Your welcome. I try. Sometimes I’m just trying, but I try.
Ha! Welcome to the club…
Grrrr…I HATE clicking when I shouldn’t have…if MORE people, such as yourself, did what YOU do then we MIGHT actually have a chance at fighting ignorance.
Instead, we have the same old tired retreads posting out of their ass.
WOOT!
Do we have special jackets? The last club I was in had special jackets…
It was damned hard to smoke in that jacket too… stupid extra long sleeves…
As the immortal Alice Cooper, (I know he’s not immortal…yet) stated…sleeping don’t come eeeeeeeeasy…in a straight white vest.
In the thread in question alone…
I’m a firm believer in the give 'em rope theory.
Hell, I might even be wrong about something one day and get some education thereby.
I’ver found that generally folks with these sorts of peculiar opinions (not just racists) come in two classes [del]rhinestone shades[/del] those who’re smart enough to realize that they’ve been handed their ass and those who are already numb from the hairline down. The first sort might actually benefit from an honest and open examination of their screeds. The latter sort at least provide lesson by bad example for lurkers as has been noted in this thread already.
Generally, if you take 'em at their word, you’ll find that they haven’t heard their word.
I’m not saying that Dopers will not be able to kick this shithead’s ass; I’m agreeing with LHoD that outing the disingenousness of the poster from the beginning does no harm but rather does a lot of good.
You missed my point about the honest and open white nationalists who have posted here in the past. I greatly disagree with their position, but they are playing by board rules.
And doesn’t the board have rules in this regard? We have had several flareups recently involving Liberal and the playing of the devil’s advocate position. The mod consensus seems to be that one ought to argue the positions in which one believes, and, contrariwise, one ought not argue those positions in which one does not believe.
Further, posters have been warned, and even banned, for making up stories about their lives. In general, lying and bullshitting are recognized by regular posters and mods alike as bad for board karma. Do not racists who cloud their agenda when debating violate the spirit of these rules, if not the letter? I think they do, especially since, as non-paying “guests,” they are engaging in such debates in a hit-and-run fashion.
The above addresses your point about posters who believe in the “paranormal.” My position is truly my position; it’s open and unadulterated. But bringing up the treatment of such posters is perhaps not in your argument’s interest, as said treatment has been so poor on this board that I have fully withdrawn from debating the merits of the evidence for any paranormal phenomenon (though I still at times debate the philosophy of such matters). Indeed, supporters of “paranormal phenomena,” if your principles of modding expressed today are to hold, are treated worse here than facist-racist scum, since mods like Czarcasm have been known to join in the baiting and mocking of the former!
Again, I think the real issue is not the position the poster holds, but the manner in which s/he debates it: dishonestly.
True, we should defeat them. And the poster should honestly present them.
I disagree. The poster was easily outed by LHoD with some very simple methods. Hey, you’re a SFer, aren’t you? This is your real position, isn’t it? The ignoramus then tripped over his own denials, revealing the true but hidden position. It was easily, and, one may even say, politely, accomplished–what’s wrong with that?
I think their hiding their intentions is already “out of line.” And I think extra strictness is in order because of their message of racial hate.
I agree that such persons ought not be cussed into the dust without any type of counter to their arguments, but simple questions that reveal their true intensions ought not be against the rules. Fair?
You read far too much into that exchange. The poster’s odd views were clear from the OP, but he has continued to deny an association with the National Front and nothing in his posts indicates that he is lying in that regard. (Believe me, there are a lot more racists in the world than the SF crowd and a lot more nuts in the world than you can ever believe.)
He has clearly revealed both his ignorance of science and his truly odd views of humanity in that thread even without efforts to openly accuse him of racism or membership in racist organizations. And that was my initial point and the one I continue to maintain: it is more productive to let such people reveal their ignorance and false claims on their own without resorting to preemptive accusations.
Bull motherfucking shit this isn’t a racist piece of trash. A paranoid conspiracy theory addled piece of racist trsh.
And as you have so ably demonstrated, one merely needs to engage the poster on his own grounds to get him to display that information to everyone who reads his posts–hence the lack of a need to “expose” him by pre-emptive name-calling.
Well, we can’t call names in GD, of course.
But I also think that it’s a good idea to have a simucast Pitting along with more polite GD refutations.
Admixtures of anger and disgust are not beyond the pale when dealing with racist scum, and the Pit seems like a good place to express those.
I’ve gotta say I’m with tomndebb on this. Let people have whatever kooky, bizarre, and yes, even repellent ideas they want, as long as they play by the rules. As far as I’m concerned, we’ve given garden o’ love plenty of rope, and he’s just finishing tying it around his neck and is getting ready to jump. Just as it should be.
Eagerly awaiting his “laws of nature” post…
And I have no problem with this thread.
This thread began with a question why I objected to a pre-emptive attack on the poster’s racism in the original thread. Pitting him is obviously a different situation.
Heh. he’s been BANNED. Go figure.
But, still, I don’t see most of Lefty’s comments as being particularly beyond the pale. They weren’t so much a personal insult as calling out what paradigm he was coming from. But you’re the mod, you make the rules. And, um, don’t hit me please even though I thought you gave the wrong title for your cite. ~cringes~
Why banned? Sock, I suppose?
Rhetorical question. Like I said, most of these dumbfucks are socks and trolls who deserve to be banned immediately. And he’s been banned immediately, which I suppose has been merely Nature taking its course.
Isn’t hate speech inherently bannable?
Nope, Samclem says he’s a sock. All’s well that ends well.
lol
samclem seems to have a lower bullshit threshold than tomndebb
thanks tom for some excellent points in the thread, and thanks to sam for shutting down that :wally
nite!
Bo
It doesn’t seem to be a bullshit threshold, but socking.