This is certainly welcome news. The next question is this – is there some plan to deal with the problems that allowed him to post for this long? Obviously some changes are needed in the way this place is run. It’s inarguable that the moderators need either a whole lot of reinstruction or else a bunch of staff changes, given that this clearly unacceptable posting was permitted for so long. What’s the plan to ensure that this doesn’t happen again? And what’s the policy to deal with his fellows going to be?
Asking for more censorship? I am not sure that is the best way to have a stimulating discussion.
There is no end to the number of places you can go to have uncensored arguments with racists. It’s pretty obvious that in this case, the failure of the moderators to censor this idiot for two years screwed up a lot of discussions. Nothing about this stops you from finding a discussion stupid enough to accommodate these arguments somewhere. There is, as yet, no shortage of racism.
Telling people who do not agree with you to leave is also counterproductive. I personally use the ignore function on people that spout too much nonsense. Works for me.
When they’re racist sacks of shit? Nope, that’s actually the opposite of “counterproductive”. It is what we in fact term “productive”.
Okay, so you don’t care about all the endless discussions that get derailed or ruined by crap like this.
That’s nice, I guess? If you don’t care about real discussions, it makes perfect sense.
New to the SDMB, are you?
Growing used to it in a way, while still in total possession of my astonishment at what is acceptable here.
About fucking time.
Allowing him to stay and spout his bullshit for this long is exactly why I continually call this place a troll’s paradise.
If he made any sort of intelligent contribution elsewhere in this message board, he’d be just fine (like say Der Trihs), but no. Allowed to constantly just spew his vomit.
Even kanicbird, with his “off the wall” ideas about things I’m fine with allowing to be here because he (she?) does actually post noncrazy things in other threads and if you didn’t know better, you wouldn’t even be able to tell he’s got some interesting ideas.
You told me to find some stupid argument with racists elsewhere, besides being a straw man argument it is also a sign of intolerance for divergent opinions.
And another straw man. You will never be able to determine what “stupidity” others might utter in a discussion. Get of your moral high horse and face the fact that your lack of tolerance is problematic.
At the moment we’re not planning to do anything differently. I have to dispute your characterization a bit, since New Deal Democrat was warned four or five times last year and was suspended for a month after that. We moderated his posts when we felt he was breaking the rules, which he mostly did by banging on about racial differences in threads that were not about that topic. His disgusting opinions didn’t change but his behavior improved some what. Lately it got worse, and he’s been banned. As I said in the announcement (which was posted after this thread was opened), at the end I think he was unambiguously trolling. The junior modding in the Pit was calculated to annoy and you can’t get much troll-ier than his comment about rape to MrDibble.
I think there’s some truth to the view that we sometimes put too much effort into ‘protecting’ people with really disgusting views who express those opinions in a more-or-less civil way, and that the end result is that those people have been allowed to violate the “Don’t be a jerk” rule because we do not want to declare certain ideas of out bounds. That’s something for us to keep in mind, I think. I try not to give people like this any leeway beyond what everyone else is entitled to. But I think the basic idea - that you should be allowed to express almost any idea here as long as you do it the right way - is a pretty good one and it’s important to this board.
And I think Miller made several good points in his post to the “Is this hate speech?” thread.
This poster said a lot of repugnant things and I will not miss reading them, but it’s also true that people chose to respond to them and give them much, much more attention. That’s not a bad thing, but when people talk about New Deal Democrat posting racist views all over the place, it should be kept in mind that a lot of people were asking him to post about his views on race.
mister nyx and MG-42, you’re posting in ATMB. Keep it civil.
Its always hard to determine what is trolling and what is a genuine extremist opinion.
For political discussions to be fun it is essential to have opinions from all sides, nothing is more boring than a circle jerk where everybody agrees with the Zeitgeist.
Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently.
And she didn’t live up to that ideal.
Why exactly am I supposed to tolerate racist opinions?
Well, gosh, I’ve certainly seen plenty of stupidity in discussions. There has yet to be an argument for why I should “tolerate” such things, though.
So he violated the rules repeatedly, and yet was given opportunity after opportunity to continue, up until now? I’m having a hard time understanding how that contradicts my characterization, rather than confirming it. Two years, you know.
And yet this comment was explicitly ruled acceptable by a moderator. Again, how does this go against my “characterization”?
There must have been a lot I missed if NDD’s views count as “more-or-less civil”. Standards at the SDMB must be lower than anywhere I’m familiar with. Or else there is a crazy amount of extra free rein given to disgusting views.
To be fair, rarely was he asked, NDD, what’s your opinion on the black population, but rather he was asked to provide data for his claims, or citations that didn’t say the opposite of what he claimed, or indeed recognition of the validity of anything anyone else posted. The racial stuff was secondary to trying to get him to understand the concept of debate.
It can be, yes. And people can be very quick to their opponents of trolling, which is one reason we don’t allow those accusations in most forums here. But in terms of the posts that precipitated the ban, I don’t think it was difficult to determine.
Yes. In almost all cases, people get multiple chances.
In terms of the way those prejudiced and repulsive and ill-informed views were expressed, yes, they were generally civil. He didn’t use racial slurs that I can recall and he didn’t insult other posters, for example. It’s a bare minimum standard, but that’s the point.
Which didn’t often work; in addition to all of the science failures he was pretty disingenuous. That’s another reason to not give these people more room than they are entitled to.
Or, and I’m just spitballing here, ban them for misrepresenting themselves after the first 20 pages of disingenuousness?
I really don’t care whether you choose to ban racists or not as I enjoy a bit of the ole stick pokery but if one toy gets taken away, another will come along soon enough. But I see no reason to deprive myself of fun because the admins have themselves tied up in existential knots about whether banning a racist goes against their mission statement.
This whole thing would appear to constitute an example of why this kind of thing is not a very effective way to define rules.
That’d be bad news for more than a few other debaters.
I don’t agree. On the whole moderating for content rather than ideas works well. To the greatest extent possible we want people to be able to discuss a wide variety of ideas without the staff declaring particular topics and ideas off limits and making determinations like “if you believe this, we don’t want you posting here.”
I’m not down with the OP§, but I will start the conga line to celebrate this banning…
Oh Hell Yeah