iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso

[iron81]

[ 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.

[NT!]

[ 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.

[vulturesrow]

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).

[RR]

[ 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.

[iron81]

[ 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.

[Dids]

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.

[NT!]

[ 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.

[Gildwulf]

[ 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

[Gildwulf]

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

[vulturesrow]

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.