Re: SlackerInc banned for trolling

I guess I’ll do it. The charge is of trolling, but I don’t see it. I have every reason to believe SlackerInc was posting sincerely and without malice.

One of the two posts singled out as trolling reads,

“I would be absolutely fine with “Ultra-Orthodox Jews do bad things and are bad”. Could you please correct the title as per your suggestion? Thanks!”

But given the context of the discussion, I think he was actually sincere. I mean, yeah, it’s a bit cocky with the “Thanks!” but I think that title is a good fit for the Pit topic which spawned this all.

The other post cited is inappropriate for ATMB, as was the thread of posts going back to Fotheringay-Phipps’ posts #54, which is basically a challenge to SlackerInc, in ATMB, to back up the position he espoused in the Pit. But I would call this a hijack, not trolling. I don’t think SlackerInc (or Fotheringay-Phipps) got a rise out of their posts. I don’t think either was being insincere. I don’t think either was being malicious.

Earlier today, when I first saw the topic, I thought to myself, man, I hope this guy doesn’t self destruct. He’s been here seventeen years. I’ve seen him around, almost never agreed with him, but I only frequent GD and sometimes P&E, and you don’t really get to know people in those fora. I was curious, I followed the link to his Twitter and it seems like his passion is in movies. I don’t know you Cafe Society dopers, maybe he’s cool over there, maybe he’s not.

It’s a shame nonetheless. I hate to see old members go, especially over something they probably don’t really care that much about, doubly especially when I don’t agree with the final straw. Seventeen years of community and then bam, exocommunicated, can’t even say goodbye. I soooo hope I don’t suffer the same fate, in life or on these boards.

Eh, sorry about that last part. Tough times.


It’s a cumulative effect. Something has to be the last straw.

I don’t usually go into the BBQ Pit (I’ve muted it), but it may be worth looking at this thread, which has been running for nearly 2 years, to see some of the ongoing issues:

Perhaps sincere, but then a sincere racist and bigot. This last thing- he clearly went off the deep end, his posts in ATMB, trying to justify what he did was the last straw, i think.

Not so much, after he came out as an unapologetic self-professed racist.

He was a jerk.

Jerks get banned.

Jerks should get banned more often.

It should take longer than 17 years for jerks to get banned.

snap snap snap snap

Exactly what you said.

I’m not 100% sold on “trolling”, but it may have been the sort of “I’ll say what I believe in a confrontational way in an inappropriate place with a smirk on my face because I’m awesome and I’ll watch those losers get all butthurt!” kind of trolling.

But “banned for being a bigoted jerk” would be a more precise description of that behavior, IMO.

Nevertheless, I won’t quibble further over the precise label on the banning: he was banned for bannable behavior, and I’m happy that it was done. Thanks, mods!

If SlackerInc was posting his anti-Jewish rants without caring much about them, that doesn’t mean that those of us who are Jewish didn’t care lots.

And I say that as someone who’s Jewish but not religious and doesn’t have much patience for some of the crap that the ultra orthodox pull.

SlackerInc devoted a considerable portion of his time carefully explaining how he wasn’t racist, wasn’t a misogynist, wasn’t a bigot, wasn’t wasn’t wasn’t wasn’t.

In my experience, the easiest way to identify a bigot is to look for the person who keeps finding themselves in situations where they have to explain why they aren’t one.

Maybe there’s a board out there where bigots are free to embiggen. I’m glad the Dope isn’t one of them. If that makes us an echo chamber, I think I can deal with it.

I believe you meant "It should not take longer than 17 years for jerks to get banned.

The subject of this discussion has long been a troll and, as you mention, a jerk also. No doubt he was placed on ignore by many people and thus was talking to the wind. Who knows? Maybe that’s why he “upped his game” re offensiveness (aka trolling). And now that he’s banned, I foresee this thread getting locked soon.

Content needs to be judged by nothing else other than … … content. The fact that unacceptable content may reflect sincere feelings doesn’t alter the fact that it is unacceptable content.

If I said, “No offense, but poster John Doe is a worthless piece of Black/Mexican/Chinese/whatever crap”, could I justify it by saying, “Well, I said I meant no offense”? I’m thinking, NO.

A bigot was banned. I see no reason to argue about the details. Jerk? Check. Racist? Check. Troll? I dunno, but who cares?

Ah, yes. You have passed my test. I now know that you can read for comprehension.

https ://

link broken by What Exit?, no animated gifs in ATMB please.

Just to clarify, in general a banning of a poster that has been around for a while is not because of a post or 2 or a thread or 2. It is generally an accumulation of bad will, warnings and a general consensus among the mods.

The posts linked to in the ATMB thread were effectively the straws that broke the camel’s back.

On a direct note, @Max_S I don’t know of any reason to think you fall into the category of “notorious” my word poster. If you had a sudden meltdown you would probably get a warning first and then if you ignored the warning a suspension of some length. Now, I’m new to modding on the Straight Dope, maybe the longer termed Mods do recognize your name as a problem poster, but I rather doubt it.

I hope this posts helps a little.

I call those kinds of posters functional trolls. Their bigotry might be sincerely held, but the fact that they insist on repeatedly posting it makes them trolls.

I’m a man of process. If he was being a jerk, he should be written up for being a jerk. But at present he is charged with trolling.


I didn’t think my post was a hijack. ISTM that by the standards of this MB, making negative statements about an entire group based on the actions of a few members, or based on vague and inaccurate notions about their beliefs, is considered unacceptable bigotry, and that Slacker was doing just this. Since the ATMB thread was about the acceptability of Slacker’s Pit thread by the standards of this MB, I thought it was appropriate to point this out.

In some cases challenging someone to back up their beliefs about something they’ve said in another thread can be a hijack. But in this case, the lack of backup had ramifications for the very issue being discussed in this thread, IMHO.

You appear to be under the misapprehension that trolling requires that one not believe in what one is posting. This is incorrect. You can be perfectly sincere in what you post, and still be trolling. Posting what he did in ATMB, in the manner that he did, indicated that SlackerInc was trying to get a rise out of people. That may get by in the Pit, but not here.

In any case, if SlackerInc was actually sincere in what he posted, there would be grounds for considering it hate speech, or at the least extreme bigotry. We were actually giving him the benefit of the doubt by labeling it as trolling.

If so, I’ve become accustom to long-time posters getting a more detailed write up. I might read about previous suspensions, previous warnings, a hint that an olive branch via PM was turned down, etcetera, demonstrating the pattern that you relied upon in making your judgement.

You aren’t under any obligation to continue that practice, and I might be mistaken, of course.


One thing I remain unclear about, though, is Colibri’s post saying that the two main posts which triggered the banning included the one where he said “I would be absolutely fine with “Ultra-Orthodox Jews do bad things and are bad”. Could you please correct the title as per your suggestion? Thanks!”. That post was in response to a moderator who said that saying “group X does bad things and is bad” “can arguably be allowed in the pit”. I’m not seeing any difference between the formulation which was arguably allowed in the pit and the one which (among others) triggered the banning.

You didn’t come full circle and argue that unacceptable bigotry justifies the closing of his topic, you left it at, ‘the topic makes you look like a bigot because you’re wrong’. Which invites the response, I’m not wrong, which, in my opinion, constitutes a debate on the merits - hijack territory.