I know the feeling.
I would recommend taking a break from this thread as that might help.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Shamima Begum wins right to return to UK
- Thread starter It’s Time To Go
- Start date
- Status
I know the feeling.
I would recommend taking a break from this thread as that might help.
They're generally good at reporting the facts as they stand, even if obviously like a lot of other UK media their opinions are... to put it kindly, suspect. To put it less kindly, fucking awful. This is sort of the problem with establishment media - they're the only ones with the resources and editorial control to work as solid fact-based sources but so much of that editorial control is also bent towards really really bad ends.
Sure. Maybe my own history is influencing my thinking here. My dad was a victim of abuse - parental, not sexual, as far as I know - and he grew up to transfer that behavior downstream. Someone being a victim of abuse does not mean they can't be a perpetrator of it later in life* and from what I'm reading, Shamima was. I have difficulty saying that it's unreasonable for people to react to that. Personally, I'm not in favor of retributive justice broadly, but I think that's a discussion you can have rather than something staff needs to make a hard, fast line on.
There were... a fair few other words in that discussion, no?
Yup, it's a terf infested shitehole that regularly propagates classic British racism, whose output has primarily been to gaslight the left with mewling Liberal concern for ten years. Their exposés and great journalists are a complete minority. Holding it as some kind of bastion against bigotry is weird.
I used to like The Guardian but it seems over the last few years it's gone to shit.
Just to add some post clarification I used to use the website and just skim through it but over the last few years I've been digging into news sites more often and realised how bad it is.
What happened to her was tragic, and I hope she gets the help needed. No one should've gone through what she did.
It really is, but at least now we might have an inkling why. I sincerely hope this changes.
It really is, but at least now we might have an inkling why. I sincerely hope this changes.
Hang on a minute. This discussion has been framed around disagreement while the bans have been for hostility. Let's look back through how this all started in relation to that. 'OK dude' was in response to Windrunner being called a 'gammon.' I don't know how much UK parlance you are aware of, but this was a woman being called a red-faced, angry, far-right racist middle-aged man. While 'OK dude' can of course be dismissive, you've left out some context here, I wouldn't describe calling someone a gammon just "'confronting them". It's a massive escalation in hostility, the UK equivalent to calling people a Trump supporter, which is why several bans (in addition to other insults flying around) have been for hostility, not disagreement. Robust disagreement is fine, valued even, but you can't claim that people have only been banned for disagreement while glossing over the escalation that followed calling someone a far right angry white male bigot. How can discussion happen if the first sign of disagreement is immediate escalation to 11.
And nobody (but nobody) is saying that Shamima is innocent and should be released to go her merry way with a pat on the back and a government handout. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.
Some people are openly saying that the fact she was groomed at an early and impressionable age is entirely irrelevant, and the actions that she took as a result of the grooming fully justify dehumanising her. A terrifyingly large number of people, given my general impression of where resetera sits on these things.
And the perception (which might well not match the reality) is that people are being punished harder for trying to take a more nuanced approach than for treading the Daily Mail lock-her-up-throw-away-the-key-and-deprive-her-of-her-human-rights line.
Last edited:
We were having that discussion, in asking Windrunner to elaborate her viewpoint as to how an immediate life sentence is an appropriate response to Shamima's situation, but that dicussion has for better or worse been terminated prematurely.
I think your quote is a little broken, as it's going to a post I made, but I was not the one who made the statement you have quoted.
I'm not even sure if you intend to be responding to me, but my point is Windrunner was essentially victim-blaming the same as one of the first people in the thread was doing, and had been rightfully banned for.
Redcrayon Calling someone 'gammon' refers to the mentality that those bacon faced men typically have, which in this context would be "chuck her in jail and throw away the key" or "bring back the death penalty". Gammon isn't restricted to the characteristics of what you've described at all. Plenty of tories are gammon and don't fit a criteria besides their mentality.
Nobody's been banned for saying that she should have a trial, though. That perception is simply untrue.
I mean, no. You're having that discussion with me. The discussion people had with Wind involved a lot more accusations of being effectively a Trump supporter (which is what I'm taking gammon to effectively be) and similar accusations and hostility. Thus the bans.
I'm not sure why you're directing us towards them as the arbiters of how this discussion is nuanced if they're as horrific as we all know they are.
I mean, she's throwing out some views that a lot of us see as bigoted, erasing a victim of sexual assault's victim status because she doesn't like them, and according to some in here sourcing those views based off the Daily Mail's reporting. How is any of that just disagreement from her when people like this caught a month ban for saying the same thing
No, It refers to their depiction, the angry red face of the constantly raging middle-aged racist white man. The term is a visual descriptive as the visual matches the attitude.
Urban Dictionary: Gammon
British slang, stereotype of a right-wing person who is seemingly always sunburned. The kind of person who thinks that "flour" is a spice, that there's too many Spaniards in Spain, and that they "Don't want any of that foreign muck" when abroad instead only eating Chips and Sausages
www.urbandictionary.com
Ostia's point was that Windrunner was hypocritically doing the same thing she herself decried gammons for. To act like he just straight up called her a gammon is fucking disingenous and then you accuse others of leaving out context?
If your little mod squad wants to close ranks to protect your own, fine, you've displayed plenty of inclination to do that before. But don't insult our intelligence.
Also, fuck your civility. What does it say about this place that jumping straight to a life sentence for a grooming victim's actions when she was 15 is 'robust disagreement' but stating that someone is acting like the gammons they criticise is hostility worthy of a ban?
It does seem to pretty well sum up Baki's experience, for example. They posted twice fairly reasonable in this thread, and now banned for undetermined amount of time.
Shamima Begum wins right to return to UK
You’re also mischaracterising the situation as you neglected to mention she was 15 year old girl who probably had very little to no autonomy once she was in Syria. I really do think this forum has a problem moderating issues when they pertain to Muslims and brown people. You’ve done a better...
www.resetera.com
I readily admit, I don't know any UK slang so, thanks for informing me on that. And, I'm genuine in that. I don't think that really changes my feelings though in bans that some other people got, which do seem to be completely out of place like Baki, or Windrunner being mad and lashing out at one person, and then people stepping in and responding to her tone. And there is the feeling of a double standard where posts expressing similar views have eaten bans, and she has not. It feels like one set of rules for Windrunner, and another for others.
No, ‘gammon’ is not a racial slur. Now let’s change the conversation | Owen Jones
The crybullies of the right are hamming it up to deflect from their own poisoning of the political discourse, says the Guardian columnist Owen Jones
www.theguardian.com
This Guardian article says gammon isn't a slur, so if you're upset about being called gammon you're wrong
No, It refers to their depiction, the angry red face of the constantly raging middle-aged racist white man. The term is a visual descriptive as the visual matches the attitude.
Urban Dictionary: Gammon
British slang, stereotype of a right-wing person who is seemingly always sunburned. The kind of person who thinks that "flour" is a spice, that there's too many Spaniards in Spain, and that they "Don't want any of that foreign muck" when abroad instead only eating Chips and Sausages
That's its etymology, not its actual usage. The second line and 'core traits' refers to what they actually demonstrate, if we're gonna pretend Urban Dictionary is some kind of linguistics reference tool.
I wouldn't say "slur," but it's a pretty serious insult and should probably remain aimed at the right people. Like any other insult, really. That's sort of the nature of a hostility ban.
Besides, that was not the only thing said. Just the first example.
Baki's situation is actually kind of different from the others, given their ban history.
This is someone who at the age of 19 was calling the murder of children by a terrorist at a pop concert in Manchester justified. If you don't understand why many in the UK have mixed feelings about this case, then fair enough.
Last edited:
Oh fuck off. You fuckers have been abusing your moderation powers since the beginning of this fucking site. You shield the assholes and treat the minority communities here like they're expendable while still propping yourselves up as arbiters of inclusiveness. Every attempt you've made to bridge the gaps has fallen flat because you refuse to actually listen. Windrunner said some shitty fucking things in this thread, and as laoni said above, it's like mods aren't held to the same rules as everyone else. They're just allowed to spout whatever and ban with impunity. God, fuck this place.
I don't see how you can read this thread and not come away with the conclusion that people were rightfully upset at a mod defending the stripping of human rights of a person that was clearly motivated in racism. Policing the tone of those people while sparing the (equally aggressive and dismissive, but for the wrong reason) defender of a racist political decision is messed up
It's widely understood that it refers to the flushed face that goes with anger, but alright.
Gammon (insult) - Wikipedia
Yeah, quoting went crazy there for some reason.
No. But there are people saying that they will not accept that a 14-year old who was radicalised and groomed for sexual abuse can be a victim because of things she did after that. And people are getting banned for reacting strongly and negatively to that viewpoint.
I can understand the position. I know a lot of people who I'd agree with on a lot of things who go full Daily Mail when it comes to Shamima Begum. It just disappoints me.
It doesn't reflect well when a moderator can write up an "okay dude" post that a regular member would get a deserved warning (or ban if it was a repeated enough offense) IMO.
But in this case it's being handwaved away since it's a staff member, as far as I can tell.
But in this case it's being handwaved away since it's a staff member, as far as I can tell.
Okay, if people are allowed to have mixed feelings, why was this person banned for a month?
When Windrunner's whole point is that Shamima is responsible for her own actions and knew what she was doing. What is the actual difference here that has you all defending her post specifically and not baskcm's?
Yeah, I saw they had the previous bans, but from the outside, you can see why it looks bad, yeah? Both their posts are entirely reasonable within the context, and the listed ban history doesn't really have a relevance to the current ban, so it seems out of place
I'm not defending her post, I was pointing out that several have claimed dissent isn't allowed while glossing over the hostilty that was referenced in banners.
Your question here is probably one for captains rather than me, but I suspect 'she knew what she was doing' is a bit of a dogwhistle.
Short version is, if we have reason to think that somebody is not engaging in good faith in a thread like this, they get extra scrutiny. If that makes any sense.
Backsm's post was considerably less nuanced and more flippant than anything Windrunner said, and it's like Red said: "she knew what she was doing" is definitely a dogwhistle.
Oh please.
If she would have been crying and saying she condemned the public and press would have simply called her looking for sympathy to be let home.
Secondly what a 19 year old says after 4 years of pure trauma I really don't hold much weight too.
I mean... maybe? But that's sort of a different discussion, no?
Less nuanced?
Straight up a "She knew what she was doing"
Uh...
'of their own free will' is another way of saying 'she knew what she was doing'.
Are the rules are that you can't be kind of spicy ,a little bit mean to a mod during a heated conversation or you get a 3 day ban ? I've seen way worse in normal game review thread between users. especially when a person goes okay dude as one of the first responses to a argument I mean come on don't be a little testy when you say that .
An honest question to the mod team: do we have a Muslim mod in the team, who can represent poc views? I believe this will help with moderation.
I dunno, they read differently to me. One person is advancing an argument and the other is blowing one off.
I mean, like I said we're trying to crack down on that kind of thing generally so if you could report it it'd be appreciated. Same hostility rules apply to mods as to everybody else.
What? So, as long as you're advancing an argument you can say that a 15 year old is completely aware of what she's doing after being groomed and then sexually abused? That she was fully aware of her actions, and that she knew what she was doing? Because it advances an argument?
My dude, no user on this site can get away with that justification. This is why people are upset about the differing treatment
Yeah it does and it's understandable why with that ban history they'd have an eye on them, but by the same token... It seems hard to genuinely determine concern trolling over a genuine belief off two posts (I also admit I have none of the background you guys do, I'm just viewing it from the user side.).
I would have to disagree with this, though. Even if a dogwhistle is polite sounding, it doesn't mean it's not whistling
So (as defined by your team's own actions) bannable opinions are unquestionable so long as you've thought long and hard about it?
I'm sorry to hear that, and your earlier post. All I can do is say that it's true.
All I can tell you is that they feel qualitatively different to me. Maybe it's the rest of the context, the discussion around re-instating her citizenship.
Though this is definitely not the distinction.
- Status