Viewpoint Censorship Imposed in GD?

About This Message Board
1

It is my hope that some of the moderators and veteran posters here can provide input regarding recent viewpoint censorship that has been directed at me in Great Debates.

In terms of a short background summary, I have been participating in an extremely lengthy and long-lived thread on the subject of the current Libyan conflict:

Libya too?! - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board

In this thread, I have argued in favor of the government of Colonel Gadaffi and against the Western-backed rebels. In doing so, I have pointed out that the rebels are “cowards” insofar as they are unwilling to fight their own battles, instead expecting foreign forces win their own war for them. Moreover, I have strenuously argued that the Western obsession with Libya and the subsequent military intervention can be viewed as the result of Christian animosity for Islam. I continue to stand by these statements, as they were made in good faith, are supported by facts, and thus are suitable for an intelligent debate on the merits.

Several days ago, I received a warning from Spectre, which you can view here:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14082436&postcount=1627

As you can see, this moderator apparently took issue with the term “cowardly” and with my position regarding the importance of religion to this conflict, which he himself asserts is “negligible.” In other words, I was officially warned for:
(1) Using the word “cowards” to describe individuals that I am arguing are guilty of cowardice
(2) Highlighting the importance of religion in a conflict that the moderator prefers to view as non-religious

This seems to be a clear abuse of a moderator’s power to suppress an honest and substantiated argument that the moderator personally disagrees on. But I’m afraid that the abuses of power continue in the same thread. Most recently, tomndebb has decided to jump onto the viewpoint discrimination bandwagon by issuing the following warning:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14086942&postcount=1655

As you can see, this is more of the same. I am penalized for arguing that the Western bombing is “indiscriminate,” and for once again pointing out the religious context of the conflict.

The take-away point seems to be that some words (here, “cowards,” “indiscriminate,” and “Christendom”) are off-limits in Great Debates, as are some arguments (here, the fact that Christian animosity towards Islam played a major role in the development of the conflict). And the kicker is that the suitability of such words and arguments will be determined on the spot; if a moderator with a particular take on a topic dislikes your position or word-choice, you will be punished. Notice how both moderators, in issuing their warnings, simply assert contrary positions as a matter of fact (example: “The bombing is not indiscriminate…”) It seems odd and hypocritical that moderators are able to express definitive opinions on a topic in the very same posts that they warn a poster for offering contrary opinions.

Personally, I am having a very difficult time seeing this as anything but blatant censorship intended to suppress arguments that challenge the beliefs of the two moderators in question. I appreciate that my position is an unpopular one, but I was under the impression that Great Debates is an appropriate venue to argue in favor of unpopular positions. Am I to understand that I was wrong, and that the only positions that may be advanced in GD are those that receive the moderators’ personal stamps of approval?

2

I usually don’t get involved in these threads, but I clicked on the links you supplied and without reading the entire thread I’ll just say your quotes don’t come off as intellectual and dispassionate as you portray them here.
To me they sound like they’re from someone who is strident to the point of believes it is impossible to overstate the evil of the other side.
Not that there aren’t other examples of it around here that may or may not get a mod smack, but it does tend to poison the discussion in my opinion and there does appear to be a recent effort to nip that in the bud.
That’s my two cents anyway.

3

The direct reason for your warning was your repeated use of epithets like “Christendom” and “the Empire,” which don’t support your argument and are intended just to annoy the people who are arguing with you. That makes it impossible to believe you’ve been arguing in good faith. I think tomndebb has been very patient with you, since I was ready to warn you for that nonsense a while ago. Almost as big a problem is your habit of arguing that anything bad for the West is wonderful (even when it’s completely antithetical to your stated views as a Communist). So far we’ve been trying to take that stuff at face value, but the more confrontational and deliberately inflammatory you are with other posters, the harder that is.

4

I thought more of this innocent “Who, me?” stuff was going to be regarded as trolling. That is, if tomndebb means hiswarnings this time.

Regards,
Shodan

5

I readily admit that some of the language that I have used in the thread has been somewhat strong, but you must keep in mind that the overall debate there has tended to be pretty heated. Those arguing in favor of the rebellion have often used much more extreme words and statements, and not a single one of them has been punished for it. Once again, it seems that I am being singled out solely on the basis of my position, which is anathema to the spirit of a free and open debate.

To prove this point, here’s a small collection of unpunished statements from rebel-supporters, with key excerpts highlighted:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13493733&postcount=197

[Referring to Colonel Gaddafi:] “I want to see this fracker and his sons hung by the neck from lamp posts.”

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13493739&postcount=198

“He’s 69 and has been absolute ruler for 42 years - the man is about as crazy as you can get while still being physically capable of walking and talking. And crazier and he’d dissolve into a puddle of gibbering plastic nonsense as his face melts.”

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13591170&postcount=782

“We are going to flatten the criminal Libyan regime and if you think the British people are going to be deterred from standing up for people fighting for freedom by casualties you don’t know the British.”

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13750074&postcount=1315

“The damage to that villa seems extensive, and Ka-Daffy’s not surfaced yet. We only have the Libyan government’s word that the worthless shit escaped unharmed. Hmmm, I wonder … “

And one of my favorites: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13750087&postcount=1317

“A BBC reporter at the villa that was bombed says that after viewing the damage, he can’t imagine how anyone could “walk away unscathed” like the Libyan government claims Ka-Daffy and his bitch did.” [“bitch” later explained by poster as being the Colonel’s wife, shortly before said poster began celebrating the killing of the Colonel’s children in an airstrike]
As you can see, strongly-worded statements are par for the course in that thread, and yet only my statements have drawn the ire of the moderators. Funny, that.

6

Help! Help! I’m being repressed!

7

See my response above, Marley. If “Christendom” and “the Empire” are “epithets” that do not belong in that debate, then clearly the other side must also be precluded from employing similar “epithets,” correct? For example, they must be warned for calling the Colonel a “shit” and his wife a “bitch,” yes? This has not happened, however. Hence, I really can’t accept your argument that what is going on here is not viewpoint discrimination, pure and simple. I will have no complaints if the rules that are applied to me are also applied to those posters whose views you and the other moderators happen to share.

8

I don’t think so. For one thing, the mass-murdering dictator and his bitch brought it on themselves, so they have it coming. For another, neither posts here.

9

To some degree, I agree with this. I’m thinking particularly of Siam Sam’s habit of refering to Qaddaffi as Ka-Daffy.

10

Yeah, much as i hate to give Commissar any support on any issue, if you’re going to warn him for calling the people on one side of the fight “cowards,” then you really shouldn’t let his opponents use similar epithets to refer to people on the other side of the fight.

I think that Commissar has done enough in that thread, and in others, to warrant banning, but to warn him for stuff like that is bullshit. Unsurprising that it’s Spectre of Pithecanthropus getting it wrong. Again.

11

I don’t think he’s being warned for name-calling and insulting people. He’s being warned for trollery.

Unless I’m mistaken, both sides are allowed to use such epithets, but one may (or may not–it isn’t my call to make) be repeatedly using such tactics to inflame the discussion.

I really don’t want to see a bunch of new rules preventing public figures from being ridiculed.

12

Well, I would consider calling Qaddaffi’s wife (or wifes) “his bitch” to be inflammatory.

13

Heh… sure you do. So do I. And if I said it another two or three times in similar contexts, we’d both consider it to be trollery.

14

Yes, in fact, I do.

15

Gee, big surprise.

16

Those posters were expressing their views on Gaddafi, an individual who is significant to the discussion. You were calling the West “the Empire” and “Christendom” and such because you were trying to annoy people. So there’s no equivalence.

17

I thought you wanted input as to why you were Warned. Instead, you once again appear to be mostly interested in haranguing readers with self-penned propaganda that, frankly, reads like the output of the North Korea News agency.

Here’s an idea: if you feel other posters are out of line, you might consider not employing the very same tactics that you claim are so unfair.

Of course, I don’t believe for a minute that you are only responding to some injustice involving the opinions of other posters. You’ve been propagandizing pretty much from the moment you arrived here, and it seems perfectly clear to me that you are much more interested in attempting to get a rise out of people off than in some noble exchange of views.

Seriously, if you claim to be here to promote a particular and, as you undoubtedly know, generally unpopular viewpoint, I’m sure you recognize you you are going about it in just about the most counterproductive way possible, right?

18

Are you saying that there is an SDMB rule allowing strong condemnations of identifiable individuals while prohibiting strong condemnations of faceless groups?

Firstly, since such a rule would be inherently silly, I do not believe that there is any such rule. Please link to it if I am mistaken.

Secondly, if this were a rule, then you could indeed argue that I violated it by criticizing Western forces using pointed language. Still, others have used similarly pointed language to condemn, for instance, the Libyan government as a whole. Example from a previous post: “We are going to flatten the criminal Libyan regime…” According to your logic, this and similar statements merited a warning (the Libyan government and the US government both being large groups involved in the current Libyan conflict). They did not receive a warning. My charge of viewpoint discrimination stands.

It is the other way around, actually. My understanding was that the use of adjectives and nouns was allowed in furtherance of an argument. Since I did not see other posters punished for arguing their positions, I see no reason why I should be punished for arguing my position in a similar manner. I do not claim that any poster has been out of line; I ask only to be treated the same way as other posters, rather than being officially discriminated against on the basis of my political stances.

19

Those other uses of pointed language are against groups that do not include posters as members. Furthermore, those people are not already guilty of hijacking threads to disparage those groups. Finally, you have made no attempts to make friends around here, which means you are not going to be treated with the leeway of people who in general do not post to be provocative. With them it’s likely because they just got worked up. For you, it’s a pattern of behavior.

They do it to is never a valid defense around here. People aren’t treated equally. People with a history of provocative posts are more quickly moderated when they step out of line, and are given harsher punishments, since obviously just asking them to be less provocative hasn’t worked.

Finally, your political views are inconsistent, which makes us suspect you might be trolling. That alone puts you on thin ice. Provocative posts are step two on making that determination.

20

If you want this argument to hold water, seems to me it would be more helpful to your case if you could demonstrate that, say, Tagos and Siam Sam, like you, only post to editorialize on political subjects. To the best of my knowledge, they do not. To the best of my knowledge, you do.

Regarding their opinions on Ghaddafi and the rebellion, I would actually agree that their editorial comments are unnecessary and do nothing to support any logical arguments that they may have in favor of bringing down the Libyan regime. Of course, the same goes for you. Incessantly referring to the United States as 'the Empire" and NATO as “Christendom” is obnoxious, silly and seems to be done for no other reason than to provoke other posters. Personally, I have no respect for any poster who is unable to formulate an argument without generating an unending string of straw men and ad hominem attacks.

In any event, you are once again being disingenuous. Your posts to the thread in question are of the same style that you have already establshed in other threads and it is clear that you are simply posting in the same inflammatory manner that you have practiced ever since you arrived here.

Look, other posters and moderators both have said repeatedly that ‘he did it first’ is not an adequate excuse for being deliberately inflammatory. It’s entirely up to you to either take that advice on or not.