Direction of Community

[Andy Brown]

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Also, "being trans" can be a choice in certain respects, for certain people

I'm going to disagree there; being open about it is a choice, as is burying it so far deep inside that nobody else ever knows, but being trans is just how you are

[thejeff]

Andy Brown wrote:

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Also, "being trans" can be a choice in certain respects, for certain people

I'm going to disagree there; being open about it is a choice, as is burying it so far deep inside that nobody else ever knows, but being trans is just how you are

That's probably part of that nuance that should be scuttled so we don't scrape sandbars.

[Cori Marie]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Cori Marie wrote:

Nah, that's not at all all that I'm asking for. I'm asking for people to listen to marginalized voices when they tell you that they're hurting and not to demand emotional bandwidth from them to explain to you for the sixtieth time why all the dogs are barking after this person blew a loud dog whistle.

Then I'm sorry, but no.

That isn't listen to. That is believe. You're not asking me to listen to someone just because of who they are, you're not asking to have your evidenced weighed in as an expert, you are asking for full unmitigated faith in someone because of who they are when I know with absolute certainty that people make mistakes on that matter.

That is a level of judgement suspension my doctor doesn't get.

I absolutely did not say "believe" me. I said listen to me. I said don't expect me to teach you why the things that are being said are hurtful. You have the internet, I'm sure you know how to use Google. If you can't be bothered to google on your own, and still wish to demand the emotional labor of the marginalized to teach you? You're coming in bad faith.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Nuanced Tangent:

No experience is universal, and I know trans people for whom it's more of a "this is nice, I guess we'll go with this" experience, and they consider it more of a choice, and I love them for it. I'm not getting into it beyond that here.

[Fergie]

To put it in rodent terms- The mice can't play when the cat is around.

If you want to have spaces be more free and open for debates, and more prone to giving people the benefit of the doubt, you have to get rid of the cat first.

This is how our grandparents got rid of the cat!
We did it before, and we can do it again! We did it before, and we will do it again!

[Rysky]

“It's intimidation, demoralizing, and an attempt to discourage meaningful conversation. If you can think of a better or more accurate term for that behavior then I'd gladly adopt that term.”

Tired.

When someone points out something is bad, like bigotry, and someone else comes in with a “well actually due to pedantism” even with the best of intentions what are you actually accomplishing other than simply giving bigots a reprieve? Giving them the smallest amount of okay/normalcy to hold on to to hold themselves up, all in the name of “well, actually”.

What did you achieve?

[Heather F]

I've removed some more stuff, and quoted stuff, and you know the drill. I apologise if I missed anything but you know how to reach us, and you all are doing a great job of that, so thank you!

Oh, and just a reminder....

Intolerance is not welcome here, in any way. We WILL suspend you permanently.

[Gortle me a Gortle]

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

I am honestly just so tired of feeling like …

this is so spot on, so well written … words fail me

thank you

here is a take of a word usage that might help to understand the nature of how pervasive an exclusionary term can be yet not be seen as the dogwhistle it actually is

a racist past wrote:

after the American Civil War, a large group of people still wanted to be biased, bigoted racists and not allow former slaves - or anyone who appeared like they could be one - to have rights (all sorts of rights)

so they made these policies and worded them in this sort of a manner
If your grandfather had this right, then you automatically have that right.
If your grandfather did not have this right, then you have to jump through these hoops or you cannot have that right.
and they applied this to many many things like voting, like running for political office, like owning property, like just about any avenue through which one could acquire prosperity or power
and this was called
Being Grandfathered In
have you ever heard that term used?
did you know it has an extremely racist, exclusionary origin?
well you might not yet there are many that do
and those that are aware of its etymology and hold those same beliefs will use it as a sort of code, a dog whistle, to both call to others of their ilk and indoctrinate the general populace towards their beliefs through repeated exposure to the bigotry and hate

that is what a dog whistle is

an innocuous sounding term or gesture or … which ‘those in the know’ understand
and which is used repeatedly as a way to normalize their extremist and evil views

if you didn’t know and someone said
yo! that’s a dog whistle for bigots and racists!
then maybe it’s be nice if you said
whoa!?! really?!?
then took sometime to do some research and better inform yourself

of course, another dog whistle is to respond to that type of an exchange with
you called it out, you must take the time and effort and energy and … to educate me as to why what you claim is fact is actually fact
when someone tells you 2 plus 2 equals 4 do you go
wait a minute there! are you sure? you best be explaining yourself!

the problem is dog whistles are, for the most part, explicitly designed to be subtle and coded and not blatantly obvious

yet they are massively pervasive - like saying ‘grandfathered in’
that is, they are designed to get someone who isn’t inherently on the side of the dog whistlers to use them and normalize them

[Tonya Woldridge]

Locking thread for moderation.

[Hilary Moon Murphy]

I was in the process of posting something else here when this thread closed for moderation. Now that it is once again open, I thought of something. Tonya closed it, and then reopened it.

Tonya has left in place pretty much every thread that has criticized her personally, especially ones that allow the users of this forum to talk about future directions for moderation. I think that is pretty classy, and I really want to acknowledge that.

Hmm

[keftiu]

There isn’t a middle ground on transphobia. It’s really that simple.

[Umbral Reaver]

I just noticed the flagging options have been changed. There's no longer an 'offensive/insulting' option. You have to outright call something hate speech or harassment now.

This reduces our ability to condemn dogwhistles.

[Umbral Reaver]

So you know what. I'm going to just start flagging dogwhistles as hate speech.

Mods, you have to deal with this.

[Gortle me a Gortle]

dog whistles are, by definition, hate speech

while it is possible the one using the dog whistle phrasing is unaware of the dog whistling context, the speaker being uninformed of any such underlying content doesn’t change hate speech to something else
it is still, by definition, hate speech

that only means the speaker was poorly informed (and hopefully has interest in learning so as to not repeat inadvertently using and propagating hate speech)

[Umbral Reaver]

Yeah.

[knightnday]

I disagree. There has been and can be a community. Right now, however, we have a number of folks that seem unhappy with the rules of the community. Rules are important for a civilization and a community and one of the big ones here is Everyone Has A Right To Exist.

There is no middle ground. There isn't room for discussion. It is a decided fact and once people understand that then the community can begin to heal and grow.

If one believes there is room to discuss this fact then perhaps this community isn't one that is good for that person. There are many, many, SO SO MANY places on the internet where you can discuss this fact and say whatever you want. This isn't the place for it, and no amount of pushing at the fact or annoying the mods is going to change that.

Edited to add: Not to say that there aren't other problems here, but the current wave of transphobia and inexplicably slavery have caused problems here.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I really like the new flagging options. There's finally an explicit item for "Baiting", which is long-overdue and should make it a lot easier to flag people who are just trying to start something.

I do think "Hate Speech" might confuse some people, but hopefully not by much.

[Hilary Moon Murphy]

I like it too. I kind of miss the 'insulting' line but the rest of the additions are great.

Hmm

[Tender Tendrils]

I find the expectation that I have to be courteous (especially when people define courteous as "don't call me on my hate speech") and to respect people's "right to an opinion" (you don't have a right to express your opinion on a privately owned forum, or when it harms people - freedom of speech only applies to the government and public spaces, and doesn't apply to hate speech, and expressly doesn't apply to social media or most of the internet) when they are saying that they don't believe I should be allowed to exist or are trying to demand that paizo cater to their slavery fetish.

They bring discourtesy (discourtesy is a massive understatement) into the conversation by spewing hateful nonsense, and then demand their definition of courtesy (which is to assume that their bad faith dog whistles are actually innocent and not call them on it) from those who are harmed by their speech.

The validity of my gender and my right to feel safe isn't up for discussion. It isn't up for you to "weigh the evidence". If I tell you I am a woman, yes, you do have to take it on faith that I know who I am. You aren't entitled to your own independent opinion on that or to explanations or evidence on that.

[ChickenParm]

Fergie wrote:

To put it in rodent terms- The mice can't play when the cat is around.

If you want to have spaces be more free and open for debates, and more prone to giving people the benefit of the doubt, you have to get rid of the cat first.

This is how our grandparents got rid of the cat!
We did it before, and we can do it again! We did it before, and we will do it again!

I’m not sure it’s the best choice in a conversation about bigotry to link to a video that has a racist depiction of the Japanese.

[Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti]

Equity is more important than equality. Not all opinions are equal especially those that degrade or question the humanity of other people.

[Tonya Woldridge]

Removed some posts for personal harassment, baiting, and hate speech.

The revised flags should help moderators review flags and process moderation activities. As was said by another member, dog whistles are hate speech and should be marked as such. Offensive/insulting was a bit vague, so we took it off. If we find that we need it back, we will be able to add it back in.

As Aaron noted upthread, we pulled together a group of employees from across the different teams to work together to address forum issues. These include community guideline revisions. We'll post updates when we have them!

[Mark Stratton]

I am a cis-hetero white Jewish male.

I have been called nearly every slur for Jew that you can think of. In college, I was thrown to the ground and called a f*cking Jew. I have heard people make a variety of remarks they think are clever, like “Jewing so-and-so out of something”.

I have heard the anti-Semitic slurs and dog whistles.

I don’t need to be a member of the LGBTQ community to know the dog whistles hurled about them. My own experience has helped to tune me in when it’s being done to others.

Maybe you can’t hear them, but trust the people who tell you they are there. If you don’t trust them, then it’s either because you don’t care, you want to just be ignorant (as in “not knowing something”), or you condone them. There really are no other options.

So, please, if you aren’t able to help our friends who are in the community that is currently under attack, then for God’s sake, please don’t make it worse for them by denying that it’s happening.

[Gortle me a Gortle]

Tonya Woldridge wrote:

As was said by another member, dog whistles are hate speech and should be marked as such.

thank you

[Fergie]

ChickenParm wrote:

I’m not sure it’s the best choice in a conversation about bigotry to link to a video that has a racist depiction of the Japanese.

Oh damn! Forgot about that part! Yeah, 1943 might have been wise to fascism, but pretty rough in the racism department.

Please feel free to delete that one.

[Sandal Fury]

I'm trying to understand. I thought I had a decent idea of what a "dog whistle" is. Now apparently the definition includes idioms with checkered pasts (i.e. "grandfathered in" or "rule of thumb"), but it's also being violently thrown to the ground and being blatantly insulted. I mean, "Jew" obviously isn't a slur, but in context it was clearly meant as an insult (I'm Jewish, too. Been there).

Again, I'm on the outside looking in, but it feels like we're working with very broad definitions here. This doesn't help to dispel the notion that everything remotely disagreeable is being categorized as a dog whistle, and therefore, hate speech.

[El Waiki]

pauljathome wrote:

Rysky wrote:

"You should only be prepared to silence the intolerant when they renounce rational argument."

Bigotry isn't rational to begin with.

Unfortunately, not really true.

If you're the person in power (or, at least, with more power) due to things like skin colour, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc etc then it is rational to fight to maintain that power.

Evil, disgusting, awful and definitely counterproductive in the long term.

But it is rational, at least in the short term

While I was talking mainly about racism and sexism here far more than bigotry against LBGT+ people, bigotry against LBGT+ can also be rational IF your desire is to gain political power from like minded bigots, defend morally indefensible religious views, etc

Lets not confuse evil with irrationality. Evil people can act terribly in order to rationally achieve their disgusting goals

In that cases, while the goal is rational, remaining in power, the argument is not. Unless they admit the goal is to remain in power, which would be a hard sell, they would have to find alternate ways to justify their bigotry which undoubtedly wouldn't stand to scrutiny.

[The Raven Black]

Let's not forget that there are human beings on the mod team, who will freely and willfully decide if a flagged post actually deserves its flag.

Nothing new and no reason to fear.

[Umbral Reaver]

And before someone goes 'it's not fair to ban someone for one ignorant mistake,' I will remind you that there are people active on these forums that reliably display the same ignorance over and over at every opportunity.

[Mark Stratton]

Sandal Fury wrote:

I'm trying to understand. I thought I had a decent idea of what a "dog whistle" is. Now apparently the definition includes idioms with checkered pasts (i.e. "grandfathered in" or "rule of thumb"), but it's also being violently thrown to the ground and being blatantly insulted. I mean, "Jew" obviously isn't a slur, but in context it was clearly meant as an insult (I'm Jewish, too. Been there).

Again, I'm on the outside looking in, but it feels like we're working with very broad definitions here. This doesn't help to dispel the notion that everything remotely disagreeable is being categorized as a dog whistle, and therefore, hate speech.

Dog whistles can also be tropes, etc. that some won’t get but the message gets through.

In and of itself, no, “Jew” is not a dog whistle - it is context dependent.

Yes, I take a very broad definition of dog whistle, probably broader than most people here - generally, something really overt isn’t a dog whistle - it’s just out and out racism/sexism/transphobia/etc. But I view it all the same.

[Rysky]

Oh hey we were just talking about dog whistles too.

[Master Han Del of the Web]

Gotta love the idea that we're actively seeking out random threads and performing loyalty tests on unsuspecting forum goers. I've certainly restricted myself to relevant threads and only brought things up when they are either relevant to the conversation at hand or someone has come out with an impressively bad take.

[pauljathome]

Sandal Fury wrote:

This doesn't help to dispel the notion that everything remotely disagreeable is being categorized as a dog whistle, and therefore, hate speech.

I think this is exaggerating, but for the sake of argument lets say that its not.

So what?

I have to carefully craft my arguments so as not to be disagreeable, so as not to offend people, so as to not deny people there basic rights? I can STILL make pretty much any reasonable argument I want to (assuming I'm in the right place to do it), I just have to do it more carefully.

As an example, I can still respectfully argue politics with somebody, or vaccination policies, or the like (NOT here, but elsewhere). I just have to do it respectfully.

I think that is just fine.

[thejeff]

Mark Stratton wrote:

Sandal Fury wrote:

I'm trying to understand. I thought I had a decent idea of what a "dog whistle" is. Now apparently the definition includes idioms with checkered pasts (i.e. "grandfathered in" or "rule of thumb"), but it's also being violently thrown to the ground and being blatantly insulted. I mean, "Jew" obviously isn't a slur, but in context it was clearly meant as an insult (I'm Jewish, too. Been there).

Again, I'm on the outside looking in, but it feels like we're working with very broad definitions here. This doesn't help to dispel the notion that everything remotely disagreeable is being categorized as a dog whistle, and therefore, hate speech.

Dog whistles can also be tropes, etc. that some won’t get but the message gets through.

In and of itself, no, “Jew” is not a dog whistle - it is context dependent.

Yes, I take a very broad definition of dog whistle, probably broader than most people here - generally, something really overt isn’t a dog whistle - it’s just out and out racism/sexism/transphobia/etc. But I view it all the same.

I think there's a big difference between dog whistles and idioms like "grandfathered in". Not to deny the racist history of that phrase, but the point of dog whistles is that they're used intentionally while remaining deniable. The vast majority of the time, "grandfathered in" is used innocently, in a context unrelated to any racial implications. It doesn't play the same role as a dog whistle.

It may still be worth pointing out the racial history of the term and avoiding it, but it's not a sign that the person using it is prejudiced or anything.

[Cori Marie]

I think the point of bringing up "grandfathered in" was to show that something that started as a dog whistle (because that's what it was when the phrase was coined) can become a common part of the vernacular if you're not vigilant about not allowing the dog whistles to fester.

[MadScientistWorking]

MadScientistWorking wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

the whole house came crashing down.

Everything you're listing though was in place and already unstable long before the change. If I try to tack up a picture and the entire wall falls down, someone severely messed up way before I missed a nail. At best it's more than a little head scratchingly weird to try to blame a proximate cause for a long series of ultimate causes that were going to come crashing down at SOME point anyway.

That isn't an excuse considering the fact that she was explicitly warned that this was a problem years before it ever blew up publicly by someone I know. Now sure that was Organized Play but the sentiment was that bad actors in that community can drive people away is kind of a universal issue. But no she kind of dug her head into the ground and just sort of ignored what was going on.

Actually, dumb dumb forgot a very important point. I sent an email on August 16 of this year complaining about how Organized Play members including myself had to do the work of forum moderation. And that email was explaining about the racist hellhole that has occurred in the past.

And mind you I wasn't expecting much to get done because the VO corps handled it as well as I could expect but it definitely should have served as a warning that the potential of this current chaos existed.

Im still a little incensed about that because I should not have to lead off a conversation with my venture captain with," So Crystal Fraiser was complaining about how little Paizo cared about its community and after investigating one of the local VAs was the cause of her being upset."