Moderating The Forums: a suggestion
 

Why re-invent the wheel ?

In a blackjack website, where I shared mod duties with other leathernecks, the webmaster was of a pretty enlightened and tolerant attitude -- which, incidentally, proved extremely helpful business-wise : a critical mass of posters was allowed to form itself and provide financial support for the website's maintenance. The webmaster, as I recall, was a Vietnam veteran, who allowed though extremely disparaging comments about the war or veterans, even though he was personally very annoyed by some of the mindlessness.

The 2+2 website is already popular but one can always learn by studying how other people handled things.

Being a successful webmaster is not that different from running a successful company. A skilled CEO must have, among other things, the ability and willingless to consult and to invite opposing, sometimes extreme, viewpoints -- and then, of course, to formulate clear and firm decisions.

Through this process, the following set of Guidelines for Postbusters was established and proved to be very effective for the blackjack website. May I suggest that our esteemed poker webmasters take a look?



Guidelines for Moderating the Forums:

1. Posts advocating illegal activity should be deleted.

2. Chain letters and other get-rich-quick schemes should be deleted.

3. Posts containing pornography or links directly to pornography should be deleted.

4. Posts containing advertisements should be deleted if the posts are made by strangers to the [2+2] community. Do not remove product reviews by known members of the [2+2] community.

5. In the case of multiple identical (or almost identical) posts, all but one should be deleted.

6. Posts whose only purpose is to draw attention to another site may be deleted.

7. Posts attacking a person, or multiple persons, should be deleted. Posts linking to such attacks should be deleted. More leeway should be given to posts about public figures. Less leeway should be given to posts about members of the [2+2] community. Criticisms of products and ideas should not be deleted. Examples: It is okay to say that a book stinks, but not okay to say that the author stinks. It's okay to think that another poster is an idiot, but not okay to say so.

8. Posts identifying a card counter or other advantage player in action in a casino should be deleted.

9. Delete any post that specifically identifies an exploitable dealer or pit critter who could lose his or her job by such an outing.

10. Inflammatory posts should be deleted.

11. Do not delete a post just because the author is mistaken in his knowledge of gambling or casinos.

12. Do not delete a post just because you disagree with it.

13. Do not delete a post from a thread in which you have participated.

14. Do not delete a post at the request of a friend. Instead, relay the request to another post buster who will be able to make a decision without being influenced by the pressure of friendship.

15. Give more leeway to posts from known members of the [2+2] community.

16. Give more leeway to posts containing an email address for the poster.

17. Give less leeway to posts positively identified as coming from people with a history of busts for cause.

18. Give less leeway to anonymous posts and posts with anonymized IP addresses.

19. Posts containing no material having anything to do with gambling or casinos or the page topic do not have to (but may) be deleted.

20. Posts directed to a single person do not have to (but may) be deleted.

21. Posts that were orphaned after someone deleted another post do not have to (but may) be deleted if they are not able to stand alone.

22. Posts in all capital letters do not have to (but may) be deleted. If you delete a post due to its being in all caps, please email (if possible) the poster explaining why the post was deleted.

23. Posts purported to be made by a known member of the [2+2] community but actually written by someone else should be deleted.

24. When in doubt, don't delete the post.

Re: Moderating The Forums: a suggestion
 

I think we need to add one more. It would be this:

Posters who put up posts that are designed to foment hatred by twisting the truth and/or deliberately linking to other Internet sites which have the same purpose will be immediately permanently barred.

MM

edit = spelling correction only

mat

Re: Moderating The Forums: a suggestion
 

some of the rules I'm not sure I agree with specifically, but I like the general idea.

I was in favor of a set of "mod guidelines" for either the mod forum or to be seen by all in the public forums but I'm not sure that many others agreed that one was necessary or would be helpful.

And there is also an argument to be made that the mod-ship is better without an established mod-ship sticky (allowing the mods to be more flexible perhaps? and partly because different forums on 2+2 require different rules)

Re: Moderating The Forums: a suggestion
 

[ QUOTE ]
Posters who put up posts that are designed to foment hatred by twisting the truth

[/ QUOTE ]

And how exactly do you (or any mod) know when the truth has been twisted? I find this extremely difficult, specially in a forum like politics. Seems to me like a blank check to ban people opposed to the moderator points of view. Maybe you should post then, which points of view are acceptable and which ones will be persecuted.

Re: Moderating The Forums: a suggestion
 

This is certainly a good faith effort but the goal of disseminating factual, often technical information about blackjack doesn't translate well to a forum for politics. Political attitudes and beliefs are subjective and diverge widely. They're laden with emotion. What someone honestly believes to be inflammatory and mean is someone else's heartfelt credo. For example, if someone says "these guys who are killed those guys are ________" (pick anything: blameless, heroes, degenerates), they'd almost always be guilty of "attacking a person, or multiple persons," especially if they named either the killers or the killed individually or by group. Trying to escape this would reduce the politics forum to a politically correct forum.

I like the ban on personal attacks on posters. I'd also like to see the one-line wisecracks and dumb comments removed, to reduce clutter.

Re: Moderating The Forums: a suggestion
 

We've always had "the blank check". I can't speak for Mason entirely, but I belive that he wants more discussion based on fact and less propoganda encouraging "hate".

Is that really so difficult?

And just because Mason stepped in when the topics were anti-semitic doesn't mean that he encourages hateful posts directed at Arabs or Muslims.He doesn't.

I see Mason everyday. He and I have quite different perspectives on the world, these forums, etc. He not only accepts that I disagree with him sometimes, he encourages it.

That's my take. If I have it wrong, he'll let us know.

Re: Moderating The Forums: a suggestion
 

[ QUOTE ]
but I belive that he wants more discussion based on fact and less propoganda encouraging "hate".

Is that really so difficult?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is. In a forum like politics it's very hard to determine what's propaganda encouraging hate. For example, I remember many posts encouraging the nuking of Iran with links to what I think to be "propaganda". I don't remember anybody terrible upset about those.

Re: Moderating The Forums: a suggestion
 

[ QUOTE ]
And just because Mason stepped in when the topics were anti-semitic doesn't mean that he encourages hateful posts directed at Arabs or Muslims.He doesn't.



[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Moderating The Forums: a suggestion
 

Guys. Keep in mind the bigger picture: we are a website that was originally created to promote a publishing company specializing in books on poker/ gambling.


If we can't get a handle on the best way to moderate a low-traffic politics forum, who the ef cares? We'll shut it down.

I sincerely appreciate those of you who put effort into making suggestions about the forums. And I'll continue to do my best to implement them to everyone's benefit as best I can.

Is it safe ?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think we need to add one more. It would be this:

Posters who put up posts that are designed to foment hatred by twisting the truth and/or deliberately linking to other Internet sites which have the same purpose will be immediately permanently barred.


[/ QUOTE ]A few observations on the above:

- Reads like a guideline outside the purpose of the rest, since it allows for a lot of arbitrariness in banning posters.

- Linking to other sites can only be done deliberately and never by accident. I presume you meant "deliberately inciting hatred". Well, I confess I'm not always able to pinpoint intent! But I take comfort in knowing that, very often, humans assign intent and maliciousness to any point of view that negatively affects our emotional state. We get angry at doorknobs.

- Do we need a list of "safe" websites? I suggest starting with the following:

www.amazon.com
www.nytimes.com
www.wikipedia.org
www.un.org
www.amnesty.org
www.hrw.org
www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook

--Cyrus

Muddy waters
 

[ QUOTE ]
We are a website that was originally created to promote a publishing company specializing in books on poker/ gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]Honda originally wanted to sell small bikes; Gates' ambition was originally to sell an operating program to IBM; Mick Jagger originally wanted to sing only Muddy Waters blues. And so on.

There has been a paradigm shift in poker, Mat. Seize the day.

[ QUOTE ]
If we can't get a handle on the best way to moderate a low-traffic politics forum, who the ef cares? We'll shut it down.

[/ QUOTE ]Hmm. I wonder why supermarkets are wasting space to sell gasoline at cost. Maybe you should re-check the notion of Loss Leader.

Re: Muddy waters
 

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
If we can't get a handle on the best way to moderate a low-traffic politics forum, who the ef cares? We'll shut it down.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hmm. I wonder why supermarkets are wasting space to sell gasoline at cost. Maybe you should re-check the notion of Loss Leader.

[/ QUOTE ]

Posts in the Politics forum account for just 2% of the activity on the forums. I'd bet they account for even less of the active posters on the forums.

The Politics forum doesn't remotely resemble a loss leader.

You're on thin ice Cyrus and you know it. Distorting the facts whether it's about jews or management of the forums isn't going to do you any good.

Re: Muddy waters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
If we can't get a handle on the best way to moderate a low-traffic politics forum, who the ef cares? We'll shut it down.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hmm. I wonder why supermarkets are wasting space to sell gasoline at cost. Maybe you should re-check the notion of Loss Leader.

[/ QUOTE ]

Posts in the Politics forum account for just 2% of the activity on the forums. I'd bet they account for even less of the active posters on the forums.

The Politics forum doesn't remotely resemble a loss leader.

You're on thin ice Cyrus and you know it. Distorting the facts whether it's about jews or management of the forums isn't going to do you any good.

[/ QUOTE ]

....you know, Dynasty,

It is exactly this kind of post that encourages the further polarization surrounding this issue.

Is it too much to ask you to be constructively pro-active without resorting to ad hominem attacks?

Re: Muddy waters
 

[ QUOTE ]

Is it too much to ask you to be constructively pro-active without resorting to ad hominem attacks?

[/ QUOTE ]

The most constructive thing I can do as it pertains to Cyrus is to tell him the truth. His anti-semetic postings aren't going to be allowed anymore. If he shows his true colors again, I expect it to be the last time we see him on the forums.

Animal Farm
 

[ QUOTE ]
That's my take. If I have it wrong, he'll let us know.

[/ QUOTE ]Well, only because you asked, I'll comment.

[ QUOTE ]
Just because Mason stepped in when the topics were anti-semitic...

[/ QUOTE ]Can you please point out a recent post that was anti-semitic? Or, something easier, a topic that was anti-semitic? Take the last couple of months.

I am not saying that there are no anti-semites here. (In fact, I'm sure I can spot anti-semites better than most of the easily offended pro-Israel posters!) But I have not seen anything that was anti-semitic. Accusations of anti-semitism are often hurled against those who object to Israeli policies.

[ QUOTE ]
...doesn't mean that he encourages hateful posts directed at Arabs or Muslims. He doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]Hateful posts might not be "encouraged" but it seems obvious that anti-Arab posts are given much more leeway than anti-Israeli.

For instance, imagine if I were to write anything like the following:

[ QUOTE ]
Make it so that Olbert fears to see sunlight. Send emissaries to let him know that until he leaves Lebanon alone he will be a target.
<font color="white"> . </font>
The Arabs should expel 98% of the Jews in the West Bank and dump them back into Israel. Give each Jew $1000 (yes this is inadequate) and tell them "good-bye forever and don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you!" This tactic is similar to what Hezbollah calls for!
<font color="white"> . </font>
The Palestinians fill the newly vacated terroritory and keep that land forever-and-ever.

[/ QUOTE ]Yet, this is exactly what was written about the Arabs by a 2+2 poster and did not draw the slightest comment from the mods. (I only changed names.) Link And it wasn't the most bigoted post I've seen here about Arabs. So, let's just say that all sides are equally free to present on 2+2 their opinion abt the Middle East situation -- but one side is more equal. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Muddy waters
 

[ QUOTE ]
The Politics forum doesn't remotely resemble a loss leader.

[/ QUOTE ] You just wrote that the Politics Forum is no big deal ("accounts for just 2% of the activity"). I'd say that this is a "losing" page, if we so measure by hits (activity), wouldn't you?

And a loss leader is a product that is offered at cost (even at loss) in order to attract clients to other, profitable endeavors. This is how I see the little Politics forum here, no more and no less. Just MHO.

[ QUOTE ]
You're on thin ice Cyrus and you know it. Distorting the facts ... about ... management of the forums isn't going to do you any good.

[/ QUOTE ] I have no idea what you're talking about. I thought I was presenting some suggestions on how to improve clarity of rules. Why the renewed warnings ? What am I "distorting" now ?

Re: Muddy waters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Politics forum doesn't remotely resemble a loss leader.

[/ QUOTE ] You just wrote that the Politics Forum is no big deal ("accounts for just 2% of the activity"). I'd say that this is a "losing" page, if we so measure by hits (activity), wouldn't you?

And a loss leader is a product that is offered at cost (even at loss) in order to attract clients to other, profitable endeavors. This is how I see the little Politics forum here, no more and no less. Just MHO.

[ QUOTE ]
You're on thin ice Cyrus and you know it. Distorting the facts ... about ... management of the forums isn't going to do you any good.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no idea what you're talking about. I thought I was presenting some suggestions on how to improve clarity of rules. Why the renewed warnings ? What am I "distorting" now ?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can be argumentative and feign ignorance all you want. But, it's not going to change the reality of the situation.

Re: Muddy waters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Politics forum doesn't remotely resemble a loss leader.

[/ QUOTE ] You just wrote that the Politics Forum is no big deal ("accounts for just 2% of the activity"). I'd say that this is a "losing" page, if we so measure by hits (activity), wouldn't you?

And a loss leader is a product that is offered at cost (even at loss) in order to attract clients to other, profitable endeavors. This is how I see the little Politics forum here, no more and no less. Just MHO.

[ QUOTE ]
You're on thin ice Cyrus and you know it. Distorting the facts ... about ... management of the forums isn't going to do you any good.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have no idea what you're talking about. I thought I was presenting some suggestions on how to improve clarity of rules. Why the renewed warnings ? What am I "distorting" now ?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can be argumentative and feign ignorance all you want. But, it's not going to change the reality of the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

....and you can use the standard politicians tactic of re-stating the question/issue in a political agenda/context that YOU wish to further, but that does not change the fact that you continue to avoid answering direct questions regarding some of the issues that are being raised in this thread.

I would also point out that the thinly-veiled 'threats' that you make (because your seem to feel that you are entitled to do so because of your position as a moderator) reflect nothing more than your capacity to utilize power given to you (in good faith) in an attempt to bully others.

Keep up the hubris, as it is refelctive of you're state of mind.

Re: Muddy waters
 

It appears you're probably correct in that Cyrus's posts may not be allowed in the future. But I'd be curious to see a particular post, or sentence, that was seen as anti-semitic, or shows his "true colors." I was very sensitive to anti-semitism on the forum when I was moderating and I didn't see that from Cyrus.

Re: Muddy waters
 

Just out of curiosity, why come to a Poker/Gambling forum to argue about politics? Aren't there a zillion political forums out there? And if you're concerned about being able to say what you like without censorship, then hit one of the forums that encourages that.

Re: Muddy waters
 

Poker players are a special group in that they are more intelligent than average, have more time on their hands than average (to think about bigger issues and not just boring day-to-day drudgery), and don't have a problem with negative-sum win-lose situations.

This makes for a unique type of political discussion that you won't find at non-gambling forums.

Having said that, I can respect the fact that the owners of a business get to decide what's best for the business, and if that includes scrapping the politics forum than so be it.

It would be a shame, though, if the politics forum got scrapped for personal reasons and not business reasons.

As an aside, I wonder if MM believes all types of hate is bad, or just some types. For example, is it OK to hate anti-semites? How about anti-anti-semites? What about anti-anti-anti-semites? Etc.

Re: Muddy waters
 

I'd like to post in the politics forum but I'm not nearly long-winded enough. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

Insights
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just out of curiosity, why come to a Poker/Gambling forum to argue about politics?

[/ QUOTE ]I often discuss politics online. The most enlightening discussions have been, for me, with conservative/neo-conservative/outright reactionay posters posting on a certain blackjack website. And it wasn't even close. We talked in depth about the game -- and then we trained, for recreation, our minds to the more mundane matters.

I came for the game; I stayed for the hors d' oeuvres. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] And why would it be surprising? Intelligent people make for intelligent (and educational) discussion. I have learned a lot by talking things over (whilst exchanging strong words [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]) with the likes of BruceZ, niss, adios, MMMMMM, vulturesrow, pvn, Borodog, and a host of others. At the very least, I'm getting a valuable insight abt how people think who hold different views to mine.

An' ain't that good for mah pokah? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Muddy waters
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to post in the politics forum but I'm not nearly long-winded enough. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

perhaps you should be adressing the capacity of your cranial cavity instead of that of your lungs?

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Intellectual courage
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd be curious to see a particular post [by Cyrus], or sentence, that was seen as anti-semitic, or shows his "true colors." I was very sensitive to anti-semitism on the forum when I was moderating and I didn't see that from Cyrus.

[/ QUOTE ]Thank you, Andy, for speaking up.

And I take this opportunity to salute the stand of two posters, among many others, two posters with whom I hold BTW the greatest disagreements abt the Middle East situation [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img], namely Felix_Nietsche and Niss. Which is what makes their position all the more worhy of kudos. Boys, your stand for allowing dialogue to rule the day is a shining example of intellectual courage.

Niss post
Felix_Nietsche post

Re: Muddy waters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to post in the politics forum but I'm not nearly long-winded enough. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

perhaps you should be adressing the capacity of your cranial cavity instead of that of your lungs?

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Haha possibly, but I'd still like RedLion to tutor you guys on how to be succinct. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Insights
 

Fair enough. I was just curious. Your reasoning makes sense.

Re: Muddy waters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to post in the politics forum but I'm not nearly long-winded enough. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

perhaps you should be adressing the capacity of your cranial cavity instead of that of your lungs?

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Haha possibly, but I'd still like RedLion to tutor you guys on how to be succinct. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

....hehe, probably not a bad idea, but not sure about RL being the appropriate tutor?

[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Muddy waters
 

[ QUOTE ]
....hehe, probably not a bad idea, but not sure about RL being the appropriate tutor?

[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Whoa mang, you're obviously not familiar with his body of work. I don't think he's EVER made a post longer than one line of text. I wonder if occasionally he has a two-line thought but forces himself to edit it down to one or not post at all?

IRL he is probably the type of guy that is quiet around most but once you really get to know him he won't shut the [censored] up. Just a guess.

Re: Muddy waters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
....hehe, probably not a bad idea, but not sure about RL being the appropriate tutor?

[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Whoa mang, you're obviously not familiar with his body of work. I don't think he's EVER made a post longer than one line of text. I wonder if occasionally he has a two-line thought but forces himself to edit it down to one or not post at all?

IRL he is probably the type of guy that is quiet around most but once you really get to know him he won't shut the [censored] up. Just a guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

au contraire, mon ami!

I am well aware of his proclivity for brevity! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

In all seriousness though, it really is somewhat difficult to condense complicated thoughts into simple statements without leaving out essential info.

I'd be the first to admit that I struggle with it, and always attempt to edit/revise what I'm writing in order to achieve clarity.

Re: Moderating The Forums: a suggestion
 

Cyrus,

Here is an excerpt from a wiki article on the verbal logical fallacy called "proof by verbosity", that is very relevant to your posting style:

[ QUOTE ]
Proof by verbosity is a term used to describe an excessively verbose mathematical proof that may or may not actually prove the result. Such proofs are most often presented by students who don't fully grasp the concepts they are writing about. Students presenting such proofs often either hope to hide their lack of understanding or are uncertain how extensive their proof is expected to be.

The term is commonly used jokingly amongst colleagues reviewing their work when one proof discussed is much longer than others presented for the same problem.

It is also used colloquially in forensic debate to describe a logical fallacy (sometimes called "argumentum verbosium") that tries to persuade by overwelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and that is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument is allowed to slide by unchallenged. It is the fallacy epitomized by the familiar quote: "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with your [censored]. "

Proof by verbosity should not be confused with proof by exhaustion, the latter being a valid form of proof. The difference lies in that a proof by exhaustion is used when a number of dissimilar cases must be independently proven, whereas a proof by verbosity tends to be repetitive, with many overlapping proofs for specific cases of a more general problem. Nor should this be confused with argument from repetition in which the same (unproven) argument is repeated many times, possibly in different ways or by different people, as a mechanism of reinforcement of the (still unproven) point in the listener's or reader's mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Muddy waters
 

Myrtle,

You're right I guess - political discussion isn't something that can be edited to "LOL" or other short responses. But man some of you must get X-mas cards from OfficeMax, given the number of keyboards you probably exhaust on an annual basis.

But mostly I keep bumping this in hopes that RL will show up and disprove me by writing a two-line response.

Re: Muddy waters
 

[ QUOTE ]
It appears you're probably correct in that Cyrus's posts may not be allowed in the future. But I'd be curious to see a particular post, or sentence, that was seen as anti-semitic, or shows his "true colors." I was very sensitive to anti-semitism on the forum when I was moderating and I didn't see that from Cyrus.

[/ QUOTE ]

As one who has agreed with Cyrus on just about nothing, I'd like to echo what Andy said here about the allegation that Cyrus is anti-Semitic.

Edit -- did not read the whole thread before posting this, so now it looks like a mutual ass-kissing exchange. Oh well. Pucker up, Cyrus.

Re: Muddy waters
 

niss,

Let's say we have a provably accurate mind-reader and determine Cyrus is not actually anti-semitic. But if he makes the same arguments and references the same sources, as are made by and referenced by persons with provably anti-semitc views, then the effect is the same. Which then would probably be proof that he doesn't actually believe all that he posts and is doing so only for perverse inflammatory amusement.

Re: Muddy waters
 

[ QUOTE ]
niss,

Let's say we have a provably accurate mind-reader and determine Cyrus is not actually anti-semitic. But if he makes the same arguments and references the same sources, as are made by and referenced by persons with provably anti-semitc views, then the effect is the same. Which then would probably be proof that he doesn't actually believe all that he posts and is doing so only for perverse inflammatory amusement.

[/ QUOTE ]

huh??!!

I feel like the AFLAC duck walking out of the barber shop after listening to Yogi Berra.

Are you saying that if I happen to agree with anything said by a poster who is admittedly anti-semetic, it then follows that my POV is therefore invalidated because I agree with an anti-semite?

I'd sure like to think that the message is more important than the messenger?

Did I misunderstand something here?

Re: Muddy waters
 

Antisemittism is a strong tradition in Europe based on having somebody to blame when societies fail to achieve what they expect (during disasters, financial crisis etc.). It has led to harassment, persecution and at some points massacres. In the Middle East it contributes to innocent Jews being blown up on buses etc. so the danger is still present and real.

The racist part of the American right (of which there are quite a few posters on this forum) use the Moslems/Arabs the same way today. Their foreign policy is a complete failure and instead of examining what leads to this failure they nominate a "race" or a religion (differs from person to person) as they then can just praise themselves and eachothers and don't have to confront their own failure in functioning in the modern global landscape. It has not led to persecution or massacres, so it can't be compared to what the Jews have been victim of but they are contributing to building an ideological platform for it to potentially take part in the future (dehumanizing Arabs etc.).

Any sensible person with some basic morals and a perspective that each individual human actually has a value should try to contribute to combat both those forms of extremism as they both pose real dangers. Here I am still left with the feeling that the current actions are a result of just realizing one of those dangers since the latter has been allowed to flourish.

As to whether both forms of extremism are best combated by not allowing it to be expressed or not, I am not certain. I think it may be best to bring it up in daylight as open debate easily shows how senseless and non-constructive both antisemittism and right wing racism is and thus may contribute to the society building a knowledge buffer against it. I understand though if Mason does not want his private poker discussion site to be the arena for that.

Re: Muddy waters
 

I fail to see how you can claim moral high-ground when you make posts like this:

[ QUOTE ]
The math is simple. There are approximately 2.4 million Arab Moslem Palestinians in the West Bank. Round up 10,000 a week and shove them across the Jordanian border. In about 5 years the job is done and there is peace and harmony in the now Jewish and Christian West Bank.

Although I am a supporter of Israel, the failure to do the above long ago is what I mainly find fault with them over.

[/ QUOTE ]

or this excerpt

[ QUOTE ]
And fortunately, although arab moslems of today are poor in culture, religion (they follow a self-confessed pedophile after all), science and other things, they are sitting on top of some resources that we want and which was the only thing that elevated their grandfathers out of the obscurity which they had merited.

[/ QUOTE ]

or this one, in response to a question as to whether radical Islam=Arab

[ QUOTE ]
The question has been debated in this forum repeatedly over what proportion of moslems are either radical extremists or support same. My standard is that if a moslem doesn't denounce terrorism, then they are an extremist supporter. By that definition I personally think a majority of Palestinians are supporters of terrorism, especially as seen by their election of Hamas, and that a much greater percent of other Arab Moslems are such supporters as well.

I think the key to differentiating oneself from being merely a hater of a certain class of persons when you oppose their actions and values is to have a rational basis for same as I have given above, even though many would not agree with the basis for evaluation I have just given.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, following your rationale that Cyrus's posts indicate that he is an anti-Semite, one would be completely reasonable to say that you espouse an "anti-Arab" position, of the type that 2+2 apparently wants to eliminate. The only difference between your posts and the ones you criticize is that the ones you criticize have attributions. You don't even back up your inflammatory comments with citation.

So, with all due respect, you're no better than those who you criticize.

Re: Muddy waters
 

niss,

Regarding the quotes above and your comments on each:

1) My position is that aggressor nations who lose wars deserve to lose territory as a punishment for same, thus making it correct for Israel to have taken the territory it did following the 1967 war. However I don't believe that the inhabitants should either be slaughtered nor ruled by the winning country for an unlimited period of time without being given rights as citizens. However I do believe it to be right to exile those inhabitants subsequent to their territory being taken as spoils of war to avoid precisely the types of continuing resistance we have seen in the West Bank.

2) That was granted an unkind way of putting things, but it was a factual statement. Worse statements are made about the US and its citizens every week in the politics forum.

3) Note that I distinguished between:

-hating the people as a race
-hating their actions or values

My comments in the 2nd quote only addressed the 2nd. And while my most extreme comment might have been the one about pedophilia, it is provably true by the plain reading of the Koran and by the fact that the age of marriage is less than puberty for girls in many moslem countries, even if apologists try to spin it by saying "of course" their husbands aren't having sex with them until after puberty (which itself is too low an age).


Also a very important factor when judging either the comments of myself, Cyrus or any other poster, and which might indeed to overly derogatory, is the frequency with whcih they are made in discussing the same topic, and whether they are based on facts regarding the behaviour that springs from the values of a given group, or just gratuitous comments, and ones that mischaracterize the views and behaviour of group. With the pedophilia comment about Mohammed again, while there might be an alternate interpretation that has been plausibly advanced, my interpretation is even more plausible.

Re: Muddy waters
 

[ QUOTE ]
Myrtle,

You're right I guess - political discussion isn't something that can be edited to "LOL" or other short responses. But man some of you must get X-mas cards from OfficeMax, given the number of keyboards you probably exhaust on an annual basis.

But mostly I keep bumping this in hopes that RL will show up and disprove me by writing a two-line response.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhh... here I am. I must admit, you made an interesting comment about me earlier in the thread. I am a very quiet person at first, but I do love to talk. Two lines, no more.

Re: Muddy waters
 

[ QUOTE ]


3) Note that I distinguished between:

-hating the people as a race
-hating their actions or values



[/ QUOTE ]

Bluff,

Have you ever considered the possibility that it might be more constructive to not focus on the 'hate' aspects of above?

Why would anyone place hatred before understanding?

Why would anyone attempt to apply such an illogical thought process as judging a whole 'race'?

What, in God's name, does it accomplish?