Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

n_n OP wrote (edited )

About why they attack me saying that self employees are capitalists after that I said that I care for the exploited. existential1 at least was deflecting and trying to take the conversation to them and not about the group that I was talking about, but they recognized that they weren't the employees. Implying that self employees are capitalist was a low blow.

The lack of action about the ableist and sexist language that I receive by existential1 because they couldn't answer my question is other. Why Ziq kept saying that I was asking for a ban? Why can't engage with the abusive user like other admins and mods do?

−5

Tequila_Wolf wrote (edited )

Ok, so now I'm going to go and read the original post, the ToSbreaches post, and this stuff, and respond as I do.

To start, in the original post, you were very rude and effectively were picking a fight with existential1 for no clear reason, and making judgements about them that I see no basis for. It's not good ground for starting an engagement with someone, and you've been on this site for more than long enough to know that existential1 is no liberal.

I simply don't have the capacity to read even more articles (censuses etc) to decide who did or didn't understand things. However, suggesting that a person did not understand is not ableist in itself. There are many reasons why a person might not understand something, and also, there is nothing wrong with not understanding something, and it's only ableism when some appropriate combination of those two things occur. So far as I can tell.
That said, u/existential1 could probably have phrased themselves better around the 'inability to understand thing' early on. So please existential1 though I recognise why you would be short with n_n after they attacked you, it's worthwhile to keep in mind and be sensitive to the ways in which what you said is ambiguous and might imply static disability rather than contingent inability.
I think that asking this is as far as the action needed on existential1 in relation to what you've asked, n_n.
I agree with ziq that existential1's use of 'hysteria' is a problem. existential1 - please be sure not to call people hysterical - it's a common word used to silence women's opinions - I am surprised you did not know.

It's also clear to me reading further that ziq has done their best to have a good-faith interaction with you, despite it taking up a huge amount of their energy. Same as what I'm doing now. I basically agree with ziq's response to you, though I think it rests on our misunderstanding of what you wanted from the ToSBreaches post:

I think that some of the misunderstanding between you and ziq was ziq's assumption that there are only two kinds of actions - ban and not-ban - which made ziq (and I) struggle to understand how you were expecting them to take action. I assume that ziq will not assume this in future, so that is resolved.
Unfortunately, with the way that ToSbreaches is often used, it has set up the sense that ban or not-ban are the two options, when that's not the case. And much of your engagement with us on this reinforced this idea. So I can understand your frustration there, n_n, as well as why ziq (and I) misunderstood what you were asking for.

I hope that this response is adequate.

6

celebratedrecluse wrote

This seems very thoughtful, to me. Thank you for taking the time to address this matter.

4

n_n OP wrote

I am surprised you did not know.

I wasn't aware till Ziq pointed out. This is the first time that I saw someone mentioned it. There is still a lot that I have to learn.

2

n_n OP wrote (edited )

It's adequate, the struggle session that is happening in other part of Raddle is not adequate. Ziq made a post about the actions that admins should take to tackle toxicity, then when I was providing context to them to resolve a conflict that was happening people start attacking me. People that were on their side and as far as I know they didn't do nothing about them. I don't see other admins doing that so that's why I called Ziq. That's why I picked Ziq to mediate, why people are downvoitng all my posts and publicly shaming there? I thought that they were against people doing that.

for no clear reason

Their responded my comment by trying to defend the petite bourgeoisie in an anticapital forum. Defend the bourgeois is being liberal in my eyes. You my digress but I have enough reasons to be against them and to be rude to people that defend them.

All this doesn't explain why they used the self employees in that way (their ending comment) only to hurt me.

0

celebratedrecluse wrote

Look i don't know the specific context but I think your asking of admins to do eveeeeen mooooore for this extremely demanding site is lacking in self awareness. If you're upset with an online interaction, I really think it's best to log off-- I've had to do that before around here from specific harassment, I'm a pretty sensitive person and it does get to me so that's how I deal with it.

As much as you might be wounded by the problematic language, complaining that it isn't being removed fast enough is entitled and annoying-- it's not like these admins or mods are getting paid to make sure all the content is up to standard, this is an entirely volunteer based endeavor. Regardless, if there's an issue, I have a lot of faith that some of the other admins will address it and remove the content from the website now that it's reported. It's not all up to ziq.

4

n_n OP wrote (edited )

i don't know the specific context

Thanks for the response but I think that you need to know the context here to help in solve the issue, if not your comments will make more harm than good. I will keep it constructive and there is no hurry. We can take our time if needed.

complaining that it isn't being removed fast enough is entitled and annoying

That's what I was talking about knowing the context. I'm not complaining on the timing. They already said that they will not take action and the explanation was that it was because it was not worthy of a ban. You really need to know the context to know what I'm talking about here. I never asked for people to be banned. So the problem is that they refuse to do something because they work in binary, do nothing or ban people. We agree that is not ban worthy, but saying that they won't do nothing keeps the conflicts going as they were going until now. If they don't have time then they should just say "at the moment I don't have time, I will see what I can do later", I can wait so the timing is not a problem.

−4

celebratedrecluse wrote

Ok, does another admin want to take action then?

2

n_n OP wrote

No idea, other admins didn't engage in the discussion.

−3

celebratedrecluse wrote

Right, i know i replied to your comment but i was intend to help you draw them into this discussion, so that we can have a community conversation y response. And so the mediation has the best opportunity to succeed

/u/mofongo /u/Tequila_Wolf

2