I'm a former IC ZZL/P Mod = AMA

  • Thread starter Thread starter SnoopRob
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 772
  • Views: 12K
  • Off-Topic 
4thgenheel said:
it clearly is. this is such a strange hill that you've chosen to die on here.

again, per oxford:

ab·nor·mal
/abˈnôrm(ə)l/
adjective
deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying.
Click to expand...
Exactly, see the "undesirable" part?

Being gay, trans, bi, neurodivergent, or any other human trait are not "undesirable". They are part of human existence. We should celebrate our diversity, not present very narrow technical definitions in order to basically, unnecessarily, be hurtful.

Seriously, do you believe that a trans person isn't fully aware of the there biological state and their mental awareness of of who the are?

Why would it be necessary to remind a trans female that they can't have children?
 
sunnyheel said:
I understand your point: if Xitter and the WSJ don’t care that we allow the wholesale republication of their copyrighted material, then why should we?

The answer to that, as I’ve already explained, is that the failure of those big media outlets to enforce copyrights does not excuse your own failure to enforce your clearly stated rules which are presumably created for the benefit of the board’s business. The consequence is loss of credibility and authority and the Xittification of that platform.

And its ultimate failure.
Click to expand...
I really have no idea what your point is here.

I've already said that for media that does care about their intellectual property being shared beyond their own domains, that we should have done a better job of enforcing copyright.

As far as Twitter, you seem convinced they really don't want tweets shared beyond their own site in contradiction to pretty much every piece of evidence that exists.

And I certainly don't understand how you think that led to the "failure" of the site beyond some bizarre "you lost your credibility when you didn't strictly enforce copyright" idea.
 
an0maly said:
Some Christians use the term abnormal about homosexuality with the connotation of abnormal like Charles Manson was "abnormal"--to mean against "normal" good human behavior. Such intentions are the main reason it's a bad term.

While we do have to be careful of not making a naturalistic fallacy in comparisons with the 1500 or so other species known to engage in homosexual behaviors (which happens for a myriad of reasons), there's good reasoning and research support for the idea that in extended family tribes, a segment of the group that does not reproduce would have a reciprocal altruistic benefit to the survival of the tribe by not contributing offspring.

Research on this:

Loading…

www.journals.uchicago.edu


Loading…

www.jstor.org
Click to expand...
Good post.

As for the segment of the tribe that doesn't provide offspring, that segment isn't limited to homosexuals. Zen seems to ignore that in his statements about continuing the blood line. (Or maybe I missed that acknowledgement)
 
NCK9 said:
This site allows embedding content from all of the below - so I would assume all are ok having their content shared.

Click to expand...
This site has blocked me from embedding content s couple of times. Seems like it is set up well.
 
ZenMode said:
I have no reason to provide it. It was from, I'm guessing, well over a decade ago when I had much different views and a much diffent approach to posting.
Click to expand...
It would be interesting to know to understand how you have evolved.
 
SnoopRob said:
The glory days of randman were before my moderator time, but he had a board-specific ban from the ZZL when those still existed. When that capability went away, he was given the first(?) of the "stay on the sports boards" deals, which he accepted and follows. He still posts on IC, although not anywhere near the frequency that he did back in the day.
Click to expand...

Careful, you will summon him and then the board will be in for a world of hurt. He's basically un-moderate-able, and has been banned in some capacity from every board on which I've encountered him (more than just IC and the BoB), and it's NEVER his fault. Just ask him.
 
This will be my last entry on the subject.

Deeming kapo a racist slur takes a degree of mental contortionism that is unmerited given that there is literally no Jew complaining about its use anymore. It’s an artifact of WWII reflecting a real and horrible reality that has unfortunate parallels to the present. Why is it okay to talk about Nazis and brownshirts today in comparison to their modern equivalents and not kapos? Surely there is truth to the proposition that even some Nazi apparatchiks were coerced into compliance and victims of Stockholm syndrome too.

If the argument is that Jews were special victims of Nazism (undeniably so) and the word should therefore be cast down the rabbit hole, what is the message? Does the lesson of history get lost too?

Moreover, even if the hypersensitivity to Jewish victimhood is merited, how can applying the term to a gentile carry the racist baggage that would merit a ban? Its use does not necessarily imply an insensitivity to the complexity of the phenomenon.

This gripe has been overstated and amplified far beyond its importance merely as my personal experience with the capriciousness of board moderation which I believe was the ultimate cause of its demise.

Finally I hope the crux of my comments about moderation are not interpreted as an assault on Snoop’s integrity. I thought I was clear in my admiration of his dutiful and conscientious efforts in a losing game. He was a cog in a wheel doomed by its quavering nature to fail.
 
Enigma94 said:
Typically means most of the time, so you are saying most of the time LGBTQ people are undesirable when you use the term abnormal. And nobody is "adding" anything - undesirable is part of the definition of the word.
Click to expand...
Again... I have absolutely no issue with homosexuals. As I said previously, I was for gay marriage before Obama was.

The fundamental meaning of abnormal applies to homosexuality...feelings or not. If a poll were posted, I doubt that any honest person, if given the option to describe homosexuality as normal or abnormal, would pick normal.

deviating from what is normal or usual

homosexuality is a deviation from what is normal or usual.
 
bumeister said:
Careful, you will summon him and then the board will be in for a world of hurt. He's basically un-moderate-able, and has been banned in some capacity from every board on which I've encountered him (more than just IC and the BoB), and it's NEVER his fault. Just ask him.
Click to expand...
I can confirm this.

And this thread has certainly taken a turn.
 
ZenMode said:
Again... I have absolutely no issue with homosexuals. As I said previously, I was for gay marriage before Obama was.

The fundamental meaning of abnormal applies to homosexuality...feelings or not. If a poll were posted, I doubt that any honest person, if given the option to describe homosexuality as normal or abnormal, would pick normal.

deviating from what is normal or usual

homosexuality is a deviation from what is normal or usual.
Click to expand...
Everyone here has told you and explained why the term is wrong and also demeaning. You are being willfully ignorant now because you don't want to admit it is wrong.
 
ZenMode said:
"Typically" isn't "always"and adding an emotional factor does negate the core meaning.
Click to expand...
Again, the word you are looking for is atypical, not abnormal -- that is, if you're trying to talk about facts.

Atypical is a factual description. It means, "not typical." A quality in a population shared by 10% of the members is unarguably atypical. Left-handedness? Atypical. Homosexuality? Atypical. IQs higher than 120 or lower than 80? Atypical. Being 7' tall? Atypical.

Normality is a judgment about the way things should be. It is not a factual concept. Indeed, the origin of the word "normal" is the same as "normative." which is expressly a concept about value judgments. And perhaps you've heard of social norms, which are informal rules that people are expected to follow because they are supposedly virtuous. All of this amounts to the same thing.

This is not controversial. This is my last post on the subject because, as I anticipated, you're unwilling to admit that you used the wrong word. Should it be considered a personal failing that you confused "atypical" with "abnormal"? It should not. I worked for a well-regarded appeals court judge who confused "effect" and "affect." It meant he made a mistake, not that he was an idiot. Alas. Neurologists talk of a testosterone response to being wrong. Some men in particular experience a drop in T after losing an argument, which is a fancy way of saying that you're thinking with your testes.

Finally, other posters have given you examples of situations involving atypicality that are never described as abnormal. I'll do one better. Lebron James and Michael Jordan are among the most atypical people on the planet. To be blessed with the size, athleticism, drive, skills, coordination, intelligence that they have is indeed extraordinary. It's not simply that they are the two best players in NBA history; they are pretty far above #3. I've never once heard them described as "abnormal." Have you? And to extend the point, NBA players themselves are highly atypical people. The vast majority of them are exceptionally tall compared to the average person, and they have other distinguishing factors. Have you ever heard them referred to as abnormal?
 
superrific said:
Again, the word you are looking for is atypical, not abnormal -- that is, if you're trying to talk about facts.

Atypical is a factual description. It means, "not typical." A quality in a population shared by 10% of the members is unarguably atypical. Left-handedness? Atypical. Homosexuality? Atypical. IQs higher than 120 or lower than 80? Atypical. Being 7' tall? Atypical.

Normality is a judgment about the way things should be. It is not a factual concept. Indeed, the origin of the word "normal" is the same as "normative." which is expressly a concept about value judgments. And perhaps you've heard of social norms, which are informal rules that people are expected to follow because they are supposedly virtuous. All of this amounts to the same thing.

This is not controversial. This is my last post on the subject because, as I anticipated, you're unwilling to admit that you used the wrong word. Should it be considered a personal failing that you confused "atypical" with "abnormal"? It should not. I worked for a well-regarded appeals court judge who confused "effect" and "affect." It meant he made a mistake, not that he was an idiot. Alas. Neurologists talk of a testosterone response to being wrong. Some men in particular experience a drop in T after losing an argument, which is a fancy way of saying that you're thinking with your testes.

Finally, other posters have given you examples of situations involving atypicality that are never described as abnormal. I'll do one better. Lebron James and Michael Jordan are among the most atypical people on the planet. To be blessed with the size, athleticism, drive, skills, coordination, intelligence that they have is indeed extraordinary. It's not simply that they are the two best players in NBA history; they are pretty far above #3. I've never once heard them described as "abnormal." Have you? And to extend the point, NBA players themselves are highly atypical people. The vast majority of them are exceptionally tall compared to the average person, and they have other distinguishing factors. Have you ever heard them referred to as abnormal?
Click to expand...
Even with regard to sexuality. Would the average person describe a Catholic Priest as "abnormal" because they have taken a vow of celibacy? I guaran-damn-tee you that if you ever hear a person use the word "abnormal" in reference to a Catholic priest it will be an attack on them and not a description of them. You know it, and I know it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top