iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

dude, weak sauce. he made a thread trying to discuss the issue, i'll be the first to say his ideas are ludicrously bad but he was discussing it in good faith and attempted to make a logical, high-content thread. it's actually generated some good replies.

link to thread

your whole stated policy about discrimination basically seems to be, 'i'll acknowledge that mason really doesn't like us to be mean to certain groups, and now i guess i'll stop people from being mean to other ones too.' i read that post the other day and was like, wtf, but i didn't have time to respond to it.

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

i think its interesting that you have a post in which you lay out that some forms of hate = harsh punishment and other forms = oh well.

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

[ QUOTE ]
i think its interesting that you have a post in which you lay out that some forms of hate = harsh punishment and other forms = oh well.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

I gave him another day for a different thread where he admitted he was trolling.

As for your beef, it is true that in his mind he was trying to debate the issue. But when his opinion amounts to homophobia he's gettin the hammer. Personally, I probably would have let it go a few days ago. But if Mason wants to stamp out hatred, that thread is a great place to start. His arguments are the exact arguments I hear coming from drooling bigots and I'm not going to allow it. Its not like I'm coming out of left field here, 3 or 4 people in that thread called it for what it is: bigotry. For those of you not caught up on this, I'm reacting to Mason's post which resulted in my interpretation.

As for treating different forms of hatred differently, we all do it. Calling someone a n i g g e r would get anyone banned anywhere, but we call women s l u t s and bitches all the time. In the thread that MEBenhoe is referring to, there is a post by Mickey Brauch on that topic that I think makes a lot of sense.

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

Let me just say that Im completely against this banning. Stu was responding to a question that was asked of him in another thread. He was completely polite, didnt post anything I would really term "hateful", and didnt respond in kind when attacked by other posters. However, its not my style to undo the banning of my co-moderator and I am not going to make any comments on it outside of this forum. But I am in vehement disagreement.

VR

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

[ QUOTE ]
But when his opinion amounts to homophobia he's gettin the hammer. Personally, I probably would have let it go a few days ago. But if Mason wants to stamp out hatred, that thread is a great place to start. His arguments are the exact arguments I hear coming from drooling bigots and I'm not going to allow it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're punishing someone for having an opinion that you deem to be inappropriate. Careful. Do you want vulturesrow to start punishing people who he deems 'hateful' towards the military? What about people who obviously hate other groups for irrational reasons - Democrats, Republicans, anarchists... I see a lot of hate towards the state in their threads, better ban them too!

In all honesty I saw very little hate in Stu's post, as much as I disagreed with it. He obviously is uncomfortable with homosexuals but he didn't say anything about them being bad people, or less competent in their jobs, or destroying society or anything like that.

This is a really terrible ban and I'm surprised it hasn't blown up in your face yet.

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But when his opinion amounts to homophobia he's gettin the hammer. Personally, I probably would have let it go a few days ago. But if Mason wants to stamp out hatred, that thread is a great place to start. His arguments are the exact arguments I hear coming from drooling bigots and I'm not going to allow it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're punishing someone for having an opinion that you deem to be inappropriate. Careful. Do you want vulturesrow to start punishing people who he deems 'hateful' towards the military? What about people who obviously hate other groups for irrational reasons - Democrats, Republicans, anarchists... I see a lot of hate towards the state in their threads, better ban them too!

In all honesty I saw very little hate in Stu's post, as much as I disagreed with it. He obviously is uncomfortable with homosexuals but he didn't say anything about them being bad people, or less competent in their jobs, or destroying society or anything like that.

This is a really terrible ban and I'm surprised it hasn't blown up in your face yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

In fact Stu made a comment something to the effect, "I've found homosexuals to be completely equal coworkers and friends". Im just hoping that this is some 10th level commentary on Mason's policies regarding hateful posts about Israel.

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

[ QUOTE ]
So you're punishing someone for having an opinion that you deem to be inappropriate.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I am.

[ QUOTE ]
Careful. Do you want vulturesrow to start punishing people who he deems 'hateful' towards the military? What about people who obviously hate other groups for irrational reasons - Democrats, Republicans, anarchists... I see a lot of hate towards the state in their threads, better ban them too!

[/ QUOTE ]
None of those groups are likely to be the targets of hate crimes. None of those groups need to live their lives in shame. None of those groups are subject to discrimination and hatred, just disagreement.

[ QUOTE ]
In all honesty I saw very little hate in Stu's post, as much as I disagreed with it. He obviously is uncomfortable with homosexuals but he didn't say anything about them being bad people, or less competent in their jobs, or destroying society or anything like that.

[/ QUOTE ]
According to Mason, the standard is not merely "No hate". The standard is posts that promote hatred, even when they are not hateful in and of themselves. I double checked this with Ryan. Cyrus got banned for being way more subtle than Stu.

BTW, this is not 10th level commentary on Mason. This is 1st level implementation of Mason. For anyone who has a problem with this, I encourage you to substitue equivalent arguments for blacks or Jews and see how you feel.

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

so basically, it's ok to promote hate and spew bile and filth at someone so long as they are in a position of power or the majority?

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

Well if the standard is "posts that promote hate" then NT's argument is completely valid and you might as well start doing a lot of banning and thread locking.

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

[ QUOTE ]
so basically, it's ok to promote hate and spew bile and filth at someone so long as they are in a position of power or the majority?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sort of. Majorities don't need protection like that because they have the power to look after their own rights. That's why there are no anti-discrimination laws protecting white people. I should point out that NT! is correct: on probably the whiniest board on 2+2 no one else has complained about either the ban or the extension.

As for needing to lock too many threads, I don't see that happening. There was recently a 300 post thread concerning gay marriage that I didn't see anything wrong with, although I only read about half the posts in it.

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

[ QUOTE ]
For anyone who supports this, I encourage you to substitue equivalent arguments for Democrats and see how you feel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Expect me to make a thread soon about how Democrats are more evil than Hitler.

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

But the standard to which you are referring contains no qualifiers for minority/majority status. Its just "promoting hate". I thought a while ago that canis deserved a break and you disagreed, so I didnt ban him. But I can definitely make a case for him promoting hate. Maybe its time for some first level implementation of my own. (No Im not going to ban people just to make a point).

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well if the standard is "posts that promote hate" then NT's argument is completely valid and you might as well start doing a lot of banning and thread locking.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that is the standard I think the entire politics forum should probably go. I occassionly read in there and sometimes post in econ threads.

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

[ QUOTE ]
Expect me to make a thread soon about how Democrats are more evil than Hitler.

[/ QUOTE ]
Standard. I got called a jackbooted thug on a weekly basis until I stopped posting in AC threads.

[ QUOTE ]
But I can definitely make a case for him promoting hate.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd like to see that case. Seriously. He got a 2 day ban for anti-semitism as well so he's on thin ice anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
If that is the standard I think the entire politics forum should probably go. I occassionly read in there and sometimes post in econ threads.

[/ QUOTE ]
I linked Mason's post where he laid out the standard. I think we can implement it fairly.

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

iron,

As somebody who pushes for more proactive modding, I don't think echoing Mason's approach to all issues jewish is the best move. I think both tend to be too scorched earth in their approach. I think as long as people are taking a mature, respectful approach to debate, there has to be room for unsightly and even disgusting viewpoints.

Nuking people for posts like this, and allowing Broken Glass Can style trolling just doesn't make sense. Basically you're coming down on people for what they discuss instead of focusing on how they discuss it.

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

[ QUOTE ]
Nuking people for posts like this, and allowing Broken Glass Can style trolling just doesn't make sense. Basically you're coming down on people for what they discuss instead of focusing on how they discuss it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I think it's great if you actually want to come down on people for homophobia and racism. But Stu's post was very civil and generated a pretty good discussion that was mostly promoting tolerance.

The one upside of this is that BluffThis will almost certainly get banned within the week if it's actually enforced as stated.

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

[ QUOTE ]
dude, weak sauce. he made a thread trying to discuss the issue, i'll be the first to say his ideas are ludicrously bad but he was discussing it in good faith and attempted to make a logical, high-content thread. it's actually generated some good replies.

link to thread

your whole stated policy about discrimination basically seems to be, 'i'll acknowledge that mason really doesn't like us to be mean to certain groups, and now i guess i'll stop people from being mean to other ones too.' i read that post the other day and was like, wtf, but i didn't have time to respond to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just skimmed it, but I'm not sure how you can call this "logical and high-content". The dude is using neutral language to promote bigoted statements.

If I wrote a 5-paragraph essay about how Gentiles are better than Jews, or on how Blacks are inferior to Whites, and dressed it up in nice language, I would expect the same treatment.

Lots of hate crime literature is well-written and appearingly logical...look at the realm of "scholarship" on trying to prove the holocaust didn't exist by people with PhDs and with "established" research. Making it sound legitimate just makes it more seductive and is just as bad as writing "homosexuals are inferior people".

I'm with iron81 100% on this.

GW

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

Also, I can't believe someone would even THINK this is analogous to railing on a political party.

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

Except that nowhere did Stu make the claim that homosexuals are inferior people and he specifically referenced homosexual sex. Would you agree on the ban if he made an argument against pedophilia, bestiality, or necrophilia? We make value judgements on various sexual acts all the time. It is pretty clear that Stu's motive in posting was not "promote hate" but to respond to a question that was asked of him in another thread.

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

[ QUOTE ]
Except that nowhere did Stu make the claim that homosexuals are inferior people and he specifically referenced homosexual sex.

[/ QUOTE ]

umm

[ QUOTE ]
Why I think homosexuality is inferior to Heterosexuality

[/ QUOTE ]

dictionary definition of homosexual:

[ QUOTE ]
homosexual

adj : sexually attracted to members of your own sex [ant: bisexual, heterosexual] n : someone who practices homosexuality" (from dictionary.com)

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's use some old-fashioned logic here.

If A=B and B=C then A=C.

If homosexuals are people who practice homosexuality, and homosexuality is inferior, then homosexuals are inferior.

try again

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

i said he ATTEMPTED to make a logical, high content thread. he was responding to a question from someone else. he did generate a lot of pretty good responses.

like i said, i think homophobia should be strongly discouraged, this just seems like a terrible place to start.

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

[ QUOTE ]
i said he ATTEMPTED to make a logical, high content thread. he was responding to a question from someone else. he did generate a lot of pretty good responses.

like i said, i think homophobia should be strongly discouraged, this just seems like a terrible place to start.

[/ QUOTE ]

hate crime literature generates some pretty good responses too

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

It is pretty clear from the argument that Stu wrote that he was referring to the homosexual act. And your logic doesnt work. For instance:

Big Mac eater = one who practices Big Mac eating.

Big Macs are inferior to Whoppers, therefore Big Mac eaters are inferior people.

Let me ask again: Would you think the ban was warranted if Stu had been talking about pedophilia, bestiality or necrophilia? If not, do you have your own judgements on the which of those is better than another? How they stand in comparison to heterosexuality or homosexuality?

I think its pretty clear to most people that Stu wasnt trying to foment hate or any such nonsense.

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is pretty clear from the argument that Stu wrote that he was referring to the homosexual act. And your logic doesnt work. For instance:

Big Mac eater = one who practices Big Mac eating.

Big Macs are inferior to Whoppers, therefore Big Mac eaters are inferior people.



[/ QUOTE ]

lol at you thinking this is the same logic

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

Iron,

I certainly support your attempt to follow Mason's wishes and deal appropriately with "Hate promoting", and similarly have no issues with you giving 2 day suspensions to anyone.

But, wouldn't you agree that whether homosexuals and heterosexuals are equal, is part of the current political discussion in the US?

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is pretty clear from the argument that Stu wrote that he was referring to the homosexual act. And your logic doesnt work. For instance:

Big Mac eater = one who practices Big Mac eating.

Big Macs are inferior to Whoppers, therefore Big Mac eaters are inferior people.



[/ QUOTE ]

lol at you thinking this is the same logic

[/ QUOTE ]

Tell me why oh enlightened one? And I noticed you are still dodging my questions.

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is pretty clear from the argument that Stu wrote that he was referring to the homosexual act. And your logic doesnt work. For instance:

Big Mac eater = one who practices Big Mac eating.

Big Macs are inferior to Whoppers, therefore Big Mac eaters are inferior people.



[/ QUOTE ]

lol at you thinking this is the same logic

[/ QUOTE ]

a big mac eater= defined as someone who engages in eating big macs

eating big macs is inferior

thus a big mac eater is inferior

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

also the big mac eater needs to be defined as the only one who eats big macs (ie gay people are the only people who engage in homosexual acts)

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...ryCola/ref.jpg

After review, the ban seems unnecessary, but the thread should be locked. Stu, a longtime member, was reasonable in his post, and for that he should at least be given the respect of a warning and explanation about why we can't allow posts like that on 2+2.

I'm with some of you guys about not censoring the politics forum beyond all hope, but statements like this aren't good for us to allow on the forums:

[ QUOTE ]
Homosexuality is a behavior defect and therefore inferior to heterosexuality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

Happy Birthday Ryan. Did the stripper the Mods pitched in for show up yet?

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

I agree with NT! here. While pretty much everyone will disagree with Stu's reasoning and conclusions, he presented this in a very reasonable, respectful way. People on these forums are 100x worse to Christians on a daily basis, and that appears to be okay.

I think this ban is poor, and frankly I wish more people on these forums would present their opinions in the same manner as Stu has here. We'd have a lot more honest conversation and a lot less name throwing.

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm with some of you guys about not censoring the politics forum beyond all hope, but statements like this aren't good for us to allow on the forums:

[/ QUOTE ] Homosexuality is a behavior defect and therefore inferior to heterosexuality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. That statement is exactly the kind that, isolated from the rest of the post, can be made to sound very hateful and demeaning. However, were I to skim through David Sklansky's posts, I could find a dozen such statements, and were I to isolate it and call him out on it, he would lambaste me for taking him out of context - and he'd be right to do so. The context of Stu's post was completely lacking of hate.

Look, there are plenty of opinions out there that nothing and no one will ever convince me to respect. A good number of people in this country believe some really stupid crap. But as long as they present themselves in a reasonable manner and don't wield freedom of speech with a hammer of hate, they get to talk openly about their beliefs.

I see this as precisely the same kind of post that David makes all the time regarding Christianity. David's virtually always right in his specific arguments, which makes it different than Stu's post in that regard, but being right doesn't give the right to make a certain kind of post.

I think it's a shame that mods and admins on this forum feel like this post is punishable and/or un-allowable.

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

[ QUOTE ]
The context of Stu's post was completely lacking of hate.

[/ QUOTE ]

But at the very least it definitely can inspire hatred, which is a big part of what Mason is concerned about. The politics forum is always going to be tricky, and it's important that the moderation never become too lax or too strict, as either would possibly mean closing it down again. I personally don't have a problem with the post itself, even though I do disagree with it. But what I can tolerate in my own mind and what we can allow are not always the same.

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

[ QUOTE ]
Happy Birthday Ryan.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks!

[ QUOTE ]
Did the stripper the Mods pitched in for show up yet?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

I made that explanation I linked to in my first post here to basically serve as a warning, although I don't know if Stu saw it. It sounds like Ryan would prefer locks and warnings to tempbans for posters who are trying to discuss but fall a little short like Stu, so that's what I'll do. I didn't lock it because most of the responses were a good lesson in tolerance and feedback I had gotten before suggested that when an otherwise good thread is being ruined by a minority (Stu) that tempbanning and deleting was preferable to locking.

However, I'm disappointed that Ryan completely lifted the ban because he confessed to trolling the other thread I linked to in my first post. I gave him a day for that one.

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't lock it because most of the responses were a good lesson in tolerance and feedback I had gotten before suggested that when an otherwise good thread is being ruined by a minority (Stu) that tempbanning and deleting was preferable to locking.


[/ QUOTE ]
Stu started the thread. He's not a minority ruining an otherwise good thread, HE STARTED THE GOOD THREAD. The tone that he set in the OP is what carried the thread, and nowhere in the entire thread did I see any name calling, cheap shots, or hateful posts.

I disagree completely with Ryan's assertion that this post could lead to hate. The tone in that thread (which is a very rare tone for these kinds of debates, in Politics, SMP, OOT, or any non-strategy forum on 2+2) is exactly what allows us to have honest conversation about these issues in a very non-threatening way. I understand Ryan's (and ultimately 2+2's) point here, but not its application to this situation. Quite frankly, I think posts like the one Stu made should be encouraged, not discouraged.

When I imagine an ideal politics forum, I imagine people with all kinds of different views - popular and unpopular alike - being able to discuss in full their thoughts and ideas, as long as they're civil and don't make personal attacks. Stu did precisely that. Screw political correctness. Screw having to be quiet about holding an unpopular belief. If Stu's post offends someone or causes someone to make hateful posts, that's their problem, not Stu's.

Quite frankly I don't see the point in having a politics forum if this kind of post isn't allowed. I don't have any interest in discussion politics under the terms you can't voice an opinion that might offend someone, no matter how civil you are, no matter how impersonal the discussion is, and no matter how many people have asked you to explain your opinion.

I'm very disappointed in 2+2 on this issue. I really thought 2+2 was the kind of place where you could have honest debate on all kinds of issues. I feel like this is a high-school politics class where political correctness and censorship run rampant. I can't stand that kind of environment and I never thought 2+2 would be one of those.

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

[ QUOTE ]

However, I'm disappointed that Ryan completely lifted the ban because he confessed to trolling the other thread I linked to in my first post. I gave him a day for that one.

[/ QUOTE ]
If Stu deserves a 2-day ban for trolling or something else, fine. I have no opinion on that. But considering this thread as part of why he deserves a ban is ridiculous.

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

As an end result, I support the overturning of Stu's ban, and I don't have a big problem with this thread being locked, but mainly because it contains a lot of arguments by Stu that are extremely accusatory towards homosexuals and not supported by fact. He didn't have much time to respond to some of them before he got banned / it got locked, but I don't know that he would have if that hadn't happened. Stuff like "homosexuals prefer short term transactional relationships" and "anal sex leads to serious long term health problems" needs to be qualified. Also, the idea that homosexuality is a behavioral defect or a genetic abnormality. That's not supported by the relevant research either. So if anything, I think he should be warned for posting statements that have no basis in fact and cannot be verified.

As I told the Dude, if someone I really despise like BGC had made this thread I probably would have assumed he was being intellectually dishonest and doing exactly what gild was saying, cloaking hate in a different terminology. For some reason I didn't think Stu was doing that, but I could be wrong.

Re: iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso
 

[ QUOTE ]
As I told the Dude, if someone I really despise like BGC had made this thread I probably would have assumed he was being intellectually dishonest and doing exactly what gild was saying, cloaking hate in a different terminology. For some reason I didn't think Stu was doing that, but I could be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

NT, but this is what Mason seems to be concerned about... not every reader will be able to make that determination... thus err on the side of caution.