Tucker Carlson film on George Soros is his latest antisemitic dog-whistle

submitted by ShalomEveryoneCommunist Party from theguardian.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]AXXA 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

This is the middle option of the other two options (either completely allowing or completely disallowing name calling) so I can buy this. I think the name calling was unnecessary and actually makes his argument weaker. But I guess what's important is that people make an effort to present a logical argument instead of relying purely on name calling. I still think that whatever rules we have should not be subjective. I don't want to judge if they've presented a good argument or not. I don't want to have to weigh the severity of the insult against the logic of the argument. Rules should be clear stated and non-subjective so it's clear that the moderator is not imposing their bias. I'm alright with these rules if you are.

1) Don't advocate violence.

2) Don't insult other Saiditors without arguing the point.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

I like it. This is not judging people's insults or arguments, just whether or not one or both of them are present.

[–]AXXA 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

Okay I will remove the strike against /u/fschmidt in his account notes. This might be difficult, but I believe these rules must be clearly announced and communicated to all of Saidit. If the rules aren't clear then that gives the impression that moderators are acting with bias. People will wonder why name calling is allowed sometimes and not other times and naturally conclude that moderators are biased. The rules being clear doesn't help at all if nobody knows what they are. I understand it's not appealing because it's basically inviting insults but we have to be upfront and honest about what the rules are and that they apply to everybody equally. This might be a difficult step but it will be a step in the right direction.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

I'm down man. It's awkward that our rules are an m7 post that no one can edit. And the mod rules are a second post. Maybe we'll make a single nice and clear wiki page that explains it better?

But yeah let's spell out these 2 clear things that will get you banned somehow.

[–]AXXA 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

/u/JasonCarswell you said before that rules should be clear and we listened. Can I ask you to add these two rules to a prominent place in the rules section of the wiki? https://saidit.net/wiki/index#wiki_rules Please make any changes to the phrasing or format that you feel would clarify the intent. Once you're done I will announce the changes on /s/SaidIt

Thank you.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

Thanks for inviting me to this discussion.

I updated the FAQ working with your good words. I got them as short and clear as I could, and I also intentionally kept your new meaning with the loophole that allows name-calling only with proper debate, yet I didn't want to make is so that it was now open season for insults accompanied by "debate". We could rework it if you like, but IMO it's much better as is for SaidIt. Further, IMO, I don't think we need to necessarily announce this as a "change" so much as an "update for clarity". I'd almost suggest skipping the announcement, but I do like transparency and I think our community likes hearing any news, especially good news, about/from SaidIt management. To the point: we don't want to unleash excess name-calling with this loophole.

cc /u/magnora7, /u/d3rr

[–]AXXA 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Jason your wiki changes look so amazing! Thank you so much! You captured the concept beautifully into words! /u/d3rr do you like the beautiful words Jason wrote on the rules wiki? If so I'd like to announce the rules wiki exactly as Jason has written. Jason you are the man!

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

it looks great. nice work guys.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Why remove the origin citation? Sources are good.

[–]AXXA 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

They can still see the citation if they look at your revision. I just don't want to be in the spotlight.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I don't understand. It's already an open discussion, the inspiration, and the source. No one will look at the revision history of the FAQ. As admin, you are by default in the spotlight, like it or not. Much more importantly, this is a tribute, NOT some kind of blame. You and d3rr deserve accolades for actually improving things and keeping things smooth. (I don't see how M7 could object to this.) Transparency means showing how the sausage is made. Credit is due, IMO, and it proves that it's not just some wiki FAQ pulled from nowhere.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Oh, feel free to announce whatever. I don't think anything has changed and it's not worth announcing.

[–]AXXA 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I just now announced the rules. I didn't announce any change.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

^

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I don't know why you don't just always point people to the FAQ (helpful in other ways too, worth building familiarity) instead of the old posts which are all cited in the FAQ.

Could/would you please make a some special shortcuts? (without capitalization problems):

[–]AXXA 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I will point people to the FAQ from now on.

[–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

1) Don't advocate violence.

2) Don't insult other Saiditors without arguing the point.

It's a very fair start.

Folks (mods, users, shills, etc.) may take (or steal) offense (or insult) and weaponize it at every opportunity, including when it's not given.

This is especially problematic when bad faith actors cry victim about being bullied when they're factually called out as liar, shill, sealion, troll, etc. which have no other simple words to accurately describe them. Obviously, "asstroll" is my favourite intentionally insulting portmanteau of "asshole" and "troll", which may or may not be considered fair and/or over the line to some.

Also, IMO, there can be a very creative art to skillfully insulting people in a huge variety of entertaining ways. Sadly we don't see this displayed too much on SaidIt, or anywhere for that matter, as people are generally lazy.

FYI: M7 asked me to add the "advocating violence" to the bottom of the original Pyramid Of Debate. Violence and name-calling are both generally bottom dwelling. Ad hominems are obviously not high-level debate, but SaidIt is not just about debating, and sometimes a simple summary without getting dragged down in the weeds is an effective warning to other readers.

It now occurs to me that perhaps we could perhaps develop, start, and share (here and on other sites) more shorthand codes that might help smooth some corners. For example:

  1. Ah, sarcasm, I think I've heard of that. /s
  2. Trudeau should re-legalize the guillotine. /av [audio/video]
  3. socks is a sealioning shill for authoritarianism. /nc [name-calling]
  4. ShalomEveryone can't be trusted to discuss Zionism fairly. /ah [ad hominem]
  5. wonderwoman types with a Southern accent in a deep throat. /tr [tone response]
  6. (((They))) may refer to Zionists but more commonly be Jews in general, and me trying to reclaim this single-handedly may be futile.
  7. ZZZTheyZZZ could be a better option specific to Zionists.
  8. $$$Banksters$$$, :::ruling class:::, !!!eugenicists!!!, and others might be worth developing too.

IIRC, the 3-strike system is not even mentioned in the rules, and it should be spelled out too, along with the 2-week, 2-month, 4-ever punishments, IMO.

cc /u/d3rr, /u/magnora7