[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/canterlot/ - Canterlot

Site related staff board
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.4704

File: 1563107191128.jpg (23.81 KB, 702x720, 39:40, 1442166150997.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I've been seeing some posts with random jabs at other users, like "P.S. OP has no room to talk about tolerance for other people" and "That's funny coming from you".  I feel those types of jabs are making Ponyville.us a less welcoming place for people by dredging up unrelated past drama and disagreement.  Does Rule 1 prohibit such jabs?  If it does, I suggest that it actually be enforced.  If it doesn't, I suggest that Rule 1 be embiggened so that it does prohibit such jabs.

Thread tag: site discussion

 No.4705

File: 1563108497486.png (13.55 KB, 400x400, 1:1, ce834fd1c2ecd7825903424c35….png) ImgOps Google

Just report Manly and move on.

It's mainly if the moderator at the time would agree it's intentionally antagonistic or not. I don't think it'll affect the influx of people though.

If anything I think the harsher enforcement of rules would cause people to not want to post here in in of itself. But then you could argue that you wouldn't want "Those types" of people here to begin with, which raises the tolerance of others issue.

I'm just rambling here, I'm tired.

Just report Manly and move on.

 No.4706

There's a literal white supremacist walking around. I don't have to tolerate his ideology, even if I have to begrudgingly accept his presence.

It doesn't affect all of you the same way because his harmful ideology isn't targeting you. Don't you think having someone on the board who literally thinks people like me are inferior to him makes the board less welcoming in much more direct ways?

 No.4708

>>4706
First of all, Mint isn't the only person you've done this to.  If it was only Mint, I wouldn't have made this thread.

Secondly, even with Mint, you're bringing it up in completely unrelated threads where your jabs are off-topic and derailing.

 No.4709

>>4708
The other comment was directed at Dizzy & co. Whom you know I have a personal history with and you know have hurt me in very personal ways.

 No.4710

>>4709
That doesn't give you license to dredge up your past drama with them in /pony/, especially in a completely unrelated thread.

 No.4711

>>4710
You wouldn't be saying that if it was someone you cared about who got hurt. I shouldn't have to pretend those things didn't happen. They did. Peppermint did those things. I don't have to hide that.

 No.4713

File: 1563129621240.jpg (85.9 KB, 442x437, 442:437, crab-2018052818.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4711
Nobody is asking to pretend that things didn't happen.  !!Zecora's warning to you (accompanied by a short ban, which I guess is an affirmative answer to the question in this thread's original post) was:
>>>/pony/965064
>Do not bring up past drama or contentions with people out of the blue.  
The /pony/ board is not a place for airing past drama with other users, especially when it is unrelated to the thread and potentially derailing.  On the other hand, if say Mint made a post on /townhall/ arguing for a particular position P, and you reasonably feel that Mint's other political views are inconsistent with P, then it might be appropriate for you to bring up Mint's other political views, especially if you do so in a non-inflammatory manner.

 No.4715

>>4713
I think his views ARE relevant when he's calling for tolerance of another poster. he is asking we show leniency on someone and attempt peaceful co-existence with them by letting them back on the board, something that does not line up with his white nationalist views. It's was hypocritical. I should be allowed to point that out. It wasn't "out of nowhere", it was relevant to the topic. How can he ask we allow someone who chronically broke the rules back on the site when he does not think people of different races should be allowed to live together in the same country?

 No.4716

File: 1563142082034.jpg (90.04 KB, 847x944, 847:944, Ōmuro Sakurako.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4715
>he is asking we show leniency on someone and attempt peaceful co-existence with them by letting them back on the board, something that does not line up with his white nationalist views.
How are those two things related at all?

>How can he ask we allow someone who chronically broke the rules back on the site when he does not think people of different races should be allowed to live together in the same country?
Ditto.

Tolerance isn't some abstract attribute that people either have or don't have.  Different people tolerate different things.  Would you call a dog hypocritical because it can tolerate eating literal shit but can't tolerate eating chocolate?

In any case, I find it hard to believe that you were simply trying to convince Mint that he should stop advocating for Steam Twist to be allowed back.  Rather, it seems like you were criticizing Mint for his political views, which was off-topic for that thread and a derail.

 No.4717

File: 1563142096766.png (340.94 KB, 495x600, 33:40, 127508e50343c0391ee2e69d23….png) ImgOps Google

>>4704
>random jabs

Those are hardly random jabs.  The examples you refer to are context and inoffensive.

Tfw im the one dismissed as a white knight all the time when half the posters on this site are "offended" at other people's conversation that is not directed at them.

Guess what, its unwelcoming to have a pack of angry anons come down on people for having discussions.

How do people with no names have such thin skin anyway.

 No.4719

>>4717
>Those are hardly random jabs.  The examples you refer to are context and inoffensive.
Really?  Please take another look at http://ponyville.us/pony/res/964141.html#964713 in context.

 No.4720

>>4719

The OP strongly implies the interaction regarding racism.

Reading your example, yes it's a jab however it does refer to a history that imbues the interactions of the individuals involved.  I'll think on this instance some more but my position remains, regarding the rest.

 No.4721

File: 1563144045812.jpg (135.41 KB, 500x283, 500:283, instant-noodles-enemy-diet.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4720
In any case, !!Zecora basically resolved the main issue of this thread in >>>/pony/965064 by demonstrating that it is bannable offense to "bring up past drama or contentions with people out of the blue".

 No.4723

In short form, context is important and what constitutes a "jab" is subjective, but yes that is against rule 1 (or more directly rule 3) and "users" (who are pretty much just Manley) should refrain from that behavior.  Consequences will increase if the behavior does not stop.

In long form:

>>4719
>>4720

In that particular example there's a strong history that had a lot of emotions tied up in it for both parties.  And in a general sense I wouldn't say it has to be kept private.  I don't think the site's in the business of making sure all the skeletons stay firmly locked in the closet.

But also in that example I don't think it was really necessary or useful to bring it up.  It was off topic, even to the already off topic conversation that was happening about Fleur, and I don't think it contributed to anything positive.

Like let's say Grace was actually being hypocritical here, which gets a bit sketchy given her condition but we'll run with it and say that she was at least passively complicit in the actions of her sister.  Does pointing that out really have an impact on her point there?  Is the statement being made by Manley "Actually, you shouldn't be nice for the sake of being nice, she isn't that way, she's trying to trick you."?  I'm not Manley, so maybe that's actually the point he was making, but I'm going to assume it was not.  Which kind of leads me to believe that he was just emotionally lashing out at someone who's hurt him before, which is kind of the definition of drama, which is something we try to avoid on the boards as much as possible because no one wants to see it.

>>4715
>>4716


This instance is somewhat similar, but with the important difference that Manley was absolutely trying to discredit the concept put forth by the OP.  "Part of your identity is not tolerating people, on what grounds do you propose we should tolerate people?"  As you've mentioned, yeah, the obvious answer is that everyone tolerates some people and doesn't tolerate other people, but the internal question is still "Why?"  What about Steam Twist makes him someone we should tolerate on the site, because it clearly isn't coming from a general state of tolerance.  An appeal to being tolerant will not work as an argument here.

In some sense it was probably still a bit of a jab, but I can't call it off-topic or random, and at some point people invite jabs upon themselves.  I think people have to accept who they are and when people deliver those jabs they should roll with them instead of taking them in the face and retaliating.  And to his credit Mint is someone who takes that very well.  He does try to not broadcast his views so much on this site, but I also haven't gotten a whole lot of reports from him all like "Manley keeps calling me racist make him stop."  He knows he's racist and he knows people are going to call him out on that if it comes up.  Like I said earlier in the post, the site doesn't include a skeleton deposit box (unless you post anonymously) and at some point the staff has to step back and say "Yeah, well, that happened, so of course they're going to bring it up."

 No.4728

>>4716
That isn't an apt comparison. A dog is incapable of eating chocolate. It will die if it does so. But Mint is completely capable of not being a racist.

>>4723
That is exactly the point I was trying to make to in regards to Mint. On what grounds can he ask us to tolerate people when being intolerant is part of his identity.

As for Grace, I guess it wasn't implicitly part of the conversation because I wasn't calling for them to not be listened to. Being nice to people for the sake of it IS good advice, I just found the source of that advice ironic, given that person(s)'s history of complacency in utterly heinous acts. And honestly, I'm having trouble parsing when pointing out irony is allowed on this site and not considered a "jab". Should I have prefaced that with "You should listen to them, even if they haven't always followed their own advice."?

 No.4730

File: 1563159786910.jpg (312.58 KB, 619x865, 619:865, 255.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I personally think people should be reminded as often as possible about people being literal white supremacists

As far as jabs at Dizzy et al, that's more of a personal thing that shouldn't be brought up constantly. Yeah, the things they did were horrible and people should be aware of the bad things they've done in the past, but at this point everyone IS aware of that. It doesn't have to be brought up over and over again, especially given that they don't... do that anymore. People change. You can bare a grudge against them if you want to, but eventually you're going to be the one that looks like an asshole for it, and that time is coming pretty quickly.

 No.4731

>>4728
actually some dogs can eat chocolate, it's only certain popular breeds that cant

 No.4732

>>4728
>And honestly, I'm having trouble parsing when pointing out irony is allowed on this site and not considered a "jab".
If it's related to past drama, don't post it.  And when in doubt, don't post it, at least if you don't want to get banned.  You can try contacting a member of the mod team in private if you want to remove doubt.

>Should I have prefaced that with ...
No, you shouldn't have posted it all.  Read again what !!Zecora told you about bringing up past drama.

>>4730
>I personally think people should be reminded as often as possible about people being literal white supremacists
Mint actually isn't a white supremacist.  Let's start with a definition of "white supremacy", so that we're all on the same page: "the belief that white people are superior to those of all other races, especially the black race, and should therefore dominate society".  
If anything, Mint believes that whites are 'inferior' to East Asians.  And even then, when he talks about "superior" or "inferior", he is just talking about average IQ and other factors of how individuals function in modern society -- he is making falsifiable statements about facts of the world, not about how things ought to be.  He isn't saying that whites should have dominance over blacks.  He isn't saying that every white person is superior to every black person.  He isn't saying that whites have intrinsically greater moral worth than blacks.

 No.4736

File: 1563164444766.png (2.03 MB, 1800x3000, 3:5, 59853CD8-F8B1-4FDA-9274-E0….png) ImgOps Google

>>4715
>How can he ask we allow someone who chronically broke the rules back on the site when he does not think people of different races should be allowed to live together in the same country?
There’s a difference between tolerating a group and an individual. A group is just an average, an individual is someone you can talk to and empathise with.

I tend to have a lot of empathy for people that are bullied and receive no empathy for others. I don’t know if it was because I was bullied, or if I’m just like that, but I tend to feel sorry for the people that no one else accepts. You might call that hypocritical, but that’s just how I feel, I can’t help it.

>>4732
Thank you!

 No.4739

>>4732
Ok, saying someone isn't a "white supremacist" because they don't believe all races are inferior to whites is splitting hairs to a ridiculous degree. It's also a tactic used by racists to claim what they believe isn't racially motivated and something you should not be perpetuating. Even if he thinks some races are superior or equal to whites, he still believes that some are inferior. He believes that whites are superior to blacks and hispanics, and probably others and has admitted so. He also believes that the government should operate with the assumption that those races are inferior to whites, which brings us to my next point.

Furthermore, he is ALSO a white nationalist. He believes that whites should be segregated from those races he deems "inferior". And that the government should be run by whites and should have dominion over any of the "inferior" people who are allowed to live in those "white" countries.

And I don't see how any of that ISN'T saying that whites have more moral worth than blacks.

 No.4746

>>4739
>Furthermore, he is ALSO a white nationalist. He believes that whites should be segregated from those races he deems "inferior". And that the government should be run by whites and should have dominion over any of the "inferior" people who are allowed to live in those "white" countries.
No, he just wants each ethnicity (especially his own) to have it own homeland.  He wants a vast majority of Britain to be ethnically British.  He doesn't want a large population of minorities regardless of whether he regards them as being 'superior' to British people or 'inferior' to them.

 No.4747

>>4746
Yeah, but that still involves kicking millions of people out of their homes to create this "ethnic homeland". Britain is one of the most diverse countries in the world. What is the point of seeking out this "ethnic homeland" and displacing millions of people? What is motivating that desire and what is the potential gain from it?

 No.4748

>>4747
>What is motivating that desire and what is the potential gain from it?
Yeah, that's where I get lost too.  I hope Mint tries to examine his beliefs more carefully.  He might discover he was really wrong about something and update his beliefs accordingly.

 No.4749

>>4748
It was a rhetorical question. We know what's motivating it. Racism.

 No.4753

File: 1563172342735.jpg (173.46 KB, 805x1261, 805:1261, 30.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4732
I absolutely love how you're defending a racist based on semantics.

 No.4754

>>4753
I wasn't going to say it, but yeah, he is.

Chain gets hung up on semantics a lot.

 No.4755

I'd just like to point out that the thread is not a trial to determine how racist Mint is.

 No.4756

File: 1563173015454.jpg (235.29 KB, 500x561, 500:561, 99.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4755
Indeed it isn't, but it is still somewhat related.

Manley calling out Mint for being racist shouldn't be considered an unnecessary jab. Calling out racists and nazis should not be punished, no matter how many times a person does it or how off topic it is.

If you make it against the rules to do so, you're no better than a nazi or racist yourself. Those who do not speak out against evil contribute to the growth of evil.

Even if Mint isn't a full on Nazi or a White Supremacist by technicality, he should still be called out on his racist views.

So it's not really a trial about how racist Mint is, it's already confirmed that Mint is at least somewhat racist, and he should be able to be called out for it at any time up until the point that he stops holding those views, or discussing them, period.

Up to you, though. I would like Mint if he didn't hold those views, he seems like a nice enough person otherwise.

 No.4758

File: 1563184377300.gif (248.37 KB, 232x250, 116:125, 69C644FD-0418-46E5-A77E-AE….gif) ImgOps Google

Can anyone explain to me why East Asians have bigger brains than White people? Is it a “cultural” factor?

>The world’s largest survey of brain sizes, conducted by American scientists three decades ago using more than 20,000 modern human skulls from around the globe, found that the average cranial volume among East Asians was 1,415 cubic centimetres, compared with 1,362 for Europeans

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.scmp.com/news/china/article/2054126/why-do-asians-have-bigger-brains-europeans-or-africans

I suppose the shape of ones skull or the size of their brain have absolutely no correlation with intelligence or personality?

https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/forensic-facial-reconstruction/0/steps/25658

 No.4760

Alright, just no.  If you want to talk about skull sizes do it on /townhall/, I'm sure people have things to say, just somewhere else.  I am locking this thread, all questions have been answered and it doesn't require further discussion.

>As for Grace, I guess it wasn't implicitly part of the conversation because I wasn't calling for them to not be listened to. Being nice to people for the sake of it IS good advice, I just found the source of that advice ironic, given that person(s)'s history of complacency in utterly heinous acts. And honestly, I'm having trouble parsing when pointing out irony is allowed on this site and not considered a "jab". Should I have prefaced that with "You should listen to them, even if they haven't always followed their own advice."?

Like Chain said, just don't post that.  That's the drama.  For an easy rule just don't even talk about the situation between you two.  If something comes up and you think it's really super important that people know, come ask me about it and I will tell you if it is appropriate to post or not.


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]