Agreed.
However, I do think december would still be posting if his views were more in line with the rest of the posters at the SDMB. MHO.
orgasm
I’d like to have an argument, please. Depending on how it goes, I might sign up for the whole course.
<< It seems that if you disagree or argue with the Staff, they cut you less slack than if you parrot their views >>
Actually, it tends to go the opposite way. If a Mod finds misbehavior on the part of someone of an opposite political stance, they tend to be MORE lenient, not less.
So far as I am aware, no one has ever been banned solely because of their political views. Behaviors, yes; perspectives, no.
The only possible exceptions are (a) political views that are contrary to U.S. law, such as advocating violence; and (b) the irrational hatred of certain races, religions, homophobia, national origins, etc. Biases are different from political views.
Even in those cases, it usually depends on how it’s expressed, so we’re trying to stomp out “behaving like a jerk”, we’re not trying to surpress any particular views. (“Surpress” of course means to stuff into a burlap bag, tie the top, and sit on them.)
Politely disagreeing with mods on matters of policy – national or SDMB – has never been grounds for banning.
I think you owe rj an apology there, 'Eater. That was hardly a partisan shot. If you’ll notice, he made no generalizations. He was speaking quite specifically of those individuals who persist in pullling a martyr act and claiming that Republicans (or whomever) are being oppressed.
Or do you suggest that this has not occurred?
I haven’t been around to read all of december’s threads. You know I didn’t do a search for them, as I’m an animal lover.
What I have read indicates that he tried to carry the water for the administraton position. That alone made him useful. How is he supposed to represent the administration without lying? 
Runs away behind cover and continues.
Collounsbury has Tourette’s of the fingers. With the right medications we could bring him back now. Reeder shouldn’t be banned. But, he should be more like his username, less like typer. Unless there actually is a typer, in which case I apologize.
Actually you are correct, I interpreted that wrong.
My apologies Rjung.
Since we all seem to be required to chime in here …
CKDH, thanks for the explanation for those who somehow thought this was an example of stifling conservative expression of thought.
This was overdue but welcome. The board is devoted to fighting ignorance, and those who spread it instead need not be welcome.
Why hasn’t Reeder gotten it yet? Perhaps because he doesn’t try to defend his bullshit after it’s been exposed as such, or restate it in new threads shortly afterward. He’s a ranter not a thinker, but essentially harmless - who takes his crap seriously, anyway? Examples?
The bannee in question here was more insidious, cloaking his bullshit and baiting and willful ignorance in “polite” language, in such a way as to make it appear to some (successfully) that he actually had thoughts to contribute.
Let’s hope he’s happier in Blogistan, where he doesn’t have to put up with people constantly showing him where he’s wrong. Meanwhile, when we go into SDMB, we don’t have to put up with as many instances of coming home to find a pile of shit on the carpet, and see the crazy uncle with his pants down, telling us it’s our fault and we should get it cleaned.
Where will the board be when all the ‘assholes’ have been banned?
I always read december’s threads and made a point of doing so. How can you fight ignorance without seeing the depths of it? Yes December was a complete dillpickle but if nothing else he served the useful role of being a bad example.
Personally I dont read this board seeking politeness, I do so seeking opinions and knowledge that varies from my own, and I’m not too concerned about the shape it comes in. I thought the conservatives that sought the banning of Collounsbury did not just the board but themselves a great disservice when they succeeded, and so too have the liberals that wanted December’s head.
dreams of Collounsbury and December both still being posters
Okay I’ll bite. I can’t find “surpress” in the dictionary.
Thank you for the kind words, Baker.
Raven, I was just trying to climb down off those very ramparts!
CKDex, thanks for the explanation.
I just wanted to clarify that what I was trying to say earlier was not so much that the mods cut liberals slack while hammering conservatives, but that other posters here will hammer a conservative for a slight infraction while letting obvious liberal trolling go by without a word.
You can also see this phenomenon happen with christian posters who politely post their views on homosexuality, etc. Just because someone thinks homosexuality is a sin doesn’t mean they are ignorant and need to be fought against.
Well, maybe. It is of course impossible to tell, as no-one in broad agreement with the rest of the members would have tried to annoy them all so much. It’s also impossible to tell if a comparable poster of the left would have been banned, as I don’t think there’s anyone who is directly comparable. december certainly has that going for him - he’s unique in many ways.
For Col, I played the Suite Algerienne.
After much consideration (OK, ten minutes) I’ve decided that the fourth movement of the Symphonie Fantastique of Berlioz would be appropriate because
a) He doesn’t deserve an entire piece, only a movement. (No pun intended. Really.)
b) It’s French.
I spent the first three years of his sojourn here blissfully ignorant of his presence, despite being a regular reader of and poster to GD. Within half a year of realizing his existence, I figured out he hung out under bridges. It really wasn’t that hard to see.
Much as with Collounsbury’s original banning, I am disappointed that december could not appropriately manage his behavior.
Much as with Collounsbury’s original banning, I am disappointed that december could not appropriately manage his behavior. But I fully agree with the staff’s determination that he was deliberately posting for the sake of inciting impassioned responses, i.e. trolling, and on that basis I have no problem whatsoever with the outcome of this long-running soap opera.
Please review any thread started by or about Reeder so that you may see the utter falsity of your hypothesis.
I have asked other posters about this stance, and seem to be studiously ignored. Never the less, I will continue to tilt at windmills.
First, if you say that you are not a conservative I will be glad to go along with that. However, as you seem to be advocating for them in this thread I think that I speak for many here when I ask for some clarification.
Are you saying that somehow the Liberal posters pile on Conservative points of view, whereas Conservative posters show more admirable restraint? Do conservative posters not call the Liberal folk on bad behavior and engage them in debate when they feel that ignorance can be fought? Are we to believe that Conservative posters are somehow a persecuted minority?
Or is your objection that the Liberal posters and not "policing " their own? If so, do you believe that Conservative posters as a group do a better job on this front?
Finally, as to your specific notion that “Just because someone thinks homosexuality is a sin doesn’t mean they are ignorant and need to be fought against” I would add a pretty strong distinction here. A person that holds that view should not be attacked, I will grant you that, but that view itself is one that should be attacked, debunked and dismissed until it is just a bad memory. Unfortunately, when one it throwing rocks at the beliefs of others it can become difficult to distinguish that from an attack on that person. Also, using the specific Christian example, many of us have suffered because of this religion, so that tends to be an issue that is a rather hot one.
As a final thought, just for fun, you may want to consider that the issue of personal politics is not as cut and dried as you seem to think. For example, when I read your posts it feels like I am reading a Conservative when in fact you state that you are not. Also, it is possible to have a politically Conservative Atheist.
OK, It’s a long weekend so I may get some time later to go a-searchin’ and a-linkin’, but for now let me just ask you to try to recall what you’ve read here.
How many pile-ons have you seen where the OP (or a successful hijacker) defended Bush, had a pro-life opinion, intimated that something was bad about homosexuality, said the deficit wasn’t too big of a problem, said that affirmative action was not necessary, etc.
Now, how many pile-ons have you seen where the OP (or a successful hijacker) attached Bush, had a pro-choice opinion, talked about being gay or gay-friendly, said the deficit was huge and that’s terrible, or said that we still need affirmative action?
Also, just for the record, I’m fiscally conservative and socially liberal, and an atheist. I can see a pile-on occurring even if I agree with the pilers and not the pile-ee.
Can I join you in that?
To me december was the enemy.
I am a sucker for Truth, I guess. Sometimes the truth hurts, I can accept that, as long as it’s truth or a valid view. Nothing I have ever read was worse than the lying, the twisting and spinning that spewed forth from december. Very skillfuly done, I must admit, and in some sort of perverse way skipping and dancing on (and often over) the verges of decency but a spreading of misinformation nonetheless.
The most infuriating thing however is that I never understood what drove him. He was obviously intelligent, so he knew he was lying and twisting. How can anyone do such a thing?
Was it an intellectual exercise of some sorts? See how far he could go? As he never, ever posted something of similar controversy that was not the GOP party line, I tend to be skeptic that it was indeed that.
I didn’t get the feeling he was just baiting, trolling, pulling our chains, whatever. He was in it for real.
I could not figure it out, what was his gain in this? Sometimes I actually even suspected him to be some sort of infiltrant to the board.
I know it sounds silly but he was always so close on the heels of the latest govt. falsehood that it was eery. He was, on occasion, even ahead of them.
Was he really that partisan? Was he that glad the neo-cons are running the show that he would say just about anything? I can somehow understand Rumsfeld & Co, they are in it now, no way out but to continue to lie. Or the speech writers and “news” people, they are being paid for it. But an independent pensioner, why would he willfuly destroy his honour and integrity?