[ 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.4829

File: 1567375191390.png (9.98 KB, 370x320, 37:32, 4XTFNGL.png) ImgOps Google

Just in case the site staff didn't notice, there are objections to the mod post >>>/townhall/1518 (see the replies to that post).

Personally I think that thread is a clusterfuck that should have been locked at the earliest opportunity.  But given that it was allowed to continue, i think it's an unfair double standard to condemn people in that thread for trying to show Falcon how bad his arguments are by repackaging those arguments with race instead of gender.  If it's dehumanizing when done with race, then it's dehumanizing when done with gender too.

 No.4830

Have to agree. I presume the staff don't actually believe that it's okay to dehumanize one group of people, but not another, right?
if that's the case, the rules ought to reflect that, and so if somebody is warned for simply citing statistics while trying to demonstrate faulty reasoning, then surely the same should be said for the guy citing statistics and advocating for the genocide of men.

And just so we're clear, nobody once advocated genocide aside from the OP

 No.4831

Well, Mooney has clarified.
It is in fact okay on this website to dehumanize people based on their gender, just not their race

History is irrelevant to principle. It's either okay or it isn't. This shit should not stand.

 No.4832

Incidentally, this line from Moony?
>"The Racialism posts were not framed in that same hypothetical tone, and it is a topic people take very seriously, and genuinely vouch for."
Yeah, that's bullshit.
The topic was specifically brought up in order to demonstrate that OP s standard is unacceptable.
not a single person actually advocated the extermination of black people. The only person I became the extermination of any group of people was OP.
Claiming that the posts made bring up this specific inconsistent argumentation we're doing it in a serious manner, as though they were advocating what only the op ever suggested, is frankly dishonest and disgusting. That sure as hell was never something I did.

Is this is seriously the kind of site that is okay with people advocating for genocide?

 No.4833

Shit. What do you do when the troll posters troll themselves, eh?

 No.4834

Is promoting genocide allowed?
> i am going to second Zecora's warning, but expand upon it and also note to OP that more careful phrasing is preferred in future OP's so as not to implicate a moral obligation of extermination. There's no place for that here, and if you wanted to bring up this hypothetical, there are much better ways of presenting the actually topic at hand:

> Is a women only society better off, or not?

And there is a hard nope on promoting White suppremacy as a biological fact.
That is very reasonable as well.

Just take the warning and be happy you aren't strongly banned yet.

 No.4835

>>4834
If that was the case how come the thread is allowed to continue, and the op allowed to continue arguing exactly that point?

And moreover, it doesn't address at all the dehumanization aspect, of which explicitly was stated that posting statistics about black people is dehumanizing and racist, but, posting statistics about men was left alone.

 No.4836

File: 1567381822212.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

...aw, gee, no wonder nobody wanted to respond to this one...

>>4829
>>4830
i don't think it dehumanizes men. i'm a man. the staff consensus was that it doesn't dehumanize men. We are overwhelmingly male.

The OP doesn't "advocate" anything. it gives a science fiction hypothetical:

It asks, would women alone make a better society than the current one?

You could definitely answer no.

Okay, if they did, would it be morally obligated to have a women only society?

i'd argue no. You could argue that, too! Instead, you're trying to shut down the hypothetical by calling the OP a person who is advocating genocide.

And ultimately, we shut down the thread because of the racist undertones that had come up, that weren't going away despite warning.

>>4833
>>4834
Seriously, i am at a loss here. i feel our decision was very generous, all things considered.

>>4835
Again, in part, that's because the hypothetical is so patently absurd.

You're -really- afraid of this topic, like it's seriously being considered, but it's absurd: nobody could, or would, get rid of all men. Just like, cull half the population? The half that is -in power?-

Where does this fear come from, exactly?

For blacks, that's something that has precedent, and people are dying right now because of racialist philosophies. It's not science-fiction; that fear is rooted in reality.

i mean, noonim, can you REALLY tell me that we men should have reason to be afraid that the women are going to come after us and kill us all? come on now. Aren't we getting reaaaaally scared and reaaaaaally upset over nothing at all?

 No.4837

>>4836
Statistics about black people claiming that they are more prone to violence is dehumanizing, right?
So why is it saying not dehumanizing to men?

Op Argues in favor of his given solution. He argues the inferiority of men, citing statistics to claim that men are more prone to violence, crime, and so on, in order to justify why a society where men did not exist would be better.
He spent quite a lot of time doing exactly this.

>i'd argue no. You could argue that, too! Instead, you're trying to shut down the hypothetical by calling the OP a person who is advocating genocide.
Well, that's a lie.
do you know what I actually did? Do you know what you can demonstrate I did if you go back and look at the thread?
I applied his same logic to a different case. I demonstrated why is idea would not work. Why his idea is morally unacceptable. Why it is flan. Why by his own standards, he would not agree with it.
the only time I advocated shutting down op was when you shut down my argumentation against op.
Apparently, arguing against somebody advocating for genocide is racist.

>And ultimately, we shut down the thread because of the racist undertones that had come up, that weren't going away despite warning.
and you didn't give a damn about the sexist undertones that were present, did you?
It's apparently perfectly acceptable for somebody to dehumanize men. You can say men are inherently violent all you want on this website, but if you do it to any other group, you're a bad person I guess.
The standards are not equal.

 No.4838

>>4836
>You're -really- afraid of this topic, like it's seriously being considered, but it's absurd: nobody could, or would, get rid of all men. Just like, cull half the population? The half that is -in power?-
Does power not ever shift?
and I'm not even inclined to agree with you on that anyway. I think women have plenty of power within modern society.

as for how it could be done, how about something simple? How about sterilization.
yes, given the history of humanity, I am afraid that somebody could come into power advocating for the genocide of any particular group, whether it be a particular race, gender, or Creed. Because it has happened before.
it's why I argued very strongly against what app suggested. Unfortunately, doing so was evidently racist.

>i mean, noonim, can you REALLY tell me that we men should have reason to be afraid that the women are going to come after us and kill us all? come on now. Aren't we getting reaaaaally scared and reaaaaaally upset over nothing at all?
No. What I'm afraid of is specifically ideologues cropping up advocating for genocide. because this has happened in the past before with countless other groups. You seem to assume that these groups are all different. That black people are somehow separate from the rest of humanity. I disagree. I think that this can happen to any group. I think that any group canby dehumanized, and eventually, using that logic, exterminated.
It's why I argue very strongly anytime it ever comes up.
it's also why I have it particular dislike when to separate standards are used, because one has evidently not yet happened

 No.4839

>>4836
>Seriously, i am at a loss here. i feel our decision was very generous, all things considered.
if you wanted to be generous, I would have suggested simply leaving the thread as it was. Progress was being made, understanding was being developed I think.
OP had expressed why using statistics to dehumanize black people as he had done with men was unacceptable. He had established something I could take hold of end used to demonstrate a lack of consistency.

If you wanted generousness, why would you assume the absolute worst of the people who are actively arguing against genocide in that thread? The context was clear in that regard. We were explicitly expressing why might the arguments that proposed did not hold up if you applied them to other subjects. The whole point of the analogy was to demonstrate that what aunt had proposed was unacceptable, and that statistics are not the end-all be-all. But, the people who are arguing against Bob and his genocide all suggestion using dehumanizing language against men were told that they were dehumanizing black people, while OP was left alone to continue doing exactly what he was doing already.

My contention is, as always, a lack of fairness. You say it's not allowed to do one thing, but it is allowed to do it in another instance. I've never appreciated that. You know this. You know it was never to do with any punishment. It's never been.

 No.4840

File: 1567383793978.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>4837
Noonim... i get you're upset, and can even understand some of the reasons why. Ultimately, it comes down to our rules though, and i'm afraid i just don't agree with your logic.

i can see why you thought some of the things you thought, given the lens you are looking through, but all of it also strikes me as hyperbolizing.

i have no interest in calling myself inherently violent, or protecting that perspective. i think though, you've taken something, and made it something else, noonim.

>>4838
>Does power not ever shift?
i mean, sure it does. But it's not like it's a light-switch. And we're literally talking about half the biological population.

But why are we even talking about this?

NOBODY was advocating for the eradication of males. The hypothetical presented it, and it was on the line. The conversation was brought over the line into KILL THE MEN RIGHT NOW by people who took it there out of fear, not to answer the hypothetical

>>4838
... i hope you will remain this empathetic and passionate when other groups are gently brushed up against, like has happened in this OP.

...here's a deal. i can understand where you're coming from, Noonim. If you can help me by not being racist in the future, i can assure you that the staff will take reports against this sort of thread more seriously in the future too.

>>4839
i didn't assume the worst of anything, really.
>If you wanted generousness, why would you assume the absolute worst of people  ...
do you not feel as if this is... just maaaaaybe the pot calling the kettle black?

Why do you assume the worst of people, going from 0 to genocide like this, and then expect some sort of grace in return?

You brought up genocide, and turned the topic into genocide. Your side of the argument then implicated racism, and ran with it.

i'm starting to get a bit flustered myself, and that's not fair to you.

>You say it's not allowed to do one thing, but it is allowed to do it in another instance.

Because they're different things, with totally different contexts. "Why can i throw the tennis ball at the wall, but not at the window?" Because the ball bounces off of one, and crashes through the other, causing property damage.

There is nuance, and we try our best to interpret that nuance fairly, rather than flattening everything, or allowing everything [ no tennis balls allowed/break whatever you want].

i don't appreciate you asking for "fairness" which is, in effect, the opposite of fairness, and more akin to tyranny

On this topic, the two of us are not likely to see eye to eye, i'm afraid.

 No.4841

>>4840
If those are the rules, the rules here are pretty messed up.
rules should apply to everybody equally. Dehumanizing language should be allowed for anyone, if it isn't allowed.

>NOBODY was advocating for the eradication of males. The hypothetical presented it, and it was on the line. The conversation was brought over the line into KILL THE MEN RIGHT NOW by people who took it there out of fear, not to answer the hypothetical
the hypothetical expressed a top explicitly argued in favor of throughout the entire thread involved specifically getting rid of a massive chunk of the population. You can call it hypothetical, and that's fine, but in that case, if I made the exact same thread, but swapped out the words men for black people, it should be just as acceptable.
you know that wouldn't be the case, however. You would delete the thread. This is why I say the rules are not fair, they are not just, they applied differently for different peoples, and that is wrong. If it is not okay to hypothetically advocate the genocide of a particular race, it should not be okay to hypothetically advocate the genocide of particular gender.

>... i hope you will remain this empathetic and passionate when other groups are gently brushed up against, like has happened in this OP.
I always have, consistently, throughout the years.
Do you know why?
because I apply my principles to everyone. Regardless of race, color or Creed. Everybody equaly gets the same treatment. Everyone enjoys the same rights. everyone is held accountable to the same laws. That is what I desire.

>...here's a deal. i can understand where you're coming from, Noonim. If you can help me by not being racist in the future, i can assure you that the staff will take reports against this sort of thread more seriously in the future too.
What I had done was not racist. demonstrating an inconsistency with in somebody else's logic using historic examples, explicitly examples that that person disagrees with, as does the person using them as an example, is not racist
You know well that I am not a racist.
I have some distaste for particular cultures, but that is all. And that is not raised. Race does not equate to culture.
I have not been, was not, and will never be, a racist, or act in a racist manner. I wholeheartedly deny, and rather strongly take offense, at the insinuation that I have been. I have not.

>do you not feel as if this is... just maaaaaybe the pot calling the kettle black?
as stated, I never brought it up until after you had decided to shut down a particular argumentation against OP.
Though personally I don't think it's a particularly radical assumption, given op spent the entirety of that thread defending, and arguing for, what he had said in the op.

Do you not think what was said in the op involved genocide?
Do you deny that op spend his time with in the thread specifically arguing that the answer to his question was yes?

>Why do you assume the worst of people, going from 0 to genocide like this, and then expect some sort of grace in return?
Because OP spent his time with in the thread arguing that the answer to his question was yes.
Ops hypothetical explicitly involved getting rid of a massive chunk of the population. A specific group of the population.

>You brought up genocide, and turned the topic into genocide. Your side of the argument then implicated racism, and ran with it.
I am sorry, but, it is a fact that the op contained within the given scenario genocide.
So, no, I didn't just pull it up out of the aether.

I did not imply racism, I implied bigotry.
This site as you put it brought up the racist arguments used in the past with the same exact statistics that op was using in regards to gender as a case and point for why his standards not only do not work, but, are inconsistent on his part.

>Because they're different things, with totally different contexts. "Why can i throw the tennis ball at the wall, but not at the window?" Because the ball bounces off of one, and crashes through the other, causing property damage.
Bad analogy.
A better case would be "why can I throw a tennis ball at Jerry, but not at Jim?", "Because Jim has been hit by a tennis ball in the past."

 No.4842

>>4840
>i didn't assume the worst of anything, really.
Something that kinda annoyed me (and maybe Noonim as well) was this:
>>>/townhall/1546
>And before anyone goes forth in bad faith to reframe the OP post in terms of Racialism,
^(Emphasis added)
I get that you see the analogy differently, but I don't think anyone was arguing in bad faith in that thread.  

Personally, I see the distinction you're making between a purely hypothetical case where someone is able to "quickly rid the world of all human males, in such a way that ... All biological men would suddenly disappear from the Earth and cease to exist" and the danger of actual ethnic cleansings or genocide.  One is hypothetical and the one is a real danger.  But I don't think the existing rules draw this distinction.

 No.4843

>>4841
>>4840
To clarify on that last part because evidently you don't seem to agree:

If you are allowed to hit me in the face, I should be allowed to hit you in the face.
That is the very base barebones standards at the lowest level for how I feel about both Justice and fairness as a whole.

what do you have demonstrated here today, and this is a fact, I don't want you arguing as if though this isn't actually what you said, because this is undeniable at this point especially given what you already stated, you've argued that there are two separate standards depending on what you are.

Because I am a man, it is ok to make a thread and argue in favor of my genocide, based on dehumanizing statistics.
however, if I did the exact same thing, but simply replaced, and only replaced, men with black people, that would be wrong and racist.

You have established to separate standard for two items doing the exact same thing. You have okay to the dehumanization of one group of people, but not another. Again, given that we had done exactly what op had done in regards towards men, this is an undeniable fact.
This is an objective observation of the events in question.
this cannot be denied. You can have your own interpretations of whether or not that was acceptable, but that at least, I think we can establish, is a flat standard.

so, now we reach the point where, if you say that it shouldn't be okay to dehumanize people, to argue in favor of their genocide, that means you are a tyrant. You want tyranny. How dare you want an equal standard applied to all groups of people regardless of their race sexual orientation or gender. you're a monster if you want that. You're a bad person for wanting equality. That is what you have said. That is why I disagree with you. That is why this is such a fundamental infuriating item for me. Because what you said is that I am lesser.

Let me reiterate that:
Because I am a man, you say I am lesser.
because I am a man, I should be held to a different standard than somebody else.
You establish two sets of rules based on what people are, and I find that not only thoroughly disgusting, but absolutely unacceptable. It's why I said for the record and I will continue to do so if it ever comes up again, I will not comply to any rule that requires me not to demonstrate the hypocrisy of somebody who is arguing in favor of genocide.
That is unacceptable to me.
if I can't even demonstrate their own hypocrisy using obvious examples oh, using an obvious and equivalent situation, then you might as well ban you right here and now, because I sure as hell I'm not about to do nothing when people sit by arguing for genocide. Of any people, by the way. Not just people like me, but anyone. Regardless of who the genocide is pointed towards, I will argue against that.

 No.4844

>>4842
I don't think the rules should draw a distinction. Both are horrifics. I don't care if it is hypothetical. I can make a hypothetical advocation for the genocide of black people, but that would make it any less wrong.

I am frankly rather horrified to learn that Mooney doesn't understand this.

As always, you can reach out to me at any point. I know that Luna at least has my discord.

 No.4845

File: 1567385946950.png (81.88 KB, 502x503, 502:503, really.png) ImgOps Google

>>4841
>If those are the rules, the rules here are pretty messed up.
rules should apply to everybody equally. Dehumanizing language should be allowed for anyone, if it isn't allowed.

Don't put words in my mouth.i disagreed that it was dehumanizing language at all. If it was, we'd be in agreement. i find this argument to a strawman.

>I always have, consistently, throughout the years.
i want to tread carefully here, as i am afraid of insulting you, as that is absolutely not my intention. But, i cannot agree that you have consistently stood up when this comes up with... let us say, other groups. quite the opposite, it is a topic that has come up, with frustration, amongst the staff before.

Which is not to call you the source of that, but the empathy is not shared in different situations, let us say.

>You know well that I am not a racist.
That's true. i don't believe that you are even a little racist. And i ask only that you don't give anyone reason to believe that either, in word or deed.

>I am sorry, but, it is a fact that the op contained within the given scenario genocide.
That is not a fact, that's what we in the business call "an opinion."

It invokes genocide as much as the Thanos hypothetical does: would the world be better if half the people were gone?

That's genocide, but of course that's not something anyone can do, or wants; it's a hypothetical, inspired by the Marvel universe; the same way OP was.

AND AGAIN; that's not the point. Don't be racist - that's the point. And perhaps the caveat that actions speak louder than words is applicable too, in that analysis.

>>4842
That statement was in reference to a post that might come in the future, like this one:

>1547
>Would it be acceptable for me to make the exact same kind of thread, but replacing the word men with black?

Note the use of tenses: before anyone goes forth ...

>>4843
>If you are allowed to hit me in the face, I should be allowed to hit you in the face.
NO. And that's not how the law is written, not how the world works, and that is the very sort of unthoughtout barbarity that civilization did away with thousands of years ago.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. On Ponyville, you will find, in most of the world, we have higher standards than tit for tat.

Especially when only you and one other seem to perceive the tit, and everyone else can only see the tat.

>>4844
>Let me reiterate that:
>Because I am a man, you say I am lesser.
Seriously, where is this even coming from? i am a man too, Noonim.

i see a lot of things i didn't say, didn't imply, and a really scary scarecrow you've built up there.

The entire discussion about "genocide" is moot. We'll definitely treat it more seriously in the future, as you cannot seem to deal with a hypothetical discussion that even Disney was okay with making a movie about.

The entire lock of the thread though, was about racism.

Here's the deal; don't be racist, and we're good! Gosh.

 No.4846

>>4844
I can sorta see Moony's point: allow as much free speech as possible without allowing things that are motivating people to literally go out and randomly kill people.  Like, if there were news stories about radical feminists shooting up gatherings of men, then Falcon's OP would have been condemned too.
But I also see the merits of your approach of consistent clean principles.  I think it's a matter that reasonable people can disagree over.

 No.4847

>>4845
so it's okay to post statistics about men, and claim that men are inherently violent, but it's not okay to do it about black people.
You see how these are two separate standards.

you can climb on putting words in your mouth all you want, but you've expressed this. In the thread. You said that arguing in the manner exactly the same as op was, but about black people, was the humanizing.

so not misrepresenting or putting words in your mouth. I'm staying in objective fact about what you have said.

 No.4848

>>4845
>But, i cannot agree that you have consistently stood up when this comes up with... let us say, other groups. quite the opposite, it is a topic that has come up, with frustration, amongst the staff before.
Well, you'd be mistaken. you can claim otherwise if you'd like, but I would wholeheartedly disagree with you.

and unfortunately, given your current standard for interpretation of events, I'm inclined to keep your opinion on the matter at a little bit of an arm's length, given that you don't seem to understand where I am meeting coming from at this point.
hell, you've accused me of racism. Why the hell should I listen to somebody who's so blatantly misrepresents me as to do that?

 No.4849

>>4829
>kill all men

Sounds great; i'll go first.

Noomy, please don't get so invested in such arguments.  It only hurts you.  Trust me, i know.

 No.4850

>>4846
Maybe. I can at least understand where you're coming from in that regard, but, I'm more concerned with potential futures, and principles. Like I said, there was a first time for everything that has ever been done.

 No.4851

File: 1567386339926.png (194.8 KB, 830x467, 830:467, Surprised shy 5.png) ImgOps Google

Also, wow Noonim.

>https://ponyville.us/pony/res/976856.html

i know i've been frustrated with you, and that's unbecoming of me. i sort of want to apologize for that, and i will; i know, as someone with authority on the site, that my words need to be more tempered, and i should be doing better to listen. i'm sorry for not keeping myself more composed.

i'm trying my best, and working through my character flaws.

Despite our differences in opinion though, i've always held respect for you, and always considered you a friend.

That said, i REALLY don't appreciate that thread up there. That's a pretty low blow, and is something that really damages the respect i have for you, and makes me sort of afraid.

 No.4852

This thread is getting to be a bit of a pain to reply to, more than a little bit because of but I'm trying to do this all on my phone, while driving no less. Naturally this is starting to make it a little unsafe with how heavily emotions have been heating up. So I think I'm going to have to call here, until I get home. I should be back around about 12 oh, but, unless you want to do something over voice, I unfortunately will have to get back to you.

 No.4853

>>4851
>https://ponyville.us/pony/res/976856.html
>That thread
Jesus!  Noonim, WTF did you expect to come from that.  We can have a civil conversation here (and I'm mostly on your side for what that's worth) but making that thread on /pony/ was completely out of line.  Take a breather, man.

 No.4854

>>4853
I had hoped people would care.
People did not care.
I had hoped if it wasn't just me maybe we can reach some reason, maybe if enough people who I thought would be upset by such an event would be able to make him understand.
Unfortunately I was evidently quite mistaken.

I'm not going to apologize for it, as I don't see anything wrong with it. I'll say that I probably won't ever do it again, because the response was absolutely abysmal.
Nobody cared at all. I don't understand why, but I always thought I wasn't that far off from everyone else, so it's been a bit of a rough wake up call.
I kind of explain more of that in the thread itself, though, and like I said, I want to avoid keeping up with this threat if I can. Something like this is mostly fine, since it's all calm, but, screaming angrily into a phone which causes a whole bunch of errors is just a bad idea while driving. Leaving aside ever driving while angry to begin with.

 No.4855

>>4853
it was made, by the way, quite early on. Before anybody responded to this canterlot threat, and before there was much of any response in the town hall thread.

I don't know if that really changes much, but I feel like it's important to clarify. Especially given what movie had said. But I'll leave that till I get home

 No.4856

>>4854
Have you considered the reason this isn't going as you imagine is that you are actually, factually in the wrong? Don't blame the people who have good sense for not dying on this hill with you.

 No.4857

File: 1567387375631.png (167 KB, 401x567, 401:567, O50.png) ImgOps Google

Great.

 No.4858

File: 1567387451163.png (798.14 KB, 1232x700, 44:25, day after day.png) ImgOps Google

i've talked with the staff, and done some self-reflection, and i think we need to lock this thread, too.

Noonim, i'm going to ask that you do not make another, but instead come talk to me in private, so we can discuss your points. Maybe we can even have a person to person phone conversation.

If, after that conversation, you and i are not more eye to eye, i won't stop you from continuing another thread or something.


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