Reagan was trying to be helpful with: http://www.reddit.com/r/metanarchism/comments/2e5wan/drafting_rules_for_moderator_elections_an/
Another relevant archival thread is this one, from Vindalfr, 2 years ago: http://www.reddit.com/r/metanarchism/comments/1918j8/for_your_consideration_first_draft_on_guidelines/
Yeah, we need to be able to link to simple list for agreed upon policy, procedure, and process. Re-link to my process questions overview.
[–]Capn_Blackbeard 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント 9 日 前 (3子コメント)
Unless I am misreading that first link, the only place where it lists 2 months for eligibility is for guidelines about who can and can't be a moderator. It says nothing about general voting.
And even the moderator guidelines say:
a known member is considered to be someone who has been active within the community for at least 2 months. They shall be required to have a minimum number of posts and comments to be deemed eligible (the number to be determined by popular consensus).
But that "minimum number of posts and comments" is never defied which pretty much negates the whole thing. It is 2 months old and has the minimum number of posts and comments.
The Vindalfr proposal seems to have only three overt "support" votes.
I'm really not trying to be supercritical. I think it is important that things like this get nailed down which is why I want it to be something more concrete than vague recollections of "accepted policy" (which seem to vary from person to person)
[–]AutumnLeavesCascade 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 9 日 前 (2子コメント)
Oh, please be supercritical, we desperately need that attention to detail at this point, especially from people who might actually do something to improve the situation. The state of things is abysmal and I'm looking for any good momentum.
[–]Capn_Blackbeard 3 ポイント4 ポイント5 ポイント 9 日 前 (0子コメント)
I created a proposal. Frankly, if this struggles to pass I will be seriously disenchanted with this place.
[–]Capn_Blackbeard 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 9 日 前 (0子コメント)
If all this energy being used to tell me how wrong I am about socks, voting eligibility, etc. was pointed towards crafting proposals this place would be humming along relatively soundly within a month.
But tomorrow, everyone inflamed about the reaganveg vote will wander off and not return to meta for a month or so and only then to tell us how badly we are fucking everything up. :/
EDIT: I'm not aiming any hostility at you. I'm just venting. Sorry.
[–]Min_thamee 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント 9 日 前* (11子コメント)
This whole "block" thing was started in a moderator nominations thread, where /u/volcanoclosto blocked a users nomination, despite the fact that there was no precedent or clear rules about what a block was.
Reganveg actually pointed out here that a block makes no sense with moderators, because essentially the idea to treat the block as legitimate comes down to the moderator disgression.
Unbelievably some people in the forum decided to honour the block, including the only person who mattered, moderator andyogym
If pipe_bomb agreed to an accountability process of some sort would you consider unblocking?
what follows is volc being stubborn which imo makes a mockery of the block process.
In summary: volcanoclosto makes a block. the moderators allow it and invalidate everyone else's votes. Reaganveg then questions this and gets no answers, so decides to test out the block function and wonder why his blocks aren't honoured
[–]Capn_Blackbeard 5 ポイント6 ポイント7 ポイント 9 日 前 (4子コメント)
I think continually doing something you feel is wrong because someone else did it once is pretty much the definition of trolling.
what follows is typical volc and co stubborness and makes a mockery of the block process.
If you are going to say things like "typical volc" as you insult them then maybe you should pump the brakes on complaining about how other people talk about you. Goose and gander and all that.
[–]Min_thamee 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 9 日 前 (0子コメント)
ok point taken, edited.
[–]reaganveg -2 ポイント-1 ポイント0 ポイント 9 日 前 (2子コメント)
No, it isn't the definition of trolling at all. It does not in itself imply anything like that.
Volcanoclosto's block isn't something that was "done once." The effects of that block persist. The block created a moderator list that still remains in place.
I'm not doing the same thing at all. Because I say "block" when it doesn't affect moderator action, and after publicly stating that it should not.
The still-persisting recognized block is a farcical violation of process, a farcical pretense of consensus where none exists, and it deserves mockery. This place deserves mockery for allowing such a thing. You should mock it, also. Why don't you?
[–]reaganveg -2 ポイント-1 ポイント0 ポイント 7 日 前 (1子コメント)
/u/capn_blackbeard this is another one where I'd very much like to hear your response. Do you concede these three points? Can you answer my questions?
[–]Capn_Blackbeard 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 7 日 前 (0子コメント)
Fuck off, reaganveg
[–]boilerpunx 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 9 日 前* (5子コメント)
If there's no such thing as blocks on this forum, which you felt so strongly about for some reason, why haven't you ever brought up this concern with reagan? Is it because you're more agreeable to users who you like?
If you want to use the "drawing attention to blocks" excuse, you have to be able to reasonably explain why he refused to dialogue with anyone about his blocks, which is again, something you were highly critical of in other users.
[–]reaganveg 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 9 日 前* (4子コメント)
It's quite different when I do it, because I'm mocking the moderator's lack of recognition of the block, whereas volcanoclosto actually induced the moderator to act.
In other words, when I do it it doesn't actually cause a violation of process, but just an embarrassment of the moderators for their inconsistency. Whereas when volcanoclosto does it, there is an actual violation.
That's not true (I didn't refuse), so no he doesn't.
But it would be very easy in any case; there's no real point in explaining a block to people when it has no effect on them whatsoever. There certainly isn't any argument for an obligation to do so. It doesn't make sense. The whole reason you have to explain yourself to others as someone blocking is the effect you're having on them.
Even in an actual consensus process, if one person blocks, and everyone else votes no, there's no reason for the blocking person to explain their block. The proposal wouldn't pass even in the absence of the block, so it's moot. A block has to be explained precisely when it is holding up a consensus agreement. No other time.
[–]reaganveg 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 6 日 前 (3子コメント)
/u/boilerpunx do you concede this argument or not?
[–]boilerpunx -2 ポイント-1 ポイント0 ポイント 2 日 前 (2子コメント)
So if I don't reply in a time to your liking, I concede? No such luck. I just had better things to do than talk to you for the last few days. Really, I have better things to do than talk to you every day, but I stupidly make exceptions
[–]reaganveg -1 ポイント0 ポイント1 ポイント 2 日 前 (1子コメント)
So if I don't reply in a time to your liking, I concede?
I asked you whether you concede the argument or not.
Do you?
[–]boilerpunx -2 ポイント-1 ポイント0 ポイント 1 日 前 (0子コメント)
No.
[–]Hannibal_Lecturer -1 ポイント0 ポイント1 ポイント 9 日 前 (6子コメント)
That was 6 months ago, before he ever blocked any proposals.
My interpretation is that the blocks are just an attempt to bring the issue of blocking to the attention of the community. I have been only for about a year in this community and the first and only successful use of block I've seen was made by volcanoclosto in order stop pipebomb from becoming a mod. She cited misogyny as the reason and despite never providing any evidence to support that claim the block was honored. This is when reaganveg started blocking some proposals -with which he disagreed to begin with off course- in an attempt to make the mods face the issue, start a discussion about blocking an eventually formalizing a procedure that now seems very murky and arbitrary. This is in line with the vindalfr's block you are citing.
[–]Capn_Blackbeard 4 ポイント5 ポイント6 ポイント 9 日 前 (5子コメント)
I would agree with you except for the fact that whenever reaganveg has been asked to explain the purpose of the block they never do. They just say "block" and then either do nothing or just argue opposition to the proposal...which is an "oppose" and not a block.
It is clearly just theater and the exact thing that reaganveg complained about when someone else was doing it.
[–]reaganveg 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 9 日 前 (4子コメント)
I would agree with you except for the fact that whenever reaganveg has been asked to explain the purpose of the block they never do.
That's not true at all. I think one time I didn't bother to explain anything because I was being lazy and it doesn't actually matter. But twice? I think not. Can you find two examples to prove me wrong?
I wasn't "complaining" about theater. I have zero complaints about theater.
I predicted that the "block" would be used to violate the election process, and I pleaded with andyogm to specify the election rules before the election, to no avail. Events unfolded just as I had predicted. The only issue I ever had was with the effect on the moderator list, an effect that is not present when I block.
[–]Throwtherockback 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 7 日 前 (3子コメント)
I love how whenever you respond to blackbeard, showing all of his bullshit as bullshit, he never responds to you.
Its almost as if you have arguments he can't counter...
[–]reaganveg 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 7 日 前 (2子コメント)
Well I don't care for it. If /u/capn_blackbeard has nothing to counter with they should acknowledge my argument.
I was actually going to bring this same post up with them again to try to get a response but I think the tag above should suffice.
[–]Capn_Blackbeard -3 ポイント-2 ポイント-1 ポイント 7 日 前 (1子コメント)
[–]Throwtherockback 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 5 日 前 (0子コメント)
lol case in point.
[–]flaxrabbit 4 ポイント5 ポイント6 ポイント 10 日 前 (2子コメント)
What do heated but legitimate disagreements on policy look like?
min_thamee and I often disagree, and I've been working really hard to make sure to read their stance in the most charitable way possible. We often disagree, but I think our discourse had been "legitimate" of late (from effort on both of our parts).
What are principles of Good Faith dialogue we can adopt?
We recently adopted stricter guidelines on consensus that clarify that "block" is not a vote. This might help. Also, my request to stop blaming the victim in a thread recently outlines one type of behavior that is counter to operating in good faith.
Who is someone you yourself disagree with but perceive as a legitimate critic of your perspective?
Again I think min_thamee is a good example.
I'm supporting this ban proposal, because of reaganveg's continued effort to throw a monkeywrench in the gears of effective moderation. I have asked him flat out to back up his complaints with a proposal, and he has not. I have asked him to clarify his blocks and if there is a way we can work toward addressing his concerns, and he responds with claims that the whole project of metanarchism is illegitimate. Finally, I'm supporting this ban proposal, because when comrades have needed solidarity and support he has gone on the offensive and attacked them and defended the person who is causing the issue even after it has been pointed out many times that what he is doing is harmful.
[–]AutumnLeavesCascade 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 10 日 前* (0子コメント)
Flaxrabbit I definitely respect the ways I've seen you approach things, for months I've thought of you as a good example, especially with min_.
I'll mention: I would support a ban for the last reason you mentioned, I just don't see proposals like the OP as dealing with that actual issue. On my end, I generally don't vote "support" unless my reason reflects something connected to the OP reasons in the proposal description. That's a process point for me. I understand your reasons and desire to be done with Reaganveg though.
[–]Min_thamee 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント 9 日 前 (0子コメント)
We often disagree, but I think our discourse had been "legitimate" of late (from effort on both of our parts).
Yes I can vouch that, while I don't always agree with flax, I do like their attempt to look for new ways to deal with dissent and oposing views such as discussion threads instead of ban threads.
[–]The_Mermaid 4 ポイント5 ポイント6 ポイント 10 日 前* (0子コメント)
I agree with this paragraph. While I personally support reaganveg's ban, all these issues are worth discussing. The deleting comments and inappropriate flair should have never happened. And Vindalfr shouldn't have been the one to make a ban thread, after the accidental ban several days ago.
I don't see any reason why you should step back. I take this subreddit seriously, I became a moderator to make it better, I assume you did as well. If Vindalfr feels the subreddit is a joke and is going to treat it that way, he should be the one to step down.
[–]Vindalfr[S] 3 ポイント4 ポイント5 ポイント 10 日 前 (4子コメント)
Oppose, and fuck it, I'll rant. Firstly because I do not think Reaganveg is a troll; they may be contrarian, possibly even toxic, but I do not think they troll much. They can sometimes make sarcastic comments, or be condescending, or be pedantic, but I really highly doubt they fraud people, and I know they don't say ugly shit like telling people to off themselves. Having said that, I dislike ReaganVeg, and disagree with them on most points. However, that's not banworthy, and it hasn't been in any of the trumped-up or taken-out-of-context ban proposals thus far. I certainly could have missed something notably shitty that the user in question has said, but if so, this proposal should be about that thing, not a link to an entire thread.
I'll even take it a step further and say that some of reaganveg's most recent prediction of banning and then having accountability done after the fact would result in mods just banning whoever they like.
Second point. I also wonder how I would react if I were inexplicably banned for several days before a mod came around and admitted it was purely a fuck up, but did not apologize to me. I'm not a fan of Reaganveg but I think the pattern here is ridiculous, the notion that you can treat someone like that and then make a ban thread right after your action riles them up. Honestly, this provocation shit makes me want to leave this "community". I don't want to be part of a project that inflames its critics then searches for "gotcha" moments to remove them. With habits like that, who the fuck needs the Feds, we're doing their work for them sewing discord unnecessarily.
My relationship with reaganveg is such that I did not believe that they would accept or value my apology. Once I saw that I had fucked up, I moved to fix it and let my actions stand on their own. A simple thread about my accountability they then turned into their own shit show. I didn't provoke that and I wasn't going to make overtures to correct it.
I do agree that the witch-hunting is ridiculous and now that I'm a mod I might want to think about being more direct in the issues that I bring up, but also, because of my shitty history with reaganveg
/u/vindalfr, you have said for many, many months, at least two times to me personally, that you would step up to work on process shit. But I find that you, more than anyone else, simply treat it all as a joke.
Yes. Because it is still a joke. I can make this thread and have everyone take it seriously without making any specific statements about the behavior, just characterize it as trolling and we'll all happily crucify this guy. He won't even make a sock to come back like Jaki and Omega have and I can't be the only person that has noticed their pet issues being brought up despite their supposed removal.
You've talked a big game, but I haven't seen you follow through on that. Instead, I've seen you fuck up pressing buttons (though at least admit it), edit flairs in inappropriate ways, delete comments that you shouldn't have deleted, and link to your own thread as evidence rather than any specific comment of the user in question. I don't think you should be a mod here. I have no respect for you fucking something up, upsetting someone, then not even citing specific evidence after you've upset them to get them banned.
Understood.
Here's a few questions for everyone: What do heated but legitimate disagreements on policy look like?
People actually addressing the topic, rather than the identities of the people discussing the topic. There is a noted lack of people telling each other to die and the insults that are hurled are usually in passing and as part of a criticism of someone's behavior or failure to fully think something through.
We literally have to assume good faith. Personal attacks and invoking ones own identity to deflect criticism (even bullshit criticism) is inherently exclusionary and uncooperative. This shit level of discourse is nothing new to r/@ and met@ and no amount of rules will change the culture that allows it.
With the last round of elections, I thought that might change a bit more than it did... But no. Ancient history is brought up by new socks and their rendition of events is taken as gospel.
In the past, I've had a lot of respect for users like Arkmage (if I remember the correct username) who also spent a lot of time here trying to get process sorted out, but somehow managed to not be a huge asshole about it. They gave up.
In terms of my actual politics, nobody. I'm not an academic and have no real background in philosophy, I don't argue my politics because they are largely based on my personal experiences and no argument or criticism will negate what I've experienced.
We're responsible for contributing in key ways to one of the world's largest anarchist forums, and in years of fighting ourselves we still have basic process shit glaring at us from the void. I've been on /r/anarchism for 3 years as an active poster, and 5 years as a reader. Vindalfr's been around probably as long. What are we doing with our time here? Maybe Vindalfr's right that this place is a fucking joke. I wanted it to be something better, but I think I should step back soon, because what am I actually accomplishing here.
We're responsible for contributing in key ways to one of the world's largest anarchist forums, and in years of fighting ourselves we still have basic process shit glaring at us from the void.
I've been on /r/anarchism for 3 years as an active poster, and 5 years as a reader. Vindalfr's been around probably as long. What are we doing with our time here? Maybe Vindalfr's right that this place is a fucking joke. I wanted it to be something better, but I think I should step back soon, because what am I actually accomplishing here.
You're one of the few people here with a functioning moral compass, that's not nothing.
[–]AutumnLeavesCascade 7 ポイント8 ポイント9 ポイント 10 日 前 (1子コメント)
Thanks for the thorough and respectful response, you have my upvote. I'm going to sit with it for a bit. I also miss the Arkmage approach.
[–]Vindalfr[S] 4 ポイント5 ポイント6 ポイント 10 日 前 (0子コメント)
You, more than anyone else deserve it from me. I know I am being provocative with my approach, but I've also been sitting here watching every other approach fail so far.
I'll also happily go back to being a garden variety jester at any time. I'm not necessary or central to a functioning message board.
[–]Buffalo__Buffalo 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント 9 日 前 (1子コメント)
What are principles of Good Faith dialogue we can adopt? We literally have to assume good faith. Personal attacks and invoking ones own identity to deflect criticism (even bullshit criticism) is inherently exclusionary and uncooperative.
We literally have to assume good faith. Personal attacks and invoking ones own identity to deflect criticism (even bullshit criticism) is inherently exclusionary and uncooperative.
Good. I'm glad to hear you say this.
I think a Good Faith policy was brought up a while ago and I think I might have even directly voted to oppose it, but I did it on the grounds that it's just way too subjective to ever be fairly applied and that the potential for abuse is way too high on that kind of thing.
It makes me think of ATPL's often-abrasive and no holds barred approach to posting - often they cop shit or a ton of downvotes based on style rather than substance which indicates to me that people would likely consider banning them or someone like them based on nothing but disagreeing on tone if we ever did implement a Good Faith policy.
[–]Vindalfr[S] 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント 9 日 前 (0子コメント)
A lot of the values we commonly hold are ephemeral because we operate outside of any kind of moral structure of "right and wrong" yet the rhetoric is so out of hand we almost exclusively talk in terms of what should and shouldn't be allowed, ironically forcing the voting base of met@ into a state of mind of making decisions based on black and white values.
These are deep seated issues for this space that only seem to reveal themselves in the midst of a shit show. This isn't and hasn't been an issue of external trolling, (at least not recently) but a direct result of our inability to facilitate communication... And recognition that some of us are indeed "trolls" and that needs to be OK to a certain extent.
No, procedure or ruleset will fix the shit show as it is a culture war, and the various factions are committed to winning... And of course, the only tangible result is continued gridlock and then disinterest, which is in nobody's interest.
[–]lilit_ 4 ポイント5 ポイント6 ポイント 9 日 前 (1子コメント)
As for your questions, I think one of the most important things we need to do in terms of discussing process is establish what exactly a ban is and what are the implications of banning someone? A ban is not some monstrous, tyrannical act of censorship, and that we entertain that hyperbole is a fuckin joke. If this is analogous to an irl anarchist space, a ban is telling someone to leave and letting them back in if they give a different name at the door. We don't have the tools to actually, properly ban someone from this space, and the only way it actually works is when the trolls get tired of making new accounts. If someone is interested in disrupting this space, we can't spend days discussing their banning when they can come back in 10 seconds. It's pointless.
In general, why should we want to be the largest anarchist forum? There are plenty of racists, misogynists, terfs, etc., and liberals who call themselves anarchists who come here. Why do we want to welcome them? Especially at the cost of alienating those they oppress? These different groups of people are never going to get along, irl or on here, and there is going to be extreme polarization until we decide not to tolerate these shitty people, or stop claiming to be fighting oppression.
I don't think asking about specific people, rather than particular arguments or whatever, is very helpful, but I think atpl is pretty rad. I don't always agree with them and I don't think I need to. I'm honestly pretty baffled as to how the concern troll myth of banning people "for disagreeing," ever caught on, because I don't think there's a single person on here who can say there is someone else they 100% agree with.
[–]davydagger1 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント 8 日 前 (0子コメント)
In general, why should we want to be the largest anarchist forum?
because this is fucking reddit. Its not truely an Anarchist space, and people should know this. Anarchist presence on reddit is purely for agitation in some form. We need to help shape the message on what Anarchism is and is not, and therefor we need to be a bit more patient with non-anarchists and new anarchists than outside.
Especially at the cost of alienating those they oppress?
If it becomes an issue, we take action, but because this is reddit, and the outside world knows fuckall about Anarchism we need to be willing to sincere mistakes, educate more, and enunciate why more than what. What also need do do what we think is stating the obvious about the rights of certain groups, because what seems naturual to anarchists is foreign and alien to the general populace. We need to give a good case for Anarchism. Again mind you, we are on their turf. even in /r/@, we are still in mainstream turf.
[–]Buffalo__Buffalo 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント 9 日 前 (1子コメント)
I agree with you up to the point of criticizing vin - I haven't been keeping up with the drama so I don't even know enough to say I feel comfortable forming an opinion on that stuff.
The criticism is absolutely valid.
[–]lilit_ 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント 10 日 前 (3子コメント)
He said stirner provoked burtzev into calling stirner "it"
[–]Hannibal_Lecturer -4 ポイント-3 ポイント-2 ポイント 9 日 前 (1子コメント)
FOR FUCKS SAKE volcanoclosto, stop parroting the same disingenuous half truth.
For anyone interested in what reaganveg actually defended (and by defended we actually mean that he thought that the user in question should receive less harsh of a pnishment), I have a writeup (or better yet, read the actual comments).
I think it's useful to see the whole progression of the argument. The word was uttered when Burtzev was convinced that SSDope was a cis man. There are no possible implications of transphobia at this point. Stirner had the tendency of pointing out to users that they are misgendering them. If Burtzev thought that, after all, Stirner was a cis-man (the whole Bobby Black issue), he would be pointing out his past tendency mockingly, without actually targeting a transsexual person. Then, he was called out by volc and gave the inanimate object explanation. I think that if anyone else did that, he would probably retract the statement altogether. Instead, Burtzev faced with someone who would use an apology for something said in a perfectly inoffensive context as admission of guilt, gave the inanimate object explanation to nip the whole controversy in the bud. When other people chime in, he apologizes for that too.
[–]lilit_ 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント 9 日 前 (0子コメント)
You have some nerve talking about being disingenuous you piece of shit. Burtzev very intentionally refused to acknowledge the transphobia inherent in calling stirner "it." That's like saying "oh, I'm sorry I called you a faggot, it's rude not to refer to people by name." it's a complete nonapology. Fuck off and die, scumbag.
And if you honestly think I'm volc you're clueless af. I don't think they've ever written a post longer than a paragraph, and I'm white, lmao.
[–]Min_thamee -1 ポイント0 ポイント1 ポイント 8 日 前 (0子コメント)
Go back to Mount Doom with your baseless lies.
[–]zeabu -1 ポイント0 ポイント1 ポイント 9 日 前 (0子コメント)
I don't want to be part of a project that inflames its critics then searches for "gotcha" moments to remove them.
/r/anarchism is only about that. it is about killing discussion through banning. the mods are the perfect example why anarchism is needed and communism with an avant-garde doesn't work: they're power hungry.
[–]Rita5 -1 ポイント0 ポイント1 ポイント 9 日 前 (0子コメント)
Wow, that was a really thoughtful reply! I feel like I can work constructively with people who talk like this. That was awesome, thanks for making my day! :)
π Rendered by PID 9135 on app-59 at 2015-03-07 03:31:40.326941+00:00 running eae462e country code: JP.
残りのコメントをみる →
[–]AutumnLeavesCascade 14 ポイント15 ポイント16 ポイント (48子コメント)
[–]Capn_Blackbeard 6 ポイント7 ポイント8 ポイント (28子コメント)
[–]AutumnLeavesCascade 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント (8子コメント)
[–]Capn_Blackbeard 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント (7子コメント)
[–]AutumnLeavesCascade 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント (6子コメント)
[–]Capn_Blackbeard 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント (5子コメント)
[–]AutumnLeavesCascade 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント (4子コメント)
[–]Capn_Blackbeard 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント (3子コメント)
[–]AutumnLeavesCascade 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント (2子コメント)
[–]Capn_Blackbeard 3 ポイント4 ポイント5 ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]Capn_Blackbeard 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]Min_thamee 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント (11子コメント)
[–]Capn_Blackbeard 5 ポイント6 ポイント7 ポイント (4子コメント)
[–]Min_thamee 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]reaganveg -2 ポイント-1 ポイント0 ポイント (2子コメント)
[–]reaganveg -2 ポイント-1 ポイント0 ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]Capn_Blackbeard 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]boilerpunx 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント (5子コメント)
[–]reaganveg 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント (4子コメント)
[–]reaganveg 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント (3子コメント)
[–]boilerpunx -2 ポイント-1 ポイント0 ポイント (2子コメント)
[–]reaganveg -1 ポイント0 ポイント1 ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]boilerpunx -2 ポイント-1 ポイント0 ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]Hannibal_Lecturer -1 ポイント0 ポイント1 ポイント (6子コメント)
[–]Capn_Blackbeard 4 ポイント5 ポイント6 ポイント (5子コメント)
[–]reaganveg 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント (4子コメント)
[–]Throwtherockback 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント (3子コメント)
[–]reaganveg 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント (2子コメント)
[–]Capn_Blackbeard -3 ポイント-2 ポイント-1 ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]Throwtherockback 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]flaxrabbit 4 ポイント5 ポイント6 ポイント (2子コメント)
[–]AutumnLeavesCascade 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]Min_thamee 1 ポイント2 ポイント3 ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]The_Mermaid 4 ポイント5 ポイント6 ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]Vindalfr[S] 3 ポイント4 ポイント5 ポイント (4子コメント)
[–]AutumnLeavesCascade 7 ポイント8 ポイント9 ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]Vindalfr[S] 4 ポイント5 ポイント6 ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]Buffalo__Buffalo 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]Vindalfr[S] 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]lilit_ 4 ポイント5 ポイント6 ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]davydagger1 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]Buffalo__Buffalo 0 ポイント1 ポイント2 ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]Vindalfr[S] 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]lilit_ 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント (3子コメント)
[–]Hannibal_Lecturer -4 ポイント-3 ポイント-2 ポイント (1子コメント)
[–]lilit_ 2 ポイント3 ポイント4 ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]Min_thamee -1 ポイント0 ポイント1 ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]zeabu -1 ポイント0 ポイント1 ポイント (0子コメント)
[–]Rita5 -1 ポイント0 ポイント1 ポイント (0子コメント)