A&A mods acting contrary to their own charter.

Brown Bomber

I was going to post this as a DRP thread but I've just realised it's for appealing bans or infractions.

---

This is a little complicated so I'll try to be as concise as possible while including all relevant information.

Today, moderator of A&A Robindch locked a thread that was derogatorily titled "Bitch about Hitchens here"

This thread according to Robin's co-mod (and C-Mod) Dades was:

"an outlet open to all" along with the caveat "knock yourself out"

Earlier he had described it as a "thread specifically existed for criticism" and was "a thread for you to post freely your opinions about Hitchens "

He also has said that that in the A&A forum freedom of speech is seen to be given to all.

===================

On the other hand Robindch, in an abuse of power IMO tried to silence me solely because of my opinion(s):
^^^ BB, I don't believe there's any chance that your viewpoint will coincide with anybody else's, so can you please move on from Hitchens' views on the Iraq war? Thanks.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76268673&postcount=171

I should point out that large proportion of Hitchens' lectures/debates and published works centre on the Iraq War and to stifle discussion on his views on the matter is absurd.

Yesterday, he issued this warning.

I would like to add that my contributions, if unpopular were made in the best possible faith. This can be demonstrated by the effort to provide multiple links to support my argument and never once responded in kind to any provaction to the multiple insults that were made against me, which incidentally had on occasions been thanked by the mod Robindch.
===========

Now how this thread closing conflicts with the A&A Charter

but those of

all faiths or beliefs are welcome in any discussion

Also welcome are any questions/comments relating to religion, morality, ethics or the origins of life in general.

castie

You seem to have an awful lot of problems with that forum....

Delirium

How are they acting contrary to the charter?

They allowed plenty of posts that wouldn't be that favourable regarding Mr.Hitchens.
Then the thread seemed to reach an impasse, and robin stated that unless circular back-and-forth on the thread ended, there was no reason to leave the thread open.

You then basically said that the mods were hypocrites if they closed the thread. Would it not have been better to try and move the discussion along on the thread instead of essentially thumbing your nose at the warning?

Zaph

There is not a single charter on Boards that the act of closing a thread because it's going nowhere conflicts with. It's standard practice to lock threads when the arguments on them become circular and they've ground to a standstill.

Brown Bomber

koth wrote: »

How are they acting contrary to the charter?

By closing a thread that "specifically existed for criticism" and "was an outlet to all".

In doing so it is undeniably contrary to these two points of the charter:

1. all faiths or beliefs are welcome in any discussion
2. Also welcome are any...comments relating to ..., morality, ethics ...

koth wrote: »

They allowed plenty of posts that wouldn't be that favourable regarding Mr.Hitchens.

And why shouldn't they when they freely allow posts such as "UK Muslims are far more likely to rape than non-Muslims" or posts that talk about organised Catholic priest paedophile rings?

koth wrote: »

Then the thread seemed to reach an impasse,

No it did not., but a likely excuse nonetheless. For example, my most recent discussion with Penn was developing well and good naturedly IMO.

koth wrote: »

and robin stated that unless circular back-and-forth on the thread ended, there was no reason to leave the thread open.

There was no circular back and forth. The problems and provocation on that thread came from one side alone "the regulars" who had the casting vote on whether the thread should stay open or not.

For example, Magicmarker posted a series of 3 videos together with six Hitchens quotes. I in turn watched every last one of them and made a genuine comment on each of the six quotes

His response to my time and effort:

Move in now move out
Hands up now hands down
Back up back up
Tell me what you're gonna do now

Breath in now breath out
Hands up now hands down
Back up back up
Tell me what you're gonna do now

Keep trollin' trollin' trollin' trollin' (x4)

koth wrote: »

You then basically said that the mods were hypocrites if they closed the thread. Would it not have been better to try and move the discussion along on the thread instead of essentially thumbing your nose at the warning?

Y'know who else was called a hypocrite numerous times in that thread? Me!

if you think the war against the Nazis was right then you're a hypocrite...which makes you a hypocrite...So you are a hypocrite then...You're a hypocrite because ...The circumstances under which the war is started really has no influence over whether or not you're a hypocrite. ...

For my part I ignored it...so did the mods.

But let's look at the mod warning from my perspective and you'll see how it was a lose/lose situation for me:

This thread has been going in circles for something like two weeks.

This thread will be closed later today unless (a) a few worthwhile posts appear; (b) some improbable synthesis arises from these opposing theses; or (c) a significant number of regular posters ask for it to be kept open.

1. "A few worthwhile posts". Robin had already thanked posts as a mod of the forum calling me a troll. I can't imagine anything I could post would be considered "worthwhile" by Robin.
2. A synthesis arises. Robin had already (wrongly) stated " BB, I don't believe there's any chance that your viewpoint will coincide with anybody else's". So what chance did I have???
3. Regular posters. Meaning my (Robins) buddies in A&A of which I am not one.

FWIW I did try and post worthwhile posts as I have throughout. For example this post which came in between the warning and the thread closure. What is unworthy about it? I've given time, consideration and effort to put my point across in a respectful manner in response to a post by Penn which did the same towards me.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

By closing a thread that "specifically existed for criticism" and "was an outlet to all".

In doing so it is undeniably contrary to these two points of the charter:

1. all faiths or beliefs are welcome in any discussion
2. Also welcome are any...comments relating to ..., morality, ethics ...

Nonsense. You're essentially saying that the charter prohibits the mods from locking any thread. As I already said, they met their obligation to those two points by allowing the thread to develop. It was closed because robin viewed it as having developed into a circular back-and-forth.

And you arguing with a mod instruction on-thread was never going to help matters.

And why shouldn't they when they freely allow posts such as "UK Muslims are far more likely to rape than non-Muslims" or posts that talk about organised Catholic priest paedophile rings?

Each thread should be judged on the discussion contained within each thread, not on the discussion in other threads.

No it did not., but a likely excuse nonetheless. For example, my most recent discussion with Penn was developing well and good naturedly IMO.

Possibly, but the mods obviously didn't see that happening with the other conversations on the thread.

There was no circular back and forth. The problems and provocation on that thread came from one side alone "the regulars" who had the casting vote on whether the thread should stay open or not.

That's not entirely honest, because as I mentioned earlier, you thumbed your nose at robins on-thread warning. And a few posters on the thread were having difficulty understanding how you could claim some of the text provided on-thread was unclear.

Some even went so far as to claim that you were trolling, which give the impression that there were problems on both sides of the fence.

For example, Magicmarker posted a series of 3 videos together with six Hitchens quotes. I in turn watched every last one of them and made a genuine comment on each of the six quotes

His response to my time and effort:

Not the best response that MagicMarker could have given, but after reading your response to his post, I can appreciate his frustration.

That being said, if MM thought you to be trolling then the appropriate thing to do is to cease discussion with you and/or report the post.

Y'know who else was called a hypocrite numerous times in that thread? Me!

For my part I ignored it...so did the mods.

But MM explained the reasoning behind the accusation. You had demonised Hitchens for supporting the US going to war with Iraq, and MM said you're a hypocrite if you supported the nations who went to war with Germany in WW2.

But let's look at the mod warning from my perspective and you'll see how it was a lose/lose situation for me:

1. "A few worthwhile posts". Robin had already thanked posts as a mod of the forum calling me a troll. I can't imagine anything I could post would be considered "worthwhile" by Robin.

How do you know robin thanked the post as mod of the forum. robin is also a poster on the forum when not carrying out mod duties. I would view the thanks as robin the poster not robin the mod thanking it.

[LIST=2][*]A synthesis arises. Robin had already (wrongly) stated " BB, I don't believe there's any chance that your viewpoint will coincide with anybody else's". So what chance did I have???[/list]

Well considering that robin thanked the poster who agreed with your statement, I'd imagine probably much the same as any other poster.

[LIST=3]
[*]Regular posters. Meaning my (Robins) buddies in A&A of which I am not one.
[/LIST]

Regular poster, means exactly that, and not Robins buddies as you claim it does.

FWIW I did try and post worthwhile posts as I have throughout. For example this post which came in between the warning and the thread closure. What is unworthy about it? I've given time, consideration and effort to put my point across in a respectful manner in response to a post by Penn which did the same towards me.

I don't see any problem with the post, it's just a pity you had to sabotage yourself with on-thread arguing with a mod instruction.

Brown Bomber

koth wrote: »

Nonsense. You're essentially saying that the charter prohibits the mods from locking any thread. As I already said, they met their obligation to those two points by allowing the thread to develop. It was closed because robin viewed it as having developed into a circular back-and-forth.

Despite no evidence presented of a circular back-and-forth? Despite the fact that he had already warned me personally and exclusively to not post anymore because my "viewpoint" was not the consensus viewpoint?

koth wrote: »

And you arguing with a mod instruction on-thread was never going to help matters.

It was a valid point. It is hypocritical to use your power to silence a dissenting opinion and at the same time oppose Blasphemy laws on the priciple of Freedom of Speech.

koth wrote: »

Each thread should be judged on the discussion contained within each thread, not on the discussion in other threads.

What a strange thing to say. In a single statement you've rendered the charter redundant and said that there should not be cross-thread moderation consistency within a single forum.

Furthermore, these were unsanctioned comments from that thread:

• "Do the world a favour and don't reproduce. There's enough of your ilk in existence today, sadly enough. "
• Here users joke about the best sexual position to use on Mother Teresa, a dead, Nobel Peace Prize winning nun.

koth wrote: »

Possibly, but the mods obviously didn't see that happening with the other conversations on the thread.

Well then they weren't paying attention.

This is the recent exchange I had with Robin:

Robin's claim / My question based on claim / He/she brushes me off / I respectfully ask again / He ignores the question.

Which by Robin's own definition is trolling.

====

Take my most recent exchange with Magicmarker linked above:

He posts a series of videos and quotes / I watch them all, and offer my thoughts and ask questions / He ignores my points and questions and calls me a troll (encouraged no doubt by Robin previously thanking his troll-calling posts).


Which by Robin's own definition is trolling.
====

Take my most recent exchange with sponsoredwalk, which came between thread warning and thread closure:

He/she asks for explanations of points I've made previously / I respond politely, with a best effort to clarify for him, even apologising for the confusion which arose from them not reading previous posts correctly, despite the aggressive tone of their post.
====

There was little else "live" going on other than repetitive swipes made against me which I ignored, and even thanked on one occasion to diffuse the situation.

===
If you read through the thread you will see that this is the pattern throughout the entire thread.

In short, I am bending over backwards to respect the rules despite constant provocation with mod acquiescence. Yet, because my opinions are outside the consensus of the A&A "regulars" it doesn't matter.

koth wrote: »

And a few posters on the thread were having difficulty understanding how you could claim some of the text provided on-thread was unclear.

Then they should familiarise themselves with the use of a the question don't you think?

koth wrote: »

Not the best response that MagicMarker could have given, but after reading your response to his post, I can appreciate his frustration.

I certainly can't. Here it is: (( I watch them all, and offer my thoughts and ask questions )) Perhaps you could explain what the problem is?

koth wrote: »

But MM explained the reasoning behind the accusation. You had demonised Hitchens for supporting the US going to war with Iraq, and MM said you're a hypocrite if you supported the nations who went to war with Germany in WW2.

And I explained why Robin would be hypocritical to close the thread. Let's not apply double-standards here.

koth wrote: »

How do you know robin thanked the post as mod of the forum.

Simply because Robin is a mod of that forum. It's boards policy that mods are regular users outside the forum they moderate. This was inside. With moderating comes extra responsibilities.

later12

There's an atheism forum?

What do they talk about.

I turned atheist when I was about 15. Then I moved on. Literally nothing else happened. That was the end!

MagicMarker

BB the thread was closed because there was no point in keep it open, no amount of discussion with you will achieve anything. This was proven when it was unequivocally shown that Hitchens is against the use of torture, you just refused to accept it because it doesn't fit in with your agenda, had the thread have been kept open, all it would contain is people pointing out the obvious to you, and you refusing to accept it, and this is why you're a troll.

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Despite no evidence presented of a circular back-and-forth? Despite the fact that he had already warned me personally and exclusively to not post anymore because my "viewpoint" was not the consensus viewpoint?

There is some circular back-and-forth that I can see on the thread.

You're asked to show where Hitchens called for the murder of children and false imprisonment of innocent people.
You don't provide any evidence, and try to excuse yourself by means of the relationship between war and resulting destruction of the war.
MM says you can't show evidence and calls you a troll.
Then you say that because X events happened as a result of the war, Hitchens supported those events.

And it looks like there are some more posts between the two of you in the same vein.

It was a valid point. It is hypocritical to use your power to silence a dissenting opinion and at the same time oppose Blasphemy laws on the priciple of Freedom of Speech.

That would be true if that's what happened. The thread was closed because of circular back-and-forth and your accusation of hypocrisy (which is a mistake as you're not supposed to challenge mod instructions on-thread.

What a strange thing to say. In a single statement you've rendered the charter redundant and said that there should not be cross-thread moderation consistency within a single forum.

I've done no such thing. I'm saying that the charter should be applied to each thread. If the mods do that, it'll be consistent.

I'm saying that if for whatever reason a post isn't actioned on in another thread, it doesn't give posters license to breach the charter in all threads.

Furthermore, these were unsanctioned comments from that thread:

• "Do the world a favour and don't reproduce. There's enough of your ilk in existence today, sadly enough. "
• Here users joke about the best sexual position to use on Mother Teresa, a dead, Nobel Peace Prize winning nun.

You're incorrect there, BB. the first post you linked to was infracted, i.e. sanctioned. I'm not sure why the 2nd post requires any mod action. Feel free to clarify your thinking on that one if you wish.

Well then they weren't paying attention.

This is the recent exchange I had with Robin:

Robin's claim / My question based on claim / He/she brushes me off / I respectfully ask again / He ignores the question.

Which by Robin's own definition is trolling.

====

Take my most recent exchange with Magicmarker linked above:

He posts a series of videos and quotes / I watch them all, and offer my thoughts and ask questions / He ignores my points and questions and calls me a troll (encouraged no doubt by Robin previously thanking his troll-calling posts).


Which by Robin's own definition is trolling.
====

Take my most recent exchange with sponsoredwalk, which came between thread warning and thread closure:

He/she asks for explanations of points I've made previously / I respond politely, with a best effort to clarify for him, even apologising for the confusion which arose from them not reading previous posts correctly, despite the aggressive tone of their post.
====

There was little else "live" going on other than repetitive swipes made against me which I ignored, and even thanked on one occasion to diffuse the situation.

===
If you read through the thread you will see that this is the pattern throughout the entire thread.

In short, I am bending over backwards to respect the rules despite constant provocation with mod acquiescence. Yet, because my opinions are outside the consensus of the A&A "regulars" it doesn't matter.

Did you report any of the posts for trolling? stating that robins post was trolling is really stretching the definition. And I'm not sure MM meets the definition either, but I would concede that you shouldn't have been called a troll.

Then they should familiarise themselves with the use of a the question don't you think?

Questions were asked, and your response left a number of posters will the idea that you were trolling.

I certainly can't. Here it is: (( I watch them all, and offer my thoughts and ask questions )) Perhaps you could explain what the problem is?

My opinion would be as follows, that you asked for some evidence that Hitchens addressed the morality of torture. magicmarker posted a video that showed Hitchens stating people needed to be imprisoned/brought to justice for using torture.

You then respond with "does he mean legally or morally?". As if to say, "well he approves of the torture but wants people in prison all the same".

And I explained why Robin would be hypocritical to close the thread. Let's not apply double-standards here.

There's no double standard. That the thread ran for the time that it did proves that much.

Simply because Robin is a mod of that forum. It's boards policy that mods are regular users outside the forum they moderate. This was inside. With moderating comes extra responsibilities.

True, it's called moderating. Mods are still allowed to post as regular users within their own forums.

I do hope that I've helped clarify somethings for you.

Brown Bomber

MagicMarker wrote: »

BB the thread was closed because there was no point in keep it open, no amount of discussion with you will achieve anything. This was proven when it was unequivocally shown that Hitchens is against the use of torture, you just refused to accept it because it doesn't fit in with your agenda, had the thread have been kept open, all it would contain is people pointing out the obvious to you, and you refusing to accept it, and this is why you're a troll.

Thank you. This is my point exactly. The thread was closed because I (and other) weren't browbeaten into accepting the consensus view of the A&A regulars who it would seem would prefer an echo chamber.

MagicMarker

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Thank you. This is my point exactly. The thread was closed because I (and other) weren't browbeaten into accepting the consensus view of the A&A regulars who it would seem would prefer an echo chamber.

The reason it's a consensus view is because it was proven to be a fact that Hitchens was against the use of torture, but you don't seem to be interested in facts.

No matter where you are posting on boards, when you try and argue against the patently obvious then the thread won't last long.

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Thank you. This is my point exactly. The thread was closed because I (and other) weren't browbeaten into accepting the consensus view of the A&A regulars who it would seem would prefer an echo chamber.

BB, from what i can see, the thread was closed because

a) the thread was going nowhere and the same points were being raised over and over again with neither side showing any sign of compromising their position
b) both sides were getting a little heated, so rather than allow it to continue and have people say something which would result in an infraction or worse, the mods closed it instead

It's standard modding practice, and one I've done myself countless times on the CT forum. If the conversation is going round in circles and there's a chance people might get themselves banned, it's best to just close it.

Closing the thread is not contrary to the forum charter, and given the number of issues which has arisen from the thread, the mods probably could have closed it sooner.

Brown Bomber

Penn wrote: »

a) the thread was going nowhere and the same points were being raised over and over again

I'm sorry but this simply isn't true. The thread had progressed from Hitchens views on the Iraq War >>> comparisons with WWII >>>> the morality of war >>>> Hitchens views on torture >>>> Hitchens being waterboarded >>>> Interpretations and analysis of Hitchens' Vanity Fair column >>> Whether he objected to torture on moral or legal grounds >>> Hitchens TV appearances discussed.

Penn wrote: »

with neither side showing any sign of compromising their position

In a discussion neither side have to show any sign of compromise for the discussion to be valid.

Penn wrote: »

b) both sides were getting a little heated,

Again this isn't true. One side was getting heated, against me and I was shrugging it off.

Penn, this mod note came only 4 days before. The "number of issues" arise due to a lack of due diligence by the mods to let the "regulars" do as they please.

MOD NOTE
Between this and the feedback thread, we've agreed to officially reopen this thread to all Hitchens-related business. Be it his choice of whiskey, or indeed the Iraq war. What we had envisioned as a "Bitch about Hitchens" thread has not turned out as we thought it might, rather into a single item about Iraq, which isn't ideal.

At any rate, in the interest of having an outlet open to all, knock yourselves out, as they say.

Just keep it above board, people.

Knock yourself out...outlet to all...all Hitchens related business

Brown Bomber

koth wrote: »

There is some circular back-and-forth that I can see on the thread.

You're asked to show where Hitchens called for the murder of children and false imprisonment of innocent people.
You don't provide any evidence, and try to excuse yourself by means of the relationship between war and resulting destruction of the war.
MM says you can't show evidence and calls you a troll.
Then you say that because X events happened as a result of the war, Hitchens supported those events.

This is the best evidence that you can provide to justify a thread being closed????

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is the best evidence that you can provide to justify a thread being closed????

they'd be the posts that caught my attention with regards to the circular back-and-forth. btw I'm not attempting to justify the thread being closed, just suggesting you reconsider how the thread had progressed and that maybe the closure was warranted.

P. Breathnach

I'll take the risk of being accused of back-seat modding, and ask if this particular thread is going around in circles and not getting anywhere.

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Hitchens views on torture >>>> Hitchens being waterboarded >>>> Interpretations and analysis of Hitchens' Vanity Fair column >>> Whether he objected to torture on moral or legal grounds

That's not a progression, that's the exact same discussion point. Hitchens' views on water boarding which he wrote about in Vanity Fair and whether or not he considered it to be torture. The other points you mentioned are basically just offshoots of that.

As for neither side changing their position, both sides put forth their opinions, neither side made a convincing enough argument to change the position of the other side, so it boiled down to a difference of opinion. And if neither side were were going to change, and the same opinions were being put forth, then what was the point. A normal thread, it may have been allowed to continue, but like I said, the thread was already on thin ice.

As for only one side getting heated, yes, as the one with the contrary opinion to the majority of the forum, it was mostly directed at you from more than one person, but do you think this was an acceptable response to a mod making a final attempt to get the thread back on course:

Brown Bomber wrote:

Should you close the thread I look forward to your hypocrisy whenever you oppose the Blasphemy Law in Ireland on the grounds of Freedom of Speech.

Brown Bomber

Penn wrote: »

That's not a progression, that's the exact same discussion point. Hitchens' views on water boarding which he wrote about in Vanity Fair and whether or not he considered it to be torture. The other points you mentioned are basically just offshoots of that.

I hope you don't take this as condescending but what you are describing is elaboration and exploring the smaller details relative to the whole which is by defintion "progression" and a sign of healthy discussion.

Penn wrote: »

As for neither side changing their position, both sides put forth their opinions, neither side made a convincing enough argument to change the position of the other side, so it boiled down to a difference of opinion. And if neither side were were going to change, and the same opinions were being put forth, then what was the point. A normal thread, it may have been allowed to continue, but like I said, the thread was already on thin ice.

Penn what you describing here as the optimal is not debate at all but negotiation i.e. discussions with the stated aim of reaching a middle-ground.

This is not a negotiation forum AFAIK. By that reasoning there is no point in keeping a conversation open for example between a creationist and an atheist on the origins of life if the both stick to their guns or any other thread were strong and opposing opinions are heard. The site would have to shut down...

Penn wrote: »

As for only one side getting heated, yes, as the one with the contrary opinion to the majority of the forum, it was mostly directed at you from more than one person, but ...

To be fair there should be no "but". There is right and wrong.

Penn wrote: »

do you think this was an acceptable response to a mod making a final attempt to get the thread back on course:

I've already explained why I was excluded from any final attempts to get the thread back on course. In repsonse to your question, yes I do think it was appropriate because a) It is/was an act of hypocrisy IMO and b) I, myself was called a hypocrite multiple time in the very same thread and the mods didn't care.

if you think the war against the Nazis was right then you're a hypocrite...which makes you a hypocrite...So you are a hypocrite then...You're a hypocrite because ...The circumstances under which the war is started really has no influence over whether or not you're a hypocrite. ..

.

Brown Bomber

koth wrote: »

they'd be the posts that caught my attention with regards to the circular back-and-forth. btw I'm not attempting to justify the thread being closed, just suggesting you reconsider how the thread had progressed and that maybe the closure was warranted.

To be fair you have given me a more holistic understanding of the situation, so thanks for your considerable effort. However, I strongly believe that the exchange you shared is zero justification for any thread closure.

What would have been appropriate mod action that would have benefitted the thread in the short and long-term would've been a word in Magicmarkers ear to not post inflammatory material (Cilla Black photo) and to not such flippant troll accusations and to discuss the posts/topic and not the poster.

ed2hands

Circular thread?
Why is the Creationist thread still open then, if circular threads are supposedly closed?
I'll tell you what i think. It's because of pure amusement for the Athiests and gives some of the regulars (Sarky and co.) a chance to post abusive and demeaning comments to J.C. consistently without a hint of moderation.

So i don't buy that given reason tbh.

As for MagicMarkers posts in relation to this. Well the less said about that the better. Schoolyard tactics. Pure and simple.

So why, pray, are schoolyard taunting, outright abuse, and racist/islamophobic posts allowed; but the now **** hits the fan just as this thread was developing maturely between Penn and BB? And it's closed?
Well, the answer is clear isn't it.
It's because there's blatant double-standards in play. Not a good look for a forum whose regulars supposedly worship no gods.

If you dish it out so much, you've got to at least be prepared to take legitimate criticism on board.

The fact that a most consequential issue and interesting thread was closed on spurious grounds needed to be highlighted IMO, and it wasn't because anyone had an “agenda” to troll/derail. Far from it from where i'm standing.
That's why i'm agreeing with Brown Bomber 100% on this issue.

stoneill

I came across this thread by accident, which lead me onto the Bitch about Hitch thread.
And as am impartial observer I have to say that Brownbomber has made the most lucid, intelligent and comprehensive points all through the thread.

I don't necessarily agree with them but his arguments are convincing and with merit. They show intelligence and the ability to disseminate information and make an informed opinion rather than bland statements that are peppered about.

I didn't see any case of trolling by Brownbomber despite the accusations.

I get the impression that there was a bit of bullying going on to try stifle what he had to say and the thread was closed prematurely.

That's all I have to say on the matter.

Galvasean

ed2hands wrote: »

So why, pray, are schoolyard taunting, outright abuse, and racist/islamophobic posts allowed;

I've bolded the word racist as I would like to ask for examples where racist posts were allowed? I would imagine examples of such, if they exist, would be easy to find.

Brown Bomber

Galvasean wrote: »

I've bolded the word racist as I would like to ask for examples where racist posts were allowed? I would imagine examples of such, if they exist, would be easy to find.

I have only posted in a couple, maybe 5, of A&A threads so these two comments are two that are in my memory from an extremely small sample:

This is implicit that Pakistani women are not: " beautiful "almost western" woman, non hijab wearing, liberal, open minded, tolerant, educated."

Another thing which struck me as funny, in the opening of the debate for the motion, they use Zeba Khan. A beautiful "almost western" woman, non hijab wearing, liberal, open minded, tolerant, educated...muslim. This puts they're argument at a disadvantage immediately. Its the equivalent of bringing Megan Fox to mars and telling martians she's the average earth woman. Why not pluck some average real (percentage-wise) muslim woman from say...Pakistan? That would of been a giggle. Considering they used Zeba Khan and LOST the argument, to me that says alot.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74038503&postcount=241

This claim below is completely false btw.

Actually Indian Muslims are commonly involved in violence. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74069889&postcount=277

Galvasean

You think that's racist? No wonder you don't like the forum.

MagicMarker

Brownbomber, in one thread, accused Hitchens of....

A) Advocating genocide, which was shown to be nonsense. (which he never did respond to)
Misrepresenting Hitchens by posting a quote of his in support of Saddam from 1976. I think we can all agree that Hitchens couldn't predict the future at that time.
C) Encouraging the death of innocent people, torture, du babies.
D) Misrepresenting Hitchens on his views on torture.
E) Grossly misrepresents Hitchens' views on torture by saying he thought torture could have prevented 9/11. Only someone with extreme bias could read that article and come to that conclusion. Brown Bomber also failed to quote the following from the very same article.

You make the chap go through his story several times, preferably on video, and then you ask his friends a huge number of tedious questions, and then you go through it all again to check for discrepancies, and then you watch the first (very boring and sexless) video all over once more, and then you make him answer all the same questions and perhaps a couple of new and clever ones. If you have got the wrong guy—and it does happen—you let him go and offer him a ride home and an apology. And you know what? It often works. Only a lazy and incompetent dirtbag looks for brutal shortcuts so that he can get off his shift early. And sometimes, gunmen and bombers even have changes of heart, as well as mind.

F) Once again misrepresents Hitchens' views by insinuating that Hitchens encouraged the death of innocents in the Fallujah assault, when his quote clearly refers to jihadists. Not to mention Fallujah is not even mentioned in the link he provided.

G) Accused him of advocating torture on ''sub-humans, Islamic fundamentalists''. When asked to clarify exactly where Hitchens advocates such a thing, he provide a list of quotes with his own laughable interpretations.

How anyone can read any of this and come to the conclusion that Brown Bomber doesn't have some kind of agenda is beyond me, he constantly misrepresents and misinterprets information to suit himself.

MagicMarker

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is implicit that Pakistani women are not: " beautiful "almost western" woman, non hijab wearing, liberal, open minded, tolerant, educated."

No, that's how you interpret it, no surprises that your interpretation is BS.

Brown Bomber

MagicMarker wrote: »

No, that's how you interpret it, no surprises that your interpretation is BS.

It's one thing to turn a blind eye to racism; quite another to defend it or minimise it. I can't believe you've stooped so low...

His comments say:

Megan Fox is to the "average earth woman" as Zeba Khan is to "average" and "real" lady from Pakistan. The assertion being that Zeba Khan is as far removed from "real" Pakistani women as Megan Fox is from average women, looks wise I can only assume.

As Zeba Khan is in the description of the poster "beautiful, liberal, educated, open-minded and tolerant" it follows that the "average" and "real" woman from Pakistan is very much not beautiful etc and therefore ugly, close-minded, intolerant, uneducated and not progressive.

This is supremacism and racism and is utterly disgusting.

MagicMarker

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's one thing to turn a blind eye to racism; quite another to defend it or minimise it. I can't believe you've stooped so low...

His comments say:

Megan Fox is to the "average earth woman" as Zeba Khan is to "average" and "real" lady from Pakistan. The assertion being that Zeba Khan is as far removed from "real" Pakistani women as Megan Fox is from average women, looks wise I can only assume.

As Zeba Khan is in the description of the poster "beautiful, liberal, educated, open-minded and tolerant" it follows that the "average" and "real" woman from Pakistan is very much not beautiful etc and therefore ugly, close-minded, intolerant, uneducated and not progressive.

This is supremacism and racism and is utterly disgusting.

The point being made was clear, the poster merely point how convenient it was of having a American, highly educated, liberated woman arguing in favour of Islam, rather than someone from a typical Muslim country such a Pakistan, where liberation, education and progressiveness could prove difficult in a country where the women have a 16% literacy rate, half that of men and amongst the lowest in the world, with a school drop out rate of 50%, as well as women having considerably lower access to property and employment compared to men. Ironically the woman arguing against the motion was from a typical Muslim country.

But no, you ignore the point that the poster was attempting to make and instead focus your attention on cries of racism. No doubt you reported the post at the time as you were so outraged.

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I hope you don't take this as condescending but what you are describing is elaboration and exploring the smaller details relative to the whole which is by defintion "progression" and a sign of healthy discussion.

I see your point, and agree to an extent, but I disagree this is what happened in this case. "Hitchens views on torture >>>> Hitchens being waterboarded >>>> Interpretations and analysis of Hitchens' Vanity Fair column >>> Whether he objected to torture on moral or legal grounds" - There was no progression in these points because they are the same point. These four points have the same "smaller details". Hitchen's article about being waterboarded where he gives his views on torture. These points are intrinsically connected to each other. There was no progression between these points because these points all boil down to one point.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Penn what you describing here as the optimal is not debate at all but negotiation i.e. discussions with the stated aim of reaching a middle-ground.

This is not a negotiation forum AFAIK. By that reasoning there is no point in keeping a conversation open for example between a creationist and an atheist on the origins of life if the both stick to their guns or any other thread were strong and opposing opinions are heard. The site would have to shut down...

Difference is, discussions on things like the origin of life can progressively move forward as it has many points which can be discussed. There are many things about Hitchens which could be discussed, but the discussion kept focusing on torture, and since there were no signs this issue was going to be resolved or discussed politely, there was no point in continuing it.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

To be fair there should be no "but". There is right and wrong.

Things aren't always black and white. You think you were in the right, the other side think they were in the right. So who was right?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've already explained why I was excluded from any final attempts to get the thread back on course. In repsonse to your question, yes I do think it was appropriate because a) It is/was an act of hypocrisy IMO and b) I, myself was called a hypocrite multiple time in the very same thread and the mods didn't care.
.

So you think it was appropriate to say a moderator would be a hypocrite under certain circumstances, because no action was taken when you were called a hypocrite. Don't you think that may be a little... hypocritical? May I ask, did you report any of those posts? Regardless of whether you know a mod saw them, or you know a mod thanked them, perhaps reporting the posts and or PMing the mods to explain your point of view would have been a better course of action to take.

The issue here is did the mods act contrary to their own charter, and the answer is no. Things got heated and were only likely to get more heated, so they closed the thread, which is a perfectly acceptable modding procedure.

robindch

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The thread was closed because I (and other) weren't browbeaten into accepting the consensus view of the A&A regulars who it would seem would prefer an echo chamber.

No, it was closed because the thread had been going in circles for something like two weeks. This was pointed out in this post:

robindch wrote:

This thread has been going in circles for something like two weeks. This thread will be closed later today unless (a) a few worthwhile posts appear; (b) some improbable synthesis arises from these opposing theses; or (c) a significant number of regular posters ask for it to be kept open.

If you look at the posts that were made following that warning, (a) only one worthwhile post had appeared, (b) no synthesis had appeared and instead from your side, you'd posted two whiny posts and (c) only one poster had implied that it should be kept open (and even at that, only for whiny comments to be made).

In these circumstances, it's quite reasonable to close the thread in order to maintain forum standards. The A+A forum already has one thread going in pointless circles -- on creationism -- and I don't believe it's worth having another.

If, as seems likely, you don't like the atmosphere in A+A, then I politely request that you don't waste your time posting there.