Gastrointestinal Joseph was a sock. It only takes one post by a sock to warrant a banning. It’s not the same as making hateful posts.
There is, of course, no specific amount of hateful posts one must make in order to be banned. I would imagine that when one makes them, the moderators weigh the number of nonhateful posts that one has made against the number of hateful posts. Some people sign up here and immediately make hateful posts - those people are usually banned fairly quickly. Exception: they appear contrite after being asked not to continue; those people are normally permitted to remain, as long as they behave themselves.
I do not get the impression that you honestly want answers to your questions; I instead think you just want to jump on your soap box and express your view. Nothing wrong with that.
Nothing is so self-satifying as identifying yourself as part of discriminated group. There’s nothing in heaven or Earth that will convice this Millen character there’s not a conspiracy; even though he’s been shown several examples of conservatives that have not been banned. What else could possibly suffice as proof he’s wrong?
I beg to differ. I’m an active Christian, not fundamentalist, and aware of the stances from which fundamentalists post. There are at least four membvers in good standing who describe themselves as fundmentalist Christians who not only would never be banned, but if Pitted, would have a fair chunk of the membership rising to their defense (except the Brits, who would rise to their defence). One other, a formerly very active poster, was Pitted not for her beliefs but for a (mis)perceived tendency to want to be first with every answer in GQ. A couple of others, who are not fundamentalists but very conservative evangelical Christians, have been Pitted numerous times for their tendency to focus on sin to the extent that it appears (I’m fairly sure incorrectly, from pesonal dealings with them) that they are setting themselves up as self-righteous judges of others’ behavior. And we have had any number of self-proclaimed Christians who showed up here merely to “witness to the heathen,” found that doesn’t work well, shook the dust off their sandals, and moseyed along to somewhere where their preconceptions aren’t challenged as much.
In short, there’s a way to do anything, including witness for one’s faith. And there’s a way to be a jerk about anything, including the same.
With a few exceptions, most people on this board are quite willing to allow a fundamentalist to believe anything he or she cares to believe. What irritates Dopers in general is when a fundamentalist or group of them uses political power to attempt to force into law some compliance with their beliefs, or to subject others to abiding by them. (And, by the way if you substitute “person” for “fundamentalist” in that last sentence, you’ll get an equally true statement – it’s merely that fundamentalist Christians seem to be doing that the most in today’s America.)
Let’s not propagate the misconception that being a member in good standing means you’ll never be banned. That’s simply not true, because absolutely anyone can be banned. (Of course, perhaps technically if they’re doing something that’s bannable, then they’re no longer members in good standing, huh?)
When it comes to who the President is, what actions we should take in the name of security, or foreign policy, where we act in our own interests, non-American opinions absolutely do not count, by definition.
Mods: If you have a blanket rule against hate speech, why do you allow hate speech directed at Americans?
When those decisions or actions affect the rest of the world, or any part of it, then the opinions of the rest of the world certainly do count, or ought to.
The Declaration of Independence states in its first paragraph that
To take just one example, making war on another country, whether or not justified in the eyes of those who decide on such policy, would certainly qualify as affecting people outside the United States, wouldn’t it? Should the people affected (either in the country warred upon, or in countries asked to participate) have no right to express an opinion on the subject? Is it hate speech to suggest that a particular American policy is misguided or has adverse consequences for citizens of other nations?
Okay, sparky, let’s say I live in say, England, and the President of the US decides to invade England in the name of the US’s interests and security.
Even though this will have a major effect on ME, my opinion doesn’t count?
Y’know, when America takes to invading foreign countries and installing their own form of government, I think that people of other countries just might have a perspective to offer, don’t you?
This wins the Manfred Mann Nitpickery Award (note the subtle allusion to the works of the wise and puissant Cecil). My implication was, I thought obviously, if they continue to post in the thoughtful and affable style in which they have been accustomed to post…. Certainly TVeblen could suddenly develop a Net version of Tourette’s syndrome and turn into a ravening loonie whom the Admins. would be obliged to ban. Or it might be the case that nobody is banned ever gain because (a) a giant meteor strikes Chicago and obliterates the Reader’s building, or (b) the Rapture happens and only followers of Cecil are taken. Or a genius creates a virus that makes us all telepathic and the use of message boards becomes history.
Of course anyone can be banned – for committing a bannable offense after being warned not to. My theory is, if you’ve racked up 4,000 posts without having ever done a thing that warants even a mild warning, the Mods. are not going to wake up some morning with a hangover and say, “Well, let’s see, who’s worth banning today? Well, let’s pick anyone who used both a Q and a Z in their most recent post. Okay, that’s vanilla, Guinastasia, and No Clue Boy. Get rid of 'em.”
The definition of a “hate post” is not clear. It partly depends on the forum – we allow language in the BBQ Pit that would not be allowed in a Great Debates forum, for instance.
It is also difficult, when a particular religious group takes a political stance, to distinguish between statements that are “hatred” of their religion and statements that are “hatred” of their political stance. We have (so far) permitted “political hatreds” – in part, I guess, because politics are a matter of one’s personal choice, where race, national origin, etc are not. (Whether religion is a matter of free choice, I leave for a great debate topic.)
There is also a distinction between attacking an idea and attacking the people who adhere to that idea. Thus, we would permit people to oppose homosexuality (for example) on religious or ideological grounds. We would NOT permit them to use hateful terms when speaking of homosexuals. Again, the distinction may be imprecise, but it’s there. Just because there’s lots of shades of grey doesn’t mean that there’s no difference between black and white.
Another f’rinstance, a frothing rant against adherents of fundamentalist Islam would NOT be permitted on grounds of religious hatred. A frothing rant against the politics of that religion, suppression of women under the Taliban, for instance, is political, not religious.
I’m kind of making this up as I go, since I don’t think we’ve spelled out policy on this. But that’s probably how it would go, I suspect.
That’s all academic. If you find hatred being launched against any religion on these boards – even fundamentalist religions – please report it to a moderator. It’s not allowed.
Your implication was sound; that is what I inferred. I was trying to make it clearer for those who might misunderstand you. As such, I hardly think it’s nitpicking.
So, what would be a bannable offense (no warning needed) ie: Something a veteran member might actually commit. As opposed to a new member previously banned or the use of socks.
Never mind that it’s not as important as something else I’d like to say here, then I’ll let it go.
I was reading some threads at another site (not the SDMB) It involved the banning of a longtime “original” member. The person had been allowed to slide for years. Finally something was said that was over the top, or the last straw so to speak.
Now, this member had said and done worse things in the past.
Apparently somebody was having a bad week and this member wound up being banned (rightly so according to policy) but because this person had gotten away with it for so long many people were very upset as you might expect.
It nearly destroyed the community…things were said that could not be taken back, old friendships dissolved, many people just left completely. I imagine there are still bad feelings and memories as a result.
Now, I doubt that this would happen here and I haven’t been here as long as many of y’all…but I would hate to have this occur.
By your explanation, “hate speech” only applies to religion or sexual preference. Why doesn’t it also apply to country of origin? Granted, you guys allowed threads slagging the French, for example, but would you allow bashing Nigerians or Poles? I doubt it, but you allow some people to continuously bash Americans. Why is that?
See, Millen, there is a difference between expressing a differing opinion in an acceptable manner and being a jerk. It really has nothing to do with the differing opinion, it has to do with the way one expresses that differing opinion.
milroyj, Attacking the US government is not the same as attacking the American people. For fuck’s sake, even most of the pro-Bush posters on this board don’t bother with the anti-Bush = anti-American canard any more.
To RedFury and any other non-American posters: milroyj does not speak for Americans. Most of us (on this board at least) do give a shit what the rest of the world thinks.
Um…this book, out in paperback only, in which Scotti neglects to read the second page of a thread before posting. NOT published in hardback, for obvious reasons. I ask for grace, but I don’t necessarily expect it. :o
Are you all asserting that NO America-bashing goes on here? I beg to differ. Although you use the popular excuse “we’re against the govt, not the people” it’s not true. Read Aldebaran for starters.
