I do want conservatives on here

heel79 said:
This was 2019 so I assume zzlp. Maybe not but it was what I would call the zzlp gang that went after me in that issue. I mean to me it was easy. Honor the mother or some person who had never met victim. I have never thought of myself as particularly thin-skinned, often joking that I grew another layer each year as an editor. I do believe - and this is on me- I took things more personal because I was not anonymous. There was a lot of stuff, especially early on. That I was too dumb to be editor or whatever. Also I think my job colored how I viewed the moderation and tolerance for other opinions. Part of my job was not only to tolerate dissent but to welcome it and display it.
Click to expand...
You got called out by the HRC because your interactions with them involved you explaining that being trans was like a cat pretending to be a dog. It denied the existance of trans people altogether and brought animals into the equation which ends up being dehumanizing. It's the trans equivalent of "Gay marriage? What's next, people marrying their turtles?" Can you see why the HRC assumed your motivations were less than noble given that you felt the need to explain to them that someone being trans was like one animal pretending it was a different animal?

I've had beliefs that I now regret. I went to high school with five hundred kids, one of whom wasn't white. If you dropped 20 year old me in a thread about DEI I would blow that thing up with ignorance. I didn't burst from the womb a champion of gay rights, and I'm certain that I have views right now that down the road will be regrettable. When I do step in it (and getting into that kind of spat with a major civil rights group qualifies as stepping in it) I can't pretend that the only reason people get mad at me is unfairness, political bias, or whatever other grievance bubbles to the top of my mind that day. You stepped in it and the board largely let it slide, which makes the grievance about unfairness irksome.
 
Lando said:
You got called out by the HRC because your interactions with them involved you explaining that being trans was like a cat pretending to be a dog. It denied the existance of trans people altogether and brought animals into the equation which ends up being dehumanizing. It's the trans equivalent of "Gay marriage? What's next, people marrying their turtles?" Can you see why the HRC assumed your motivations were less than noble given that you felt the need to explain to them that someone being trans was like one animal pretending it was a different animal?

I've had beliefs that I now regret. I went to high school with five hundred kids, one of whom wasn't white. If you dropped 20 year old me in a thread about DEI I would blow that thing up with ignorance. I didn't burst from the womb a champion of gay rights, and I'm certain that I have views right now that down the road will be regrettable. When I do step in it (and getting into that kind of spat with a major civil rights group qualifies as stepping in it) I can't pretend that the only reason people get mad at me is unfairness, political bias, or whatever other grievance bubbles to the top of my mind that day. You stepped in it and the board largely let it slide, which makes the grievance about unfairness irksome.
Click to expand...
I know what happened. You don't. You know what they published. They refused to let it go. I went about it thoughtfully and with an open mind, calling the sheriff and the family. Their intent was to create a circus. As I said at that time I did not think a person with a penis was a trans woman. I could have used an analogy of forks and spoons and wish I had. What would you have done with the info I provided? I am curious.
 
heel79 said:
I believe now that putting the victim in the category of trans woman murdered furthered their interests.
Click to expand...
Of course it did. That doesn't make them wrong. I think Lando makes some worthwhile points in general, but training them on your actions doesn't seem helpful or justified.

My last point, which is speculative but illustrative of the problems we face in public discourse. It wouldn't surprise me if you didn't react all that well to a Human Rights Campaign person showing up and impliedly calling you a violator of human rights. I don't think most people would respond all that well to it. At the same time, the HRC is probably used to dealing with thoughtless people in your position, people who aren't trying to understand or discuss but rather to dismiss. So your explanation was viewed in light of their past experience. It's like the problem of poster #10.

This is what happens when a nation's political discourse (and social discourse) gets taken over and consumed by bad-faith actors. Pretty soon everyone is being accused of being bad-faith, and that drives the good-faith people away so that we're left with mostly bad-faith BS. It's hard to operate respectfully when you are expecting to be dealing with a bad-faith actor, especially when the probability says that the suspected bad-faith is actually bad-faith.
 
superrific said:
Of course it did. That doesn't make them wrong. I think Lando makes some worthwhile points in general, but training them on your actions doesn't seem helpful or justified.

My last point, which is speculative but illustrative of the problems we face in public discourse. It wouldn't surprise me if you didn't react all that well to a Human Rights Campaign person showing up and impliedly calling you a violator of human rights. I don't think most people would respond all that well to it. At the same time, the HRC is probably used to dealing with thoughtless people in your position, people who aren't trying to understand or discuss but rather to dismiss. So your explanation was viewed in light of their past experience. It's like the problem of poster #10.

This is what happens when a nation's political discourse (and social discourse) gets taken over and consumed by bad-faith actors. Pretty soon everyone is being accused of being bad-faith, and that drives the good-faith people away so that we're left with mostly bad-faith BS. It's hard to operate respectfully when you are expecting to be dealing with a bad-faith actor, especially when the probability says that the suspected bad-faith is actually bad-faith.
Click to expand...
What lando doesn't know is that I responded civilly several times, did my calls to sheriff and family. And they would not take no. I got at least two phone calls and they were threatening to go to CNN. Bring protesters etc. As I indicated I refused to talk to them without my publisher hearing what I said because I did not trust them. Did I act perfectly? No. I think my behavior was far superior to theirs.
 
heel79 said:
No. I think my behavior was far superior to theirs.
Click to expand...
Of course you do. Maybe you're right. I'm just asking you to consider that maybe they acted as they did because of their past experiences with people who look like you, talk like you, use analogies as you did -- but who aren't you. That experience doesn't make them right in doing what they did. It just means that life is difficult. We don't always have time to give deep, respectful, empathetic consideration to our interlocutors' motivations, nor the inclination given that we are frequently not rewarded when we do. And thus do we get standoffs where both sides go away thinking the other is just terrible.

That's not, of course, to say that "both sides" is always a useful intellectual construct. Sometimes it is. I have no problem both-siding the conflict in Gaza, for instance. I think it's the only sensible way to look at the situation. I'm NOT both-siding this situation because, as we have mentioned before, I wasn't there. I'm just saying, as a general matter, we should try to be more generous in assessing people's motivations, while recognizing the practical barriers to doing so. Life is full of challenges.
 
heel79 said:
I don't fully understand but I think that is accepted and I would honor it. Would you have agreed with HRC or the mother? What would you have done?
Click to expand...
This is where it gets tricky. Here's, I think, the right answer to that question:

I know what I would have done, in the abstact. I don't know what I would have done as the editor, given that I've never been an editor and I can't possibly account for all the variables that would go into your decision. I doubt you could account for them all, either. A lot of our knowledge, especially knowledge obtained by experience, is what philosophers call "tacit." It's not reducible into communicable language. If you were able to describe even half of the factors that went into your decision-making, I think you'd be doing pretty well.

So I think the answer to the question is "I don't know," and that cuts both ways. It means that I would be wrong to judge you. But it also means that the question is ill-posed. Just because I don't have an answer doesn't mean that there wouldn't have been something better to do. It means that it's a conversation better had with someone who has experience as an editor.

I really think the lesson that we should take from all of this is that it's hard to give people the benefit of the doubt, especially in today's climate, but we really should do so when possible. I'm not talking about whether you did or didn't. Either way, we should -- well, not to those who have conclusively shown that they don't deserve it, but that category of people is, I think, smaller than maybe we think.
 
heel79 said:
I don't fully understand but I think that is accepted and I would honor it. Would you have agreed with HRC or the mother? What would you have done?
Click to expand...
I probably would have just run what the mother asked. I might've been wrong for that, but I'm guessing that's what I would've done. What I like to think I wouldn't have done is try to argue about the existence of trans people with them. Not whether or not this particular person was trans, but trans people in general. That was the screw up that got a national organization to name you.
 
Lando said:
I probably would have just run what the mother asked. I might've been wrong for that, but I'm guessing that's what I would've done. What I like to think I wouldn't have done is try to argue about the existence of trans people with them. Not whether or not this particular person was trans, but trans people in general. That was the screw up that got a national organization to name you.
Click to expand...
That seems a fair point.
 
Lando said:
I probably would have just run what the mother asked. I might've been wrong for that, but I'm guessing that's what I would've done. What I like to think I wouldn't have done is try to argue about the existence of trans people with them. Not whether or not this particular person was trans, but trans people in general. That was the screw up that got a national organization to name you.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I thought these folks got way outside the lines quickly. Not nice people. The director then I am sure was UNC grad. I spoke to ii think 3 people. It occupied more time than I had to give it.
 
200.gif
 
HeelYeah2012 said:
If at any point Kamala Harris announces that only white men are worthy of consideration for her VP, then yeah it’d be the exact same and worthy of criticism. I highly doubt she comes out and says that like Biden did in the past.

Democrats just don’t get it. You can literally choose the exact same folks you would’ve chosen anyways and check whatever DEI boxes you want. But just don’t announce to the world that you’re only picking them because of race and gender, because it undermines them.
Click to expand...
I’m no expert, but would you not think Republicans and Democrats might have differing motivations behind announcing (or not) a group association reasoning behind a candidate selection? Pew Research indicates that 84% of black women in the US are Democrats. Making sure that that group is aware that their support is valued might be a good move for a Democratic presidential candidate, without facing a party backlash. The rest of the party knows that black women ARE important to Democrats winning races. What Republicans think of said Democratic presidential candidate stating this reasoning is of little importance to Democrats.

If a Republican candidate would name a black women running mate and make a similar statement, the blow back from white voters could easily be greater than the gain from picking up votes from black women.

IOW, maybe the Democrats DO get it.
 
Completely unrelated to the rabbit hole I dragged this down, the talk of bias reminds me of something that came up on a baseball forum years ago. Some people were negative about everything. Some people were positive about everything. Neither group really relied on facts, but the negative group would catch a lot more crap for it. When that was complained about the guy who ran the site was very open about why: mindless optimism is just easier to tolerate. If it's not going to be a reasonable discussion then the happy stuff was at least easier to stomach.

The same thing happens on political boards. Fact free nonsense from the other side grates at people and is rightly called out. Fact free nonsense from the same side is easier to stomach and is less likely to be called out. How often does anyone call out something they agree with for being fact free? You know why you believe the same thing, so there isn't a need for someone to explain it to you. When there are more of one side on a forum, the opposing side feels like they get jumped and they don't see it happening to the other side. That's not moderating or anything nefarious, it's just basic human nature.
 
Lando said:
Completely unrelated to the rabbit hole I dragged this down, the talk of bias reminds me of something that came up on a baseball forum years ago. Some people were negative about everything. Some people were positive about everything. Neither group really relied on facts, but the negative group would catch a lot more crap for it. When that was complained about the guy who ran the site was very open about why: mindless optimism is just easier to tolerate. If it's not going to be a reasonable discussion then the happy stuff was at least easier to stomach.

The same thing happens on political boards. Fact free nonsense from the other side grates at people and is rightly called out. Fact free nonsense from the same side is easier to stomach and is less likely to be called out. How often does anyone call out something they agree with for being fact free? You know why you believe the same thing, so there isn't a need for someone to explain it to you. When there are more of one side on a forum, the opposing side feels like they get jumped and they don't see it happening to the other side. That's not moderating or anything nefarious, it's just basic human nature.
Click to expand...
don't get me started on negative vs positive on a sports board. Two terms I would ban in a heart beat "soft" and "sunshine pumper."
 
Just so we are extraordinarily clear about the motivation of the overwhelming vast majority of conservative message board posters, and with a hat tip to our friend JCTarHeel who posted this screenshot on the old ZZLP, one of the old board MAGAs posted this over on Tiger Droppings, asking them to come over to this new board to troll it. It was never about moderators.

IMG_3092.jpeg
 
altmin said:
don't get me started on negative vs positive on a sports board. Two terms I would ban in a heart beat "soft" and "sunshine pumper."
Click to expand...

That phrase "sunshine pumper" always cracked me up...it's like dude just hang a sign around your neck that says "I failed at my life now im coming for yours"
 
Hilariously, that poster also said that “Losing Silent Sam was a tough day.”

I don’t care what ideology you are, if a friggin’ statue being removed from a college campus six years ago still triggers you, you need therapy.

IMG_3089.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top