Zero tolerance

BuffyBot

Actually, it's about racists, nazis, fascists and the far right in general who use this site to vent their sad prejudices.

You really believe your own hype, don't you? Viva la revolution, etc..

stevenmu

Redleslie2 wrote:

Actually, it's about racists, nazis, fascists and the far right in general who use this site to vent their sad prejudices.

Far right, on this site ? This site is composed of nothing but the mid-left, the left, and the extreme-left. Maybe they just look far right to you because you've gone off the left scale completely.

Who was it that said, 'extremists are all the same' and 'You go far enough to the left and you start seeing the crazies on the far right' ?

Gordon

Redleslie2 wrote:

I just think it beggars belief that someone can parrot vile nazi propaganda on this site and not be banned instantly. That is all.

That is all?

OK if that's all, thanks for sharing it with us.

Bye now.

amp

Redleslie2 wrote:

I posted an (admittedly) off topic response to personal abuse from someone who repeatedly posted racist nonsense, I asked him politely to back up his abuse with some facts, and that got me banned.

That's not your job, it's mine. I moderate Humanities, you do not. Therefore when I introduce a warning along with my own requests for TC to back up his claim I do not expect you to be shouting what were basically redundant taunts at TC. You did not comply with instructions and TC did. That is the reason you are banned and he is not.

You are too quick to anger. You are actually your own enemy here. If you had been rational, calm and considered the fact that by simply creating a new thread or letting it go altogether you would be able to continue your admirable stance against racism in far more effective manner. Because right now you have the stance of a baby in a pram with toys littered about outside.

You told me you had a zero tolerance policy towards racism on the site. You don't so don't pretend you do.

Ok, I have thought about this and you're right. There isn't really a zero tolerance policy in Humanities. Take a deep breath there before you reply with HITLER NAZI FOAM AT MOUTH!!! The reason there isn't, is that we get the occasional visitor from certain right-wing websites and they're always fun to play with because they generally couldn't debate their way out of a paper bag, even if it was wet, and they had scissors. They usually just stop posting which I see as a greater victory than simply banning them. They go back and call us things like "liberal" and "commies" but I could care less.

The more persistent ones tend to get stuck in a loop for a while and generally just get more and more frustrated until I eventually ban them for personal abuse.

I admit I also may be letting TC away with his racist comments. The reason for this is that dispite his frequent bannings, he often puts forward interesting and witty replies. I class his posts as good content which he freely submits. I am reluctant to ban him because if I do it's going to be permanent.

The rules in the charter are there to make the forum more enjoyable to read and to have intelligent rational discussions.

Therefore, in the Christmas spirit I am willing to unban you immediately if you simply agree to abid by charter rules and any future warning I may post.

The Corinthian

amp wrote:

I admit I also may be letting TC away with his racist comments.

My comments were not racist. I’ve already stated that any and all accusations of anti-social behaviour by certain groups were not related to race but the culture and environment that surrounds it. As much as people are trying to fall over themselves being politically correct that is not racist.

The only other comment I made was in relation to physically confusing that group and Romanians, in that having different racial backgrounds they look different. Hardly a racist comment - given that I would look slightly different (read: better looking) from your average Irishman for exactly the same reasons.

So if I made a racist comment in the thread, feel free to cite it. Otherwise retract the accusation.

Hobbes

The Corinthian wrote:

My comments were not racist. I’ve already stated that any and all accusations of anti-social behaviour by certain groups were not related to race but the culture and environment that surrounds it. As much as people are trying to fall over themselves being politically correct that is not racist.

I agree with your first sentance, however did you know that your considered reasonable on stormfront (I kid you not).

I don't visit Humanities nor I am a mod there. But here is my feeling on racist posting. There are certain levels of it.

For example the Islam forum:
"All muslims are terrorists" = Banned.
"Why do muslims kill others" = Not banned.

Both are technically the same however the first comment tends to imply that the person isn't open to reasoning at all. There are people who are racist, and people who are racist simply because they don't know better.

DeVore

Redleslie2 wrote:

I just think it beggars belief that someone can parrot vile nazi propaganda on this site and not be banned instantly. That is all.

Wouldn't that be a bit fascist?

DeV.

GuanYin

amp wrote:

The reason there isn't, is that we get the occasional visitor from certain right-wing websites and they're always fun to play with because they generally couldn't debate their way out of a paper bag, even if it was wet, and they had scissors. They usually just stop posting which I see as a greater victory than simply banning them. They go back and call us things like "liberal" and "commies" but I could care less.

The more persistent ones tend to get stuck in a loop for a while and generally just get more and more frustrated until I eventually ban them for personal abuse.

and how dull my afternoons would be if it wasn't for this cycle.

amp

The Corinthian wrote:

My comments were not racist. I’ve already stated that any and all accusations of anti-social behaviour by certain groups were not related to race but the culture and environment that surrounds it. As much as people are trying to fall over themselves being politically correct that is not racist.

The only other comment I made was in relation to physically confusing that group and Romanians, in that having different racial backgrounds they look different. Hardly a racist comment - given that I would look slightly different (read: better looking) from your average Irishman for exactly the same reasons.

So if I made a racist comment in the thread, feel free to cite it. Otherwise retract the accusation.

Man you're lucky you're not banned. Don't push it.

bonkey

stevenmu wrote:

Who was it that said, 'extremists are all the same' and 'You go far enough to the left and you start seeing the crazies on the far right' ?

Earthman's sig?

The Corinthian

amp wrote:

Man you're lucky you're not banned. Don't push it.

This is the Feedback forum, not Humanities. If someone feels aggrieved then they are perfectly within their rights to make a case and bring the moderator in question to task as long as they are not abusive to said moderator.

Given this I am not questioning your actions on the forum you moderate, but I am questioning an accusation you’ve now made here - where you are not a moderator. So you should either back that accusation up or retract it.

Dcully

Man you're lucky you're not banned. Don't push it.

LMAO

gandalf

Well my solution to this is easy. Don't allow the OP and TC to post on the same threads, it always decents into pettyness and I end up seeing all the reported posts which in some cases are nothing more than "he disagreed with me ban him" tripe.

But I do know whose input I value more and its not someone that fires around labels, that normally means you have lost the arguement.

CuLT

gandalf wrote:

But I do know whose input I value more and its not someone that fires around labels, that normally means you have lost the arguement.

Guess there's a lot of people losing arguments in Fashion / Appearance so

amp

The Corinthian wrote:

This is the Feedback forum, not Humanities. If someone feels aggrieved then they are perfectly within their rights to make a case and bring the moderator in question to task as long as they are not abusive to said moderator.

You have rights? Well I guess I have the right to bring you to task also. Explain to me how the phrase "My objection is that they represent a culture that is endemically parasitic." is not a racist statement. Remember, I require solid irrefutable facts to be convinced.

Given this I am not questioning your actions on the forum you moderate, but I am questioning an accusation you’ve now made here - where you are not a moderator. So you should either back that accusation up or retract it.

You failed to back up your accusation that gypsies are a parasitic race. You provided nothing except "testimony" from other boards users, which, as you know, I do not accept.

I'm starting to think that maybe you are a lost cause TC. Maybe you really will never abide by charter rules and always try to argue your way out of obvious infractions of said charter. Now I'm wondering is it really worth spending so much time on just one user.

The Corinthian

amp wrote:

Explain to me how the phrase "My objection is that they represent a culture that is endemically parasitic." is not a racist statement.

What has their culture got to do with their race? The two are not interchangeable terms. I’ve repeatedly stated that my objections were to a way of life that was fundamentally parasitic; I’ve never suggested that it has anything to do with genetics - indeed I’ve repeatedly stated that I did not believe it had.

You failed to back up your accusation that gypsies are a parasitic race.

Again, I never referred to any parasitic race.

I'm starting to think that maybe you are a lost cause TC. Maybe you really will never abide by charter rules and always try to argue your way out of obvious infractions of said charter. Now I'm wondering is it really worth spending so much time on just one user.

Had you considered the vague possibility that you may actually be wrong?

From what I can see, you’ve inferred that I meant race. I’d understand the misunderstanding, were it not that I have repeatedly said I did not and went so far as to even completely reject any racial correlation.

Boston

amp wrote:

You have rights? Well I guess I have the right to bring you to task also. Explain to me how the phrase "My objection is that they represent a culture that is endemically parasitic." is not a racist statement. Remember, I require solid irrefutable facts to be convinced.



You failed to back up your accusation that gypsies are a parasitic race. You provided nothing except "testimony" from other boards users, which, as you know, I do not accept.

I'm starting to think that maybe you are a lost cause TC. Maybe you really will never abide by charter rules and always try to argue your way out of obvious infractions of said charter. Now I'm wondering is it really worth spending so much time on just one user.

Go ban yourself too then.

rsynnott

The Corinthian wrote:

What has their culture got to do with their race?

Each race gets one culture, and one culture only, then? This may be at the root of your troubles, somewhere.

rsynnott

LiouVille wrote:

Go ban yourself too then.

I think the Thunderdome is a special case, like Feedback but moreso.

amp

The Corinthian wrote:

What has their culture got to do with their race? The two are not interchangeable terms. I’ve repeatedly stated that my objections were to a way of life that was fundamentally parasitic;

I've repeatedly asked you to back that statement up with proof. You can dance around the issue all you like using whatever arguments you like but until you do provide evidence, my stance won't change.

You may see this as overly politically correct. I do not. Humanities is a place for intelligent rational discussion. Throwing out stereotypes does not qualify as intelligent rational discussion, unless of course you can prove them to be fact.

The Corinthian

rsynnott wrote:

Each race gets one culture, and one culture only, then? This may be at the root of your troubles, somewhere.

Does American or Australian culture imply American or Australian race?

What of subcultures? Are you genetically different if you're part of a different subculture?

Certainly the two overlap, which is why I accept that were someone who was overzealous might infer that one implied the other. Hence my repeated clarification that one does not imply the other.

amp wrote:

I've repeatedly asked you to back that statement up with proof.

Whether that statement is true or not is irrelevant. Whether that statement is racist is what you are claiming. Even if what I say is false it is still based upon a judgement of culture and not of race - so even then it has nothing to do with race.

You may see this as overly politically correct. I do not. Humanities is a place for intelligent rational discussion. Throwing out stereotypes does not qualify as intelligent rational discussion, unless of course you can prove them to be fact.

We’re not discussing the throwing out of stereotypes, we’re discussing the throwing out of racial stereotypes. If I’m guilty of throwing out cultural, political or economic stereotypes, fair enough - but that’s not what you’ve accused me of.

So if you still cannot point to how I was racist I would still like that apology.

amp

So if you still cannot point to how I was racist I would still like that apology.

Assigning generalisations without proof of any section of any society no matter what words you use to describe that section of society is a bannable offence. How clear can I make this? You stated that entire Gypsy culture is endemically parasitic. If we replace the word Gypsy with Irish or Black would that be a racist statement?

In my opinion it is. And, in this case, it's my opinion, not yours, that counts. If you make similar statements you will be banned and taking your repeated bans in the past into account it will be permanent.

Stop asking for an apology because I don't believe you deserve one. Instead, I suggest you apologise to the Gypsy community for making statements about them you simply cannot or will not, try to prove.

amp

LiouVille wrote:

Go ban yourself too then.

I can't ban myself from the Thunderdome, genius. But hey, nice to see some of my trolling is still working on you after so much time.

WhiteWashMan

amp wrote:

Assigning generalisations without proof of any section of any society no matter what words you use to describe that section of society is a bannable offence. .

bit like banning the use of the words 'dutch' and 'gold' on certain forums eh?
but you thought that was a bit stupid...

rsynnott

WhiteWashMan wrote:

bit like banning the use of the words 'dutch' and 'gold' on certain forums eh?
but you thought that was a bit stupid...

No, it's not really like that. Making a sweeping cultural generalisation is a little difference to the dutch gold thing, which was just a bit mad.

jonski

The Corinthian wrote:

overzealous

Boards seem have a fair share of these , people ready with the 'racist' card ( pre typed and ready for copy/paste ) , be it to start an arguement or just because they feel they are standing up for freedom , justice..... and wrangler jeans .

It doesn't matter what you say afterwards or how you try to rectify/clarify your comments it will never be enough . And you will always be in the wrong , always , and never win , let alone struggle to save face . People like you , TC , are blessed with the gift of being able to express yourself and debate a point , something I would struggle with and would only end up digging a deeper hole for myself to a point where others would nearly have me believing that I am racist .However I do enjoy reading the threads and was dissapointed to see the others here closed .

So , what to do ? , debate it , if thats what you are good at and enjoy . Try and clarify it if you feel that you are conversing with reasonable people , leave it go and feel confident in your own personality if you are not .

amp

WhiteWashMan wrote:

bit like banning the use of the words 'dutch' and 'gold' on certain forums eh?
but you thought that was a bit stupid...

Wow, the legendary troll master has struck again! Here he uses my arguments against the banning of specific words and combines that with something completely different to form a wonderous intelligent troll that I simply cannot recover from!

Here's a tip wwman. Try thinking before posting. It'll make you look less stupid in future.

WhiteWashMan

amp wrote:

Wow, the legendary troll master has struck again! Here he uses my arguments against the banning of specific words and combines that with something completely different to form a wonderous intelligent troll that I simply cannot recover from!

Here's a tip wwman. Try thinking before posting. It'll make you look less stupid in future.

still angsty.

:rolleyes:

WhiteWashMan

rsynnott wrote:

No, it's not really like that. Making a sweeping cultural generalisation is a little difference to the dutch gold thing, which was just a bit mad.

not really. boil it down and its just a difference in opinion and perception. and different people will have different standards depending on merit.

amp

WhiteWashMan wrote:

not really. boil it down and its just a difference in opinion and perception. and different people will have different standards depending on merit.

You mean your seriously trying to equate the banning of the words Dutch Gold on a forum with the anti-rascism stance on Humanities?

Nice try there, but I'm not falling for it.