Objection to Forced Tolerance

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by Prince_James, Jul 31, 2006.

  1. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    James R., whereas I have no problem with you as a person and indeed, in general find you a good chap, I object to both your banning of the individuals you announced in the thread "Nambla Poll" as well as your closure of said thread. I object to this on the premise that it seems to me that you have placed tolerance instead of honesty and free speech as a necessity for discussion here, specifically in that I also view the comments as appropriate, for the thread itself specifically asked what one's views, favourable or disfavourable, were towards certain practices.

    That homosexuality both sickens and offends people ought to be able to be expressed, no? Similarly, that certain races, and various other sensitive topics, may do the same should also be tolerated, should it not? Or should we only have people that agree with one another and find nothing wrong with various things? For if we accept tolerance as this virtue to end all virtues, as you seem to be doing, do not we end up with something that utterly reduces the entire capacity for discussion here? That the people who have certain viewpoints, woudl be immune to having their opinions attacked, even though their viewpoints are no more rational, inherently, than another's?

    Are we simply going to turn SciForums into PCforums?

    Now, do know that I mean no disrespect by announcing my objection to you in public, as opposed to a discrete manner privately, but I thought to bring this topic up in a public venue because it is really a part of a larger public matter, that is, whether or not we should allow contrary views to be allowed a voice here.

    I myself affirm that "being offended" does not make one immune to the views of others and therefore there is no reason why the voices of those whom hold "objectionable" opinions ought to be silenced.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. redarmy11 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,658
    Both D'ster and Woody were banned for hurling personal insults in addition to their repulsive views. I can understand your objection to banning people whose views are controversial. But do you think people should be allowed to get away with repeated personal abuse?
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    p. james
    you are forgetting that this is not your board.
    james r. can ban you just because he has a wild hair up his ass.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    Prince James, nobody is forcing you to tolerate anything. If you don't like it here you are free to leave.
     
  8. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Leopold99:

    Nor is it James R's. Unless he is Dan Watanbe in disguise. That not withstanding, yes, he could ban me if he so wished, but still I raise an objection as it deserves to be so objected to.

    Redarmy11:

    Considering James R. went out of his way not to reference just simply "personal insults" but also their viewpoints, it would stand to reason that his decision was not based on just one.
     
  9. redarmy11 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,658
    But do you think personal insults should be tolerated or not?

    If yes: please give reasons.
    If not: the other reasons hardly matter.
     
  10. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    Yes, because it simplifies discussions.

    see as reference:
    Ever since our rightwing extremist friends set the new rule they have been losing every discussion!

    It's great! No more silly logic. Or knowledge. Or research! Just make them mad.

    It's better than sliced bread...

    I have to admit. I never thought that this 'man' (for lack of a better word that isn't an insult) would ever contribute anything useful to this forum or to the world. But he did! It shows how wrong you can be about people.
     
  11. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    Redarmy11:

    Personal insults are not appropriate, no.
     
  12. sniffy Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,945
    How can insults be personal if you don't even know one another? You know shit diddly about each other, you're writing on a forum where everyone has assumed names, how the heck can things get 'personal'?
     
  13. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    If you find the moderators of sciforums intolerable and their decisions objectionable, you have two choices. Accept it or don't accept it. The overall consensus among sciforums members, however, will be 'good riddance' with regard to Woody. I couldn't really comment on D'star since I had him/her on ignore and never really read his/her comments.

    There is no guarantee of freedom of speech on sciforums. If you don't like the culture, don't visit, read or post here. Dave has given James R authority to moderate and he's doing a damn fine job. If anything, he and the other mods are too lenient.

    Finally, its not as if either were forever banished from sciforums the way Spookz (a.k.a. Gustav) was. The get to come back in three days. The clear purpose of a 3-day ban is to send a message that their behavior is unacceptable for the overall well-being of the forum.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2006
  14. The Devil Inside Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,213
    i got banned for saying "retard"...for 3 days.

    i absolutely deserved it, and it probably should have been a 7 day ban, given the tone with which i spewed the words.

    i agree absolutely with skinwalker in saying that the moderators are WAAAY too lax regarding ridiculousness.
     
  15. Bowser Namaste Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,828
    This is a public forum. Though I have yet to try, is there an option to <i>ignore</i> a member?
     
  16. §outh§tar is feeling caustic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,832
    Prince James, most people will agree that Woodster and D'ster were not posting their 'facts' and 'statistics' in order to discuss. Especially when you consider that they regularly ignored/overlooked contrary objections and data and repeatedly regurgitated the same tripe. For D'ster, everything was a chance to mention some correlation between low IQ, high crime rates, and minorities and for Woody, well, Woody was just doing his Christian duty and being ign'ant.
     
  17. G. F. Schleebenhorst England != UK Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,213
    Well, if you're a yank especially, you should go for the whole "freedom of speech" thing. Personal opinion is personal opinion....all the black people in the world aren't going to explode if someone uses the dreaded "N" word, but what WILL happen is that person will lose the respect of their peers. I have no idea where James R is from, though.

    Let people say whatever they want.
     
  18. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    you aren't the only one either.

    i was banned for 3 days and deserved it.

    another poster i was PMing was banned and they said they deserved it

    there is only one poster i know of that hasn't said they deserved it but after finding out why they were banned i determined they deserved it.

    so there you have it, 4 people banned, 4 people that deserved it.
     
  19. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    I have been calling people worse than retard.
     
  20. Genji Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,285
    I oppose Forced Tolerance as well. Why do we have to tolerate Christians or conservatives? Banning all of them would instantly upgrade the IQ of sciforums and remove the resident human fungus that feeds off hatred and divisiveness. We could use a far less tolerant board. Can we begin the purge now??
     
  21. redarmy11 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,658
    Well I think they should both be brought back now. There isn't enough hatred and divisiveness on this board for me. Yes I'm (semi-)serious.

    I mean, come on - we all love a flaming good row, don't we?
     
  22. Genji Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,285
    Flaming can be fun if it's infrequent and not personal. Letting trolls run rampant diminishes discussion and neuters debate or serious dialogue. It brings the atmosphere into the sewers, where trolls live and breed. I don't think open racists should be tolerated at all. There are plenty of sites for that element.
     
  23. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    SkinWalker:

    Obivously I have not accepted the behaviour, hence why I have raised a public objection to it.

    A despotic action is a despotic action, regardless of whether the authority in place was a rightful authority or not.

    What I present here is simply a case where what I consider to be a despotic and subjective judgement has been made on two posters by a moderator in part. If this forums wishes to institute a new policy which only permits one side in a discussion, then it ought to present this openly and clearly, so that we can be clear that objective, free, reasoned conversation is not here. If we wish to transform Sciforums into such, let it be done. I do not care, really, whether there are ten thousand such websites which switch from a far greater ideal to a sort of pig-discourse where only one side is allowed to be presented and hailed as fact. That is fine. But let it be noted publically so we do not exist under a sham of presumed freedom of speech. But if contrary to this, we wish to keep sciforums as a place where such objective, free discourse can be found, then we must stop even good moderators like James R ,from acting in such a way that is contrary to this.
     

Share This Page