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 →

[–]fschmidt 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (16 children)

Okay, that's in the image. But at the top of the image is "explicitly refutes the central point" which is what most of my comment did. So in the balance, my comment was up the pyramid of debate. Only name-calling without substance would justify a strike.

[–]AXXA 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

Your criticism is valid. Jason has said that rules should be clear and I'm understanding now that he is right. The Saidit rules aren't as clear as they could be. Perhaps /u/magnora7 or /u/d3rr can help clarify the rules to avoid future misunderstanding.

1) Don't advocate violence.

2) Don't insult fellow Saiditors.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

I think the line is name calling by itself is not allowed, advocating violence is not allowed. A little name calling or ad hominem in an otherwise productive comment is okay.

[–]AXXA 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 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 -  (12 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 -  (11 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 -  (10 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!