Sure…that’s how any slippery slope works. It starts off with stuff you don’t care about and actually find distasteful, but then progresses downward until it hits something you DO care about…and by then, it might be too late.
I’m not defending Holocaust deniers…I loathe them nearly as much as I loathe 9/11 Truthers (well, probably more actually). But summary banning all debate on the subject just because most people find the subject distasteful is, IMHO, the wrong tactic, and will merely serve to perpetuate misconceptions and ignorance by allowing these idiots a free hand in shaping the discussion on their own terms. Better to debate and destroy them, to crush them utterly, see them driven before you howling and screaming about the pile on, and to hear the lamentation of their women (or men, or small furry animals)…assuming such low life specimens as we generally see around here could even GET a men, women or small furry animal to have sex with them…
I wouldn’t support instabanning Deniers. While they often have an agenda, they’re also just generally idiots. I would, however, support instabanning self-described Nazis. I’m fairly comfortable that we could craft a cogent policy around the equation Nazi=Jerk.
Oh, my god, you’re right - the freedom of this message board needs eternal vigilance!
In any case, the subject is quite obviously not banned for debate - we just haven’t yet had a holocaust denier who wasn’t also a jerk.
Maybe it’s one of those chicken-or-egg things.
Will anyone who likes this idea be so kind as to propose wording for the rule that would be used? I’m just not seeing how we could do it without making a list of certain opinions that we won’t allow posters to express. But maybe I’m missing something…
Lets dispense with this “slippery slope” argument right now-there are phrases and words that are not allowed in The BBQ Pit, and yet The Powers That Be haven’t continued expanding that list until almost all swearing is banned, have they? Where do you stop? Why, any damn place you want to!
“Anybody who self-identifies as a Nazi, Neo-Nazi or National Socialist, or supporter of Nazism, Neo-Nazism or National Socialism will instantly be banned.”
Well, that’s really easy to avoid. And how does one determine if a poster is a supporter or is “just asking questions”? Further, why is the NAZI ideology the only one that is bannable?
Because we so choose.
Others say, “Why not also this?” and “Why not also that?” and “Where will it all end?”
I say there is nothing wrong with drawing a line and saying “You must not cross this.”
Cleverly modeled after the common police dragnet wherein anyone walking into the police station wearing bloody clothing and confessing to murder is immediately detained.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
I say there is nothing wrong with drawing a line and saying “You must not cross this.”
[/QUOTE]
Why though? Let’s pretend that someone actually comes in and, instead of being all coy like usual just comes right out and says ‘I’m a Nazi’. So what? Why should that be automatic grounds to ban them? It’s the content of their posts that matters, not their self applied label. My guess is anyone stupid enough to come in here and say that is pretty much going to, sooner or later, either get banned or driven from the board anyway, but why not let them come in here and create threads, as long as they are within the scope of the current rules for the board and for the individual forum they are posting to? I have nothing to fear from debating some idiotic Nazi sympathizer…just like I have nothing to fear from some idiotic communist. Bring it on, I say. It’s their humiliation. If they want some lumps, I’m perfectly willing to dish them out, and I’m certain that the regular 'doper community would be more than up for the challenge of making such as they look like the fools they are.
And if they stray beyond the rules of the board or the forum they are posting to then, well, that’s what the Mods are for…to smack them down and ban their asses if they cross the line.
Unfortunately, the 'Net will believe he was banned due to impure thoughts, not because of calling someone “retard,” “moron,” and “mutt.” The name-calling appears to be an excuse.
My only observation is that GermanicPride was put on a shorter leash than some others who were no less deserving.
So… can I argue that there was no Holocaust as long as I make it clear I’m not defending the Nazis?
Can I argue the Holocaust was the moral equivalent of the bombing of Dresden and/or Hiroshima?
Can I argue that the Nazis would have been remembered as “just another enemy” if not for the Holocaust?
If I post a strategy by which the Germans would have won the Eastern Front, forcing a negotiated settlement with Great Britain and eventually winning World war II does that make me a “supporter of Nazism?”
I can *reductio ad absurdam *this all day, but I’ll stop before I become a big enough jerk that I’d support my own banning.
Obviously, it doesn’t concern you in the slightest. But the impression that some will come away with is this rapid banning is because SDMB has a low tolerance with dissonance. I’m not sure this is a good thing.
I’m still not sure who this confused “some” is. I’m OK with giving people the impression that we don’t have much patience with people who insult other posters and cut loose with racial slurs shortly after signing up. That impression is 100 percent accurate.
.
I feel some responsibility, since I reported “zionist scumbags”, and was also the object of:
I think we should go with the ‘mock them for those who need to see them mocked’ strategy put forth by my esteemed doper colleagues XT, kunilou and Gagundathar. Good moderating by Marley, too.
(I should note that, since I have relatives who post here, the hypothetical lineage I put forward was meant to be hypothetical, I was not intending to be other than I am. I am however, proud to have been called a ‘mutt’ by a neo-Nazi. It made my day. )