I think you understand the concept of disingenuous framing, dog whistles, thinly veiled bigotry, etc, to achieve the same goal.
This sounds similar to your argument that we shouldn't consider someone trolling unless we can prove it/they confess, etc, which as I said before would make life very easy for people that skirt the rules.
Either way I'm not interested in debating those things today. Maybe some day.
I wasn't talking about your private conversations. But that it happens at times, and people see what kind of language and talking points are used in public, and what it actually means/what they want to achieve when they think it'll remain private. So people learn what red flags to look for.
And I'm referring to people that are acting on their beliefs in public, but chose their words more carefully.
Anyway, aside from the things pertaining to the moderator business I mentioned, I feel like this is derailing the thread, so I won't be replying to any more questions about this here. Let's consider this discussion over, and get back to where you guys were before.
I don't believe you believe what you're saying here. If you don't need evidence or care about what the accused has to say, why didn't you immediately side with Alara n Runa and just ban me? If you're really just acting on pure biased emotions that would be the thing to do, no need for discussions then since what could you even be discussing if not facts and proof or the lack thereof.
I'm using myself as counterexample, seeing as I've just been accused of acting on my bigotry in public, and I'm assuming by people who learn what it "actually means" (a.k.a. what I feel like it means) you mean people like Runa and Alara. I don't doubt that it happens for real, but false accusations of bigotry by people like them who believe whatever they feel like regardless of reality are far more common than real accounts of bigotry in my experience.
Of course people can be disingenuous while preaching that what they do is for the greater good, but here's how I determine this.
First, when asked to explain/provide evidence/etc. do they do so? Example: Alara accusing me of bigotry and saying there are loud aggressive bigots, zero evidence provided.
Second, if they do give an explanation, does it make sense? Example: Alara claimed that being "passive" doesn't stop bigots, implying that being aggressive does work, even after it clearly didn't work.
If your intentions are true then you should be eager to discuss, if what you claim is reality, eager to show the evidence. That's obviously not the case here, the only intention was to flame. When you believe my literal anti-bigotry ideas are somehow bigotry, it's clear they don't give a shit at all about progress and equality. You don't have to like me or what I'm saying to understand the simple fact that if no one cared about race/sex/etc. then there would be no racist/sexist/etc. Granted people will always make up arbitrary reasons to hate each other, but I digress.
This type of discussion is literally where we were even before Alara came at me but ok lol.