Bullshit.
You and the rest of the mod staff might believe that, but frankky no one else with an iota of common sense does.
Bears repeating. Bullshit.
Except when Sleeping Synapse did make the claim that Jews have a “propensity” for terrorism which he backed up with evidence(bad evidence but still evidence) he was promptly given a warning for hate speech which was apparently upgraded to an instaban.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15801144&postcount=542
With all due respect, we both know that someone would not have even gotten noted for claiming “never underestimate the propensity of Muslims to get all terrorist-like” since comments like that are extremely common and considered acceptable.
I should add that I’m not accusing any mods of engaging in bigotry, just noting there is a pretty clear double standard and consciously or unconsciously it exists.
It also doesn’t mean that the people in question are dumb, insensitive or ignorant, just that like us all, they have blind spots and their own biases.
Frankly, I appreciate it when mods like Dex admit there is a double standard and that nasty comments about Jews are treated differently and more harshly than nasty comments about Muslims.
I’m pretty sure you honestly believe there’s not a bias and I respect that, but it’s pretty clear to everyone else that it exists and that to paraphrase Dex, “things can be said about Muslims and blacks that can’t be said about Jews”.
But we can’t do that anymore. Any pile-on gets JC or tom to Mod Note those who participate or gets the thread closed. That’s been the complaint. What we used to be able to do to stop the tide of racists and bigots now gets moderated.
And I’m not someone who likes pile-ons. I would much prefer moderation that told racists to go away and create their own thread. I would prefer banning people that even the mods think are trolls. But piling on racists is the only tool we have.
Or had. Now it’s been taken away. We cannot make racists feel unwelcome. We have to argue with them civilly. And the result is that one guy that even the mods think is trolling gets to run amok.
A pile on is inherently uncivil. That’s the point. But so is saying racist things. But only the former are moderated.
I think so.
On the other hand, how long did Sevastopol spread his nonsense across this place? The guy was here for at least 5 years before he was finally banned.
If you mean “proven” wrong that’s one thing. But that’s rarely the case.
I so don’t get the intense desire to quash discussion and by decree some topics verboten. Especially by people who voluntarily come to a debate board. :rolleyes:
I’d like to draw some distinctions.
Poster A advocates so-called scientific racism of the early 20th century variety. Let’s call him a polite racist. He doesn’t hijack threads, and he doesn’t keep beating his drum. He doesn’t visit stromThurmondfornt. He doesn’t really grasp statistics. He is not obsessive.
I think the board has traditionally protected poster A.
Poster B promotes white supremacy. His posts are always topical to the OP albeit trollish at best. He doesn’t really grasp statistics.
I think the Acsenray is concerned about Poster B.
Poster C visits stromThurmondfornt from time to time but denies it. He happens to be a bigot. He doesn’t really grasp statistics. Due to temperamental issues he has difficulty with the rules of this message board.
I think the board handles poster C fairly well.
Poster A has defenders on this message board. Poster C gets banned as the teeming millions cheer. A few are wondering how long poster B will reside on the ban train. My question, is whether poster B has any defenders among members who have posted here for over six months.
ETA: Crosspost. magellan01: Say we agree about poster A. I hope we agree about poster C and I think we do. I’m not sure you really want to defend poster B, and I’m not sure whether you do defend poster B.
Yup. Quash the debate. Render topics you don’t like off limits and not worthy of discussion. On a debate board. Great idea.:rolleyes::rolleyes:
It doesn’t quash the “debate” (if that’s what it is). It can still be had in the pit – and people can feel free to respond in whatever way appropriate per Pit rules.
I think “Great Debates” should be fore great debates. “Black people are inherently inferior in intelligence” is not a great debate – it’s a pseudo-scientific assertion with a long history associated with white supremacism.
At least that’s what I’d do if I was in charge. I’m not in charge, and I try to abide by the rules on this board that I love so much, and try to refute bad arguments (with the occasional snark and mockery) when I see them.
So, you don’t like pile-ons. You think they are uncivil. But you embrace using them as a tool to put an end to you having to read things you don’t like. Keep those pitchforks at the ready!
You know, it’s pretty fucking funny that two places that you would think would be bastions of the free exchange of ideas, even—especially—ideas that are unpopular, would be college campuses and debate boards. But those of a more leftist persuasion just can’t tolerate voices they don’t like. It’s not enough that they dominate the conversation, they must dispense not allow thoughts they feel offensive to ever enter their delicate ears or eyes.
Once again, BULLSHIT. You want discussions you don’t like relegated to The Pit to marginalize them and to ensure the discussion is not taken seriously. And that is the first step to quashing them and quashing the discussion/ Are you really that blind? Or is it that you think others are?
There are plenty of discussions I don’t like – the only ones I think ought to be moved to the pit are the “blacks are inferior” (and similar) ones.
No idea why you can’t comprehend that maybe I’m being honest. If you’re never going to believe that I actually post my honest beliefs, then what’s the point of engaging with me?
Honest disagreement is indeed a possible thing that happens on subjects like this.
I disagree with your description of A as someone at the opposite end of the spectrum of a vile racist. Implied in your description of Poster A, who you would design to tolerate, is 1) that he/she is ignorant a, 2) not intelligent, and 3) is quick to surrender his position.
Now, if someone comes in and reveals himself to be a hateful racist, we agree that he should and will be banned. No problem there. But outlining rules that would, in essence, ban positions held by, say, Chief Pendant and Chen, wold be PCness run amok. Just like the stupidity happening now on college campuses.
Hope that answers what you were trying to get at.
When someone posts a thread stating Blacks are inferior, get back to me.
And no need to repeat yourself, I assure you I am crystal clear on what you’re doing.
Got it – you can read my mind and I am always dishonest on this subject and it’s impossible that someone could honestly have my beliefs.
Shame that you feel this way, because we used to have good discussions. I wish you’d do me the favor of posting as if I’m honestly posting my beliefs, as I do for you, but that’s up to you.
Are you joking?
Oh, I know perfectly well that people have the beliefs you do. And not just you.
And when you or anyone else claim you don’t want to quash discussion or render topics you don’t like verboten, and then post things that argue for quashing, marginalizing them and sending them on the road to Verbotenville, I choose to believe the part of what you state that goes to action, rather than that which gives you cover.
What part of what you say would you like me to take at face value that does not directly conflict with the actions you call for?
Nope.
The only one that comes to mind is the recent one that was discussing the inferior academic performance of blacks in the U.S. and the degree that genetics played a role in that. An uncomfortable discussion, yes. But not the same as “Blacks are Inferior”.
Take everything I say at face value – nothing calls for quashing discussion or making anything verboten. “Discussions about the inherent value of races tend to be extremely contentious and should be relegated to the most contentious part of the board” isn’t making it forbidden. “Hey, that thing you said might be inappropriate or racist” isn’t making it forbidden – in fact, that’s what I want people to do with me. It’s part of making people better and making the board better.
As for “quashing discussion”, many discussions are already “quashed” and “verboten”. “The Jews should all be burned alive” is a verboten discussion on the SDMB. I assume you’re fine with this – I’m fine with this too. I think the discussions that are already “verboten” are in the right category, and I don’t think I want to forbid any other discussions. I think that racist assertions should be allowed to be called racist (and in general they are) – and this isn’t quashing anything, or forbidding anything. I think the Pit would be the best place for such discussions, as they would allow everything to be fully and accurately characterized within the rules of the board.
Holy shit, that guy is allowed to post that.
What a place.