iron81 - banning Stu Pidasso

[4_2_it]

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

[The Dude]

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.

[The Dude]

[ 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.

[Ryan Beal]

[ 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.

[Ryan Beal]

[ 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]

[iron81]

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.

[The Dude]

[ 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.

[The Dude]

[ 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.

[NT!]

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.

[Sniper]

[ 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.