Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 10-23-2019, 12:21 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
He was guilty on the followup, but I think it’s ridiculous to say someone can’t bring their own personal political orientation to bear in a debate thread. My perspective is pretty much the opposite of his on those topics, but I don’t like this idea on principle.
People aren't allowed to hijack threads over and over. That's the principle. What principle are you basing your objection on? Do you think people should be able to hijack threads?

He was given instructions and did not follow them, was suspended for excessive warnings, including not following that instruction less than a month ago. When a moderator gives instructions, they are not optional. This is how topic bans work. See here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
If we tell you to refrain from behavior that we regard as uncivil, or that in our view detracts from productive discussion, do so or face revocation of your posting privileges.
If a person valued their posting privileges, it would stand to reason they'd be weary of violating those instructions going forward.

We have a system much like progressive discipline systems that exist across many businesses. The suspension is supposed to serve as very strong notice that unless behavior is changed, escalation will occur. The behavior did not change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
I would hope the Powers That Be will rescind this suspension and remove Bone as a Mod immediately, ...
The first part of this hope was realized, though probably not in the way you were thinking. The mod team votes on suspensions and bannings so the second part, not so much.
  #52  
Old 10-23-2019, 12:30 AM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,783
In light of the proposed reduction of the number of Bone Moderators to zero, I feel that Bone should take it as a vote of confidence that the number of Bone Moderators instead doubled recently!

Last edited by Riemann; 10-23-2019 at 12:31 AM.
  #53  
Old 10-23-2019, 01:36 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
He was given instructions and did not follow them, was suspended for excessive warnings, including not following that instruction less than a month ago. When a moderator gives instructions, they are not optional. This is how topic bans work. See here:



If a person valued their posting privileges, it would stand to reason they'd be weary of violating those instructions going forward.

We have a system much like progressive discipline systems that exist across many businesses. The suspension is supposed to serve as very strong notice that unless behavior is changed, escalation will occur. The behavior did not change.

You are making an argument about process, while mine is about principle. What if you gave someone an instruction that they are not allowed to bring their religious beliefs into a debate? The subject is abortion, and they say it's wrong to even conduct very early abortion because the fetus has a soul. You tell them no more talk about ensoulment and they bring it up again anyway. Every bit of the process you are describing would be in play there, but the real problem is that you started out saying they could not apply a personally deeply meaningful ideological belief to their argument. That's absurd.

Therefore what you are really doing is banning certain ideologies from the debate.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #54  
Old 10-23-2019, 02:59 AM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
You are making an argument about process, while mine is about principle....you started out saying they could not apply a personally deeply meaningful ideological belief to their argument...

Therefore what you are really doing is banning certain ideologies from the debate.
But to do a reductio ad absurdum, what if one of the cranks who thinks relativity is wrong comes in starts spamming every GQ physics thread with their "perspective"?

I think if you have a view that is generally held to be extreme and unconventional in some way, you have to accept that if you constantly raise the issue it will annoy people. Your voice can still be heard, but you have to be reasonable and diplomatic about it, you can't insist on going over the same ground repeatedly when people sometimes want to talk about other issues.

In general I favor broad latitude for people who I think are sincere, even if I find them a bit weird. And as I've said I personally would have made a different call on whether Will was off-topic in this instance. But I do see it as just a judgment call and a matter of opinion, not a matter of absolute principle, on where you draw the line with this stuff.

Last edited by Riemann; 10-23-2019 at 03:00 AM.
  #55  
Old 10-23-2019, 03:31 AM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek is online now
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 25,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riemann View Post
In light of the proposed reduction of the number of Bone Moderators to zero, I feel that Bone should take it as a vote of confidence that the number of Bone Moderators instead doubled recently!
Bone (one of them, at least) was removed as a mod, so I guess Steophan got his wish.
  #56  
Old 10-23-2019, 03:45 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
the contradiction with opposing rules whilst fighting to have them imposed on your enemies, though.
I'm not opposed to rules, whatever gives you that idea? I love rules.

I'm opposed to rulers.
  #57  
Old 10-23-2019, 03:48 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Just to make it clear, pointing out facts is not insulting.
Try calling racists racist in GD...
  #58  
Old 10-23-2019, 05:23 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Since Will had a minority viewpoint I’m sure he also had a disproportionate amount of reports about his posts while similar quality posts from those that align with the majority point of view probably have no reports. It’s sort of funny how that works.
The issue wasn't the specific views he held. We have (and have always had) plenty of posters here with minority views. The issue was the way he expressed those views, the way he shoehorned his personal agendas and petty grievances into other threads regardless of topic, the way he accused everyone who didn't completely and immediately buy into his worldview of supporting oppression, and the way he repeatedly ignored the rules even when specifically instructed not to do so.

Funny how that works.
  #59  
Old 10-23-2019, 09:03 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
And now he’s banned over this ticky-tack BS? Jesus. I have said the moderation here has been on a worrisome trajectory, but this is moving way faster than even I had expected.
  #60  
Old 10-23-2019, 10:23 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,949
He's banned for racking up 8 warnings, 5 in the past year, and blatantly disregarding them and snarking at the mods instead. That doesn't seem unreasonable.
  #61  
Old 10-23-2019, 10:36 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
What if you gave someone an instruction that they are not allowed to bring their religious beliefs into a debate? The subject is abortion, and they say it's wrong to even conduct very early abortion because the fetus has a soul.
The issue was that we were hearing about statists and Murray Rothbard in threads about the weather.
  #62  
Old 10-23-2019, 10:43 AM
Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
He's banned for racking up 8 warnings, 5 in the past year, and blatantly disregarding them and snarking at the mods instead. That doesn't seem unreasonable.
He recieved warnings for invented rules that only applied to him. Such rules should never have existed in the first place, and so the warnings and banning should be rescinded, the rules abolished, and the mods that made them removed from power.

This won't happen, but it would be the right thing to do.
  #63  
Old 10-23-2019, 10:46 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
He recieved warnings for invented rules that only applied to him.
All rules are invented. And they only applied to him because he was the only one doing it. Not a unique situation on this board, I might add.

Last edited by MrDibble; 10-23-2019 at 10:47 AM.
  #64  
Old 10-23-2019, 10:48 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
He recieved warnings for invented rules that only applied to him. Such rules should never have existed in the first place, and so the warnings and banning should be rescinded, the rules abolished, and the mods that made them removed from power.

This won't happen, but it would be the right thing to do.
Are those facts, or opinions?
  #65  
Old 10-23-2019, 10:53 AM
Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Are those facts, or opinions?
Some of each. First sentence fact, second sentence opinions, third sentence one fact then one opinion.

As is obvious to anyone who understands how the English language works.
  #66  
Old 10-23-2019, 10:59 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Some of each. First sentence fact, second sentence opinions, third sentence one fact then one opinion.

As is obvious to anyone who understands how the English language works.
I would have marked down that first sentence as unevidenced opinion.
  #67  
Old 10-23-2019, 10:59 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,949
If one doesn't follow the directions given to them by the people in charge of enforcing the rules, one can hardly complain when those enforcers subsequently "pull the trigger".

Or so I've been told.
  #68  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:00 AM
Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
All rules are invented. And they only applied to him because he was the only one doing it. Not a unique situation on this board, I might add.
Most rules are not invented, but evolve - and almost all are not invented by those who enforce them. "Don't be a jerk", for example, was almost certainly never invented by any individual.

And no, the rule only applied to him because it was specifically, by name, directed at him. Which is the problem - rules like that are inherently discriminatory, as they require different behaviour from different people.

We have rules aginst being a jerk, and against threadshitting - so use them, don't add extra silly personal rules. The obvious reason they did that, of course, is because he was neither threadshitting nor being a jerk, but the Powers That Be wanted him silenced.

The sad thing about this is that you, with your dislike of rulers and powers and so on, should be firmly against that happening. But, like the vast majority of leftists, you can't deal with having to hear things that you disgagree with, or that you choose to be offended by, and want them silenced. Which, to make a statement of fact not opinion, is a hypocritical position.
  #69  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:02 AM
Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
I would have marked down that first sentence as unevidenced opinion.
Then you would be factually wrong.
  #70  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:03 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Then you would be factually wrong.
That's your opinion.
  #71  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:04 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,949
Cool story, bro.

But nonetheless, WillFarnaby was a massive jerk and persistent threadshitter.
  #72  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:04 AM
Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
If one doesn't follow the directions given to them by the people in charge of enforcing the rules, one can hardly complain when those enforcers subsequently "pull the trigger".

Or so I've been told.
Do you have the same view of "protesters" being arrested? Or about people being arrested or worse for resisting the police? Most people here don't, and are pretty anti-authoritarian - I don't know your views specifically but at least Czarcasm and Mr Dibble fall into that category.

It seems silencing dissenters is fine, as long as they dissent from your party line.
  #73  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:08 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Do you have the same view of "protesters" being arrested? Or about people being arrested or worse for resisting the police? Most people here don't, and are pretty anti-authoritarian - I don't know your views specifically but at least Czarcasm and Mr Dibble fall into that category.

It seems silencing dissenters is fine, as long as they dissent from your party line.
Unsubstantiated opinion again.
  #74  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:08 AM
Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Cool story, bro.

But nonetheless, WillFarnaby was a massive jerk and persistent threadshitter.
No, he simply saw things from a different perspective to you. That you think disagreeing with you counts as being jerkish and irrelevant (to expand threadshitting to a more general sense) says more about you that anyone else.

To put it bluntly, your opinions are not always right. Neither are mine, neither are anyones. To shut down opposing opinions in a debate is to embrace ignorance and tribalism, things that most people here claim to be opposed to.
  #75  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:14 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
The issue was that we were hearing about statists and Murray Rothbard in threads about the weather.

Cite? Every time I saw him discussed in ATMB, the warnings were not non sequiturs like that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
If one doesn't follow the directions given to them by the people in charge of enforcing the rules, one can hardly complain when those enforcers subsequently "pull the trigger".

Or so I've been told.

Sounds like the kind of justification Laura Ingraham would use for cruel treatment of migrants who cross the US border without documentation.
  #76  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:15 AM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Do you have the same view of "protesters" being arrested?
I think you're getting a bit carried away with this. I lean toward your view in a quantitative sense, in that I would have preferred Will had been given more latitude, because he was a bit crazy but seemed completely sincere. But it's a judgment call, not some absolute principle. Free speech cannot ever be absolute. It's always a judgment call if someone is abusing the privilege of free speech to infringe on the rights of others.

If you want to use that analogy - yes, I think there's a point at which protesters should be arrested, depending on how they are protesting, not what they are protesting - if they are throwing Molotov cocktails at innocent passers by, for example.

Last edited by Riemann; 10-23-2019 at 11:15 AM.
  #77  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:18 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Sounds like the kind of justification Laura Ingraham would use for cruel treatment of migrants who cross the US border without documentation.
You had to travel hundreds(or even thousands) of miles with just the clothes on your back, starving most of the way for weeks on end just to make that post?

  #78  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:24 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Do you have the same view of "protesters" being arrested? Or about people being arrested or worse for resisting the police? Most people here don't, and are pretty anti-authoritarian - I don't know your views specifically but at least Czarcasm and Mr Dibble fall into that category.

It seems silencing dissenters is fine, as long as they dissent from your party line.
And some people here are strongly authoritarian and are fine with those authorities shooting people, including children, to death with little justification. As long as they don't ban them from a private messageboard, I guess it's all fine.

But that has nothing to do with WillFarnaby, who wasn't oppressed by the system or banned for speaking truth to power or silenced by The Man. Were that the case, I would certainly oppose his banning. But it isn't. He was banned for being, as already noted, a massive jerk who shat all over a wide range of threads with his particular firebrand lunacy and refused to stop.

Consider the late unlamented Huey Freeman who was also a raging asshole. The particular bee in Huey's bonnet was the unfair treatment of black people in society which, if this board really is as loony left as suggested, ought to have been warmly welcomed. And indeed we tried to engage. But Huey was a massive jerk, although he did eventually restrict his raillery to one thread, and he got banned for it, just like Will.

"Don't be a jerk" applies to everyone.
  #79  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:26 AM
Riemann's Avatar
Riemann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Santa Fe, NM, USA
Posts: 7,783
nm

Last edited by Riemann; 10-23-2019 at 11:27 AM.
  #80  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:26 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Most rules are not invented, but evolve
That's custom, not rules.
Quote:
- and almost all are not invented by those who enforce them.
I didn't say they had to be.
Quote:
"Don't be a jerk", for example, was almost certainly never invented by any individual.
I disagree. Whoever first codified it, invented it.
Quote:
And no, the rule only applied to him because it was specifically, by name, directed at him.
Because he was the only one doing it.
Quote:
Which is the problem - rules like that are inherently discriminatory, as they require different behaviour from different people.
I'm pretty sure if a second poster started inserting their anti-statist bugbear everywhere, the rule would shortly be applied to them, too.

Do you think Evil Captor was being discriminated against for his custom rule, too?
Quote:

We have rules aginst being a jerk, and against threadshitting - so use them, don't add extra silly personal rules.
I see this as the mods just highlighting what specific flavour of jerkishness and threadshitting they were seeing, and telling him to knock it off. The existence of the specific doesn't mean the general doesn't apply. See Evil Captor and Skald and others' various personal rules..
Quote:
The obvious reason they did that, of course, is because he was neither threadshitting nor being a jerk, but the Powers That Be wanted him silenced.
They could ban him anytime they wanted, if that was their wish. Hell, they could do it, say absolutely nothing, and if anyone asked, say he was a sock.

Instead, they gave him every chance to change his behaviour. Your conspiracy theory is as leaky as a rusted colander, there.
Quote:
The sad thing about this is that you, with your dislike of rulers and powers and so on, should be firmly against that happening.
Why? This board is a voluntary association, not a national government. I choose to put myself under the mods, and I can leave anytime I want to. The Mods aren't rulers, they're unpaid employees of an establishment I choose to frequent.

You can keep trying to shoehorn my anarchism into this, but it's really not a good fit, mate.
Quote:
But, like the vast majority of leftists, you can't deal with having to hear things that you disgagree with, or that you choose to be offended by, and want them silenced.
I hear things I disagree with all the time I have no problem with existing here.

It's jerks who threadshit that I'm glad are gone.
Quote:
Which, to make a statement of fact not opinion, is a hypocritical position.
You've clearly shown you have no idea what my position on things is, so I'll give all accusations from you that they're hypocritical a *shrug*, it's the only response they deserve.
  #81  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:30 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Missed the edit window.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Sounds like the kind of justification Laura Ingraham would use for cruel treatment of migrants who cross the US border without documentation.

Or those made for jailing black people for sitting at white only diners, or jailing gay people for engaging in “sodomy” before those laws were made illegal. (DADT would be an even better example, since those people chose to join the military—but that didn’t make the rule a just one.)

Now obviously this is nowhere near as serious a situation. But sometimes it takes larger examples to convey a principle. And the principle here is that you can’t just fall back on “The rules were openly declared, therefore when they are enforced the fault is all on the person receiving the punishment.”

The key question is not whether a procedure was followed, or someone was warned not to break a rule, but whether the rule is fair. And to say that one type of ideological perspective cannot be brought to bear in a debate on a fucking debate board? That is not a just or equitable rule.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 10-23-2019 at 11:31 AM.
  #82  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:30 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,786
Once again, a private message board is not a government, and a private message board restricting speech is not violating anyone's rights or freedoms. It's fine to quibble about the rules of the board and the application of these rules, but it's ridiculous to compare this to broader politics and discussions of rights and freedoms. The actions of a private message board, in a free society, on what kinds of speech to allow, have nothing to do with governmental policy regarding speech rights, and nothing to do with governmental oppression. It's utterly ridiculous to compare the two.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 10-23-2019 at 11:31 AM.
  #83  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:31 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
Do you have the same view of "protesters" being arrested? Or about people being arrested or worse for resisting the police? Most people here don't, and are pretty anti-authoritarian - I don't know your views specifically but at least Czarcasm and Mr Dibble fall into that category.
What would be the difference between a message board and an authoritarian regime, I wonder...
  #84  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:34 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
And to say that one type of ideological perspective cannot be brought to bear in a debate on a fucking debate board? That is not a just or equitable rule.
Keep pretending it's about what he said, and not how and where he spewed it.
  #85  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:34 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
What would be the difference between a message board and an authoritarian regime, I wonder...
The same difference between a persecution complex and actual persecution, I would guess.
  #86  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:35 AM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
Consider the late unlamented Huey Freeman who was also a raging asshole. The particular bee in Huey's bonnet was the unfair treatment of black people in society which, if this board really is as loony left as suggested, ought to have been warmly welcomed. And indeed we tried to engage. But Huey was a massive jerk, although he did eventually restrict his raillery to one thread, and he got banned for it, just like Will.
Or handy, who was banned for for posting medial "advice" after being told not to. This isn't new, folks.

Last edited by Skywatcher; 10-23-2019 at 11:36 AM.
  #87  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:36 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
So I guess those who fall back on the “private message board” angle agree with Rand Paul when he was momentarily and accidentally honest? For those who don’t remember, he admitted that he only believed federal civil rights legislation should have applied to governmental institutions but should not have forced private businesses like restaurants and hotels to serve black people if they didn’t want to.
  #88  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:39 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
So I guess those who fall back on the “private message board” angle agree with Rand Paul when he was momentarily and accidentally honest? For those who don’t remember, he admitted that he only believed federal civil rights legislation should have applied to governmental institutions but should not have forced private businesses like restaurants and hotels to serve black people if they didn’t want to.
Do you have any analogies that actually pertain to the situation being discussed here?
  #89  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:39 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
So I guess those who fall back on the “private message board” angle agree with Rand Paul when he was momentarily and accidentally honest? For those who don’t remember, he admitted that he only believed federal civil rights legislation should have applied to governmental institutions but should not have forced private businesses like restaurants and hotels to serve black people if they didn’t want to.
Huh? Those restaurants and hotels have the right to kick out anyone of any race if they are behaving disruptively.

I would agree that the SDMB should not have the right to ban people based on their race, and I don't believe that the board has.

Not sure what this example has to do with the discussion.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 10-23-2019 at 11:39 AM.
  #90  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:44 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 11,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
No, he simply saw things from a different perspective to you. That you think disagreeing with you counts as being jerkish and irrelevant (to expand threadshitting to a more general sense) says more about you that anyone else.

To put it bluntly, your opinions are not always right. Neither are mine, neither are anyones. To shut down opposing opinions in a debate is to embrace ignorance and tribalism, things that most people here claim to be opposed to.
Do you think it's possible that someone could have a dissenting or unpopular opinion AND also be a disruptive jerk unwilling or unable to follow board rules that are reasonable and necessary for constructive debate? Because that's how most of us see it. The former is acceptable, the latter is not.

Does it bother you at all that virtually everyone here including the moderators disagrees with you? ("Moderators", plural, because the banning decision AIUI was a consensus of the moderators.) You might want to take a moment to consider the old adage that if everyone tells you you're wrong, maybe the problem is you. Trust me, outlandish statements evincing total unawareness of reality like "I would hope the Powers That Be will ... remove Bone as a Mod immediately, due to his inability to stop his personal feelings about posters affecting his modding" do nothing to help your credibility.
  #91  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:49 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
To shut down opposing opinions in a debate is to embrace ignorance and tribalism, things that most people here claim to be opposed to.
You keep coming back to this - shutting down opinions - but it's not accurate. As a threshold matter I think it would be illustrative if you could answer a couple questions:

Do you believe that moderators should enforce rules to prevent thread hijacks?
Do you believe that topic bans should be an available tool for moderators to impose?
  #92  
Old 10-23-2019, 11:53 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
And to say that one type of ideological perspective cannot be brought to bear in a debate on a fucking debate board? That is not a just or equitable rule.
It's a good thing no one is saying this then? I'm also opposed to animal cruelty, so it's good that we're not endorsing that either.
  #93  
Old 10-23-2019, 12:03 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
So I guess those who fall back on the “private message board” angle agree with Rand Paul when he was momentarily and accidentally honest? For those who don’t remember, he admitted that he only believed federal civil rights legislation should have applied to governmental institutions but should not have forced private businesses like restaurants and hotels to serve black people if they didn’t want to.
So what, exactly, is the similarity between an ethnicity, and a behaviour?
  #94  
Old 10-23-2019, 12:04 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Huh? Those restaurants and hotels have the right to kick out anyone of any race if they are behaving disruptively.

I would agree that the SDMB should not have the right to ban people based on their race, and I don't believe that the board has.

Okay, how about nightclubs that ban as “disruptive” fashion choices that technically anyone can avail themselves of, but which are very disproportionately chosen by black people? That’s A-OK with you?
  #95  
Old 10-23-2019, 12:06 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
So what, exactly, is the similarity between an ethnicity, and a behaviour?

Fair enough. My example of DADT was better, then. As long as military members kept their mouths shut and didn’t engage in homosexual activity, they could not be kicked out for “being gay”. They knew the rules going in, amirite?

ETA: We can also bring in McCarthyism and Hollywood blacklists here. Private entities who chose not to do business with people who attached themselves by their own choice to a radical political ideology that made most people uncomfortable. There is simply no way to say “that’s different” about that one, so instead I will predict it is met with resounding silence and maybe a thread closure.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 10-23-2019 at 12:10 PM.
  #96  
Old 10-23-2019, 12:07 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is online now
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Okay, how about nightclubs that ban as “disruptive” fashion choices that technically anyone can avail themselves of, but which are very disproportionately chosen by black people? That’s A-OK with you?
I can't tell if this is performance art of leading things offtopic. It's quite baffling.
  #97  
Old 10-23-2019, 12:07 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Okay, how about nightclubs that ban as “disruptive” fashion choices that technically anyone can avail themselves of, but which are very disproportionately chosen by black people? That’s A-OK with you?
Nope-try again...hopefully with an analogy that has something to do with repetitive disruptive behavior.
  #98  
Old 10-23-2019, 12:09 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Fair enough. My example of DADT was better, then. As long as military members kept their mouths shut and didn’t engage in homosexual activity, they could not be kicked out for “being gay”. They knew the rules going in, amirite?
Are you protesting that jerks should have equal rights?
  #99  
Old 10-23-2019, 12:14 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I can't tell if this is performance art of leading things offtopic. It's quite baffling.

Projection much? Are you ever going to actually cite where Will introduced a libertarian ideology into a completely random topic like “the weather”? Or do you keep making these vague remarks because you don’t have any such evidence? It certainly is not true about the topic that incited his final warnings.

Last edited by SlackerInc; 10-23-2019 at 12:15 PM.
  #100  
Old 10-23-2019, 12:15 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,491
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Fair enough. My example of DADT was better, then.
Define "better", please. I think you're using a different definition...
Quote:
As long as military members kept their mouths shut and didn’t engage in homosexual activity, they could not be kicked out for “being gay”. They knew the rules going in, amirite?
I'm sorry, are you asking whether I supported DADT? I'll answer that just as soon as you explain in what way it mirrors being a jerk.
Quote:
ETA: We can also bring in McCarthyism and Hollywood blacklists here. Private entities
Ermm, what was McCarthy's job, again? Are you using your own definition of "private", as well?

Good job on pre-emptively nailing yourself to the thread closure cross, though. Very sub-till
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017