coal

I don't think you have the capacity to engage in a discussion of these topics.  

Dem's will fuck up impeachment.  Make no mistake about it. 

Moat likely scenario is that proceedings continue through 2020 election, Dem's lose the House, and Rep's kill the effort in Jan. 2020.

A swarm of chinchillas descends upon you, of course.  

There are many things wrong with this post, including a fundamental misunderstanding of what liberalism is.

Liberalism does not contend that all cultures are equally good.  This is wrong.  This is closer to multiculturalism/cosmopolitanism, but they do not make claims that any culture is "good" so much as that no one culture has the right to impose its norms on another.  Liberalism is not multiculturalism or cosmopolitanism.  These are different animals.  With some irony, liberalism takes both multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism to task for this belief.

The position that no culture is superior to any other culture (which is not the same thing as saying that all cultures are good, btw.), and more specifically the position that no culture has a right to impose its norms on any other culture, is generally describable as a "relativist" position.  When I say "relativist" in this post, that is what I mean.  Hopefully that clears up any lingering confusion.

Liberalism is anti-relativist, for at least these reasons:

1. Liberalism contends that there exists such a thing as human dignity; that all humans have human dignity; and that the dignity all humans have is equal, such that this state of having dignity is at once a human universal and a condition of being human. 

2. In that all people have co-equal dignity, this state of co-equal being is inherent to us all; and implies that all people are themselves, equal in worth and value in relation to one another. 

3. In that all people are equal in worth and in relation to one another, this state of being implies an equally universal normative ethic by which we all ought to treat each other -- whether we act as individuals in relation to one another, or by and through the state. 

4. That universal normative ethic is what we understand to be universal human rights.  

5. Universal human rights are prior to any culture because culture, which emerges from society, which emerges only after entry into some social contract; are superior to the norms of any culture, as all cultures are specific to their time, place, and context.  

6. As such, to the degree that any cultural norm conflicts with universal human rights, the culture is itself offensive to human dignity; and therefore the cultural practice in such offense must yield to the degree it conflicts. 

The relativist rebuttal is this:

1. But what are human rights, other than a claim that Western ethics are superior to those which conflict with it? 

2. In no sense are these Enlightenment-era ideals "universal" any more than the Christianity from which they emerged is "universal". 

The Liberal reply is:

1. That is a thinly-veiled attack on the source of the argument (i.e., western Liberalism and Christianity), which does nothing to rebut the argument for universal human rights grounded in humanity's co-equal state of being.

2. Even if you, the relativist, did successfully rebut this grand narrative; people are still people, they are still equal, and the available alternatives (on which you cannot reasonably rely, because you, too, agree that things like sharia law's requirement of honor killing rape victims and apostates, for example) are too hideous to bear.  

Relativist, in reality, is too forgiving a word for the "you do you, I'll do me" worldview.  In reality, to abdicate moral responsibility by saying that no culture is superior to another; is to surrender any claim to the possibility of right and wrong itself.  As after all, if there are no standards by which the conduct of others can be measured; there is no mechanism to distinguish that which is wrong from that which is right.  There is no "right for you, wrong for me."  There is only what is right, and what is wrong.  It either is, or it is not.  

But this is the debate that liberals and multiculturalist types, and progressives face at length. 

However, your mistake is not uncommon.  For example, Yasmine Mohammed in her recent book "Unveiled: How Western Liberals Empower Radical Islam" explores this theme, though she recklessly uses the word "liberal" where she should have used the word "progressive" in general, or "multiculturalist/relativist" in particular.  Despite this, I recommend it.  Before reading Mohammed's book, It would be worth reading a book I used to teach out of written by Susan Moller Okin called "Is multiculturalism bad for women?"  Obviously, it is.  

This is just one of the very complex contradictions which forms the basis of an emergent civil war on the left, as it manifests now, between progressives and liberals.  But to coherently participate in that dialogue, one must understand the meaning of the terms; and attribute them only those precepts with which they are associated.  Hopefully this post will help you do that. 

Here is a better raccoon:

But you didn't replace with a nice tree...

Why are you tagging me?

No, its from DDO Mafia.  Back in the old days.  

I should add that these issues are not limited to forums.  It's in emails between attorneys and business-people, too.  

People fill in the gaps between your written words and your tone with their subjective perception of who you are. This is kind of why there is a lot of importance of having a good reputation.

For example, RM assumed that I was using autistic as an insult, because he perceives me to be some menacing force to be contended with that is the alpha of the DDO elite, or some other conspiracy nonsense. 

He also assumed that because I have had frank disagreements with Virt on things, that I am intentionally insulting Virt.  That interpretation is a reflection of exactly the problem I was referring above: easily excitable people tend to read meaning into words that is not there, and is not meant to be there; because of their proclivity to interpret what people say in the least charitable way possible. 

In reality, being autistic means you don't pick up on certain things.  We're all somewhat autistic when it comes to reading written words, because we can't see inside the writer's head.  That is why the three rules of interpretation, detailing things to avoid doing, are so important.  How many conflicts are the result of simple miscommunication?  Worse, what is the miscommunication's genesis? 

Typically, it's "you said one thing" and "I understood something else."

The british are the absolute worst at this.  There was a meme from a decade or so ago to the effect of a british supervisor and an american subordinate, where the british supervisor says something like "I would appreciate it if you could get your report completed by this Friday."  The American understood that to mean "It would be appreciated but is not mandatory."  The Brit meant it as "Turn the report in by friday, or else."  The American blamed the brit for failing to communicate effectively.  

To me it looks like you're trying to take two events that have no relationship to one another, and form an assessment and joke based on your already dim witted post hoc logic. 

So I'm getting the impression that you're just autistic. Sorry, not interested in talking to you. 

The single biggest problem with communicating on a text-based forum site such as this, is the fact that the extent of what medium is available for that purpose is the written word. 

This means that obvious satire isn't interpreted as obvious satire, but instead taken literally.  Perhaps there's some latent or overt autism involved in the general failure to appreciate that level of nuance -- and doubtlessly there is, given the nature of this website -- but the written word is doubly predisposed towards this species of misinterpretation because of the absence of vocal inflection and subjective ambiguity inherent in the meaning of word choice. 

But what is vocal inflection? Here's a sentence to help you think about the issue:

"I didn't say he kicked his dog."

Try reading that sentence placing emphasis on each single word, and consider how the meaning changes. 

I didn't say he kicked his dog.

--But someone else might have said that. 

I really don't know if this is mostly you just being clueless, or you trolling.  Could be both. 

You seem like a weird guy. 

You block me but then ask me a question... what bullshit is this?

Stop speaking to me. 

Again, you clearly do not understand any of the issues I have raised. It is incredible to me that we live in times where all disagreement is interpreted as indicating personal beefs. 

You clearly do not understand the issues I have raised.  

That's an incomplete summary.

Maybe this isn't bad faith... maybe you just don't read. 

In that case, I am especially skeptical of any decision you make. 

I am skeptical that any actual improvement will result. 

So now you ask a question that I have already answered, and expect me to respond again?

This is a waste of time.  You clearly did not even read my post. 

And this goes to the heart of the problem:

Moderation here already has no legitimacy because you allowed bsh1 to go on as he did for so long, and now that things have changed there isn't any real improvement either.

I seriously question whether any of you have the foresight to even be able to write, much less implement, a code of conduct that is fair and understandable.  

My suspicion of your collective bad faith is amplified by how Ram deliberately mischaracterized objective facts to suit his own absurd ends above.  Like if you're going to do that, then you're already proven yourself incapable of not acting in bad faith and moderating from the perspective of 'have emotional reaction, silence thread' nonsense. 

Keep that up and you'll drive people off the site.  Some will stick around, but the only people who will will be those who are willing to put up with a level of regementation akin to that of a middle school hall monitor -- which is what all of you essentially are. 

I think the fact that you have framed what you think is a question in the way that you have implies both that (1) your only real purpose here is to make some post hoc argument that locking the thread was appropriate, and (2) that you want to appear to be more clever than you are in trying to make that argument.

I don't think you understand what fighting words are, either.  Even if you did, you would likewise understand why a concept like that has no real application in this thread or in relation to this issue.

I further think that both you and Virt lack the sensibility to moderate with a sufficiently light touch not to alienate members here.

As you know I don't contribute much to this site, largely because I disagreed with the actions which went unaddressed from bsh1 and others for a very long time, and for other reasons; but now that leadership (if you could call it that) has changed, it seems that rather than any form of palpable improvement, you're just trading one set of issues for another set of issues.

If you want to engage with me in good faith then fine, I'll be happy to have that conversation.  But when you write something so deliberately false, dishonest, disingenuous, and provocative as you have (see "premise is to purposefully encourage multiple responses that are derogatory or insulting to other users"), it is beyond obvious to me that you have no intention here in doing anything than trying to deliberately mischaracterize facts to justify the conclusion to which you and the other supposed moderator have already come to.

On another note, were you the top mind who thought that sending Speedrace to lock the other thread would be a good idea? 

If DDO returns, as it should, this site will likely lose membership if you continue to be a tight-assed moderator.  

I put myself under the first category, as you obviously saw.  The fact that you disagree with the joke doesn't mean that it's gone too far.  If this is too far, then nearly everything is too far -- which is why you're out of control.

You're out of control with this. The thread was obviously meant to be satire. 

Why have you failed to address RM breaking rules to the effect of threatening to "report content to moderation" as being a violation of the code of conduct in and of itself? 

Locking a thread while you "review" content is nonsense.  You continue to moderate with too heavy a hand. 

RM is nominated for member of infamy.

Keep them coming!

haha indeed 

And to be clear, even though bsh1 (for reasons again I attribute to a lack of emotional/psychological/etc. maturity and stability) holds a grudge against me for plenty of reasons that I don't care about, I want to note for everyone here that I have no lasting beef with him.  I just don't care.  I have more important things to worry about, but seeing this is something that I felt was important to speak up on and so I have. 

I generally as well agree with mostly all of what Annie has said on this topic, and would note for everyone that despite the fact that bsh1 has similarly misread her motives as he has consistently misread mine, the main issue here is not to go after him or whatever other revenge fantasy he or any of the stupid kids (speedrace) have convinced themselves of.  I just don't want to see conduct like what I have been seeing, and I don't think anyone else does either. 

It's not personal, and it never was.   

I think the argument that "the community" watered the garden by tolerating bsh1 surrounding himself with underage gay boys, and us tolerating that is... Well I don't know what to think about it.  First of all, I don't know if it is true because the only other moderator I know of is speedrace and I have no idea what his supposed sexuality is (and I don't care).  Secondly, if what ethang is suggesting is true (and I don't know if it is because I do not participate in this "community" or whatever), then that's deeply concerning.

That said I generally do not approve of bsh1's conduct and I attribute it to as much a lack of emotional and psychological (as well as sexual) maturity, and generally a complete lack of regard for what appropriate conduct in his position would have been due to, as I have indicated, a complete lack of maturity on every relevant dimension.  

The main issue here is not whether bsh1 is some kind of "sexual predator" (which, to be clear, I do not think that he is), but whether because of a lack of being properly socialized and having an array of friends his own age or near his own age, he sees himself as more of a teenager than someone in his mid-20s.  He is also more comfortable around kids because they look up to him and are far, far less likely to call out his bullshit -- of which there is no shortage -- than someone who has a mind of their own, and thoughts in their head.  

Like, a 16 year old might think it's perfectly normal to threaten to kill yourself whenever someone gets into a heated argument with you and refuses to "agree to disagree" because to a 16 year old, with nothing even vaguely approximating life experience or emotional/psychological maturity, even something as absolutely trivial as an argument with someone might be the biggest conflict they've ever dealt with.  But to a normal adult, if someone says after an argument or disagreement something to the effect of what bsh1 has after such conflicts, that is a serious problem and a plain and clear indicator that this person has massive issues that they need to sort out with a therapist or other appropriate professional (psychologist, namely). 

This isn't a uniquely gay problem, either.  But it is something that needs to be addressed and it is conduct that is seriously not appropriate for a moderator on this or any other site. 

Stepping down was the right decision, but he still should have taken responsibility and acknowledged that he was out of control.  When he does that I'm sure he will rejoin the community. 

Very high demand for that now. 

What kind of graduate degree?

I'm good.  Busy almost all the time though.  How about you?

Correct on all counts.  Castin is an idiot.

I have come up with a solution.

DART awards, the hall of fame, all of it is too stuffy ...

Come with me, and you'll see a world of dark imagination.

Nominate people for DARK Dart awards here.

Can I de-nominate people?

Nope

No idea

Yes, but I just no longer to white collar stuff.  I have pretty much consolidated my practice areas from general litigation to a specific type of litigation. 

I didn't say you accused me of threatening anyone.  I continue to have no idea what you are talking about. 

I don't do criminal work.  The white collar stuff I once did, I no longer am involved in. 

That makes sense, I guess.... never heard the term before.

In my line of work, evergreening means trying to extend the life of a patent beyond its expiry date. lol

No.

I am lost.  What is an "evergreen question"?

Well my issues with bsh1 mirror that, though I would note that I have other issues with him as well that go beyond the specific ones you raise. 

Generally, I do not lock threads unless there are multiple people engaging in bad faith conduct, band-wagoning, doxxing, or engaging in other serious problems.

The last thread I locked involved multiple Chinese bot accounts spamming regarding Hong Kong, and attacking a pro-Hong Kong person.  That was months ago. 

As for cutting people slack, yes, I agree fully.  I also do not -- as I indicated -- blame speedracer for the decision.  Clearly it was not his, but someone else's, and the fact that they sent the new guy to do it is something I take issue with.

But, the reason for locking the thread is an issue; as well as the fact that it was locked.  There were no personal attacks and there was no conduct there that should result in it being locked.  

There *might have been* if things continued, and there certainly were at least two people (neither myself nor annie) who said some things that were certainly objectionable, but that doesn't mean that a thread needs to be locked.  A "chill out" warning would for them have been more than adequate. 

What are you talking about?

I mod several large subs on reddit, and I almost never lock threads unless they get into outright personal attacks.  That said, I belong to communities where the opposite is true.   There is great variance from one sub to another; both in terms of the caliber of the mods in play and the practices they utilize.