Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Monday May 01 2017, @03:46PM   Printer-friendly
from the they-grow-up-so-quickly-these-days dept.

Free Malaysia Today reports

At the [Malaysian] National Scholastic Chess Championship 2017, which took place in Putrajaya recently, the girl was informed that what she wore was "improper and had violated the dress code" for the tournament.

[...] The girl's chess coach, Kaushal Khandhar, wrote on Facebook, "In the middle of Round 2, (without stopping the clocks) Chief Arbiter informs my student that the dress she wore was improper and violated the dress code of the tournament.

"It was later informed (by Chief Arbiter) to my student and her mother, that the Tournament Director deemed my student's dress to be 'seductive' and a 'temptation from a certain angle far, far away'."

[...] Kaushal said after discussions with the chief arbiter, the girl was allowed to compete, provided she bought a pair of slacks for the next day, but that decision came at 10pm and with the event at Putrajaya, there was no way the girl's mother could buy anything for the 9am start the next day.

"Before the morning round next day, my student's mother called the tournament director regarding this matter. Initially he had replied that he was not aware of the situation but after a brief discussion, we realised he knew all the details on this incident prior to this phone call.

"He promised to return the call upon discussion with the chief arbiter, but this did not happen. He would further not answer or return any calls by my student's mother", Kaushal wrote, adding that the situation led to the inevitable decision of withdrawal from the tournament altogether."

We should perhaps note here that Malaysia is majority-Muslim.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Redundant) by EvilSS on Monday May 01 2017, @07:06PM (32 children)

    by EvilSS (1456) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 01 2017, @07:06PM (#502457)
    So, in (many) other words, it's not a race and we should be using terms such as religious intolerance instead. In fact, one could argue that labeling it racist is, in itself, a racist act.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   -1  
       Redundant=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Redundant' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 2, Redundant) by ikanreed on Monday May 01 2017, @07:34PM (31 children)

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 01 2017, @07:34PM (#502468) Journal

    In no way, shape, or form, is that a reasonable re-articulation of what I said. Not even the most tortured reading I can give myself.

    Calling it racist, is, at worst, a simplification of more complex problems, and under other circumstances, totally warranted.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @07:43PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @07:43PM (#502476)

      In fact, one could argue that labeling it racist is, in itself, a racist act.

      In no way, shape, or form, is that a reasonable re-articulation of what I said. Not even the most tortured reading I can give myself.

      When will you libturds learn?
      The Real Racists™ are the people who think critically about race.
      If it weren't for you, there would be no racism.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @08:02PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @08:02PM (#502483)

        The Real Racists™ are the people who think critically about race.

        No. Racism is about exerting power.
        Specifically, it is about a majority[1] with one set of shared physical characteristics seeking to disempower a minority with a different set of shared physical characteristics or deny them their civil liberties.

        [1] With demographics shifting such that Whites are no longer the majority in USA, that should probably be altered to "group with a traditional majority" or "group previously having a majority".
        Any way you slice it, it's about an empowered group.

        I hope this clears it up for you.
        ...but I doubt that it will penetrate your thick Reactionary skull as you continue to consume Breitbart and Faux Noise.

        -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

        • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday May 01 2017, @08:16PM (2 children)

          by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 01 2017, @08:16PM (#502486) Journal

          Is this one of those "I don't get sarcasm" posts? I love those.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @08:31PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @08:31PM (#502495)

            I've been known to miss the /sarc tag before, so, it could be as you say.

            -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @08:56PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @08:56PM (#502502)

              You seem to have missed the trademark tag too.

    • (Score: 2) by EvilSS on Monday May 01 2017, @08:20PM (24 children)

      by EvilSS (1456) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 01 2017, @08:20PM (#502490)
      So lets look at a few examples of this then, taken from more non-mainstream contexts:

      1) Let's looks at this one in a slightly different light (and assume being a muslim majority country had anything to do with it, which I disagree with but it's in the summary so let's run with it). Let's say instead of Malaysia, it was Maryland, and instead of pointing out that it was a muslim majority, pointing out it was a christian majority. Therefore if this summary had been posted on a Malaysian majority website (MalaylentNews, for example), you would agree it was a racist thing to call out Christianity?

      2) Lets look at it from another angle: Same story, same summary, but posted by christain Malaysians. Racist, even though they are the same actual race as the people in the story?

      3) A newspaper in the middle east derides the political influence the christian west is having on their local politics and laws. Racist?



      If you can't answer yes to all three of those, then it's inappropriate to call racism on this summary, and it's RACIST TO ACCEPT calling it racism, because you are basing that call purely on the race of the Malaysian Muslims in comparison to your own (and your assumptions about the submitter's) race. This type of dilution to try to turn something like racism into an over-encompassing catch all doesn't help, it actually harms those who are the subject of actual racism. Religious persecution and intolerance is a thing, and it's valid to call it out when it shows up. Calling religious intolerance racism is not, can not, be accepted as appropriate just because you (generalized you, not you in specific) feel it lends more weight to the claim. Calling intolerance to muslims racist actually harmful since it itself enforces the idea that only certain races are or can be muslim. By doing it, or even being tolerant of it, you are reinforcing and justifying a wrong-headed stereotype.
      • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday May 01 2017, @08:28PM (7 children)

        by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 01 2017, @08:28PM (#502494) Journal

        Hey, look, the intellectualization to hide naked bigotry that I was talking about.

        "If I carefully craft scenarios clearly distinct from this one that still have substantial undercurrents of bigotry surely your observations about this specific scenario don't hold up, right"

        Hey, maybe you're too self-absorbed to see how this is pure rationalization, but seriously, you're not raising a valid point.

        Way to completely and utterly miss the point of my first post.

        Hypotheticals don't absolve the deep and unending stupidity of going "Hey, I'm going to draw attention to this group I clearly hate without relavent context as if to blame them for this incident".

        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @08:58PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @08:58PM (#502503)

          I'm beginning to think "EvilSS" is an ironic name.
          I get the feeling he's probably more of a fan of the SS.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by EvilSS on Monday May 01 2017, @10:37PM (2 children)

          by EvilSS (1456) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 01 2017, @10:37PM (#502544)
          No, you seem to be confused. I am not saying any of those are examples of racism, quite the opposite actually. However they are just as ridiculous as saying the submitter of this article is racists towards Malaysians. What I am also saying is you are a racist, if a well meaning one. And I'm saying you are racists towards non-whites, BTW. I'm sure you think I mean it in the reverse-racism way, but nope! Let me be clear: You. Are. Racist. Towards. Brown. People.

          Let's look at the article again. Do you really think calling out Malaysia is a racist act, or a religious intolerant one? I doubt the submitter even know WHAT race Malaysians are, nor does he/she probably care. I also doubt religion would have been called out if the country were, say, Singapore (a majority Buddhist country which shares the same landmass as Malaysia). So no, it's not racism, it's pure religious intolerance.

          My bigger problem is with people like yourself who seems to think only certain races can be Muslim, and therefore think that any criticism, right or wrong, towards a religion of billions across nearly every race on the planet must really be aimed at those specific races you stereotype as being Muslim. That is bigoted thought.
          • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Tuesday May 02 2017, @12:55PM (1 child)

            by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 02 2017, @12:55PM (#502774) Journal

            No, I'm not confused, your logic is tortured and seems to exist purely to excuse bigotry.

            • (Score: 2) by EvilSS on Tuesday May 02 2017, @04:17PM

              by EvilSS (1456) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 02 2017, @04:17PM (#502923)
              I'm not the one excusing bigotry. You are the bigot here, not me. I am quite frankly sick of people like you pretending that religious discrimination doesn't exist, or is somehow acceptable and feeling you need to lay race over the top of it for it to matter. You have no understanding of how the world outside of the west works. None.
        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 02 2017, @02:59AM (2 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 02 2017, @02:59AM (#502636) Journal

          There are white, black, Persian, Arab, and Asian Muslims. Likewise, Christians, Hindus, etc. Religious persecution is NOT based on racism. The two things have several things in common, of course, but they are different things. Confusing and conflating the two things only brings your own intelligence and education into question.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @03:49AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @03:49AM (#502653)

            You keep making those unsupported proclamations.
            Its like you are threatened by a world-view that doesn't fit your brain and as a defensive reflex you are compelled to tell the world that these ideas which make you uncomfortable are wrong.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @05:32PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @05:32PM (#502970)

            The weird thing is I think all of this silly arguing is stemming from a comment that was meant to be a troll.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @10:17PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @10:17PM (#502538)

        He couldn't even address the point and moves to deflect. Clearly, he's a liberal.

      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday May 01 2017, @10:30PM (14 children)

        2) Lets look at it from another angle: Same story, same summary, but posted by christain Malaysians. Racist, even though they are the same actual race as the people in the story?

        You mean Homo Sapiens? AFAIK, there's only one sentient species on this planet. Malaysian people are Homo Sapiens, Maryland people (okay, except for the lizard people) are also homo sapiens. Christians are Homo Sapiens. Muslims are Homo Sapiens.

        Is my taxonomy wrong? If not, I have no idea what you're going on about.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 2) by EvilSS on Monday May 01 2017, @10:39PM (13 children)

          by EvilSS (1456) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 01 2017, @10:39PM (#502546)
          You really need one of these [amazon.com]
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @11:50PM (12 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01 2017, @11:50PM (#502555)

            LOL
            You are a literal dictionary pedant.
            And like ALL dictionary pedants you just assumed that your personal definition is the only definition in the dictionary.

            Lets take a look at what the dictionary actually says.
            Remember, this is the dictionary you just cited.

            race: [oxforddictionaries.com]

            1.2 A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group.

            Examples:
                    ‘we Scots were a bloodthirsty race then’
                    ‘Christina had thought the German Swiss a hard unsympathetic race.’
                    ‘We are trying to find out why the British as a race find it amazingly funny to take their clothes off.’
                    ‘We Scots might be handsome but, as a race, we're not renowned for our height.’
                    ‘They sought to weld the country's diverse ethnicities into a Brazilian race defined in historical and cultural terms.’
                    ‘For Barres, this constituted a menace to the French nation, indeed to the French race, for it was a German ideology.’

            1.3 A group or set of people or things with a common feature or features.

            Examples:
                    ‘the upper classes thought of themselves as a race apart’
                    ‘They are not a race apart - it could happen to any one of us at any time.’
                    ‘This sedentary behaviour is apparently turning our kids into a race of slothful fatties who risk a reduced lifespan and other problems.’
                    ‘They treat the elderly like they treat travellers or gays or ethnic groups or women or whoever as a race apart, not as normal citizens.’
                    ‘And the Kembles, as one Victorian novelist's daughter observed, strode through the world as a race apart.’
                    ‘He rejected environmental factors and claimed to have discovered a race of ‘born criminals’, who were marked out by certain cranial and facial irregularities.’
                    ‘Forget stockies or naturally reproducing brown trout, saltwater sea trout are a race apart.’
                    ‘As a matter of fact isn't ‘redneck’ a word used in disdain to describe a race and class of people?’

            • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday May 02 2017, @12:20AM (11 children)

              LOL
              You are a literal dictionary pedant.
              And like ALL dictionary pedants you just assumed that your personal definition is the only definition in the dictionary.

              Lets take a look at what the dictionary actually says.
              Remember, this is the dictionary you just cited.

              I'd "lol" you, but it's not funny, just sad, AC. You were beating up on someone that actually agreed with you. I could make a few guesses as to what that says about you, but I'll hold my tongue.

              GP was responding to my post [soylentnews.org].

              He implied (as did you, although you were cruder about it) that "race" doesn't refer to species, but rather to ethnic and cultural groups. While it is true that the word is used in that fashion colloquially [oxforddictionaries.com] (I include the definition, since it's even money that you don't know what it means), the term has significant historical baggage (phrenology, scientific racism, and a raft of other unpleasantness) which are distasteful to say the least. As such, terms like ethnicity, cultural groupings and societal differences are both more specific and more accurate in this context. Perhaps I should have just said that, but I assumed (apparently incorrectly) that was clearly implied.

              Other terms are more appropriate than "race" in this context [wikipedia.org]:

              While some researchers use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits or observable differences in behaviour, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used in a naive[11] or simplistic way,[17] and argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens, and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[18][19]

              Since the second half of the 20th century, the association of race with the ideologies and theories that grew out of the work of 19th-century anthropologists and physiologists has led to the use of the word race itself becoming problematic. Although still used in general contexts, race has often been replaced by less ambiguous and emotionally charged synonyms: populations, people(s), ethnic groups, or communities, depending on context.[6][20]

              That was *my* (not EvilSS', and I imagine he disagrees with me) point. I assume you disagree as well. That's all fine with me.

              Shall we discuss, or is quoting from the dictionary all you've got?

              --
              No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @01:36AM (2 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @01:36AM (#502591)

                Sorry man, I gave you more credit than apparently you were due.
                EvilSS's other posts make it clear he thinks race is not cultural.
                I thought you were being slyly ironic. Making fun of his limited concept of race.
                Instead you were bragging about your even more limited understanding of race.
                The other end of Poe's Law bites me in the ass!

                Enjoy your wikipedia entries. Seems pretty clear you didn't really read them very carefully either.

                • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday May 02 2017, @03:13AM (1 child)

                  Sorry man, I gave you more credit than apparently you were due.
                  EvilSS's other posts make it clear he thinks race is not cultural.
                  I thought you were being slyly ironic. Making fun of his limited concept of race.
                  Instead you were bragging about your even more limited understanding of race.
                  The other end of Poe's Law bites me in the ass!

                  Enjoy your wikipedia entries. Seems pretty clear you didn't really read them very carefully either.

                  You're rather obnoxious, friend. If you disagree with my assertion that the term "race," while colloquially associated with ethnic or religious groups, is a poor stand in for more appropriate terms like ethnicity, culture and geographical differences, that's fine.

                  I invited you to discuss this with me, however you made no arguments to support your point of view. Rather, you made dismissive and disparaging comments about EvilSS and me instead. Those are not arguments.

                  If you'd like to make some actual arguments as to why you think you're right, I'd love to hear them. I'll respond with my own arguments and we can either come to an understanding or agree to disagree. We call that sort of discourse "discussion." Perhaps you could try it sometime.

                  --
                  No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @03:59AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @03:59AM (#502656)

                    I invited you to discuss this with me, however you made no arguments to support your point of view. Rather, you made dismissive and disparaging comments about EvilSS and me instead. Those are not arguments.

                    Do not pretend that your very first sentence to me was nothing more than condescension.
                    Here it is again in case your intellectually superior memory has failed you:

                    I'd "lol" you, but it's not funny, just sad, AC. You were beating up on someone that actually agreed with you. I could make a few guesses as to what that says about you, but I'll hold my tongue.

                    You then quickly followed that with more condescension:

                    (I include the definition, since it's even money that you don't know what it means),

                    Your 'invitation' was nothing more than the smug conceit of someone with unexamined logic.

                    Frankly the reason I'm not interested in discussing this with you is that your entire argument boils down to "here are some other words which I think you should use instead of 'race' because your use of one of the dictionary definitions of race perturbs me."
                    Tough titties.

              • (Score: 2) by EvilSS on Tuesday May 02 2017, @03:55AM (7 children)

                by EvilSS (1456) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 02 2017, @03:55AM (#502654)
                I mean, are you arguing that there are not races, and therefore there is no racism? If so, I think there are quite a few people around the world who would like to have a word with you about that. You cannot deny one without the other. You can argue the terminology all you like but it's a fact that in the real world, races exist, and that has consequences.
                • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday May 02 2017, @04:36AM (6 children)

                  I mean, are you arguing that there are not races, and therefore there is no racism? If so, I think there are quite a few people around the world who would like to have a word with you about that. You cannot deny one without the other. You can argue the terminology all you like but it's a fact that in the real world, races exist, and that has consequences.

                  No. There's plenty of bigotry to go around in the world.

                  However, calling it racism hearkens back the the days when it was acceptable to split up groups of humans by purely cosmetic traits and call them "races."

                  We now know that the hairless bipeds infesting this planet are all the same species. The Human Race. We are, the world over, ~99.5% genetically identical [wikipedia.org].

                  Is using cosmetic traits as a source for bigotry a bad idea? I think so. In fact, I think bigotry [merriam-webster.com] in general is small-minded and hateful.

                  While you may disagree with me that the term bigotry should be used instead of racism, that doesn't make racism something other than bigotry.

                  And if we are interested in calling out bigotry while focusing on the things that make us the same, racism, IMHO, is a poor term to use, for all the reasons I stated in my response to AC troll.

                  I suggest (irony intended) calling a spade a spade. What is colloquially referred to as "racism" is bigotry. Calling it "racism" gives (for historical reasons) legitimacy to the idea that not all humans are *real* humans. which is one of the sources of such bigotry.

                  I will repeat myself. There is only one sentient race on this planet. Homo Sapiens. We are different in cosmetic (skin & eye color, etc.) and physiological (XX vs. XY chromosome -- you know, male and female, height, athletic abilities, intellectual capacity, vulnerability to various diseases, etc., etc., etc.) characteristics. However, for all of that, we are one species.

                  It's also true that we divide ourselves up into groups in many ways. Ethnically, religiously, ideologically, levels of resources, age and in a myriad of other ways.

                  When someone is intolerant of others because of those physical and cultural differences, we call that bigotry. Singling out any particular type of bigotry gives it more legitimacy. I think that's a poor idea.

                  I say that bigotry should be called out for the hateful speech and actions that it is. I do not believe we should give some forms of bigotry more prominence than others, as they are all repugnant.

                  Feel free to disagree. I'd be happy to discuss this at length with you. At least you're willing to make an actual argument, unlike others who chose to remain nameless.

                  --
                  No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday May 02 2017, @01:15PM (5 children)

                    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday May 02 2017, @01:15PM (#502781) Homepage
                    OK, you believe there's only one race, I can support your choice to retire the term as a distinguisher, even though my preference is to repurpose it.

                    However, how many "peoples" do you think there are? You don't seem like the kind of person unable to distinguish the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. I refrain from using my usual hilarious mis-spelling "Parasites", as I wouldn't want to taint this thread with peoplism.
                    --
                    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
                    • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday May 02 2017, @02:57PM (4 children)

                      However, how many "peoples" do you think there are? You don't seem like the kind of person unable to distinguish the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. I refrain from using my usual hilarious mis-spelling "Parasites", as I wouldn't want to taint this thread with peoplism.

                      As I said:

                      It's also true that we divide ourselves up into groups in many ways. Ethnically, religiously, ideologically, levels of resources, age and in a myriad of other ways.

                      There are thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands of, as you say, "peoples." We humans are quite prolific at creating groups of ourselves.

                      Those groups can be based on shared geography, lineage, cosmetic traits, language, interests, ideology, religious belief and all manner of other things.

                      Even with all the groupings and differences that are forced, chosen or accidental, as humans we have much more in common than we have differences.

                      --
                      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday May 03 2017, @11:56PM (3 children)

                        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday May 03 2017, @11:56PM (#504063) Homepage
                        Yeah, but we're all "people". Take any two people from any two "peoples", and they'd both be "people", no?
                        --
                        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
                        • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday May 04 2017, @12:09AM (2 children)

                          Yeah, but we're all "people". Take any two people from any two "peoples", and they'd both be "people", no?

                          That isn't the context in which you used the term in the post I replied to, but sure, why not?

                          But since you're splitting hairs, I'll do so too. We are each a "person," not a people.

                          All the same, if you want to look at it that way, there are up to ~3.5 billion "peoples."

                          How wonderful for us!

                          --
                          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                          • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday May 04 2017, @12:15AM (1 child)

                            by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday May 04 2017, @12:15AM (#504071) Homepage
                            As long as you admitting that some words can both be used to unify everyone and also to subdivide them, then I'm cool.
                            --
                            Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
                            • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday May 04 2017, @12:17AM

                              by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday May 04 2017, @12:17AM (#504072) Homepage
                              modulo typos, but it's past 3am and I'v done a fuck-tonne of travelling in recent days.
                              --
                              Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @02:09AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @02:09AM (#502606)

      I like how evilss modded you redundant.
      Its clear it was evil and not someone else because
      (a) he was modded redundant and then within a few minutes you got a redundant mod
      (b) but whoever down-modded you didn't mod his post back up, because they can't mod their own posts.

      like a bitchy little tit-for-tat