Yep, that’s the one. Of course, no one is sure who 128.143.. (the author of the article) is other than an idiot. Sobran does not deny that there was a Jewish Holocaust under Hitler.
But the Board, on the other hand, is less racist to the tune of 1 racist, so we’re all right. Thye world, that’s another matter…
If all we had were MPSIMS and the Pit, I would agree — then the nastiness would be out of sight, out of mind.
There are plenty of unmoderated boards out there if you want to talk to racists or any other manner of a-holes. Have fun, I’ll stay right here. As to the severity of the infractions, if a long time poster like Exapno gets warned five times over the course of three years that’s one thing, it’s a bit different if a new member gets the same warnings within a couple of days. It means they don’t get it and don’t belong here and never will.
I don’t agree - I don’t think we need to extend an open invitation to the membership of the Stormfront bbs to get a handle on them, for instance. The Dope isn’t a closed system, it’s certainly possible to leave this little pond and interact with racists on the greater Internet, should you want their views.
If the Dope is the only virtual place you hang out at, I can see that you might think it enriching to get a diversity of opinions in, to foster understanding of the ignorant and insane in their own words. I, on the other hand, like to think of this as a semisane, semisafe haven, where all the nutjobs have to play by our rules rather than the rule-less Dem. Rep. Congo-style free-for-all that is the backwaters of the 'net. Rule of Law, and all that. I prefer it. It’s not perfect (we still have lekatt, after all), but I like having the moderator filter effect in place.
Well then, when the person who is advocating a free-for-all rule-less board steps forward, you will have a post ready made for him. And when it becomes appropriate to backhand members in good standing with parenthetical remarks, you can link to what you’ve written.
This is getting awfully close to mudslinging.
We did throw out this poster for cause and need to acknowledge such, but, because he’s no longer here to defend himself it seems somewhat unsporting and unfair to slang on him.
If you want to discuss board policies, it needs to go to another thread anyway.
If you want to debate racism, that’s another whole area altogether.
We invite all useful conversation and want to hear what you have to say, we just ask that you put it in the appropriate place.
We’ll be keeping an eye on this thread and will close it if deemed necessary.
TubaDiva
Liberal, I may have misunderstood your position, but it seemed to me like you were saying GrahamWellington, or any other offensive jerk, should be embraced because they bring us insight into their views to this board, no matter how repelant we consider those views. Was that a mistake? What were you saying then?
I didn’t say that you said the Dope should be rule-free. But it seemed you were suggesting there should be one less rule (or that the “don’t be a jerk” rule should exclude racists). I was merely pointing out that there are lots of places you can go to do that - and racists are more than welcome to try and convince us, as long as they play by our rules.
TubaDiva, where would be the best place to put a thread about “should we be equally tolerant of all posters be they ever so disagreeable”? It can’t go in the Pit as Liberal doesn’t go there and I’d like his input, but it might get to harsh for here, and it’s hardly a GD. Suggestions?
A better title would be nice, too…
IIRC, we had a poster who was a self-proclaimed White Nationalist–Millen88–who was able to discuss his views intelligently and politely. He wasn’t banned or warned by mods, though he does seem to have left after the board went pay to post. So clearly racism alone is not enough to merit banning. (Nor should it be, IMO)
Frankly, I think it would make for a good debate. From your side, you could title it something like…
Resolved: It is better to ban racists than to debate them openly.
That would be nice to know. Would that include other unpopular views, such as pedophiles?
Almost, but not quite - try “it is better to ban racists who break the rules than *give them more leeway than others in order * to debate them openly” , but I don’t think it would fit in the title box. Any more suggestions?
I think it’s crystal clear from events earlier this year that pedophiles have no voice on this board.
Well, if that’s your view, then we have no disagreement except that I would replace “racists” with “people”.
That’s fine by me. I was focusing on offensive racism because that seemed, from the examples given, to be a prime motivation for GW 's banning.
Speaking personally, not as Moderator: I’ve found that it is unsatisfying to allow racists (or the equivalent) to speak without commenting. But I’ve also found it’s useless to engage in debate – like trolls, they thrive on rousing up negative responses. Hence, my usual approach is to comment once, and only once, usually starting with “I’m not going to debate with you, but you’re dead wrong because…”
No, IMHO. I think it’s crystal clear from events earlier this year that people who use this board to actively solicit for illegal activities have no place here. (For newer readers, neither Feydeu’s comment nor my response apply to GrahamWellington.)
Ironically, the Google ad at the bottom of the page is for Untraceable Essays Online.
Sailboat
Apparently Graham was despondent after Tyrone Washington got the apartment on Park Street. I think this may have led to his bitter behaviour. He didn’t cause a as much a fuss as Juan Hernandez did, however.