S.22.2-100: N.I.D.D.A.H. Act

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Mod Cap On: Gonna have to change the names and the acronyms. Its too similar to a different N word.

What are you talking about? Its Hebrew.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niddah

Not sure if you are serious or not, but Im gonna take it as serious.

Frankly, it is antisemitic to prohibit even being able to name a traditional jewish concept that has been practiced for millenia. Like I want to know what the bloody hell is the matter with this. Mod fascism censored the posting of the literal word for word text of an actual law in Tennessee (without any commentary) and now you are telling me a Hebrew word for a Jewish ritual mandated by THE BIBLE is against the TOS, because it maybe, possibly sounds like ... what? Do you even know how this word is pronounced? How in the hell does Badger get to say the actual N word but now yall are gonna censor the phucking Bible because oh me someone maybe pronounced it wrong in their head and thinks it sounds similar to a slur. Thats lunacy and thats ad hoc. If someone reported this it is clearly a bad-faith report and should be dismissed. This literally breaks no rules. Show me the TOS this breaks.

Not agreeing or disagreeing with anything you are talking about in regards to Badger, but on the substance of it being "close" to some n-word...
Just plainly absurd...Clearly someone offended by something like this is most likely either misinformed or looking to be offended so that they can claim something self-glorifying.
Neither of which are things that elevate this to something that ought to be changed. It's not our problem.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

When Badger actually said the n word in reference to black people on the forum, numerous mods came to his defense claiming that it wasn't the n word because he replaced one letter in the word.

I'm genuinely going to need any mod that has an issue with this bill title to explain how niddah is "too close to the n word" when it's an actual word, this bill is in reference to the actual word, and is even further from the n word previously mentioned on the forum thst just about every single mod came out saying was acceptable.

Im curious if the adjective "bigger" is now banned forum wide for being only 1 letter off and therefore sounding much more like the no-no word claimed. After all, "bigger" shares 5 out of 6 letters with the banned word. The word in this bill shares 2 out of 6. Again I dont know how a mod can claim an actual word that 1. Is in a foreign language, 2. Predates the slur, 3. Is not pronounced the same as the slur, 4. Is not being used as a slur or a stand in therefore, 5. Shares only about 1/3 of the same letters as the slur, and 6. Is in the Bible, is obviously something posters should presume violates the TOS. An enforceable TOS has to be clear and consistent so that posters can conform their discussion to the rules. There is no way to conform to such an arbitrary standard as "when I mispronounce word A in my head it maybe, sort of sounds like word J despite being a different word, in a different language, that is 67% different in spelling, therefore word A is infractable." Like how is this anything but a scheme to chill speech and target specific posters for bs ideological reasons?

Wait until whoever reported this learns what a commonly used word for 'what' is in Chinese, or the name of a state in northeast India, or a Japanese word meaning "go away", or any number of homophones or quasi-homophones with histories essentially unrelated to the modern n-word or any of its derivatives or cousins or relatives.
When you don't know as much about the world, it can be easy to act on basis of ignorance, knowingly or not.
Keeping an open mind and being respectful of other languages is a good thing. And actions speak louder than words.
Respect human diversity. It's an innate part of our species.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

When Badger actually said the n word in reference to black people on the forum, numerous mods came to his defense claiming that it wasn't the n word because he replaced one letter in the word.

I'm genuinely going to need any mod that has an issue with this bill title to explain how niddah is "too close to the n word" when it's an actual word, this bill is in reference to the actual word, and is even further from the n word previously mentioned on the forum thst just about every single mod came out saying was acceptable.

Im curious if the adjective "bigger" is now banned forum wide for being only 1 letter off and therefore sounding much more like the no-no word claimed. After all, "bigger" shares 5 out of 6 letters with the banned word. The word in this bill shares 2 out of 6. Again I dont know how a mod can claim an actual word that 1. Is in a foreign language, 2. Predates the slur, 3. Is not pronounced the same as the slur, 4. Is not being used as a slur or a stand in therefore, 5. Shares only about 1/3 of the same letters as the slur, and 6. Is in the Bible, is obviously something posters should presume violates the TOS. An enforceable TOS has to be clear and consistent so that posters can conform their discussion to the rules. There is no way to conform to such an arbitrary standard as "when I mispronounce word A in my head it maybe, sort of sounds like word J despite being a different word, in a different language, that is 67% different in spelling, therefore word A is infractable." Like how is this anything but a scheme to chill speech and target specific posters for bs ideological reasons?

What until whoever reported this learns what a commonly used word for 'what' is in Chinese, or the name of a state in northeast India, or a Japanese word meaning "go away", or any number of homophones or quasi-homophones with histories essentially unrelated to the modern n-word or any of its derivatives or cousins or relatives.
When you don't know as much about the world, it can be easy to act on basis of ignorance.
Keeping an open mind and being respectful of other languages is a good thing. And actions speak louder than words.

Let me just say- there's nothing remotely respectful towards Hebrew or Judaism in passing a fake internet law that bans and discriminates against women by using a Hebrew word for a Jewish religious concept. In fact, it's kind of anti Jewish. I'd be offended if it happened in real life, here it's just sad. But don't pretend to respect us by cosplaying as fascist theocrats in our name.

It doesn't necessarily say much about one thinks about Judaism. To me, this isn't about Judaism.
But the xenophile in me finds it extremely ignorant to get offended at the name of this bill because it could possibly be construed as similar. I have little to no sympathy with such a viewpoint.
Respect human diversity. Humans speak various tongues with various terms that might be similar or whatever. In the era of globalization, I see some don't understand that, but that doesn't mean the mod team should empower ignorance.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I wouldn't care as much about this if it wasn't clear what has been implied by mods, but I will reiterate: you can respect the fact some words in non-English languages may under some looking-for-being-offended definition of "similar to n-word" might qualify as offensive. Or you can actually respect human diversity. You cannot do both.
Many people can get offended at things they do not understand. That doesn't mean the mods have to, and even act the same way.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This is a religious accomodation law for the Orthodox. Our Constitution says we must accomodate religious expression. No one is forced to do anything. Its frankly pathetic that this bill, which in no way violates the TOS, might have been reported for who knows what. This is from the Bible. To say we cant even discuss the Bible and biblical concepts is unfair and discriminates against Christians and Jewish people. This is like core speech. Its absurd that someone can claim it violates the TOS to discuss the Bible and religious concepts as though they are a gatekeeper of God.

To be fair to Parrotguy (to some degree), he is Israeli and probably is repulsed by the idea of such accommodations (which, as I understand it, are not exceptional in Israel).
But this ain't Israel and we have different constitutions and laws.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

In general I think many of the critics of this chamber would be helped if they more thoroughly looked at the text of the bills passed by this chamber on their own merits.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This is a religious accomodation law for the Orthodox. Our Constitution says we must accomodate religious expression. No one is forced to do anything. Its frankly pathetic that this bill, which in no way violates the TOS, might have been reported for who knows what. This is from the Bible. To say we cant even discuss the Bible and biblical concepts is unfair and discriminates against Christians and Jewish people. This is like core speech. Its absurd that someone can claim it violates the TOS to discuss the Bible and religious concepts as though they are a gatekeeper of God.

To be fair to Parrotguy (to some degree), he is Israeli and probably is repulsed by the idea of such accommodations (which, as I understand it, are not exceptional in Israel).
But this ain't Israel and we have different constitutions and laws.

I thought of this bill after talking to Sunrise about various orthodox policies in Israel. Its ridiculous to think someone can stop someone else from discussing millenia old religious traditions in the most printed book ever because they claim an alternate interpretation to theirs "isnt respectful". I think every post James Monroe makes about religion isnt respectful to my faith and yet I dont self-righteously abuse the reporting system. Its a shameful, childish move. I dont even care about this bill, but I absolutely oppose hypothetical thought police trying to bully free discussion rather than just ignoring ideas they may not like.

To restrict speech in this way is profoundly illiberal. Free speech is important, and so is tolerance and reasonable accommodation of religion. In an American context, anyhow...
I like Parrotguy and consider this an area where reasonable people can disagree. But religion will always have a space in the public sphere, and that is hard to deny.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This is a religious accomodation law for the Orthodox. Our Constitution says we must accomodate religious expression. No one is forced to do anything. Its frankly pathetic that this bill, which in no way violates the TOS, might have been reported for who knows what. This is from the Bible. To say we cant even discuss the Bible and biblical concepts is unfair and discriminates against Christians and Jewish people. This is like core speech. Its absurd that someone can claim it violates the TOS to discuss the Bible and religious concepts as though they are a gatekeeper of God.

To be fair to Parrotguy (to some degree), he is Israeli and probably is repulsed by the idea of such accommodations (which, as I understand it, are not exceptional in Israel).
But this ain't Israel and we have different constitutions and laws.

I thought of this bill after talking to Sunrise about various orthodox policies in Israel. Its ridiculous to think someone can stop someone else from discussing millenia old religious traditions in the most printed book ever because they claim an alternate interpretation to theirs "isnt respectful". I think every post James Monroe makes about religion isnt respectful to my faith and yet I dont self-righteously abuse the reporting system. Its a shameful, childish move. I dont even care about this bill, but I absolutely oppose hypothetical thought police trying to bully free discussion rather than just ignoring ideas they may not like.

To restrict speech in this way is profoundly illiberal. Free speech is important, and so is tolerance and reasonable accommodation of religion. In an American context, anyhow...
I like Parrotguy and consider this an area where reasonable people can disagree. But religion will always have a space in the public sphere, and that is hard to deny.

I just want to make it clear that this literally does not violate the terms of service and that as you said it is illiberal to report the text of the bill, especially when it doesnt violate the terms of service. You can disagree with the policy but reporting the text simply because you disagree is an abuse of the system. Especially if the report was against a neutral floor officer who merely posted the text of a bill from the introduction thread pursuant to official duties, as though the floor officer can predict when a bill that is within the TOS will offend some rando.

It does spook me a bit, the mere prospect of such efforts meeting some modicum of success.
Moderators should not indulge such behavior regardless of which direction it comes from, whether it be me, you, or anyone else.
If you dislike the bill, you have the means to express so. It's so curt to just threaten to flip the table...
We should have a civil and respectful public square.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I'm interested in seeing what Mr. R's response to this most recent post is.
My understanding is that this legislation is not necessarily focused on giving store owners any kind of total control, and serves more as a liability shield in terms of its overall impact. It does not force anyone to do anything.