Important Civility Rules Enforcement

[JagerIV]

If people come in here and accuse our members of being Nazis, they're going to get infracted. Period.

That's why we have no sense of humour about the topic.

Doesn't lord basically openly identify as a facist though? Or am I thinking of someone else?

 

[Jormungandr]

I don't think i have ever met a reasonable left winger .

People have varying attitudes and beliefs means no one is being purely black or white, or in this case Left, Right, Center: they are just broad, nebulous umbrellas that people have taken to using as strict definitions.

I'm a fairly conservative/traditional-in-culture person (but not religious: I honestly think religion is a crock of shit), but I have a few attitudes/beliefs/way of thinking that could be considered "liberal"/Left.

For example, I believe in being pro-choice up to a certain point of a baby's development. I don't agree with gay marriage being called marriage, but have no qualms about gay couples having the same rights as married couples in law. I think religion is a crock of shit on the whole, but I understand the bonds it creates in family/socially and the lessons fables like the Bible tell people (don't be a dick, work hard, et cetera). Women can sleep with people before marriage (which is religious bullshit, in my mind), but having a high "body-count" is going to (rightfully) earn them a slut reputation and the resultant social repercussions deserved (same with blokes) -- not to mention that they deserve to be called fucking idiots if they don't use protection and end up with an "oopsie baby".

The above? I'd be a villain to people on both the Right and Left, despite being primarily conservative in view/mind.

I see people on the nebulous Left as possibly being the same in shades of grey... but, to be frank, most are Leftards now.

Not all "Lefties" are Leftards, but all Leftards are "Lefties".

 

[Deleted member 1]

Doesn't lord basically openly identify as a facist though? Or am I thinking of someone else?

Fascism and Nazism are not the same. Certainly not according to the rules of this forum.

 

[Leepysheepy]

Are you going to say somthing that's likely to get you puched in the face by an average joe? Are you prepared to get punched in the face by said joe? If your not willing to get puched, you may want to ask yourself is this quip or point worth saying

So we should act at all times as if under threat of physical violence? That doesn't sound like a productive, inviting, and healthy debate environment.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

So we should act at all times as if under threat of physical violence? That doesn't sound like a productive, inviting, and healthy debate environment.

That's not what he said, though. He's talking about the concept of a "fighting words doctrine" -- which is a pretty longstanding RL legal standard in the United States and many other countries -- not Purge Night.

 

[Laskar]

So the classic "shoot the current audience in the foot to try to pander to a potential new audience" strategy that's killed countless properties over the past few years? When did "Bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" stop becoming common sense?

It's not like that at all. The forum staff isn't betraying one demographic for another, they've just noticed that people are refusing to join, or joining and then straight-up going inactive because of a small and vocal set of rulebreakers.

It's like a bar I frequented before this Wuhan Flu shut everything down. Used to be a quiet place to go and shoot the shit after work. Then a group of contractors from The Company Which Shall Not Be Named started showing up. These four guys were loud and obnoxious, and thought they had every right to be loud and obnoxious because "It's a bar."

Well, a lot of regulars quit showing up because it was hard to talk over these guys. I saw people step in the door, hear these guys talking, and walk right back out. One of my friends told them to quiet down, and they came within a knife's edge of picking a fight with him.

This nonsense lasted about a week until the owner of the bar stopped by and noticed these guys driving away business. He made it clear to the contractors that they could pipe it down or leave. In the case of the forum, the problem has lasted far longer.

Yup. Its basically saying that the liberal standards will be enforced, even though those kinds of standards and people are the kind of people we came here to get away from. We already have Barcle to fulfill our quotient of obnoxious leftism. Do we really need more?

Yeah. Probably. The reason that I'm not more active is that there is rarely anybody I disagree with in a thread, and I hate singing in a chorus.

See my previous post with respect to the fallacy that a call for civility means that liberal standards will be enforced.

He had good intentions but he was an idiot. It was clear what was going to happen (Hitler had zero interest in peace, and everyone from someone shoveling shit from a sewer to a professor at a university could see it), and he naively buried his head in the sand to try an appeasement strategy that was doomed to fail in the first place and that cost us dearly.

Clear to everyone today, but back then a fat fraction of the population was hopeful or deep in denial. And if Neville Chamberlain had gone to war, the historical narrative would be that the European Powers were too jingoistic to learn the lessons of the Great War.

Sometimes, I think that history needs a fool like Chamberlain so that there can be no doubt that peace and appeasement was never an option.

 

[LTR]

Sup homies!

*skips the thirteen pages of people applauding and praising Zoe*

So we should act at all times as if under threat of physical violence? That doesn't sound like a productive, inviting, and healthy debate environment.

It's a pretty common example to use. Kind of like the semicommon saying of, if you won't do it to Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson, you shouldn't do it to anyone (often in regards to inappropriate/unwanted physical advances and other potential impropriety). But still it's a pretty common example/metaphor to make. Your reading into it a bit much methinks.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

So we should act at all times as if under threat of physical violence? That doesn't sound like a productive, inviting, and healthy debate environment.

no it means if you wouldn't get away with it saying it to someone's face, don't say it online just because there is wall.

 

[Spartan303]

So we should act at all times as if under threat of physical violence? That doesn't sound like a productive, inviting, and healthy debate environment.

It's not even remotely what we are asking of you. And if you do cross the line, depending on how serious it is it can range from a Mod telling you to knock it off in a Mod voice to possibly a temporary thread ban. You'll usually get a warning first.

If such conduct that we have deemed unacceptable continues then we look into other alternatives. Longer thread bans for example. If such behavior persists across multiple threads in a subforum then we look at a temporary sub forum ban with an eye towards rehabilitation. Prior to today I have personally never seen anyone get infraction points. It's not something we are keen to lead with.

Edited for spelling and grammar mistakes while on mobile.

 

[Free-Stater 101]

Okay to start off with I would like to state I am sorry if Zoe's initiative to garner more members failed, doubly so if I contributed to it by acting too trusting for my own good in regards to not reporting any misbehavior sooner.

Now onto my thoughts "Would you all just calm down and please, please shut the h*ll up?" I see to groups of people who are grossly trying to overtly frame the other here while all the while denying their fault's.

Sadly, Love, Hetero and one other has left us by this point that cant be helped but I can make a statement of an apology myself for apparently killing the site by reporting Sane and Melancholic's behavior. (I don't care about their opinions on the issue, they lost my respect with their lack of respect to me and others already.)

When I made that thread I made it for newcomers to learn the history of The Sietch and what made it a cut above the rest and when I made that thread I posted in my rules

(Rules)

• Please stay on topic, and don't go into any current discussion's/complaint's about the other sites, we have another thread for that.
• Try to be as neutral in your statement's as possible, I understand how their are bad feeling's with some member's about their experiences on previous sites, but please, don't rant and rave.
• If you have any theories that were never confirmed about the ban that you heard or felt inclined to share/believe, please feel free to divulge them. However, please include a statement that it is just a theory that you are inclined to believe, rather than presenting it as a factual truth. I ask this because I want this project to look professional, also keep in mind that doing things like that will confuse our new member's.
• Speaking of which, please provide as much context as you can, I will be asking the mods to speak first to provide some starting context to the newer people, but still don't assume that people will automatically know what you are talking about.
• Also, feel free to tell other member's something you may have heard about in relation to their story, but again, be professional, don't rant or rave.

For awhile this thread which I designed to be a welcome for new comers who came to the site and it was of course meant to reflect that, by being professional in manner, and for the most part bar a few small derails, until someone posted this.

I was directed here after getting dogpiled and completely shat on for making a thread on SB about how Bernie could possible lead to a massive meltdown of the Democratic party. I had a good write up and wanted opinions, so I made a thread about it on SB because I had tried discussing it on AH.com but was banned withing moments because "oh you showed a Project Veritas clip, that's pathetic" and when I asked why it was faked the answers were all "they are known to fake these things" without any other explanation. I was unable to continue because of course I was banned for "trolling" or "conspiracy mongering" or some shit like that.

So I made a thread on Whitehall, this time with a bigger write up before the PV stuff. I was accused of being a troll right off the gate because I was a new account linking to "conspiracy stuff". Someone PM'd me the website and I posted it here to a much better reception with much more solid arguments.

I was able to stay on SB for a while, participating on a few threads about Fan Fics and such until I was banned. I got a bunch of warnings for inane shit like trolling or something when arguing about the left but what really killed me was questioning the veracity and trustworthiness of the CCP. That one Chinese boot licking faggot went all in, accusing me of racism and trying to justify China wanting to go ham on people because someone had calling China "the sick man of Asia", how China could not possibly be faking the Wuhan Flu numbers because over 100 million tourists leave from China every year and if it was as bad as the conspiracy theorists like me claimed we would have seen much bigger amounts of death (????????) and shit like that. I got mad and calling him out. Suspended from the thread. I then made a Whitehall thread about how the fuck were people OK with defending the CCP only to be met with complete gas lighting (sounds like you are the problem and this is just a angry thread someone said) before the mods suspended me for 2 weeks only to ban me permanently once the ban ran out.

I haven't been back since. I was still following some threads since unlike AH SB lets you see threads without being logged in for a lot of things but without a account to take part in the discussions and tell me when the stories update I just stopped coming back.

From what I hear the echo chamber has only grown. You can't even access the Whitehall without a login anymore, which tells me they are either paranoid about le racist alt-right trolls, or they know they are a laughing stock or they are aware, at least marginally, of how far left they have slid and do not want normies seeing it.

Either way good riddance. Fucking parasite SJWs destroy everything they touch.

The question marks belonged to a slur (obviously) and knowing a few LGBTQ people on this site and knowing that new members would see it I took the diplomatic of asking Mechanicus.

Remember what I said...

I understand your anger at SB and a few of it's members, but please remember that this thread is for new members as much as us, and as such, I would prefer if you kept language to a minimal and preferably edit out the highlighted one you used their as it reflects badly upon us among newer members to see slurs like that being used at random.

The above is a request, I am not a mod but at the same time I feel a responsibility as the OP to keep things civil and respectful, if just by personal request.

I didn't want to cause the Mods trouble and wanted to give the man a benefit of a doubt understanding him to be frustrated even if he violated my thread rule and site rules ,after a few hours and received a response from Sane and Mechanicus.

Profanity is a valid response to the profane. Some people should be called f------ sometimes.

He was backing up this slur for no other reason than because, he had no stake in it whatsoever and furthermore he did it in my thread that I had made for my project for newcomers!!! (Is this the thing we want people that attempt to join to immediately think of us?")

Next came mechanicus reply.

Case and point: on SB that post would likely have netted me a infraction.

They take every opportunity to police people they can.

They both did this thinking they would be no ramifications whatsoever in a way that was daring a staff intervention...And still I waited, hoping the man would at least have enough respect for strangers and the thread OP (me) to change one slur to any number of other swear's

D*MN! SH*T! J*CK*SS! B*STARD! SH*THEAD! *RRSE! B*TCH!

Anything that didn't violate rule 2a or slured other's I would have been fine with, I waited for a few hours and when their was still no edit, I reported it, plain and simple.

To those who defend him? Tell me. Why was the usage of that word over any other necessary? What victory did using it over any another achieve? And finally how many new members would we have gained had two people merely did the courteous thing and held their tongues in a thread which explicitly asked it and a site that explicitly banned the language of their choice?

I regret that my actions led to this gross overreaction and I am sorry that Hetero, Love and Urabrask have left us, but I will never lie and say I was wrong in defending the site's image in the regard I did, especially when I went out of my way to give the benefit of a doubt

The fact is that for all a lot of people complain about the staff here the fact remains that some posters have been pushing their limits knowing full well that the staff doesn't want to push against them for fear of this exact type of reason, this site is free speech but it is also a community, one that reflects upon us all as a group, letting others go around and say stuff like this only does only detriment to our long term growth as a site but also what little image and good grace we are trying to develop, and for what? If Sane want's to sh*t post, or do light trolling, that's fine. but he should tone it down with his insanely offensive post materiel at times which is flamebait at it's finest and for Mechanicus he should cut back on the swearing because his post are typically in an angry format 24/7 with at least three swears each these days.

I am no SJW but I am a man who thinks respect for your fellow man is the greatest attribute one could have as a gentleman. I understand that the person Mechanicu was angry at did nothing probably to earn his respect but I also ask. "Before I made this post what did I and a number of other strangers, a few site member's and I do to earn your explicit disrespect?"

In the end the reason this crackdown has happened isn't surprising in hindsight, we could have stopped this or nipped it in the bud if we simply told not just those two, but other's as well to give a little bit of respect and cut down on the issue.

The staff has every reason to be upset when they put most of the hard behind the scenes work behind this place and yet they turn around a minute and we got it smoldering.

To my fellow members I am sorry for all this, I didn't mean for it to happen... I apologize for the other members who have left, I apologize for anybody hurt as a consequence of me doing the right thing in my eyes, even though it was right, it still sadly led to this.)

(To Sane and Mechanic it wasn't personal beyond the fact I though your behavior out of line and needed to be reported so I hope you wont eternally begrudge me for it.)

Bottom line this all could have been avoided, not by people being SJW or being politically correct, but simply being respectful of everyone around them not just themselves.

To the staff, again I apologize for inadvertently lighting this tire fire and if by not reporting this sooner it led to us loosing potential member's and old members, I understand that this has been difficult and realize you aren't in the best position to deal with all of this, and I also understand this rule tightening isn't completely by choice but rather necessity.

To give my views on other topics real quick, I agree that people have a right to be frustrated with these new policies, and furthermore looking at this from a distance it seems understandable to some that it came out of nowhere. But to be honest I have been feeling this tension due various disrespectful lbehaviors by some members towards other posters and all things considered I think the staff has if anything been extremely generous considering some people are clearly trying to test their limit's here, in any case it would be a lie to suggest we didn't feel something like this coming.

In the case of the leaving member's it's extremely disheartening to see them go, but I do wish they had given this place a chance rather than almost immediately giving up for parts unknown, love only made one post and was gone and Hetero acted like Zoe had sold her site to Satan for as paranoid as he sounded when leaving. (Not making fun just stating the fact's)

So in the end, I ask, no beg, that you keep giving The Sietch a chane rather than assuming the worse out the gate, what's the worse that can happen by trying? (Don't answer that.)

 

[Zachowon]

But Civility has always been in the rules.




Lol!? Power? What power? This is a duty and responsibility. Seriously, I've had real power and authority before. I didn't much like it. When things are going great no one gives it a second thought. When things go wrong then everyone is looking at you to fix it.

Calling someone an asshole for their behavior I dont see an issue with it. Throwing out racial slurs or saying Cops or insert other group should be killed is quite another. I'm trying to be consice and to the point I can be. Because I don't want to add other rules I just want people to follow the agreed upon ones.

Spartan I am mainly trying to help point out where the divide between staff and users are.

To everyone that escaped SB and have this as the only place they are welcome, the whole Sane situation was overboard and pushed what he wanted to prove. Trigger happy.

I know most are wanting this place to be open to others, we don't want it to be in such a way thay causes the base here to be alienated in order to allow for a more outsider approach. Earlier things if saying to get others from other sites here makes it seem like you are trying to appeal to them to make it seem "We are not alt-right i swear! See we banned the alt-right people and hate speech for you!" Makes it seem less like free speech and forced PC that isn't PC.

You may feel that's the case, but from my perspective, it's not. We have huge numbers of complaints about Sane, and very few if any about you. Complaints are initiated by users, not the staff.

I think that is also because of how Blunt Sane is compared to Fried.
People generally will report Sane because he is an ass hole and remember him from SB on how he acts.
Fried is not as much of an asshole, but he is also blunt.
It is more personal bias in that regard which is not good for what you are trying to prove.

Tippy threadbanning Sane proved the point he was making. Using him as an example without thread ban or infraction would have worked well for the cause, but what happend is worse for what you are trying to explain.
Ot shows personal bias against users and how they act.

I am no friend of Sane but he is open to his opinions and yall proved his point which has caused at least two members to leave alrdady...

 

[MelancholicMechanicus]

Oh shit it's my fault.

Holy fuck I knew I could be a bit too blunt at times but this is the first time I cause something with actual far reaching consequences. My lack of care for societal conventions meant to keep up appearances has finally caused a crack.

Also @Fallout-Man101 there was no other slurs on my post. You put it down on it's entirety. The (???????) this is me expressing disbelief at the complete non-sequiteur of a argument the CCP shill made.

Someone who defends the CCP does not deserve the respect of having certain slurs not being used to them. This entire thing is a storm on a tea cup, defending a person who is not here nor will ever be from a offense the would take personally even without any slurs at all (because a CCP shill would see me calling out Glorious China as the big crime, the "faggot" insult but a afterthought in his head as he rushes to defend the Middle Kingdom)

I will say this again: the idea is OK, but the problem is the mods and staff seem to be thinking of a wildly different standard than that the users want. No one will bat a eye if you decide to ban someone trying to spam nigger on a chat or implying they wanna go have a heated gamer moment with a AR-15 at a political rally. But this low of a bar is just unconfortably close to most of the userbase's head and activelly going to cause painful bumps for most of them.

 

[Free-Stater 101]

Oh shit it's my fault.

Holy fuck I knew I could be a bit too blunt at times but this is the first time I cause something with actual far reaching consequences. My lack of care for societal conventions meant to keep up appearances has finally caused a crack.

Also @Fallout-Man101 there was no other slurs on my post. You put it down on it's entirety. The (???????) this is me expressing disbelief at the complete non-sequiteur of a argument the CCP shill made.

Someone who defends the CCP does not deserve the respect of having certain slurs not being used to them. This entire thing is a storm on a tea cup, defending a person who is not here nor will ever be from a offense the would take personally even without any slurs at all (because a CCP shill would see me calling out Glorious China as the big crime, the "faggot" insult but a afterthought in his head as he rushes to defend the Middle Kingdom)

Dude, I don't care about the guy who loves China, the fact is that the forum is public and what p*ssed me off was that you ignored my thread rules and explicitly started swearing like a sailor for no real reason it's not about respect to a CCP sympathizer it's about respect to me and new members.

Furthemore let it be witnessed that the above is a bald face lie, you know why? Because I quoted that post exactly in a separate post I made Wednesday right here.

https://www.the-sietch.com/index.ph...rums-sb-sv-qq-ah-etc.626/page-309#post-105608

Either you or a mod changed it and their were plenty of people who saw that slur, so don't try to shrug it off or say 'I edited it to frame you'. The only way I could have edited the post to the language it quotes is if I somehow knew we were going to have this conversation over four days ago...

 

[Terthna]

I'll be honest; at first I was really worried after I read the banner. But, after listening to the staff, and following the conversation; I feel that my worries are assuaged. This is a good move in my opinion; one that will likely lead to better discourse, and less stress all around.

Also, the fact that most (though not all) of the people still complaining about this decision are individuals I've had less than pleasant personal interactions with, tells me that they just want to keep treating people like crap without having to worry about consequences. Well, I'm sorry; but if you want a community like that, you can always join Kiwifarms. Personally, I don't want to be part of a community that lacking in civility; real civility mind you, not fake regressive left "civility", which can be basically summed up as "you're not allowed to fight back".

In short? This should have happened a while ago, and anyone we lose over it probably isn't worth mourning.

 

[ShieldWife]

I haven’t really noticed any significant problem in civility here. Of course, rudeness and the occasional insult or edgy comment pops up once and again, but I don’t think that the Sietch has a major issue with it unless I’m really missing something.

I don’t like the banner that pops up about Sietch members supposedly saying vile things, not being civil, and that there is going to be a crackdown on it. I don’t like it because it suggests that the site has a major problem with people being assholes to each other, which I don’t think is true but it plays right into the lies that other websites tell about us. Also, for those people who come to the Sietch hoping to escape from the biased over-moderate that has made so many other geeky forums unbearable, it is a big red flag suggesting that we may not be so different as they hope.

So that banner is telling new people that this isn’t a good forum for them. Either they think that we are a bunch of assholes and trolls who need strict moderation to be kept in line or it says that strict moderation is practiced and that you’ll run afoul of moderators here like you might on those more obnoxiously strict message boards.

So I strongly recommend taking that down ASAP.

As for general moderation polices, I really think that less is more when it comes to moderation. Almost every forum I have seen that makes a big deal about tough moderation has less civility and the moderation is practiced selectively, usually according to left left biases and standards. Would that happen here? I don’t know, it’s a lot less likely than other sites for sure, but I still think that more moderation doesn’t improve civility and usually reduces it.

I remember when we had the big PM and while there were moderators, there was very little in the way of moderation - yet they were incredibly civil conversations. There were a few heated exchanges, a few unfortunate statements, some offensive things said - but it all worked out because we all acted like adults, didn’t let it get to us, and got through it without moderation with the exception of a single unusual case.

When it comes to getting online insults, I’ve experienced so very many. I can’t count how many times people have called me a fat ugly stupid bitch. But honestly, putting that kind of thing into its proper perspective, and it’s just an opponent who is unable to make a substantive argument, and that’s not something that makes me sad, it’s something that makes me glad. I would much rather receive a thousand cutting insults or slurs against some demographic that I am a part of then have one unpopular truth silenced in the name of sparing someone’s feelings.

 

[Deleted member 1]

@ShieldWife thank you for the input that, as ever, is reasoned, and insightful, and very much appreciated. I agree; the banner served its purpose, and was, in any case, probably the least well-thought-out part of this, though it was well intentioned as a way to give fair warning to everyone. I have taken it down.

 

[ShieldWife]

@ShieldWife thank you for the input that, as ever, is reasoned, and insightful, and very much appreciated. I agree; the banner served its purpose, and was, in any case, probably the least well-thought-out part of this, though it was well intentioned as a way to give fair warning to everyone. I have taken it down.

Thank you and you’re welcome.

Yeah, I kind of had more problem with the banner than necessarily any moderation policy. There does need to be some limited moderation, I do in fact think that civility and politeness is really important and that it’s something we should all strive towards.

What moderation policies maximize the open exchange of ideas? Well, not zero moderation, I have seen that before and either it’s mountains of spam or casually thrown racial epitaphs or child molestation jokes. Such places, while indeed letting you discuss important things freely, aren’t really the places people go for sharing great thoughts. Alternatively, over moderation is invariably biased and usually allows people to act like jerks within some accepted parameters and punishes people who fight back. So many geeky forums out there are over moderated, I don’t think I need to mention any, we all know.

So far, from my experiences at the Sietch, with a few rare exceptions, I haven’t seen rampant incivility and I haven’t seen oppressive moderation.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Personally, I don't want to be part of a community that lacking in civility; real civility mind you, not fake regressive left "civility", which can be basically summed up as "you're not allowed to fight back".

Conversely, while "microaggression" certainly does get used as a bad faith buzzword, I think it's a lot like "synergy" in terms of being a very meaningful term when correctly used. It's a lot like the dogpiling rule that these and other debate-oriented forums: even when people are debating in complete good faith, it can be emotionally and even physically exhausting to explain and discuss the same broad topics over and over and over again, especially when you're in the minority and the topics being discussed are whether or not you're allowed to exist, and even more so when people are aggressive, uncivil, and throw a lot of slurs around.

I don't believe that we should suppress the discussion of contentious subjects, but actually enforcing civility can reduce the exhaustion effect and promote actually *having* these discussions and not turning into an echo chamber.

 

[Arch Dornan]

Oh shit it's my fault.

Holy fuck I knew I could be a bit too blunt at times but this is the first time I cause something with actual far reaching consequences. My lack of care for societal conventions meant to keep up appearances has finally caused a crack.

Also @Fallout-Man101 there was no other slurs on my post. You put it down on it's entirety. The (???????) this is me expressing disbelief at the complete non-sequiteur of a argument the CCP shill made.

Someone who defends the CCP does not deserve the respect of having certain slurs not being used to them. This entire thing is a storm on a tea cup, defending a person who is not here nor will ever be from a offense the would take personally even without any slurs at all (because a CCP shill would see me calling out Glorious China as the big crime, the "faggot" insult but a afterthought in his head as he rushes to defend the Middle Kingdom)

I will say this again: the idea is OK, but the problem is the mods and staff seem to be thinking of a wildly different standard than that the users want. No one will bat a eye if you decide to ban someone trying to spam nigger on a chat or implying they wanna go have a heated gamer moment with a AR-15 at a political rally. But this low of a bar is just unconfortably close to most of the userbase's head and activelly going to cause painful bumps for most of them.

You can just use a different swear word just find one and substitute f*****. I know it's the principle where you see it as simple as any other word like jerk but they don't like it so they'll thread ban you.

What a shame people are starting to leave. An overreaction if you ask me but since when do you expect people to not overreact and make a hill to speak on? SB does it and SV does it. The entire internet community does it over the latest drama.

 

[Abhorsen]

(because a CCP shill would see me calling out Glorious China as the big crime, the "faggot" insult but a afterthought in his head as he rushes to defend the Middle Kingdom)

Here's generally why slurs are taken worse than other insults. Most insults only attack the insultee, things like asshole, jerk, etc, by saying they are like bad thing. In contrast, slurs are a type of insult that attack the insultee by saying they are like [group of people], but also say that it's bad to be in [group of people]. So when someone says "CCP-stans are f*ggots", or something similar, they not only insult CCP stans, but also people who would generally be considered f*ggots, as now somehow a) being gay is implied to be bad, b) CCP stans are bad because they are gay, and c) conflating bad thing with gayness.

Now for some insults, such a formulation is a good idea, like commie scum. Commie scum is bad, and if you are commie scum, you are bad because of that. But for others, especially identity based ones, this isn't fair to the group. So if you could avoid using that in the future, that would be appreciated.