Mods Gone Wild

This and that

My, how you forget. Too bad you quit as a mod. I'd love to have it out with you on this point according to the facts, regardless of how much you despise them.

And if you get huffy about your delusions, Bells, they're still that: delusions.

Ah, the lament of the troll. I wish I could reminisce on how sweet it sounds to my ears, but excrement still smells like crap, and you're tracking it all over the carpet.

You mean we usually suspend people for a quarter of a statement twisted out of context? Could have fooled me.

A trolling stone gathers no moss?

• • •​

Insofar as the people who most need to understand the point refuse to, yes.

The task is to help them find the courage to face these issues. Putting them in front of people like this? They'll keep presuming you're making shit up, or complaining that you're mentioning the Nazis to inflame emotions, or whatever else they need to cajole moderators toward making ill-informed, poorly-advised decisions on their behalf.

For instance, as a moderator, I had an opportunity recently to make a point by sanctioning someone according to the standards applied to you. But I didn't, because someone would complain that the action was ridiculous, and yes, that would have been correct. But at no point do I expect certain members of the staff to understand that's what their standards look like.

Like I said, head meet wall.

Yes, the comparison becomes unavoidable at some point, but people are determined to avoid it. You've seen what happens to people's rational judgment where such issues are involved. At some point, you need to accept that you're dealing with grotesque neurosis, at least. You cannot appeal to the deviant psyche with logic, except according to its own terms. And, as experience should have informed by now, even that is a risky gamble sometimes.

Take Bells for instance. How many times have I encountered these bizarre conspiracy theories before? Or James. What do you think will change the outlook of someone so unrepentantly sold to bigotry? Really, a quarter of what's there, in order to twist the context? Really, in the face of multiple documented explantions, he still makes shit up about my actions in order to justify sanctioning you? Are Otheadp and Spock going to suddenly wake up? Hardly. I mean, seriously. The nature of this particular political dispute is such that there isn't a whole lot of middle ground. Or, rather, there is, but that middle ground is widely considered radicalized against Israel. Those who acknowledge the unfortunate parallels between Israel and that legendary evil and find it tragic can't possibly be considering human issues; they must necessarily be anti-Semites.

You're dealing with exceptionally neurotic behavior. Such a straightforward approach, no matter how honorable, obvious, or whatever else we might suggest such an appeal to truth might be, simply won't have the intended effect.

Whatever currency the market chooses has only the value people are willing to allow it. This is especially true with moral currency. You're attempting to use truth to appeal to people who demonstrate a neurotic devaluation of truth. If the Israeli government sometimes acts like great tyrants of history, some people will sling any old shit they can to duck reality. And sometimes, it's not the judgment of others they are fighting against. Rather, they are trying to silence the inner accuser, a self-indictment. It often seems, to the neurotic, easier to facilitate the symptom formation than address the cause. I see this all around me in life, whether it's politics or business or family. People often think it much easier to suppress conscience than face up to its indictments. To the one, they will choose the unhappiness of maintaining an intricate network of self-deception. To the other, they cannot necessarily help themselves.

Yes, the polite thing to do is presume people rational, capable, and decent. And beneath it all, they are, at least, decent and capable. All of this bluster and hatred does pursue justice. But you also need to acknowledge to yourself that you're dealing with dysfunction; the grotesqueries of their fancy are symptoms of a deeper, more personal conflict.

I know a psychologist for whom the answer to almost any contemporary American malady is narcisissm. It's not that he's wrong, but he doesn't always account for narcissism as a secondary manifestation; it's his primary diagnosis. Well and fine, but whence comes that narcissism? He would concede the point eventually, but answering that question gets incredibly sticky. Just like Freud and "hysteria". Eventually, we must explore beyond the diagnosis itself, and examine its devices. There are forms of narcissism that are simple and direct, while others are emotional complexes. In this case, by his outlook, you're dealing with the latter. And, of course, likely subject to it to some degree. We're human; neurotic behavior is part of our nature. The problem comes when those neuroses present obstacles to healthy function.

Perhaps God sends a satan to our modern-day Balaam, but that would leave them beating their own asses.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Lacky??? oh you mean the mod that called you out in defending james using his own definitions for words to try and get rid of sam? and it says something that you would use evidence in an argument with someone that they cannot corraborate.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

pjdude whos your lacky? Is it Plasma?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Isn't it S.A.M's prerogative to avoid whichever subfora she so chooses?

Well no, actually, Bells has hit the nail on the head regarding both your atrocious and biased behaviour, and the extensive protection S.A.M was offered by the moderation in the past.

 

I don't have a lacky too much responsibility. you have to feed them, brush them, take them for walks. its just too much of a hassle/

 

um wasn't SAM protected because she was a mod?

 

That's certainly the impression I got at the time. Her brown Muslim trait simply allowed complaints against her to be disregarded as racism and bigotry, and not just a 'personality clash' (the typical excuse used by the moderation as to why they look the other way when moderators flagrantly rape the rules and abuse their powers).

However, it's clear that at least one moderator is continuing to offer S.A.M protection because of her status as a brown Muslim. So perhaps there was an element of that even back when S.A.M was a mod.

 

Well, ummm, you will, Bells dear! But so what - worst for wear is not so bad...

Yes, it is truly a sad day - too bad you resigned your "mod-ship". You would have had much more opportunity to change things within, rather than without, don't you think Bells?

No one forgets, Bells.

Only you would know these things, Bells, as us plebeians are shielded...

So how do you propose to substantiate these claims? Oh, wait, you can't, 'cause if you did you'd have to kill, ummm, all of us? ... - what, like James Bond?

Hypocrisy abounds across these forums, Bells, what makes your particular breed special?

Finally, let's not forget that YOU personally backed SAM, until she said something that went against your personal morals... Now that she crossed that line, she "needs fixing", right? I don't agree with most of what SAM says, and half of what Tiassa says. What I do, is respect their intelligence and their right to say what they do. Why do you have such a problem with this?

 

So, once again, us plebeians are shielded from the workings of Mt. Olympus - but we shall be honored to witness this apocalyptic battle...

Geeez, Bells I though that would be an easy one...

I don't know, to be honest - I'm still trying to work that one out...

Surely there are more that aren't hypocritical and biased than those that are? No? Perhaps then it would be time for you to reexamine your own POV then, maybe?

/shivering in corner = it's worse than I thought!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So you were that chickie that got on the short bus every day back in school?!

With a knife...

How noble of you - and I suppose you have been duly elected as high priestess to determine who acts like a bigot? Right? May I see your credentials and badge, please?

Well. it would seem that according to you, lately, she needs something...

Then be true to your friends, fight oppression, and join those who care- those who are not bigots - not being a bigot does not mean not being "human" - tough concept, eh?

We absolutely, totally agree on this point! Amazing (grace, how great thou art..)

Good thing, because you would be hard pressed to defend that position.

See above...

I think this is the very essence of the problem. Whether your characterization is correct, or others are right - this is the point - people, expressing themselves in an intelligent, non-belligerent matter deserve the opportunity to do so! Period.

 

Your disregard for fact is to your discredit

Oh, undoubtedly, I will in terms of public relations. But I'm also accustomed to it. More specifically, though:

You should have spoken up more clearly when you were still a moderator. Now you just sit back and bandy about vague allusions that, if explored, would not withstand scrutiny of the record—a record you have willfully cut yourself off from, and that cannot be brought to the public. You had a chance to deal with these issues then, but chose not to. And without facts on your side, you have chosen to sit back and sling shitballs while pretending your hands are somehow clean. Good one.

To wit:

"Your complete lack of respect for some of your fellow moderators because they were too conservative for your liking, your complete lack of respect for members because of their political leanings."​

That you would simplify it as such now only demonstrates desperation. Even you managed to comment on some of those hijinks, like a moderator destroying a post in order to avoid answering it. Yes, my objection must be partisan. It's the only thing it could be. Too bad you didn't say so at the time.

Or there was the time a moderator rejected a detailed complaint as having no merit, and then publicly crowed that he never read it. You could have lectured me on my partisan attitude then—why wouldn't that be proper behavior for my colleague, right?—but chose not to. You could have told me I was wrong for objecting to the moderator who introduced humorous references to sexual activity in a thread and then banned a member for putting in her own two cents. After all, it couldn't possibly be a matter of consistency. It must necessarily be partisan, right?

Or this:

"Your hypocrisy in protesting Sam's ban that time and then trying to ban your your little punching bag on this forum under the same rules you so opposed."​

Given that you were there to see that thread, and that I stated my reasons for posting it, and that I specifically, explicitly, abstained from the vote, I think your strenuous effort to misrepresent the situation undermines any credibility you would otherwise pretend to have.

Perhaps the problem is a cultural gap: Do Australians do test cases?

"Shall I go on?"​

Oh, please do. Given that your silly siren song is composed almost entirely of telling me what I think, or what I would think under certain circumstances, I can only imagine this will be somewhat amusing.

An accusation you simply cannot substantiate.

An accusation you conveniently cannot substantiate.

Oh, and which little ban is that? Seems to me, you're the one hoping to say something enough times to convince people.

As I see it, I have the facts on my side. You, however, walked away from the facts—or, at least, the record thereof—in order to do what, join the ranks of Countezero, Mountainhare, and others who have bawled about my horrible politics before?

Good one.

 

The Battle is on.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What, she isn't a brown Muslim? And you don't think that has any bearing on why she was ferociously protected by the moderation?

It is the very fact that she was a brown Muslim who espoused anti-American ideology that partially resulted in her being protected. Because of her race and religion, any attacks on her were regarded as being motivated by bigotry/racism, instead of justifiable frustration at her disingeous debate tactics, derailments and hypocrisy. Indeed, one particular moderator *continues* to make accusations of bigotry and racism against S.A.M's critics. If S.A.M were a white atheist, such accusations of racism and bigotry would not be made.

Quite simply, left-wingers have a tendency to treat minorities like an endangered species, and it really shows in regards to S.A.M's history on sciforums.

The moderation made her religion and colour a 'part of it' by shrieking 'racism' and 'bigotry' where-ever someone complained about S.A.M. The exact complaints that have been made by the moderation about S.A.M in recent months are the EXACT same complaints that were being offered up by members years ago, and which were dismissed out of hand as being motivated by racism/bigotry.

 

That's right, Tiassa. You stand on the side of indisputable truth, justice and honour. To disagree with you is to be siding with the nutcases who thrive on deceit, darkness and grudges.

 

No. That's precisely why S.A.M should not have received special protection for being a brown Muslim.

S.A.M does possess an anti-Western sentiment, and she has attempted to mitigate the behaviour of (Islamic) terrorists. It is *not* racist to postulate that perhaps her race and religion had a hand in the formation of her opinions.
I have found that almost every brown Muslim I have ever met has strong underlying anti-Western sentiment, and attempts mitigate the behaviour of Islamic terrorists.

Coincidence? I don't think so.

I'm sorry. But from what I have seen, left-wingers tend to assume that any criticism leveled at a minority is motivated by bigotry and racism.

I disagree. The moderation was just attempting to rationalise away bad behaviour of a moderator with diplomatic immunity. Just like when they pre-emptively dismiss complaints as being motivated by nothing more than a 'personality clash'.