That sounds like you are actively trying to use virtue signaling to try and change how this forum operates.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is Science now considered PRSI?
- Thread starter dukebound85
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
I asked twice and you don't answer. Given your last answer to i7guy, I think it is pretty clear what you are doing.
One should be allowed to give ones opinion on whether one WANTS to take a medical treatment. Now, when when one provides scientific data to back a claim; then people should be able to have a constructive discussion. Science is meant to be debated and spoken about. Science involves proposing a hypothesis, testing it, reporting the results and then a discussion.
I really do know better, but have to ask.
Do you really believe there is actually a "different DEFINITION" for racism? As opposed to a different PERCEPTION of racism wholly dependent on who / what one is? I mean if one believes there are different definitions for different people that's an interesting take.
Because if so, that explains a lot about some of the more contentious issues that end up tossed in the politics section and made PRSI so scary for some.
You are reading things into my post I didn't say. There is also no need to post in capital letters. I am quite able to read words without them being in all caps.
My point is I think several members here see racism where there may not be any, as to many of the posts being reported. If a post gets reported and the mods decide no action is warranted, the reporter can escalate the report to the admins for further review.
I am not suggesting or openly stating the staff never make mistakes. That would be foolish to think such a thing. However, I believe that they do the best job they can when trying to ascertain proper context and motive of reported posts. It's not always easy to do. That is why moderation isn't done in a vacuum by one person.
I have seen the staff take action against racist posts over the years. If I truly believed that the staff (including Arn) condoned racism on this forum after sending several reports as some here have claimed to do, I wouldn't be here replying to you. To me, that would be rather illogical to continue being a member of a forum that allowed things to go on that were counter to my very core being as a human.
The converse appears to also be the case for some participants, although it may be a glitch in the language. "Racism" is the handy word that is used for "othering" when it might not be the absolute best word to use. But those among the dominant broad clan have a tendency to simply deny the matter because it mostly does not affect them.
When I have seen racist posts on this forum over the years, I have reported them (as several others may have done as well with the same posts) and the staff took action.
If I see posts on this forum that I believe is racist or violates the forum rules in any manner at any point in time, I will report. If a report doesn't get handled as I think it should, I have no problem asking for a second opinion.
I don't believe MR is here to set social policy for the world at large, or act in the same manner of Twitter and other social media platforms. It is a tech forum with rules for engaging in civil discourse. If some here can't accept the current line of policy and action, there are plenty of other sites on the internet to participate.
Do you really expect an answer when you ask somebody “why don’t you leave”? Such a “question” is not meant as a question at all, but as a way to make somebody know they are not welcome. It doesn’t matter how many fancy words you wrap it up with or pretend it’s a ”pertinent” question. It is not.
Go back to where you came from - Wikipedia
“If you don’t like it, you can get out!” – A Response
“If you don’t like it, you can get out!” – How many times have you heard this phrase? I get it all the time. The first thing to note is that, with that “argument”…
elpidiovaldes.wordpress.com
No. Which is leading to my point, and I appreciate your help making it. I got exactly what you were saying. The reason for the capitalization is to help make that point.
Your point is YOU "think" members see racism where there may not be any. Which I have to take from your previous post is based on the "definition" of racism you imagine. I'm arguing it's YOUR perception of what racism is, as opposed to others. YOU think members see racism where there isn't based on your person, your history, your life, while others will see racism based on experiences you probably won't have.
Yet you are willing to dismiss their "seeing" racism in a post, because according to your experiences it can't be. The meaning of racism isn't dependent on the person, it's dependent on the perception of the person. It's pretty impressive when people can dictate to others what is or isn't racism, especially IF the others who are actually individuals who do actually experience racism.
Which gets back to the topic. Where people are arguing semantics over "prevent" and other such things. Saying 'there's a different definition for racism' comes across to me like saying 'there are alternative facts'. No. We have definitions. We have facts. It's playing this semantics games that get us into the weeds and situations like the one being discussed in this topic. Where for the sake of winning an online forum argument, suddenly what should be simplicity gains multiple divergences that make alternate universe theories seem like simplistic early drafts of nursery rhymes.
Some people insist on arguing their perception over definitions or facts, which has us splitting hairs over discussions like what is science.
The rest of your post is reading into my post something completely different you seem to want to discuss instead, that I didn't bring up. If you want to champion the mods & forum, you rock your world. I didn't bring them up AT ALL in my post. My post was to YOU and you alone, ONLY about the phrasing you used. Not criticizing, but seeking clarification because I think it drives home an issue I believe is being missed by some in this thread. I'm not discussing what the mods / staff do or don't do, moderation, or why one is a member of a forum, because to me that's pointless.
You are reading things into my post I didn't say.
I said from what I have seen and observed thus far, I believe it is likely that Matt's (and possibly some other reporters of the same group) are seeing racism in posts that are reported, that is likely not there, at least in the context of the posts being reported.
Matt has posted examples of posts in this forum before that he believed to be racist (before a mod removed them due to violation of rules). I read the posts in question before they were removed. I didn't see any racism in said posts. I take it he had reported the same posts to the mods and apparently they didn't see any racism either.
Given that I have seen racist posts on the form over the years and reported them with action taken, I don't agree with Matt's assertion that the mods condone racism. I think it is far more likely that Matt's expectations of moderation (as well as possibly others in the same group) are different than the staff's. I have also seen the staff reply to posts in this forum made by Matt and several others. And no matter how many times the staff replied in good faith to Matt (and several others of the same group) the replies by the staff haven't appeared to be acceptable to said persons. That tells me there is a fundamental difference of expectation between this group of members and the current policy and administration thereof by the staff.
If moderation was being conducted in a vacuum by one person with no oversight, the claim that the staff of one is condoning racism could have merit, depending on the posts involved and the context thereof. Since that is not the case, continuing to make the claim that racism (amongst other things) is being condoned here by the staff is illogical on its face. There are several moderators who are overseen by admins who are overseen by Arn. In order for racism to be condoned on this site as claimed, it would require every person of the groups mentioned of the staff (including Arn) to be involved in a massive cover up conspiracy. That would be illogical on every level and I don't believe for a minute that that has happened and is continuing to happen.
I have never told you to leave. If I had done so, that kind of posting would have warranted mod action and rightfully so. However, I have challenged your position several times in asking a very pertinent question that you have conveniently ignored, which is your choice. I know why you ignore it. And your reply to i7guy confirmed why you don't answer the pertinent question. It is my opinion, that you and several others are actively trying to change the purpose of the site thus changing the overall administration by the staff to fit what you and some others believe to be the responsibility and narrative of MR on a much broader level.Do you really expect an answer when you ask somebody “why don’t you leave”? Such a “question” is not meant as a question at all, but as a way to make somebody know they are not welcome. It doesn’t matter how many fancy words you wrap it up with or pretend it’s a ”pertinent” question. It is not.
Go back to where you came from - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
“If you don’t like it, you can get out!” – A Response
“If you don’t like it, you can get out!” – How many times have you heard this phrase? I get it all the time. The first thing to note is that, with that “argument”…
No. Again. I ONLY referred to that one quote from YOU. Wanting a clarification of how the DEFINITION of racism can somehow change from person to person. Again, I could give a rat's rear end about moderation. I am NOT critiquing you, the mods, the forum, moderation, typefaces, or anything else. I am pointing out that the belief there can be multiple definitions of racism, is pretty much on par with 'alternative facts'. The definitions don't change, just the perception. Which can lead to seeing & observing that others are seeing racism where there isn't. What I'm saying is that you or anyone else aren't seeing racism, is because of your perception of what's allowed to be racism. For others it's crap they've seen before, and see where a conversation is going to eventually go.
This is where thing get touchy because what the mods, owners, or anyone else thinks is or isn't racism is frankly subjective. We get that by the news articles that end up getting basically trash binned into the Politics section within a half dozen posts. Meanwhile others ( one thread that someone jokingly predicted would go south, and it did within 3 whole posts ) can see the train wreck coming a state away. If the mods decide something isn't racist, offensive, or whatever that's on them, IF the thread spirals downward a few pages afterward that's on them also. It's their site to do so, which is why I personally don't care, or spend time in this section arguing over or defending it. I'm not the one who gets judged by how things get handled here.
I'm not even talking about racism being condoned or whatever else you've decided to add unnecessarily to cheerlead. My point was my questioning YOUR post & your statement about definition. As if the definition of racism being based on the individual, instead of it being the perception. The idea that a 'definition' is somehow fluid, the way some people nowadays imagine facts are, is what I believe ties to the debate here about science. With that logic, we could never have a clarification on something, because everything is completely dependent on what someone decides is the meaning of "prevent" or "racism" to them personally for discussion sake. As opposed to the clear universally regarded definitions of such things.
That's it. There's no Matt, Arn, Clarence, Renee, Debbie, Mort, mods, forum, the internet, the Hubble telescope, or anything else involved. Just my asking YOU how the DEFINITION of something ( racism ) can be different for different people.
Your repeated query was not “a very pertinent question” whatsoever. And I didn’t ignore it. I just didn’t give you an answer. There is a difference. There’s a very good reason I didn’t answer it. Allow me to explain further.
“Why don’t you go fly a kite?”
”Why don’t you go play in traffic?”
”If you hate America so much, why don’t you leave?”
A rhetorical question asking why one doesn’t leave is not a question at all. It is a message that the person isn’t welcome. Rhetorical questions aren’t meant to be answered anyway; most people know this. Perhaps a video will demonstrate the point better?
This forum says right in its description that it is for suggestions. You might not agree with my suggestions, but using rhetorical questions to suggest that I get lost is completely inappropriate IMHO.
You have followed up the inappropriate rhetorical question by making a number of statements claiming that you know my motivations and making other unfounded accusations. If you have problems with my statements, fine. Why I make those statements is not any of your business. Let’s discuss the topic and not each other. To quote the forum rules:
Addressing somebody by name, asking them why they don’t leave the forum and accusing them of ulterior motives or a broader agenda feels unnecessarily personal to me. Feel free to say my suggestions are stupid. Attack the post, not the poster.
I haven't attacked you in any way. I also haven't told you to leave the forum or that you can't post in this thread. You have just as much right to post here as I do. I have been discussing the topic at hand. And like you, I have been doing so using personal opinion. That is not the same as attacking you or telling you to leave. Your name is Matt, you have asked questions about the subject I have replied to several times. I haven't spoken out of turn by bringing your name up when it hasn't been mentioned nor have I discussed anything out of line. You disagreeing with my opinion, which you are entitled to do, does not automatically equate to a personal attack. Asking you why you stay in a place that is allegedly run by the staff turning a blind eye to racism and other things you find abhorrent is a very pertinent question, in my opinion. And asking you why is not the same as telling you to leave, which I have never done.
I wouldn't knowingly go to the home of a racist or someone that I was at complete odds with as to my core ideology much less continually hang round people I believe act in such a manner, or be in a relationship with a woman of the same. It would be illogical to do so. Knowingly engaging in that behavior would go against my stance.
You continue to levy serious charges of facilitating racism and social ills against Arn and the staff while continuing to come to his place of business. I find that very strange behavior (amongst other things) hence my valid question. I think you are about trying to socially engineer this business into what you want it to be for the good of the "community" as you told i7guy, which is really more than just about this forum. You have and others have made your social engineering quest agenda clear.
You also have a very bad habit of reading things into my posts that I didn't say (re: claims of attack and telling you to leave). I think you do the same thing kind of thing with the posts you report thus leading to no action taken.
The staff has already addressed the concerns of the thread. I have said what I wanted to say. I see no point in continuing debating the same ground over and over.
Last edited:
Not one line in this post addresses the idea of what a rhetorical question is. Hence, it ignores the entire point of the post it was in response to.
And it also repeatedly addresses another poster instead of their posts. It uses “you” 20 times.
The prior post is quite clear. Asking one why they don’t leave is a rhetorical question, and intended to make the person feel unwelcome. Nothing in this post refutes that.
Moderator Note:
OP's question was answered by the site owner on page one of the thread. The thread is closed since it has now drifted into another topic.
OP's question was answered by the site owner on page one of the thread. The thread is closed since it has now drifted into another topic.
- Status