You’re not - no one is forcing you to read anyone’s posts.
This. The mods are apparently terrified of using any judgement in these cases whatsoever. If the racist in question doesn’t actually say the n-word, then it’s just too complicated to figure out that their hate speech is hate speech.
There are? There are of course sites where racists are allowed to make posts. But if they are anything like the other (not-necessarily-racist) far right boards, my understanding is that if you calmly discuss the other side of the issue you will be banned pretty quickly.
And of course there are message boards and comment sites where anything goes. But I’d hardly call it them “arguments” if you apply the Python Criterion.
ETA: which isn’t to say NDD’s banning isn’t justified especially after his latest antics. Besides that obvious jerkitude the biggest bannable thing I see about him is arguing in bad faith, and if that’s the criteria there’d be dozens of people who should be banned too (basically 90% of my ignore list.)
My vote is that the system worked in this case, albeit it slowly. I don’t think any rule or policy needs to be changed because of this person. He got enough rope and he hung himself. So be it.
Agreed. As despicable as racism is, censorship would be worse. Given time, they will hoist themselves on their own petards. The rules are sufficient, the inconvenience is the price of freedom.
No, actually, it wouldn’t be. Censorship on a private board of people saying despicable things would be the opposite of despicable.
I never got too hung up on those crazy threads, so I have no problem with the length of time it took for the Mods to give him the True Death. I’d rather they erred on the side of caution anyway.
It depends on what the working definition of despicable is. There are more than enough private boards out there where despicable = “scientifically sound” or “not what the mod thinks”
“Private” is a bit of a red herring. Nobody argues that the SDMB administration has no legal right to censor whatever opinions they wish. Rather: what environment do they wish to engender? Should the discussion be free or unfree? Should they err on the side of caution when there’s at least some tiny possibility that a racist belief has been arrived at in good faith — or smack the ban hammer down to please those with frail constitutions, those who feel faint at the sight of two or three racists crushed by a hundred non-racists?
If someone wants to make the argument that there are races and that some of those races are (say) less intelligent, let them make it. I want to hear it, and I want to hear the responses, because I want to be reminded what’s at stake. Anyone who wishes to pretend they live in the magical land of pretty ponies already has a million places they can go.
That said, New Deal Democrat clearly strayed onto the wrong side of the trolling divide and I’m glad he’s gone. But, say, Chuck11? Are we better off pretending that such people don’t exist and forgetting how to respond to them? A policy of screening off certain topics of discussion would change the tenor of this place in a way that at least I dislike.
The correct decision. OK with me if the mods take their time, I think I understand some of their reservations.
Thanks, Mods. It strikes me you all generally perform an often ‘thankless’ function for us.
Thanks.
So then, who decides what the despicable speech to be banned is? I prefer the content neutral system of rules here (imperfect still, but prefereable to the alternatives).
Just as in real life, I have the option of walking away from any conversation I don’t like, here I also have the option of not reading someone’s posts. Even more so, since here I chose to never even see someone’s post.
Since I have those options, I totally agree with how the mods handled NDD. As long as posters stay within the rules of board, I prefer to have a wide variety of viewpoints here. That will sometimes mean facing opinions that I don’t agree with, but that is part of the price of open and free discussion.
But he wasn’t staying within the rules of the board: there are hate speech rules. That are routinely ignored. And if his posts don’t trigger the “hate-speech” rules, what does?
I would disagree with that. Fighting ignorance doesn’t coexist with censorship.
I 'm as anti-racist as they come, and I don’t have the slightest problem with how NDD was dealt with. Those who argue on a ‘scientific’ basis for their repugnant views routinely get their asses handed to them in a straight-up debate, and I consider that much more useful and educational for the casual reader than reflexive insta-banning.
I’ll also say it’s clear that mister nyx doesn’t know much of the history of the board, and seems unaware of the number of times racists who couldn’t at least attempt to pose as rational, civil people have unceremoniously gotten the boot within hours of their arrival. His repeated implications that the board administration is a bunch of racist enablers is ludicrous and deeply offensive and his attempts to censor what I read on this board are annoying. Stop the Junior Modding, please; I don’t need your protection.
We don’t moderate a lot of posts for hate speech - especially not in the Pit. On the othe hand people who use racial slurs or advocate killing people based on race or ethnicity typically don’t last more than a couple of posts.
So saying “blacks aren’t as evolved as whites and are closer to monkeys because they don’t have neanderthal genes”(???*) doesn’t trigger the hate-speech rule but calling someone a nigger does?
That’s a weird standard. To me, the first is far, far more offensive than the second. It’s consistent, I’ll grant you that, but weird.
*Where the fuck did he (or one of his buddies) come up with that one anyway?
Sounds like you understand. And New Deal Democrat didn’t say anything about anybody being closer to monkeys. If you have to rewrite the guy’s post to make it more offensive - no easy feat considering the stuff he really did say - I think you’re acknowledging it falls short of our the threshold for moderation. Posts are almost never moderated for hate speech in the Pit. In other forums we try to allow people to express a lot of ideas as long as they do it the right way rather than banning discussions of some ideas - for or against - just because they offend people. Like I said earlier, I think you can make a case that at times we have bent over backward to allow those people to hang out here for reasons of principle. I don’t particularly enjoy that and I don’t think we need to give them extra chances just so we can demonstrate our own commitment to free speech (at the expense of having good discussions and having people actually enjoy the board), but I do think the principle counts for something.
This douche never blipped my radar screen until the marathon Pit thread, but then I usually stay out of the debates. I couldn’t believe the crap this guy and his alter ego, Brazil84 were yammering on about. Well done to the mods who enacted the Final Solution on this ass hat.
I was on board of the banning because he accused MrDibble of being a rapist. I didn’t think it was a good idea to ban him just for being a racist, though, once he got over his habit of shitting in any thread where black people were mentioned.