Moderating The Forums: a suggestion

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
find it very fascinating that all you anti-israeli's are so quick to jump to the defense of an anti-semite like this, even when it clearly is "Jews" that he is disparaging, and not "Israelis."

[/ QUOTE ]

Who jumped to his defence? Andy, who is moderately critical of Israel and Zionism, was highly critical of him. In another thread, I suggested there was good reason to think he should be banned, as I said TaintedRogue should be banned for anti-semitic remarks. Of the most prominent critics of Israeli actions on the board, did any defend Peter's anti-semitic posts? Out of myself, Cyrus, Chris, ACPlayer or Snowball? No, none of them did.

If people assume that you're calling someone an antisemite becasue they are critical of Israel when they really are an anti-semite (as Peter appears to be), it's at least partly becasue pro-Israeli posters conflate the two to smear legitimate posters so often.

[/ QUOTE ]

nicky.....

Stop making statements that might be beyond the intended recipients ability to comprehend.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I also remember a significantly smaller amount of outrage (ie none) when Peter was busy referring to North Africans as dirty backwards people who deserved to be colonised and slaughtered by France.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not remember that thread, how long ago was it? (It is possible I was not yet posting in the politics forum at the time, ornot regularly enough anyway to catch it). By the way, I do agree that Peter deserves to be banned much more than Cyrus does. (However, i still support the decision to ban Cyrus as well).

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
find it very fascinating that all you anti-israeli's are so quick to jump to the defense of an anti-semite like this, even when it clearly is "Jews" that he is disparaging, and not "Israelis."

[/ QUOTE ]

Who jumped to his defence? Andy, who is moderately critical of Israel and Zionism, was highly critical of him. In another thread, I suggested there was good reason to think he should be banned, as I said TaintedRogue should be banned for anti-semitic remarks. Of the most prominent critics of Israeli actions on the board, did any defend Peter's anti-semitic posts? Out of myself, Cyrus, Chris, ACPlayer or Snowball? No, none of them did.

If people assume that you're calling someone an antisemite becasue they are critical of Israel when they really are an anti-semite (as Peter appears to be), it's at least partly becasue pro-Israeli posters conflate the two to smear legitimate posters so often.

[/ QUOTE ]

nicky.....

Stop making statements that might be beyond the intended recipients ability to comprehend.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I also remember a significantly smaller amount of outrage (ie none) when Peter was busy referring to North Africans as dirty backwards people who deserved to be colonised and slaughtered by France.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not remember that thread, how long ago was it? (It is possible I was not yet posting in the politics forum at the time, ornot regularly enough anyway to catch it). By the way, I do agree that Peter deserves to be banned much more than Cyrus does. (However, i still support the decision to ban Cyrus as well).

[/ QUOTE ]

A few months I think. This wasn't particularly directed at you. Just my feeling that there is a lot more room to make racist remarks about Arabs and Muslims (and in the past, when brad and American Airlines were around, blacks) in the politics forum without precipitating any klind of outrage, than there is about Jews. You've said you alerted the mods to some sort of anti-Arab slur by TaintedRogue and I commend you on that.

[Knockwurst]

[ 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 ]

This is a logical fallacy of the worst kind. See wikipedia -- undistributed middle

Akin to saying all dogs have four legs, a thoroughbred has four legs therefore a thoroughbred is a dog.

You are saying:

an anti-semite uses certain sources to support an argument
person x uses the same sources to support the same argument
person x is effectively an anti-semite

The conclusion is not supported by the syllogism without looking at the argument or the sources.

[BluffTHIS!]

Major Premise: Anyone who links to an anti-semitic website is either an anti-semite or a troll.

Minor Premise: Cyrus linked to an anti-semite website.

Conclustion: Cyrus is either an anti-semite or a troll.


NB: I am not asserting the truth of the 2nd premise, as I said "if" in my original post that you quote.

[Knockwurst]

[ QUOTE ]
Major Premise: Anyone who links to an anti-semitic website is either an anti-semite or a troll.

Minor Premise: Cyrus linked to an anti-semite website.

Conclustion: Cyrus is either an anti-semite or a troll.


NB: I am not asserting the truth of the 2nd premise, as I said "if" in my original post that you quote.

[/ QUOTE ]

which is why I wrote:

You are saying:

an anti-semite uses certain sources to support an argument
person x uses the same sources to support the same argument
person x is effectively an anti-semite

The conclusion is not supported by the syllogism without looking at the argument or the sources.

As long as its a logical argument relying on reliable sources, it shouldn't matter if a despicable person happens to share that same argument and sources, which you're original post seemed to suggest, as you did not identify the source as an anti-semetic web site.

This nuance is important because all too often someone will make a logical argument using reliable sources, and will be called an anti-semite/racist, etc.

[BluffTHIS!]

Knock,

Every syllogism depends upon its premises, and of course it is fair to question those as they must be true for the conclusion to be true.

Do you dispute the first premise? That is, would a poster knowingly link to an anti-semitic site without also believing the same things or for trollish inflammatory amusement? Surely if there were something on such a site relevant and actually true, then a poster not agreeing with its overall views should easily be able to find other references for that relevant and non-prejudicial info.

[Knockwurst]

[ QUOTE ]
Knock,

Every syllogism depends upon its premises, and of course it is fair to question those as they must be true for the conclusion to be true.

Do you dispute the first premise? That is, would a poster knowingly link to an anti-semitic site without also believing the same things or for trollish inflammatory amusement? Surely if there were something on such a site relevant and actually true, then a poster not agreeing with its overall views should easily be able to find other references for that relevant and non-prejudicial info.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bluff,

With all due respect, please re-read my posts in response to you.

In short -- Yes, someone relying on or linking to an anti-semitic source is, if not anti-semitic, literally furthering or propogating anti-semitism.

But someone is not an anti-semite for relying on reliable sources in making a logical argument, and there happens to be an anti-semite who makes the same arguments relying on the same sources.

ie.

Bob Barr is a staunch and eloquent opponent of the Patriot Act.
I am a staunch opponent of the Patriot Act.
My political views in general are not those of Bob Barr even though we share similar views of the Patriot Act.

Re-read your original post, as it seems to suggest this construct.

[BluffTHIS!]

Knock,

Perhaps it is you are not reading my posts right. The forms of syllogism you give are not the same as mine if you compare them closely.

Also note what you say about reliable sites. Any anti-semitic site is not reliable (not to be confused with a merely anti-Zionist or anti-Israeli site that doesn't promote hatred of Jews but just disagrees with actions of some Jews). And again, anything true that is found on a repugnant site should easily be found on a reliable site, thus making there no need to link to such a anti-semitic site. Thus I think it very fair to draw inferences about the true views of someone linking to any anti-semetic sites. While I grant that there exists the possibility of someone merely being too lazy to find a reliable site for certain info when otherwise not agreeing with that site overall, I think that a remote possibility.

[Knockwurst]

[ QUOTE ]
Any anti-semitic site is not reliable (not to be confused with a merely anti-Zionist or anti-Israeli site that doesn't promote hatred of Jews but just disagrees with actions of some Jews). And again, anything true that is found on a repugnant site should easily be found on a reliable site, thus making there no need to link to such a anti-semitic site. Thus I think it very fair to draw inferences about the true views of someone linking to any anti-semetic sites.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed.

[Mat Sklansky]

This forum exists to make the other forums better.

All this talk about a non-existent politics forum doesn't accomplish anything.

Perhaps in the future we can have a discussion about having a politics forum. We are not ready for such a forum at this time.