Jeez, can't we just save ourselves some trouble and just Ban Hitler apologists/deniers?

[Peter Morris]

Originally Posted by PlainJain

As has been pointed out upthread, there is value in having a dearth of information on the net for those on the fence

Originally Posted by PlainJain

Nah, there would still be an inadequate supply.

Just to clarify, did you really mean to tell us that "there is value in having an inadequate supply of information on the net," or did you misspeak?

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Jragon

But... having them around as chew toys is fun. We can stroke our ego, be all high and mighty, even the worst of us can stand on top of the pile-on and say "truly, I am a better person than this poster."

And then ban them when we tire of them.

Basically, this.

The "insta-ban Nazis" idea seems pretty much a solution in search of a problem. The current process of

• Neo-Nazi shows up
• he posts some tripe denying the Holocaust
• Dopers pile on
• We either bait him into breaking the rules, or he does it on his own
• he gets banned.

seems to work pretty smoothly.

I suppose I could add

• Banned Nazi goes off and tells his Internet friends "I was banned because they just can't handle the Truth"

but he would do that anyway.

Regards,
Shodan

[Sparky812]

Originally Posted by PlainJain

As has been pointed out upthread, there is value in having a dearth of information on the net for those on the fence or just a place that comes up on a search that shows intelligent refutations of these idiots.

Originally Posted by Peter Morris

Just to clarify, did you really mean to tell us that "there is value in having an inadequate supply of information on the net," or did you misspeak?

I don't see the confusion here, if may paraphrase, what PlainJain is suggesting is that there is value in a shortage of information pertaining to pro-Nazi, Holocaust denier, etc. as well as a benefit in having sources, such as SDMB threads refuting those views, show up in a web search on those topics.

We all know there's more than an adequate supply of information on the net, but it's not all true.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Jragon

But... having them around as chew toys is fun. We can stroke our ego, be all high and mighty, even the worst of us can stand on top of the pile-on and say "truly, I am a better person than this poster."

And then ban them when we tire of them.

I suspect it is more this than any "Bringing In The Light". At the very least, could we please make an effort not to mention by name any Neo-Nazi websites when we tell them to go back where they came from?

[Revtim]

Originally Posted by Shodan

The "insta-ban Nazis" idea seems pretty much a solution in search of a problem.

I agree.

What problem, exactly, did we have that this proposed instaban rule will solve? Having a couple discussion threads that nobody was forced to read?

I had no idea the recent guy was a neonazi, because I didn't give a shit about the subject of his threads and hence didn't read them. Do some people not realize that simply not reading threads you don't like is an option?

[Vinyl Turnip]

THE STRAIGHT DOPE

IGNORING FIGHTS SINCE 2012
(Tired.... so, so tired...)

[PlainJain]

Originally Posted by Sparky812

I don't see the confusion here, if may paraphrase, what PlainJain is suggesting is that there is value in a shortage of information pertaining to pro-Nazi, Holocaust denier, etc. as well as a benefit in having sources, such as SDMB threads refuting those views, show up in a web search on those topics.

Yep. We can't stop the Nazis from posting their hate and lies on the net so I believe there is value in our posting factual information that discredits it - however inadequate that supply of information may be.

My post was a light-hearted way of expressing it. It's not complicated unless you want it to be.

[dropzone]

Originally Posted by PlainJain

My post was a light-hearted way of expressing it.

I think that is one reason newbies and lurkers come to The Straight Dope. They've read Cecil's columns, seen that he gives the facts in a clear and amusing form, and go to the boards for more of the same except with a faster turnover. I'm fully in favor of keeping the nuts around so we can play with them, like cats playing with mice, until they get too obnoxious. Then the banner should explain the banning, both in the thread and in ATMB, so readers don't need to search for a reason.

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Shodan

The "insta-ban Nazis" idea seems pretty much a solution in search of a problem.

But it would be a final one.

Too soon?

[Peter Morris]

Originally Posted by PlainJain

Yep. We can't stop the Nazis from posting their hate and lies on the net so I believe there is value in our posting factual information that discredits it - however inadequate that supply of information may be. .

Thank you for clarifying what you meant. You did, however, phrase it poorly, and gave the wrong impression.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by mlees

I was going to ask the same [slippery slope] question:

Shall we ban the following? Why, or why not?

1. Moon landing hoax believers

2. 9/11 thruthers

3. Oswald did not kill Kennedy believers

4. Global warming deniers

5. Gun control opponents

6. Republicans

7. Fox News viewers

Edit: Posting before finishing the thread. Still in the middle of page 1!

Hah! I have locked horns with all of them! The fight against gross ignorance should not care if the proponent of woo is liberal or conservative.

I have to mention that there are many thinking conservatives here so I agree with many posters here that we should not autoban them, because many do not go for the jerky style of dealing with others, in the SDMB the last 4 items specially show many examples of conservatives that while they support some of those ideas they do listen to reason. Also, to confuse this more, nowadays most thinking republicans and conservatives are being kick out of office by a party that is going off the deep end.

OTOH, it was with evidence presented in this message board that made me agree a lot with #5, so you would had to ban me if we follow with that post hypothetical.

[kunilou]

Not to mention that Holocaust deniers are one of the few things guaranteed to unite everyone on the Board. Think about it. Grouchy Republicans/angry Democrats/frustrated supporters of Ron Paul, atheists/theists, pro-union/anti-union, lovers/haters of kitty pix. . . There are few things we can agree on, but #1 on the list is a Hitler supporter.

Every time one appears, it's a team-building exercise!

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by kunilou

Not to mention that Holocaust deniers are one of the few things guaranteed to unite everyone on the Board. Think about it. Grouchy Republicans/angry Democrats/frustrated supporters of Ron Paul, atheists/theists, pro-union/anti-union, lovers/haters of kitty pix. . . There are few things we can agree on, but #1 on the list is a Hitler supporter.

Every time one appears, it's a team-building exercise!

Nah, because we don't agree on whether it's worthwhile to engage them. I consider these people trolls, and I don't feed trolls. But I will grant the SDMB one thing -- it is a tremendous feeding ground for trolls.

Maybe I'm jealous. A long time ago I looked back at threads I started and found that almost a third of them died without ever even getting a response. Now I know why -- they weren't crazy or evil enough!

[Chimera]

And yet I'm not allowed to say to these people;

"You know that scene in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkhaban where the Boggart steps out of the wardrobe looking like Professor Snape and then Neville uses the Ridiculous charm to make it look like it's wearing his grandmother's clothing? That's how I imagine you. Including the look of confusion on your face."

[C K Dexter Haven]

One quick comment: in addition to the rules about not insulting other posters, there is a specific rule in the Registration Agreement:

Hate speech, insults, and purposely inflammatory remarks (i.e., trolling) will not be tolerated. Do not post threats or state or imply that any individual or group is deserving of harm.

Neo-Nazis will almost surely fall afoul of these rules fairly quickly. Thus, the current policy (IMHO) treads the line very neatly between not giving a sounding-board to such extremists, while at the same time not stifling any particular topics.

[Siam Sam]

From the Woody Allen film Manhattan (1979):

Isaac Davis (Woody): Has anybody read that Nazis are gonna march in New Jersey? Y'know, I read this in the newspaper. We should go down there, get some guys together, y'know, get some bricks and baseball bats and really explain things to them.
Party Guest: There is this devastating satirical piece on that on the Op Ed page of the Times, it is devastating.
Isaac Davis: Well, a satirical piece in the Times is one thing, but bricks and baseball bats really gets right to the point

[Sailboat]

My Dad knew how to deal with Nazis.

69th Infantry Division: Siegfried Line, the Rhineland, Liepzieg, Eilenberg, Torgau.

If I have to argue with them on a messageboard, it's the least I can do.

[Darth Panda]

Originally Posted by kunilou

Not to mention that Holocaust deniers are one of the few things guaranteed to unite everyone on the Board. Think about it. Grouchy Republicans/angry Democrats/frustrated supporters of Ron Paul, atheists/theists, pro-union/anti-union, lovers/haters of kitty pix. . . There are few things we can agree on, but #1 on the list is a Hitler supporter.

Every time one appears, it's a team-building exercise!

When Ron Paul supporters unite with kttiy pix lovers, I get very, very scared. I'm not sure I'm OK with this.

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Darth Panda

When Ron Paul supporters unite with kttiy pix lovers, I get very, very scared. I'm not sure I'm OK with this.

i kan has gold standard?

[Jake]

Originally Posted by Irishman

I think we should instaban anyone who likes shaky cam. And vegans.

Once you start banning people for ideas, then where do you stop?

Best post yet. Give everybody at least ONE chance to express their opinion.
Then drop the "Ban Bomb".

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by Quartz

This. I like my bigots out in the open where they can be squashed rather than allowed to fester.

Right, except for how there are several obvious "scientific" racists here, festering away, and they haven't been "squashed" or anything. They're still here just "asking questions" and engaging in "reasoned debates".

I mean, this place pretty clearly doesn't have a good track record at getting rid of people like that and the result is that it's a place where, to this day, it's apparently up for debate whether people with certain skin colors are inherently stupid. It seems obvious, given that track record, that this place would do better to abandon this silly "truth will out" nonsense and just acknowledge that awful people with awful viewpoints exist, and kick them out, rather than engaging the thousandth white supremacist in debate and pretending like you'll collectively manage to debate the Nazi out of him.

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

But insta-banning them won't make them or their ideas go away.

Uh, of course it'll make them go away. It won't make every neo-Nazi ever go away, and it won't make any of them rethink their ideas, but neither will "debating" at them, and the banning approach involves a lot less pointless arguing with Nazis. Because it ensures that they go away.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

Uh, of course it'll make them go away. It won't make every neo-Nazi ever go away, and it won't make any of them rethink their ideas, but neither will "debating" at them, and the banning approach involves a lot less pointless arguing with Nazis. Because it ensures that they go away.

Arguing with True Believers, whether Nazis, commies, fundy theists, fundy atheists, radical vegans, or rabid carnivores, will never persuade them to change their views and will only one time in a million persuade them that their opponents are not incarnate evil.
However, demonstrating the errors in which True Believers engage will persuade undecided folks on the sidelines that the extreme position of the True Believers is too far off the charts for a reasonable person to hold them. Shutting down True Believers for simply mindlessly grasping their belief sends a message to those on the sidelines that we are unable to fight them with facts and that they must have some Truth of which we are afraid.

I don't see the point in banning anyone for being stupid or closed minded, regardless which topic their fixation supports.

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

I don't see the point in banning anyone for being stupid...

Whew. I will sleep MUCH better at night now!

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Sailboat

My Dad knew how to deal with Nazis.

69th Infantry Division: Siegfried Line, the Rhineland, Liepzieg, Eilenberg, Torgau.

Do you know who else dealt with Nazis?

Regards,
Shodan

[Marley23]

Eisenhower?

[Jackmannii]

I cast my pitiful insignificant vote against banning denialists of any stripe, short of intensely vile hatemongering which I can't define, but which (like a certain Supreme Court Justice) I am confident our hard-working Mod overlords can recognize if they see it.

Once started down the ban road, we'll have to eliminate AIDS denialists, vaccine denialists and all the loony-tunes whom it is such good sport (and occasionally even educational) to debunk, point fingers at and laugh.

[carnivorousplant]

George Patton?

[Munch]

Originally Posted by carnivorousplant

George Patton?

Was he the guy on TV with all those kids?

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by carnivorousplant

George Patton?

No, Kim Kardashian.

Regards,
Shodan

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

Originally Posted by Shodan

No, Kim Kardashian.

Regards,
Shodan

Well, technically he was duking it out with British Fascists, but Vidal Sassoon.

[Sparky812]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Do you know who else dealt with Nazis?

Regards,
Shodan

Indiana Jones? .... or was it God?

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Sparky812

Indiana Jones? .... or was it God?

I think it was Jake and Elwood Blues... On a mission from the latest.

[Ferret Herder]

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

I think it was Jake and Elwood Blues... On a mission from the latest.

I hate Illinois Nazis.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Ferret Herder

I hate Illinois Nazis.

Iowa Nazis, on the other hand, are okay.

[Boyo Jim]

Originally Posted by Miller

Iowa Nazis, on the other hand, are okay.

It's the corn. You shove it in their asses, and they become upstanding citizens.

[Siam Sam]

Which proves my personal theory that' it's always best to shove something up Nazis' asses.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Arguing with True Believers, whether Nazis, commies, fundy theists, fundy atheists, radical vegans, or rabid carnivores, will never persuade them to change their views and will only one time in a million persuade them that their opponents are not incarnate evil.
However, demonstrating the errors in which True Believers engage will persuade undecided folks on the sidelines that the extreme position of the True Believers is too far off the charts for a reasonable person to hold them. Shutting down True Believers for simply mindlessly grasping their belief sends a message to those on the sidelines that we are unable to fight them with facts and that they must have some Truth of which we are afraid.

Do you really, honestly believe there are a lot of people on the fence about (to continue with my example) scientific racism, and they're waiting to be convinced by the evidence? Consider the fact that absolutely zero of the world's current scientific racists came to that conclusion due to fairly and honestly evaluating the evidence.

If you guys just want easy arguments that you can feel good about yourselves for winning, then go for it, and award yourselves your gold stars when you fail to change any minds at all. In my experience it's more satisfying to debate someone who actually came to their opinion honestly because then sometimes they actually concede when confronted with superior arguments. Whereas Holocaust deniers, scientific racists, and their ilk never will.

I don't see the point in banning anyone for being stupid or closed minded, regardless which topic their fixation supports.

If your goal is to have a place where decent discussions are possible -- and especially where good faith debaters might actually learn something and improve themselves in the process -- I can't think of a more obviously correct course of action than banning people for being stupid or closed-minded.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

Do you really, honestly believe there are a lot of people on the fence about (to continue with my example) scientific racism, and they're waiting to be convinced by the evidence? Consider the fact that absolutely zero of the world's current scientific racists came to that conclusion due to fairly and honestly evaluating the evidence.

No. So what?

What I do find are people who have come to conclusions because they were not presented the facts or were presented a slanted view of the facts. Such folks, (and there are a couple of posters on the SDMB who came here with that sort of background in science who have changed their views in light of the facts), are sincerely looking for the facts and we provide those facts.
Shutting down discussion and banning True Believers is more likely to be interpreted by those who have been misled as us being afraid of "the Truth."

Originally Posted by mister nyx

If you guys just want easy arguments that you can feel good about yourselves for winning, then go for it, and award yourselves your gold stars when you fail to change any minds at all. In my experience it's more satisfying to debate someone who actually came to their opinion honestly because then sometimes they actually concede when confronted with superior arguments. Whereas Holocaust deniers, scientific racists, and their ilk never will.

If you think arguing with the hydras that are most True Believers is easy, you probably have never actually engaged in a discussion with one. It is mostly frustrating. Yes, it might be more fun to have a genuine debate with someone who arrived at a Creationist perspective "rationally," but the odds on finding such a "rational" True Believer are pretty long against.
Even moreso with a Holocaust Denier. However, they generally arrive with an entire list of lies--all the more reason why we should take the time to debunk them rather than let anyone actually believe that they are not lying or that we fear "the Truth."

Originally Posted by mister nyx

If your goal is to have a place where decent discussions are possible -- and especially where good faith debaters might actually learn something and improve themselves in the process -- I can't think of a more obviously correct course of action than banning people for being stupid or closed-minded.

And if we decided that your attitude was either close-minded or stupid. . . ?

Decent discussions are always possible. Not with every poster on every topic, but with enough posters on enough topics to remain interesting. And banning people for having wrong-headed beliefs prevents us from encountering the current crop of errors or lies. On the other hand, engaging them gives us the opportunity us do the research to discover the source of their lies to more easily debunk them.

[The Man With The Golden Gun]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

Do you really, honestly believe there are a lot of people on the fence about (to continue with my example) scientific racism, and they're waiting to be convinced by the evidence? Consider the fact that absolutely zero of the world's current scientific racists came to that conclusion due to fairly and honestly evaluating the evidence.

If you guys just want easy arguments that you can feel good about yourselves for winning, then go for it, and award yourselves your gold stars when you fail to change any minds at all. In my experience it's more satisfying to debate someone who actually came to their opinion honestly because then sometimes they actually concede when confronted with superior arguments. Whereas Holocaust deniers, scientific racists, and their ilk never will.


If your goal is to have a place where decent discussions are possible -- and especially where good faith debaters might actually learn something and improve themselves in the process -- I can't think of a more obviously correct course of action than banning people for being stupid or closed-minded.

We're not actually trying to debate with Neo-nazis and all that, since Lord knows there's no way anyone can penetrate their concrete skulls, but often, we let them spew, make fun of them (not the same as debating, obviously), and let them flame out until they get themselves banned. Same result, takes only a bit longer, and provides the board with a fair deal of amusement along the way.

And even though we don't instantly ban people for being stupid or closed-minded and prefer to give them enough rope to hang themselves with, decent discussions and enlightening debates do in fact happen here.

Quite frequently, actually.

[Enola Gay]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

Do you really, honestly believe there are a lot of people on the fence about (to continue with my example) scientific racism, and they're waiting to be convinced by the evidence? Consider the fact that absolutely zero of the world's current scientific racists came to that conclusion due to fairly and honestly evaluating the evidence.

If you guys just want easy arguments that you can feel good about yourselves for winning, then go for it, and award yourselves your gold stars when you fail to change any minds at all. In my experience it's more satisfying to debate someone who actually came to their opinion honestly because then sometimes they actually concede when confronted with superior arguments. Whereas Holocaust deniers, scientific racists, and their ilk never will.


If your goal is to have a place where decent discussions are possible -- and especially where good faith debaters might actually learn something and improve themselves in the process -- I can't think of a more obviously correct course of action than banning people for being stupid or closed-minded.

I agree with you that a true, hard-boiled Holocaust denier will never see the light, regardless of how convincing and rational your arguments might be. But consider the 'up and coming/aspiring/interested in exploring' Holocaust denier. They could very well be reading here ....probably stumbling upon the SDMB after typing 'proof that the holocaust was a hoax" into a search engine.

Think about it. Young people today get a lot of their information from the internet and even the 'probably will become/odds stacked against him' future Holocaust denier (scientific racist, etc) out there in the world today will eventually do a google search at some point. Wouldn't it be better for that not-fully-cooked brain to happen upon some rational arguments that maybe, possibly give him cause to question what he has learned before becoming a fully-cooked, closed minded idiot?

[jsgoddess]

I think when you give people a forum, they'll take it. And the next person along sees that you gave that first person a forum. And the next. And the next. And that is why we have longstanding racists posting here who obey all of the rules except the most important one but are free to post and post and post long past the time when we all know that they are jerks.

The dope offers shelter to racists and then claims that gosh, there's simply nothing to be done about it because this slope is oh so slippery.

[Peter Morris]

Originally Posted by Enola Gay

I agree with you that a true, hard-boiled Holocaust denier will never see the light, regardless of how convincing and rational your arguments might be.

Actually, it does happen occasionally. Very rare, but it happens. A friend of mine is a former racist and holocaust denier. He had a change of heart years ago, before I knew him, and now is active in local politics, working against racism.

[XT]

Originally Posted by jsgoddess

I think when you give people a forum, they'll take it. And the next person along sees that you gave that first person a forum. And the next. And the next. And that is why we have longstanding racists posting here who obey all of the rules except the most important one but are free to post and post and post long past the time when we all know that they are jerks.

Nobody gets a free ride on this message board. If they bring that stuff in here then they are going to get smacked around by the posting community. And the next guy will as well. And the guy after that. And people will be able to see our responses to these losers, and see them humiliated, even if they don't get banned.

Again, I can't for the life of me see why this is a problem that needs fixing. Are you scared to debate one of these idiots? Scared of what they could or would say? Scared that giving them the chance to say it will somehow make reasonable people rethink their stance on this? I say bring em on and we'll bring the pain.

You claim that there are long time 'dopers who are racists...I won't ask for names, and just assume you are correct. So what? They don't post racist threads attempting to back up their bullshit unopposed. Obviously they stay within the boundaries of the rules for the board. You don't see a lot of long time 'dopers starting racist oriented threads in general because they KNOW they will feel the pain of a full on 'doper pile on.

The dope offers shelter to racists and then claims that gosh, there's simply nothing to be done about it because this slope is oh so slippery.

Horse. Shit.

-XT

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Peter Morris

Actually, it does happen occasionally. Very rare, but it happens. A friend of mine is a former racist and holocaust denier. He had a change of heart years ago, before I knew him, and now is active in local politics, working against racism.

Another famous case (or at least famous in Nebraska): a rabbi converts the Grand Dragon of the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in Nebraska to Judaism.

[Attack from the 3rd dimension]

Originally Posted by jsgoddess

I think when you give people a forum, they'll take it. And the next person along sees that you gave that first person a forum. And the next. And the next. And that is why we have longstanding racists posting here who obey all of the rules except the most important one but are free to post and post and post long past the time when we all know that they are jerks.

The dope offers shelter to racists and then claims that gosh, there's simply nothing to be done about it because this slope is oh so slippery.

Nah. There are a couple of 'scientific racists' who are total tools, and spend all their time combing the internet for obscure tidbits to back up their baloney. Everything they say is disputed to the point that they only make very tiny assertions about gene frequency in this or that population.

They can't say what they really want to say here, and what they do say means almost nothing. On the plus side, they spend all their time searching obscure gene frequency journal articles.

Real racists, like whatzisname, the Australians-are-Germans dude, they blow up in a public venue since they can't make their point rationally.

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Attack from the 3rd dimension

Real racists, like whatzisname, the Australians-are-Germans dude, they blow up in a public venue since they can't make their point rationally.

Best. Racist. Ever.

[Blaster Master]

I don't think it makes sense to ban any sort of topic from discussion. Certainly, some topics are going to be patently ridiculous or overly dogmatic to the point that it's just a train wreck. But, as a few others have mentioned, many of the sort of people that come here hardset in some bizarre mindset are likely to run afoul of the rules anyway and no one has to even engage them. The thing is, it may upset people that it's not a winnable debate, but if you're arguing with the sole purpose of convincing your opponent, they a lot of people are wasting their time here with so many political and religious discussions.

They're coming here looking for a platform. If you just ban them outright, no ideas get explored, and it reinforces their position giving them yet another point in their perceived persecution complex. If they're able to express they're ideas and they're all logically shot down and they eventually lose their cool and get banned for breaking rules, sure the worst case is the same, but there's a chance that it has some affect on someone.

We can't fight ignorance by ignoring it. It's going to be a fight won in many smaller battles not just closing our eyes and hoping they die off.

[Enola Gay]

Originally Posted by Peter Morris

Actually, it does happen occasionally. Very rare, but it happens. A friend of mine is a former racist and holocaust denier. He had a change of heart years ago, before I knew him, and now is active in local politics, working against racism.

Originally Posted by Gyrate

Another famous case (or at least famous in Nebraska): a rabbi converts the Grand Dragon of the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in Nebraska to Judaism.

Incredible. Now I'm 100% convinced that the Holocaust deniers should not be banned outright. Just this discussion about banning them taught me something I didn't know.

[Stink Fish Pot]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

But it would be a final one.

Too soon?

You are not looking for a "FINAL SOLUTION", are you?

[FinnAgain]

Originally Posted by Enola Gay

Incredible. Now I'm 100% convinced that the Holocaust deniers should not be banned outright. Just this discussion about banning them taught me something I didn't know.

Okay, that is a cool story.
Can we at least agree, however, that those who we do ban should have phone spiders unleashed upon them?