Moderator makes ad hominem attacks on another moderator

Moderator note: This thread was split from a different thread, which can be found here:

cryptocurrencies
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, James, I'm just reminding how incredibly low your standards are.

So far, this loose vested-interest standard you've invented is pretty much a toy for harassing other people with. If we apply your standards, then you were always similarly disqualified from other discussions, like your defense of white supremacism.

At this point, you're obliged to prove Sarkus' conflict of interest.

And maybe you should apologize to Sarkus, given how badly you screwed up last time.

So, why don't you try putting some substance into it, this time?

What is Sarkus' conflict of interest? And what is it compared to site policy? And I mean an actual policy standard, not some ill-conceived ad hoc reflecting your needs in any given moment. Because, after all, your interests are much more affecting of what goes on around here.

And all I'm saying is that you've set a standard by which you disqualify yourself in other issues, and that, actually, is the problem. If you tried to be consistent about your standards of moderation, then you probably would have noticed. But you've set such a vague and reckless standard that it isn't much of a standard at all. For instance, if once upon a time you mentioned that you're white, and likely a little older than I am, maybe that tells me something about your historical narrative, and why you address racism as you do, but you, James, would set a standard by which you are disqualified from that discussion. And as you have before issued an infraction for accusing racism, well, maybe that was your vested interest speaking. It's like when you contradicted yourself↗ about white supremacism, remember, what I told you↗ was that making excuses for certain behavior is part of the problem; please note that I did not simply observe that you were still spruiking for white supremacism and leave it at that.

Remember, James, I asked you, in February, about a particular question of conflict of interest; you gave a general answer, and while it did not answer the point directly, it was an answer, and it is not evident that Sarkus has fulfilled that standard. At some point, you need to affirmatively explain your perception of Sarkus' conflict of interest.

Here's a line for you: Because digital watches are a pretty neat idea.

Anyway, maybe you hadn't noticed that part of what you're dealing with is the sort of chatter that comes when people think this or that is a pretty neat idea. It's one thing if people own stocks or cryptocurrency, or otherwise have a stake in a general marketplace, but no, these are not exactly strong advocates for cryptocurrency. Half of their effort is spent convincing themselves. Maybe I think their discussion of crypto is kind of cultish according to that strong whiff of codespeak, but it remains unclear what you think rises to the standard.

You're going to need something substantial if you intend to keep banging on vested interest. It's a question of the general and particular, James: Yeah, sure, pretty much anyone can grasp the general concept; the particular detail remains lacking.

So, again, what I told you in the back room, three months ago:

If I receive a small dividend payment every quarter from a petroleum company, totaling less than two hundred dollars a year, we might consider whether this fact disqualifies me in any way from commenting on a grocery store dividend payout compared to the price of eggs.

― If it seems I'm making a weak comparison, that might be part of the point insofar as this is where the whole vested-interest distraction has brought us.

― If it is an apt comparison, then we mean something a little different than the usual range of definitions for vested interest, and should probably figure out what that is.​

And here we are, three months later, with you still bangin' away, and quite clearly, you mean something different than most people.

There is an old bit about Nissan and gang symbols, but that might be a little subtle. The point, though, has to do with how we define gang symbols. The comparison is pretty straightforward: Including the Nissan campaign would render the already fraught "gang symbol" discussion pointless. The excuses you make for white supremacism happen to coincide with your whiteness; and sure, I'll call it racist, but to hold that whiteness as a disqualifier in and of itself, per vested interest, damages such discussions.

Also, I recall the time you redefined a word in order to assert the distinction between just saying something and advocating that someone in particular do something; comparatively, it is unclear what part of Sarkus' posts would be so particular as your standard demands for advocacy of sex crime. Honestly, James, it looks like you're making it up as you go just to have at someone.

(And if you're up to harassing Sarkus in public, then you shouldn't need to reserve the discussion of your behavior to private message, especially considering how sensitive you are about private messages. Or maybe you were just dicking around with all that, too. Seriously, it would be helpful if you explained the Star Trek standard, how to distinguish between your actions as an administrator or just another posting member, and also something about our own vested interest as moderators, since you have advised me rather quite clearly that we should have been moderating according to personal vested interests the entire time.)​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This degenerating exchange between moderators reminds me of Red Zone v. White Zone in "Airplane":

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Just to double-check, you said in the back room that you want me to address this in each thread where I said something? So you want to do this part here, in this thread?

So, let's start with the examples I just mentioned↑, which you have chosen to not respond to directly:

• And as you have before issued an infraction for accusing racism, well, maybe that was your vested interest speaking.​

See post #3415956↗, November, 2016, with infraction issued for "Calling another member racist, using foul language".

The foul language was the issue, but you made sure to make "calling another member racist" an offense; per your response↗ to someone else's inquiry: "He might think that he should be allowed to call other people racists and to hurl profanity at them. Perhaps he is upset that this behaviour was not condoned."

Face it, James, you unquestionably showed sympathy to white supremacism on that occasion. The profanity was the problem, and you should have focused on that instead of carving out safe space for white supremacism. You gave cover to white supremacist bullshit. These years later, we have no real reason to expect that your sympathies have changed.

• It's like when you contradicted yourself↗ about white supremacism, remember, what I told you↗ was that making excuses for certain behavior is part of the problem; please note that I did not simply observe that you were still spruiking for white supremacism and leave it at that.​

Please observe that statement is already supported by the hyperlinks embedded within.

• Also, I recall the time you redefined a word in order to assert the distinction between just saying something and advocating that someone in particular do something; comparatively, it is unclear what part of Sarkus' posts would be so particular as your standard demands for advocacy of sex crime.​

We can revisit in greater detail the time you required we cancel a definition of the verb "advocate" in order to say someone didn't advocate sex crime, but you are, of course, welcome to pretend you don't remember the occasion. Nonetheless, the point remains, it's a particular and identifiable standard, and, again, it is unclear what part of Sarkus' posts would be so particular as your standard demands.

(a) The listed occasion is now specifically enumerated and supported; the general outlook will cover a period of years.

(b) Your demand is fallacious. The October, 2018 episode was not just a passing moment; it's the one that features you asking where someone did something, then editing to add that you weren't really interested in arguing the point, and, furthermore, tried to pretend that skipping out on evidence was some sort of good thing. You already know those records exist. We can certainly break out the detail from the back room, if you want. What I said above, and you quoted, was compared to what "your standard demands for advocacy of sex crime". You set a particular definition of advocacy in order to mitigate the implications of some dangerously stupid conduct. If you wish to derive from that an implicit contribution to advocacy of sex crime, I wouldn't even go that far compared to the prospect that you got reckless and fell down a hole.

(c) So here's an easy one for you, James: When you defended certain rhetoric and behavior that was not yours, was someone else's, what did you think they were doing? When you covered for white supremacism in 2016, what did you think the notasupremacist was actually doing? Or when you defended Trump voters against paternalism and condescension and liberal ignorance, what did you think they were actually on about? See November, 2021↗, which recounted that episode, and note how it dovetails with the story of the infraction for accusing racism:

Like I said, James, a lot of people don't like being associated with the things they defend or sympathize with. Just like you don't like to be associated with the supremacism you defend. And you probably don't want your trumpfanning to suggest you're an actual Trump fan. In history, a lot of people make those mistakes. Most people, in fact. But if you really want to insist, "Whatever I wrote back then, chances are it wasn't an accident", sure, I'll believe you really were aiming to legitimize this stuff. And let's be clear, both of your statements wind back to questions of racism. If we follow back to an old question about whether someone left beccause Sciforums is "primarily for humoring cranks and racists", remember that your response↗ was to suggest the member left "because he received a 5-point warning for attacking another member using foul language, and calling that member a racist". Foul language is what it is around here, but issuing an infraction for calling someone racist is in line with Administrative history. An old story involves a moderator who deleted a post explaining why something he said was racist; he complained it was ad hom to argue his post was racist. The Administration never did explain why they condone such behavior, but the old episode is just one of however many little episodes along our merry way of humoring cranks and racists.

If we had a good reason for what we did, that would be one thing. But it's true, in policy questions regarding supremacism at Sciforums, your sympathies are with supremacism.​

Remember, James, it would be easier to acknowledge the other parts of what you think you're doing if you were capable of explaining how that works. As we review your history, consider how many times you posture yourself, as such, with your back to supremacism. Like when you pretend confusion about supportable arguments¹, or cover for rehashed supremacist tropes². And then consider the contrast between what you will say on behalf of someone who did something stupidly racist³, and your later argument⁴ that, "It also sound like you think that it is possible for a person to be a white supremacist without realising it, which strikes me as a little bizarre".

Inasmuch as we might wonder what you thought you were doing, your usual pretense has to do with free speech, but in that context there is also a question what you thought those people and that speech was doing. And your care for the hurt feelings of white supremacists is something that goes back, here, for over fifteen years. Are you a racist, James? There are two answers; the one that presupposes yes is actually not very useful on this occasion, because it is so broadly, nearly universally, applicable. The one, however, that observes your behavior does eventually intersect with the affirmative presupposition⁵, because that's how the evidence works out; it is not, however, conclusive. And that's why it's such an easy and obvious question: What did you think those other people were doing?

Remember, James: We don't want to suppress political views; we should not try to assess good faith; basic standards of rational discourse are an offense to free speech; we've had these discussions before, James, and it just seems impossible that you were unable to recognize the effects of the policy arguments you were making.

So, are you a racist? If the answer is yes, what does that mean? After all, there is a version by which, sure, you're human, so, yeah, you probably carry some acculturated racism. But it only becomes important if it becomes the excuse, that you tripped over yourself and fell down a hole and then for whatever reasons dug in. So it seems more useful to attend what you thought you were doing in the context of what you thought they were doing.

Back in '16, the profane fit was the problem, not the accusation of racism. And you were protecting free speech. Inasmuch as the result over time is that your policy outlook made it easier for people to behave provocatively and disruptively in a racist manner, we get that you weren't trying to aid and abet the normalization and legitimization of white supremacist fallacy and cruelty. I mean, right? But, still, what did you think they were doing? What did you think you were protecting?

Because, you've been like this for years, James. There's a lot to talk about. (Do we want to do it all in this thread, or scattered about, or how do we want to do this?)

 

Notes on #305↑ above

¹ February, 2021↗: "You were serious about wanting 'proper scientific arguments' for white supremacism, then? I assumed that was you being sarcastic." The idea that you were incapable of following the discussion would be disqualifying, so your sarcasm and all its implications are all yours. As I said, white supremacism isn't absolutely verboten; it just needs to be a properly scientific argument. It's not a matter, as you suggest, of wanting it here, but, rather, an easily observable standard. In that way, it is convenient that you also disdain the establishment and enforcement of basic standards of rational discourse because you think the staff will use that to suppress political outlooks. Again, we consider the arguments that seek shelter in such strange harbors.

² July, 2020↗: "Is [member] advocating for white supremacy? (I'm inclined to say no, but maybe I'm wrong.) Is he saying racism in the United States is good or preferable? I'm not seeing that explicitly, although I can understand how some might take that as the implicit message of [the] posts. I'm seeing ignorance, mainly." And an easy way to address such provocative behavior is to require people to support such arguments. Notice they can only do so by pressing their own inquiry, kind of like some evangelists support their belief in God by making demands of the godless. You've been around long enough, James; that point can't possibly have eluded you the whole time. Also, though, watch yourself parse: You don't explicitly see the straw man you raised, but you can see how others might perceive it. That's a pretty standard distinction promoted by supremacists, James; it's like the politician who apologizes that anyone was distressed by their own wrongness, that they are sorry anyone was offended by what they said, or that anyone took their words that way. Again, you behaved sympathetically toward white supremacism, and even offered an easy and familiar platitude.

³ Sacco discussion, in re "cancel culture", February, 2021↗.

⁴ Discussion of white supremacism, in re "Fascism and the American Experience", July, 2021↗.

⁵ That nearly universal presupposition will persist, on this occasion, in part because evidence suggests its validity, and it eventually becomes the foundation of what is essentially an E&O argument providing some relief by accounting for human frailty. It becomes a mitigating factor.​

 

Isn't it hateful to call him a little man?

 

Only if said to a conservative, or something like that. It's been ad hoc for a long time.

One of the big variables in James' moderation of the site is political aesthetics. And this part, if we ever get to consider it more clearly, either makes sense or not; inasmuch as there are more forgiving or less indicting narratives, I can't write those for him, and they don't work if we are obliged to pretend it never happened.

• Funny story, I'll be quick, so follow the bouncing ball. So, you know that ongoing thread about explanation and obfuscation↗, and I suggested↗ we needed to look back several years↗ to an episode about the idea of a science forum, and its subsequent discussion↗; the ufo thread↗ driving the ongoing thread about explanation and obfuscation was actually carved out↗ of the subsequent discussion. Anyway, it was about that time, several years ago, that I started thinking back through the history of my disputes with James, and I could remember a few episodes when we disagreed. But I also remember one time he issued an infraction on the grounds that right-wing feelings were hurt, and he needed to throw a political bone in order to provide an appearance of fairness, or some such. I actually didn't go back to look it up until sometime last year, or so, because those old disagreements seemed different from what came later. Anyway, the punch line is that it wasn't just right-wing feelings that were hurt; it was white supremacist feelings that were hurt¹, and, yes, that actually did manage to surprise me, because I had forgotten what it was about².​

Anyway, I can't write the mitigating narrative for him. In the time since you joined Sciforums, we have abandoned pretenses of scientific and rational discourse in order to make particular irrationality, including racism, feel more welcome, here. And it's also why moderators are not to focus on people's behavior, or assess good faith; notice how, when it's general enough, James and I can agree on basic concepts↗ like antisocial behavior. History, however, shows the detail is more complicated. It's why it stands out when you say↗ stuff like, "I'd like to see this site become more of a friendly, general discussion forum with little moderation other than for hate speech or just generally uncivil behavior", because, yeah, that's great and all, but accommodating people who behave like you do is part of the reason we can't have that. Like I told you last month↗, inasmuch as you have anything to say about site traffic, you should probably take a moment to consider who is going to see people like you running amok, here, and sign up for our forum in hopes of receiving that kind of abuse.

The thing is, nobody is really up to have this out at scale; it's a long, messy discussion, but James also knows that whatever he thinks of my reasons, I usually have some reason for saying the things I say, and compared to a seemingly interminable string of explanations about how other people are reading him wrongly, or even the energy to sustain his huff and wag routine through so many iterations as we might discuss, seething and calling me a "hateful little man" is probably about the best he can come up with.

But if it is not my place to write his narrative for him, it is also hard to count the number of times I have tried to hand it to him. For instance, in order for those ideas to succeed, they need all sorts of support from people who pretend they're not part of it, to say things like James says. But inasmuch as he's not trying to be supremacist, what is he actually trying to do? His mitigating narrative is a teachable lesson about what went wrong along the way. It's a fourth-wall opportunity for people to learn something about how these things go. In recognizing that he is not a supremacist and does not support supremacism, the basic question of what he thought he was doing provides the pathway for his mitigating narrative.

One insistent complication is that reconciling the past means acknowledging frailty and error. History is quite clear that he is not inclined to do that.

And how subtle do we intend to get? The most obvious and simplistic mitigating narrative describes a convenient fool, someone who certainly doesn't support this or that, but easily falls into behaviors that do in fact promote what we should believe he does not support. Perhaps a closer attention to detail will help us see something about the accident of any given moment, but that becomes complicated, burdensome, and only refashions the inquiry into something more blunt, such as how one could continue to so easily fall into these holes. Compared to what James does not remember, that explanation would be very difficult for him. And, moreover, it still leaves him in a position he will not accept, trying to tell us what he got wrong.

But there is also a saying, and I don't really think it's unknown in the Crown's dominion, a comedic mitigation when a character either caught in the act or forced to acknowledge that something has gone wrong, says, "Someday we will look back at this and laugh." And the hitch, there, is that whatever has gone awry needs to be over and done with. We're not going to sit back, together, and chuckle about that one time while it's still going on.

And, besides, we also have to be able to remember something in order to look back on it and laugh.

But there is a lot to get to, along the way. As a comparative question, sure, seething as he just did can be construed as a violation, but compared to what all goes into it, no, it's just not that big a deal. He makes his own point with that response, and it is one far more valuable than anything we might gain by a blank-slate assessment of the words themselves.
____________________

Notes:

¹ The discussion fifteen years ago really isn't so much different from the current rightist bacchinal taking place in Florida, Texas, Tennessee, &c. And for those who have such luxury, yes, it is in fact laughable to consider how offended conservatives pretended to be, once upon a time, compared to the historical outcome that, yes, it turns out that's where conservative were going the whole time.

² Ironically, had I told the story before looking it up, I would have said it had to do with American jingoism and our war on terror. But, no, it was the usual stuff about universities we've been hearing about in panicked screeching about CRT, cancel culture, diversity, and inclusion, part of the history preceding the bacchanal of censorship taking place in conservative states.​

 

So, I'm the problem with this site? Interesting. Is it possible that the only person that you like on this site is ...you? Would you actually prefer that this site was just your personal blogging space? (it almost is).

 

I think this is great. This tedious bickering is so annoying. How about everytime you guys feel like bickering at each other you do it in this thread, that way we won't have to wade through your stuff when reading posts.

 

I actually don't believe someone as educated as you is actually that stupid.

Consider the part about how I can't write the mitigating narrative for James; if it's not what it looks like, then I can't be the one to explain what he's thinking or doing, i.e., only he can explain that. Next is statement about how things have gone in your time here, and then how that relates to people's behavior; in order for any given outcome to occur, certain conditions need to exist. In making particular irrationality more welcome at Sciforums, we needed to look away from people's behavior, such that assessing basic things that even your parents would teach, like recognizing good faith, becomes inappropriate. And that's where you, or people like you come in. Like I said, James and I can agree on basic principles, but what that means is not so basic; history shows the detail is more complicated.

So now we come directly to you. It's one thing if you would "like to see this site become more of a friendly, general discussion forum with little moderation other than for hate speech or just generally uncivil behavior", but you're unfriendly, often uncivil, and willing to promote hate speech. More directly: Inasmuch as you have anything to say about site traffic, you should probably take a moment to consider who is going to see people like you running amok, here, and sign up for our forum in hopes of receiving that kind of abuse.

No, you're not the ultimate problem, but merely a symptom. And I really don't think you're so incapable as your sarcasm pretends. I don't know if you remember the splinter↗ about James' sense of humor, but even back then, it was ironic that you complained, "Pretty soon only the crazy posters will remain." And the irony of James' response↗ includes the point that your attitude and behavior is an example of the antisocial behavior his policy outlook cultivates. Or, as I explained↗ to you at the time, you're a minor symptom. If you follow that bit about his sense of humor back to the thread it was splintered from, you might also find discussion of his reliance on the idea that, "There is always the option not to read", and that's why your behavior passed muster, back then. If, these days, stuff like the Star Trek line↗ will get you a flag, the difference might be that you've annoyed him in some particular way.

So it's one thing if, in the abstract, James and I can agree↗ that antisociality is an important marker. But the detail is kind of complicated. If you look around, there is a certain amount of antisociality in what his policy outlook has protected, and part of the difference is how he feels in any moment that it is turned against him; but leaving it at that would be incomplete. If the result of our policies creates a cyberspace that is unattractive to potential traffic, that is what it is. But the irony of you complaining about low site traffic is that part of the reason for the foreboding pall, or even mere malaise—the shadow over Sciforums—that fails to attract more traffic is the policy outlook that welcomed and accommodated antisociality. In other words, you were complaining about the policy outlook by which your behavior has been welcome, here.

You ask if you are "the problem with this site"? You've been told before. There is no reason for you to keep getting this part wrong. That's why I don't believe someone as educated as you should be having this kind of trouble comprehending. But you do make the point, for all to see, what it gets someone to take you seriously.

And that aspect, what it gets anyone to particpate in good faith, reads like a warning to potential newcomers. It's something we've actually cultivated, essential to our free speech outlook. And no, don't ask me why, because that explanation is not mine to give. In a community where the Administrator can be seen disdaining source material—not it's content or quality, but the mere fact of source material—no, you are not "the problem", but quite literally a symptom, a disincentive, an example of what we traded out rational discourse and pretenses of a science site for.

Vis à vis your question↗ about the phrase, "hateful little man", it was clear from the outset you were stirring shit, but there is still utility in answering it.¹

And, yeah, to the one, it's kind of ad hoc; to the other, he makes a certain point, as it is.
____________________

Notes:

¹ For instance, there is a reason I generally don't take Foghorn seriously—and never mind, I'm just holding him to something he said once upon a time—but that does not mean there are not occasions in which it helps to answer him seriously↗. Of note, part of what got a discussion to that point is a consideration of problematic behavior↗ that would appear to not directly mention James. But it is in there—

The one thing we wouldn't want to be seen doing, apparently, is "silencing" people by requiring some manner of rational argument. Of course, how do we require them? At the end of the line, of course, are permanent potentials, but the question of what goes on in between merely exists.​

—and comes to mind when I recall your bit↗ about "heavy-handed moderators with constant talk of banning". Or, as I said on that occasion↗, there is plenty of room between where we are and banning. In its context, it is the prospect of "silencing" or otherwise inappropriately censoring that requires we leap ahead to banning. The effort required of a member to get banned through the cycle is actually considerable. But the question of what goes on in between is, functionally speaking, arbitrary. And that circumstance would appear to be how it's intended to go. Toward our present context, it is in that generally permissive uncertainty that we have cultivated such antisociality of which your behavior is an exemplary syptom.​

 

Tiassa, that’s quite good going, you didn’t make any comparisons of anyone (on this site) to a tv or movie character for once.
Try to get out a bit more and don’t let this site fester your mind.

I got it.
This is what mods do when post numbers are low. Trouble is, this is now so old hat, that James has had to put some spin on it by creating a dedicated thread.
The site needs more pot boilers, MR got old hat long ago.
Should that be old tin foil hat?

 

Great point!

I moderate a skydiving forum and we and the other moderators have a separate board where we discuss issues. We argue a lot but we keep it all in there so we can present more of a united front to the users of the board. I never thought about doing moderator theater to drum up more controversy. Generally the trolls who post on the forum do a decent enough job of causing trouble.

 

Here's a theoretic question, and it would be helpful if you answerd sincerely: Should you receive an infraction for that post?

 

First of all, tell me if you will be bringing misogyny, racism, gays and Naziism into this?

Global warming protestors blocking motorway:

That was the result of the protest.

One protestor said:

My bold
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-58636399

And in your reply:

So, I’m not taking you seriously here or any place else.
By the way, PM James and vice versa.

 

Wouldn't really be a Tiassa post without those things.

 

No.
If you didn't want comments from the peanut gallery, you wouldn't be airing this in a public forum.