Well, don’t let the door whack yer ass. 'Course mebbe yer chained here.
SDMB: love it exactly as it is or leave, and why do you hate America?
amirite?
Yes it is. Your assertion is false. On the SDMB, it is coming from the non-religious, and it is not coming from the religious.
Cite one example of a Christian or Jewish Doper who posted on the SDMB his fantasies of murdering large groups of atheists, who has not been warned or banned and about whom other Christian/Jewish Dopers said that although his position was over-stated, they basically agreed with what he said.
And don’t change the subject to Fred Phelps. mswas said “this message board” specifically, and you denied it. Examples of hate speech from non-religious types on the SDMB have already been cited. The burden is now on you - back it up.
Regards,
Shodan
Sorry, Tom, but this is B.S. You know, the thing that gets me about it more than anything is the intellectual dishonesty, coming from a board that supposedly prides itself on fighting ignorance. There is no way, as others said, that such a comment as Acid Lamp’s would have flown under the radar if he was talking about Atheists rather than Christians, and you know it. There was a comment some months ago by a longtime poster who said she would rather drown any child of hers than give it to a Christian to adopt. No one said boo about it. Please tell me how THAT would have gone over if she had said “gays” instead of “Christians.” If you have any cite that shows such a comment being made about any other group other than the religious, and no one saying a word about it, I would very much like to see it.
Of course, I wouldn’t want there to be such a circumstance. That kind of bigotry SHOULD be called out…no matter who it is directed at.
I have not only seen “fundy” applied to non-religious persons on this board, I have explicitly used it, myself, in reference to posters who are so devoted to their own point of view that they are incapable of seeing any validity in any other view. Specifically, I have used it on more than one occasion regarding Der Trihs. Bigot does not convey the same “evangelical” attitude that such posters display. I have seen and used “fundy” in reference to persons displaying those traits regardless whether they are Christian, Muslim, Marxist/atheist, or of no particularly easily pegged position. Heck, even Shodan has called Der Trihs a “raving fundamentalist atheist” (although I would generally use the slang “fundy” rather than “Fundamentalist,” as I typically consider Fundamentalist Christians (or Muslims in the recent extension of the term) to be sincere people with whose views I disagree while I consider fundies to be the people who have taken some aspect of belief and carried it to the extreme).
As to Acid Lamp’s specific post, I am curious as to whether any of you reported it? As it happens, all three Mods from MPSIMS had been away from their computers for the last day or so, until this morning, so they are unlikely to have seen his post if it was not reported.
Now, if you are claiming that only posters from the non-religious or Left wing of politics have posted declarations that they would like to see religious or conservative persons die, that might be technically true. Of the five or six posters (out of the few thousand active posters) who are likely to make such statements, I will acknowledge that that group tends to the non-religious Left.
If you are claiming that expressions of hatred for other people based on beliefs is limited to the non-religious Left, (which was the point I thought was being made), then I say you are simply ignoring the posters on the religious Right who are similarly contemptuous of other posters. Due to the tilt of the board, we no longer have many posters on the religious Right wander through here, but the two most recent examples who appeared in Great Debates expressed a fair amount of hatred toward those who do not believe as they do and the only Warning that was handed out to either of them was for a direct personal insult–the same sort of action that Der Trihs avoids in GD (and was told to stop the one time he stepped over that line).
No, I did not report it, because mod action or inaction is irrelevant to my point. As far as I’m concerned, I wouldn’t care if no one was officially chastised for that kind of remark, no matter what group it was directed at. I was referring to the non-reaction by everyone who read that post of Acid Lamp’s and just went right on to the next post with nary a blink. And, I also wanted to make the point to Der Trihs that his thesis regarding where the hate filled bigots come from is often refuted right here under his nose.
No, I didn’t bother.
I reported some direct insults in GD to the mods of that forum, and nothing has been done to date, so I assumed the rules had been turned off for the moment.
Actually, what I assumed was that you were hoping that the insulted poster would respond in kind so that you could warn him, but when that did not occur, you decided simply to ignore the violation and hope the poster in question would be driven off.
:shrugs:
Ah well. At least we have established that this -
was a lie.
Regards,
Shodan
You report so many borderline (or even clearly acceptable under the rules) posts in GD that you have earned a reputation for crying “Wolf!” (And since you frequently report “insults” toward the Right in threads where similar or worse “insults” have been hurled at the Left that you do not report, I tend to “consider the source” whenever you spew these accusations in the Pit.)
Or, at least, in Shodan land it passes for what Shodan refuses to believe under any circumstances.
::: shrug :::
[QUOTE=Der TrihsIt’s interesting to watch people argue againt a Der Trihs who just exists in their heads.[/QUOTE]
What’s the use in arguing with a scared child?
They only know fear. 
Wow. Shodie’s a tattletale snitch? Who’da thought?
So, either [ul][li]The posts in question are acceptable debate tactics in GD, and therefore you have no objection if I adopt the same terms, or []the posts in question are not acceptable in GD, and you will do your job, or[]all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.[/ul][/li]
Nope, you were lying all right. First you said it was not coming from the non-religious, and then you admitted that it was. Ergo, you’re lying.
Regards,
Shodan
Actually, you are just Shodanning.
You read the phrase “murderous hatred” as a literal example of murder fantasies. I originally read the phrase “murderous hatred” as indicating deep and implacable (and often irrational) hatred. My response is accurate for the reading I originally gleaned while it was not accurate for the more literal interpretation that you took (and which Starving Artist might, indeed, have intended). You have now seized on a single view of the exchange and will hang onto it as “the Truth” for the foreseeable future as a an example of what you have decided to believe.
= = =
As to the other issue regarding whether certain expressions would be appropriate in GD, you are welcome to use any of them (that you are not already employing without staff comment) as long as they do not cross the line of personal insults. Given that your judgment is hopelessly flawed as demonstrated by the wild discrepancies between what you claim is forbidden and what a reasonable person might conclude is forbidden, you might want to exercise caution.
This is not to say that you have not correctly reported improper behavior. You have. You have also reported a lot of behavior (usually from Left leaning posters) that you went out of your way to find offensive (while ignoring similar behavior from Right leaning posters). (It is good that you contribute something to the board as a counterbalance to your general behavior in GD.)
He read the phrase that way because it was referring to the post I linked to, where Acid Lamp specifically said he would murder a church full of Christians if he coudl get away with it. If you chose to misinterpret “murderous hatred” as being used figuratively in this instance, that is not Shodan’s fault.
I did not say that it was Shodan’s “fault.”
The sequence was:
- Your link to Acid Lamp’s post.
- Starving Artist’s comment that the board was becoming increasingly disgusting.
- My question as to his response to the board, based on the fact that the number of posters expressing hateful ideas is both tiny and is consistent across the many years this board has been around.
- Starving Artist’s amendment that his disgust was increasing (regardless whether the board is changing).
- mswas’s claim, responding to Starving Artist’s despair, that the only “murderous hatred” (posted without a direct link to Acid Lamp’s post) was emanating from the non-religious.
- My response (continuing from my earlier post prior to the employment of the word murderous), that the hatred (ignoring, correctly or incorrectly, the adjective murderous), was not coming from any group, but from individuals across the spectrum.
I note that Shodan is eager to portray my response as a “lie” and that he is engaging in the sort of deliberately antagonistic behavior that he enjoys employing in GD.
::: shrug :::
Well, I personally do not agree with his claim that you were lying. However, it is strange that everyone else participating in the exchange knew that we were all referring to the post I linked to, but you were playing dumb in that regard.
As Sarahfeena points out, we were talking about a specific example of murder fantasies. Now that you have been caught out, you are attempting to pretend that you didn’t say what you said.
Again, unfortunately for your credibility (if any), this is also demonstrably false. You made specific reference to “Acid Lamp’s specific post”. Now you would like to pretend that you were actually talking about something else.
No, I am just not letting you change your story.
The only problem with this is that it is also false.
If I use the expressions, you will say that they are personal insults, even if they are word-for-word the same as they are when used under circumstances where you do not call them personal insults.
Better that I don’t rely on my own judgment at all, then. I’ll rely on yours.
You have ruled (by default) that calling another poster "a pill" or saying that you cannot understand their post because you don’t speak “paranoid nutcase” are not insults, and are appropriate forms of discourse in GD. Well and good - my judgment that they are must be hopelessly flawed.
But I would like to be quite sure, so I will ask for a specific ruling.
Is it, or is it not the case, that calling another poster “a pill” or saying that you cannot understand their post because you do not speak “paranoid nutcase”, is acceptable in Great Debates?
A direct answer would be appreciated.
Regards,
Shodan
How “playing dumb”? I had already responded with the same perspective before “murderous” was interjected into the conversation. Why would I not continue to see the discussion from my perspective?
Starving Artist’s response to my second post made no mention of the death fantasies. Shodan dragged the death wishes into the conversation, but since he had already posted several accusations earlier in the thread without making them an issue, his comments seemed, to me, to be simply piling on things to quarrel over rather than some new actual offense. Your post mentioned a death wish in a different context and appeared as a follow-on to Shodan. I am not claiming that I understood the direction you two were going, but it was more a matter of reading the posts from my original perspective rather than ignoring the death issue or pretending that it was never present.
I do not see that “a pill” is any great insult. If a poster said that another poster was tiresome, (the meaning of “a pill”), I might encourage them to back off. On the other hand, in the context of a poster who was deliberately refusing to answer direct questions while continuing to post false claims, I find the adjective “tiresome” to be a bit of an understatement. The claim of “paranoid nurtcase” looked like a reference to the paranoid nutcase from whom Carol Stream had taken her false charge of perjury. Perhaps it was not. Given your eagerness to cry “foul!” about other posters in that thread while ignoring Carol Stream’s behavior, I see no reason to give your interpretations much weight
Gee. Now do I get to claim that you are lying? I have not denied saying anything I said.
My reference to Acid Lamp’s “specific post” was only made after the conversation had already been hijacked into this byplay and his post had been called back into play by Sarahfeena. It had nothing to do with my original comments and was not even in my mind when I responded that hatred came from individuals across the spectrum. I have changed nothing.
= = =
I do consider Acid Lamp’s comments to be out of line (particularly for MPSIMS) although I generally let the Mods of other Fora deal with their own messes. You have already admitted that you did not bother to report it (whatever your issues with me, I am not the Mod in the Mundane and Pointless Forum), and you clearly did not challenge his actions in that Forum (nor did Sarahfeena). Yet now you each wish to criticize the whole rest of the SDMB for failing to do what you failed to do?
I return to my original point: there is hatred on this board and it resides in the hearts of several individuals, not any groups. It is quite possible that more folks will allow some nasty comments against the religious than they will against various ethnic groups or other categories. I suspect, however, that you would find the same dynamic in action: protests are lodged by individuals, not groups. If you wish to claim that 3,000 liberal Dopers would have piled on any comment against any group for ethnic background or sexual orientation, then I want you to provide a link to where that has happened. I suspect that in most cases, you will find that the number of comments censuring the actions have come from a small handful of posters. That the board tilts in certain directions clearly indicates that there will be more condemnations in one direction than the other.
Der Trihs is more blunt about his biases than most, but most posters ignore him because he rarely makes any serious contribution to a thread in GD. He is background noise like bad wallpaper. I find at least as troubling the sly comments from posters who denigrate various ethnic groups or non-believers or people of different religious beliefs or political philosophies, but I do not censure them, either, as long as those comments do not turn into direct personal attacks. As obnoxious as his posts are, Der Trihs is at least honest enough to avoid using code words to carry on his diatribes while pretending that he has not expressed the bigotry that he clearly has.
It’s funny. Or, at least, an object lesson.
Recently, one of Argent Tower’s threads was closed, , because he had stated that some of the supporters of the AWB had come about their positions through sheer stupidity and ignorance. It was capped off by a quasi-threat of future Warnings if behavior was repeated, specifically, saying “that position is stupid”.
Der Trihs, on the other hand, not only called all conservatives “evil, ignorant, stupid, and foolish”, claimed that in order to be a conservative, one had to be “morally debased enough”, and that conservatives actually enjoy the death of innocents, that: [e]very death of an innocent is a victory for them.
The response, however, was that Der received something of a compliment from a mod for being “honest” enough to admit that it was just his opinion that he was using to back up his act of flaming all Dopers with political views sufficiently opposed to his. (Flaming is okay in GD as long as you personally insult more Dopers at a go than just one. I’m guessing three is the magic number).
Surprisingly enough, those two actions of moderation were not carried out by different mods. In fact, the same mod threatened a Warning for anybody who “called someone stupid” while congratulating Der for being “honest enough” to state that in his opinion, all Dopers who were conservatives were evil, ignorant, stupid, morally debased, etc…
But the fact remains, at least in GD, you can freely insult large groups of Dopers, in rather specific and deliberately personally insulting terms, and as long as they’re “conservatives” (or whatever else the acceptably-hated-and-flamed groups are), it’s okay.
Nobody should really be surprised, at this point. Posters like Sevastopol have been warned, IIRC, no fewer than two or three times, specifically and in direct terms, for trolling.
That he has, in fact, gone on to accumulate more warnings after a final warning, again, for trolling.
And that he continues to be allowed to post after customary slaps on the wrist. Imagine, if instead of support for genocide couched in mealy mouthed caveats, if instead of “Moderate that rage please, thoughts of obliteration, the erasure of Judaism from the face of the earth, the demolition of its temples and incineration of the last Torah, while entirely natural and to be expected, these are marks of extremism and do not much assist.”
Instead of that, we’d gotten “Moderate that rage please, thoughts of obliteration, the erasure of homosexuality from the face of the earth, the demolition of its meeting places and incineration of the last rainbow pride flag, while entirely natural and to be expected, these are marks of extremism and do not much assist.”
If that was posted after a final warning, and in the context of someone who had, numerous times, been taken to task for trolling gays?
Does anybody really, honestly and truly, think that would be allowed to stand?
Is anybody so naive as to believe that the poster would not only have gone on much past that, but able to, like a slimy motherfucker, again call for genocide, by saying that it would be better for gays to be kidnapped and quite possibly murdered rather than being in a state of “living death”, especially since that poster has a habit of specifically excusing a campaign of genocide against a people by using the same semantic dodge, that they’re "“already dead” and since they are "“dead already”, why, it’s not really genocide?
If instead of “Jews” or “Israelis”, the words had been “gays”, does anybody think that poster would still be around? That someone would last who defended a group that openly admitted that the desire was to kill every last homosexual on Earth, and claimed that it wasn’t a genocidal wish because they considered gays to be “already dead”?
Does anybody think that, that such a poster wouldn’t be dealt with after going as far as to continue trolling other posters by pointing out that he’s content to simply imply his support for genocide, rather than come right out and say it? That all he’d receive was yet another moderator saying he was trolling and to “knock it off?”
The traditional dodge from the mods, once they circle their wagons on that point, is that they refuse to be tied down to an egalitarian system of actual rules on what constitutes hate speech and objectionable content, and what does not.
That bit of obfuscation is actually elucidative.
It shows that some groups are acceptable for flaming and bigotry, while others are not.
And when simply replacing one noun with another shows that the mods allow one group to be targeted and another protected, that the problem is not with the moderation but with trying to pin the mods down to a clear and objective standard. *Any system of moderation that cannot have one specific noun replaced by an equal and/or equivalent noun, and have the policy remain consistent, is blatantly corrupt and open to abuse. *
Say that gun grabbers are stupid and ignorant, and you invite a possible warning.
Say that conservatives are stupid, evil, morally debased, and you earn a compliment for being honest adding “in my opinion” to your flaming.
Support the destruction by fire of Judaism or the genocide of the ‘already dead’ Israelis, and you get a slap on the wrist, while being allowed to stick around. In fact, after you get told “loose talk (however coyly phrased) about the extermination of entire ethnic or religious groups crosses the line. Don’t do this again, on any forum of this message board.” Why, you can go right back and do it again, ‘coyly’ arguing for why an entire nation should be kidnapped and/or killed , and have the same mod warn you for trolling… and let you go on posting.
Guess you can do it again, on that forum of that message board.
How many Warnings, do you think, a troll would get if making the same statements about a ‘protected’ group on the SDMB?
The boards, as a whole, do have a noticeable, and rather striking set of biases and prejudices. It’s interesting when Miller and Shodan can both come together on that point.
But those problems have to actually be recognized by the membership and especially by management, before they can be dealt with.
We’re still at the stage of hammering on the facts while some folks prefer to “consider the source” .
Pity.
Speaking of which:
Whether or not an interpretation has weight is based on whether or not it is in accord with the facts and offers a cogent analysis. While you are certianly corrupt, you’re also clearly not stupid. You know the who someone is has no bearing on whether or not their interpretations are true.
Your continued and blatant celebration of your moderating biases where Shodan is concerned should be cause for embarrassment. But not only are not not ashamed, you seem to be proud to publicly admit that you are incapable of moderating, (or choose not to moderate) with anything but prejudice and bias where he is concerned.
If you are honestly so biased against a poster that you cannot look at his claims on their merit alone, and instead filter them through the lens of who he is as a poster or whether or not he also reports objectionable posts from “the other side”, then you need to get a hold on yourself or resign.
I doubt either will happen.
FinnAgain, while i’d generally agree with you, I don’t think the specific points you brought up with Der Trihs there work. As far as I understand it, you can be as horribly unpleasant in your condemnation of whoever as you like, as long as it doesn’t specifically refer to Dopers. **Der Trihs’ ** posts spewed hatred towards conservatives, as he does regularly, and while there are certainly conservative Dopers he didn’t pick them out specifically. Thus when the same mod threatened a warning for “calling someone stupid”, the rules were upheld equally, since (I presume) were Der Trihs to call a specific poster, or indeed “all conservative Dopers” stupid, he would have got a warning.
In that particular case, the way he got away with it was through referring to conservatives in general, not through referring to conservatives. A poster condeming all liberals as stupid would (I would hope, at least) likewise recieve no mod attention.