So, apparently, calling each other cunts and dropping f-bombs at each other in the Pit is bad for the boards’s image…but allowing a would-be kiddy-diddler is up for debate? That apparently would be kosher with Creative Logic?
Oooookay. :rolleyes:
When was the board’s image invoked as a justification for the new Pit rules?
…why should I* be civil to a hypothetical proud, deviant pervert who advocates changing the law so he can rape pre-teens?
I wouldn’t be civil with a Nazi who wanted to change the Constitution to match the Third Reich’s (so he could kill Jews) or a Klansman who talked about how black people needed to be slaves again so white people could rape them.
Look, if there was a pedophile who said “Hey, I realize I’ve got a sickness-it’s not just that naughty, intolerant society disapproves, and here’s how I deal with it to insure that I never hurt a child.” that would be one thing–and I could…kinda sorta see what you were saying.
But letting a hypothetical kiddie-fucker who proudly boasts wanting to rape infants and wants to change the law so he can rape with impunity…well, that’s another thing altogether. (“Say it LOUD! I rape infants and I’m proud!” :rolleyes: )
And hell, if you do care about a hypothetical “Toddler-fucker and proud of it”** type (rather than hoping he falls face-first into a wood chipper)–then you should really not want him to have a thread–he’ll either get “Oh, you poor sick dear” type posts OR he’ll get the sort of bile I’ve been posting–in the first case, he’ll be validated and in the second case, he’ll think that he’s being oppressed–either way, it won’t help him realize that he’s a sick pervert.
And frankly, it’s not good for the SDMB–if the dreaded POWERS THAT BE get on Ed’s shit about columns about vaginas that smell like mustard gas (a classic column, to be sure) and are such pussies that we had to ban the word “Fuck” in pit thread titles, how are they gonna feel when they see a thread with a pervert advocating legalization of kiddie-rape?
*apart from the rules–I’m talking on a moral/ethical level here.
**note, not all these points apply to Cesario–I’m going out of my way to remove him from these examples
During the unpleasantness…Ed talked about how he gets flack about Cecil’s early columns (the funny ones). He also said that pit threads with the word “Fuck” in the title weren’t good for the board’s image. (That said, he didn’t use that as a justification to ban the word “cunt”–that was (he said) purely his personal preference.)
That aside, Sleeps made a good point: if you’re gonna ban (or suspend?) someone for asking about vandalizing Wikipedia, I’m kinda having a hard time seeing why you keep around someone who uses the paper-thin fake-excuse “I’m not talking about raping infants, I’m talking about changing the law so I can rape infants. So it wouldn’t be illegal then!”
Is not advocating something that would make a majority of the human race want to tear your nuts off “being a jerk” a priori?
So if the SDMB’s image was not a consideration when prohibiting certain words due to such words being offensive, then it comes down to the prohibition being based on the words being offensive to the SDMB members.
I think it’s time for a poll on whether members are more offended by being called a motherfucker or by Cesario’s pedophile posts. It would shed some light on just what is truly offensive.
I wouldn’t have nearly such a problem with the idea of this thread if the board really were a laissez-faire utopia where rules were at an absolute minimum, but I think something is seriously wrong when a pedophile can indulge in attention-whoring freely but as soon as you call someone “motherfucker”, you’re on notice.
I certainly hope that the level of objection to Cesario having a soapbox leads TPTB to not give him one.
Thank you for that information. I cannot comment on this subject any further until I receive additional information.
I don’t think that’s a fair reading of that quote. He doesn’t say the terms are offensive to Dopers, and many people afterward said they weren’t that offended by them. I read it as ‘I don’t want members to be subjected to that,’ not ‘members are offended by it.’
There’s really no connection between these issues. People on this board have confessed to a ton of behavior that is worse than the stuff we moderate, which most of the time is just calling people names on the internet. Not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. But people here will sometimes admit to infidelity, drinking and driving, violence, and so on. We had a thread once about people who have killed other people and at least one person responded in the affirmative. (It was indisputably self defense, but still.) We’ve had pedophiles here before, assuming Cesario is representing himself truthfully and counts as one.
Call someone a motherfucker and all you’ll get is a note instructing you not to do it again. Come out and admit you’re ignoring the rules on purpose and you’ll get a warning- which I think has happened about three times.
Couldn’t the same thing be said about trolling socks, O Mighty Sockhunter Extraordinaire? Perhaps if they weren’t hunted and responded to they’d just slink away?
Cesario may not be a pedophile in real life. He may just be one on this board. You can not ask anyone to get reported for what he posts on an anonymous board. As far as we know, he may be guilty of nothing. If he thinks about it and does not do it, then it still is not a crime.
Now that is the silliest splitting of hairs I have come across in a long time.
Look, if the abuse is not offensive, then it is not abuse. It really is that simple.
I’m sure those things are comparable somehow, Sleep With Butterflies. I don’t know how, but that’s not really important. And I didn’t say “ignore him and he’ll go away”- I said if you want us to moderate him for bringing up his pet cause over and over again, you have to stop responding every time he does it, because every response invites him to post more.
These two are the same thing.
It’s a damned shame that otherwise allegedly rational people support the idea of letting an admitted Pedophile have sanctioned place to spew.
If you see smoke pouring out of a building, it could be that there is no out-of-control fire, but you still call the fire deparment, for based on that smoke, you have reason to believe that there may be an out-of-control fire. That’s why I think the SDMB should report Cesario; based on his posts, there is reason to believe that he is a child molester, so he should be reported to authorities who can perform a proper investigation and keep tabs on his activities.
What if someone only tells you ‘I heard there’s a fire in a building across the country?’
What it comes down to, then, is that you are not actively discouraging the promotion of the fucking of infants and children by Cesario, while at the same time you are actively discouraging posters from speaking out against Cesario’s promotion of the fucking of infants and children.
If you have Cesario’s IP address or some other identifier, then report him in his jurisdiction. Give me his IP or other identifier and I will be glad to report him.
How does one go about contacting the Thought Police?