That is simply not true. Two or more dedicated hijackers can set up shop in any thread and derail it through numerous and/or outrageous posts; they don’t even need to be “fed” by serious posters. If these hijackers are dedicated, they can prevent anyone in any thread from discussing any topic except their own hijack.
When it comes to Africa/black related threads history/experience has shown that these hijacks are being done through an organized effort by a few key posters. In effect, preventing any discussion of any topic that relates to Africa. So an unofficial warning was issued when it showed up in the GD thread, the warning was ignored and then an official one showed up.
Yes and no. It’s true there can’t be a hijack if no one response, but it’s also true that if someone posts the same stuff over and over, some posters will get used to it and tune them out after a while. But there will always be other posters who haven’t seen it before, and they’re more likely to participate in the hijack. If you expect a large group of people (many regulars and many non-regulators) to ignore something over and over. It makes more sense to step in and curtail the attempted thread-jack, if necessary, than to ask everyone to ignore something for years.
However, let us assume that Reason X = the assertion “Christians are stupid and responsible for everything bad” and Continent Y = any discussion even tangentially related to religion.
For heaven’s sake, look at this thread. The third post in, and the usual garbage kicks off. And he keeps at it, just like he always does -
(Emphasis in original.)
There is, I daresay, at least as much evidence that sub-Saharan Africa suffers from an IQ gap than that Christians and the GOP are motivated by hatred and want women to suffer and the rest of the horseshit he spews.
Why isn’t that a hijack? Why does that get a pass?
Whether or not the post is hijack depends on the context of the thread. There is always the report button. I don’t think that post is as off-topic as you’re implying given what Der Trihs was replying to, but I’ll try to take a look at that thread later.
Because it is the same old line he always posts and nearly everyone else ignores. It does not become a hijack until it causes a flurry of off-topic posts.
Note that Marley did not order the “intelligence” discussion be taken to a different thread until multiple posts by multiple posters had begun to derail the original discussion.
The author of the post to which you linked is hardly alone in his behavior or in the way that most posters ignore him. There are a number of posters–far Right, far Left, religiously devout, atheist, and otherwise fanatical–who can be counted upon to show up in any thread remotely near their favorite topic to lob some absolutist one-liner into the thread. As long as they ae otherwise ignored, they fail to hijack threads.
I repeat - the poster in question’s anti-Christian, anti-theist, anti-everything does not get sanctioned. Because it is the same thing he always posts.
Chief Pedant and New Deal Democrat get sanctioned. Why? Because they post the same thing they always do.
It sounds rather like I should follow Der Trihs around and call him on his nonsense, over and over, and encourage others to do the same. Then it will constitute a hijack, and he will be warned. Not me - just like it wasn’t anyone else’s fault when they responded to Reason X, just NDD and Chief Pedant. It is the fault of the persons who cause the hijack.
It was only the third post in, so not much context had developed. But the objection was the NDD responded to a post about African geography with a discussion about Reason X. If that’s a hijack, then the nonsense about killing abortion doctors in the US is that much more a hijack in response to riots over burning a Koran.
They were sanctioned in one thread. They are hardly sanctioned in every thread in which they participate.
Of course, if you desire to engage in stalking, that is your prerogative, although we have also sanctioned stalkers throughout the board’s history.
You are also twisting the events. They were not Warned for posting their screed. They were Warned when they persisted in pushing their agenda even after being told to stop. If you choose to post response after response to Der Trihs even after you are told to stop, then you will be the one engaging in the hijack. If Der Trihs actually gets involved in a hijack and then refuses to let it go after being told to do so, he will receive the Warning.
Ah. So what was the end result? Nothing? You could always “talk around” a hijacker. I guess it just seems that if someone will entertain the “Reason X” folk (I’m borrowing that from someone else) then it gets harder and harder to claim they hijacked it.
Personally, I would have liked to participate in a convo that went elsewhere, but I was still surprised at what happened to the thread. I’ve only been here for a few days but that Africa “debate” was a super turn off.
This is my problem. I think the people who responded to the Reason X folk did it with sincerity. Unlike another poster here, I don’t think those Reason X people were asserting “mindless” racism anymore than Hitler showed “mindless” anti-Semitism. They had some pretty serious arguments that were based on “science”. That’s a statement. That needs to be addressed. That’s the dangerous stuff.
So on the one hand, someone will always respond, yeah. On the other hand, can’t the OP just put a little this thread is not intended to go into Reason X’s direction disclaimer?
I like Straight Dope because of the types of conversations that go on here. I don’t like it when two, three or four people get into a thing (on any message board) and it becomes a vacuum in which all potential intellectual conversation is now starved.
And they are welcome to pursue that discussion in the hundreds of other threads on the topic, (like the half dozen threads on the same topic currently going over the last couple of weeks).
The Moderator directed them to take that particular set of claims out of a thread that was discussing the effects, (or lack), of colonialism on Africa. They were permitted to make their claims, even though they were pretty much off-topic, but when the thread started to be derailed, they were told to take it elsewhere. They chose to continue in that thread and were Warned.
You are missing the point. Why were they told to stop? And why is Der Trihs not told to stop, even though he posts garbage that is much more off-topic and has less evidence to back it up?
The answer seems to be, because people are expected to ignore him. Which directly contradicts this -
This comparison to Der Trihs is way to generous. Not only does he spew the same nonsense again and again, it’s usually content-free nonsense. The posters being discussed here certainly are not guilty of that. Right or wrong, they bring rational arguments with support for those arguments. Der Trihs doesn’t do that.
Another constant offender is Elucidator. More than any other poster he will come in a drop a failed attempts at a funny lines that adds nothing to that discussion. and the problem is not the lack of humor, but the lack of relevance and substance.
This particular call was a bad one. If one’s answer to that question in the thread title is “there would be no difference”, then the question back is “Oh really? Why do you think that?”, and there theory goes directly to answering that question.
Der Trihs appears to be replying directly to the topic of the thread in discussing culpability. He is using other examples that he feels meet the same standard, people making inflammatory remarks and stirring up sentiments but not being held accountable for the actions that other people take because of their words.
Wait, so you’re saying it is okay to try to hijack a thread, but only wrong to succeed? It’s okay to post inflammatory remarks if nobody pays attention to you, but if people engage you then they can get in trouble for it?
So we should let trolls and spammers post here and everyone just ignore them, because if we just ignore them it won’t hijack the threads?
Except those posters did not make that argument. That’s part of the problem: there was really no effort to tie the comments about genetics to the actual topic.
If you think a poster is hijacking a thread, report it and we may try to head it off. Usually we don’t intervene unless we see the thread is already being pulled off-topic, which was the case in the threads we’re talking about. In the thread Shodan mentioned, another poster brought up the Iraq War (the thread is about the Quran burning in Florida and the riots in Afghanistan) and Der Trihs responded to that. It’s somewhat off-topic and it’s typical of the kind of Der Trihs post people object to, but there’s no hijack and Der Trihs wasn’t the one who introduced the issue. I’ve moderated some of Der Trihs’s posts in the past for being off-topic and I won’t hesitate to do the same in the future if I think the post is going to cause a problem.
And on that note, “Let’s critique Diogenes the Cynic/Der Trihs/elucidator/whoever” is not a productive topic. If you have a question about how we moderate certain posts, that’s fine, but this isn’t the Pit.
FWIW, this one guy’s perspective is that there’s no way a discussion of racial IQ can be irrelevant to a question of “Where would Africa be today if white imperialism had not happened?”
I see where Marley seems to be falling back on saying it was irrelevant to the specific post that one Reason X proponent responded to, but that seems to be a new definition of hijacking, contrived solely to justify this particular action.
What it is is PC bias. No one is immune to bias. That doesn’t make Marley an evil monster or even a bad moderator, but he blew it badly in this one instance.
No. It was irrelevant to all the previous discussion in the thread, and to the topic in general. I used that one post (where New Deal Democrat started talking about racial intelligence in response to a post about geography) as an example of how off-topic it was.
It’s okay to post inflammatory remarks if nobody pays attention to you, but if people engage you then they can get in trouble for it?