James R: The S.A.M Issue

[James R]

draqon asks:

so James R., your course of action would be to "silence" her? What will your course of action be against this "propaganda"? Will you be the one issuing a perma-ban?

Will I permaban SAM? Not right now, no. Why not? Surely if I believe, as I have said, that SAM posts in bad faith, trolls, and propagates hatred, then I ought to simply ban her and move on, right? Why don't I do it?

The reason is simple: there is no general agreement that SAM's posts constitute a problem or that she deserves any sanction I might impose. I have been accused of being dictatorial and of moderating sciforums according to my personal whims and/or political views, but here is a prime example where I am constantly listening to other people, the general membership and other moderators.

The evidence of this thread speaks eloquently. SAM has a cheer squad who thinks that what she is doing is just fine and justifiable, even admirable. But you know what I notice? I notice that ALL of the comments in support of SAM in this thread all express agreement in one form or another with her political views, or come from people whose political sympathies lie close to SAMs (as their posting records confirm).

Examples:

The law doesnt compromise with criminals and neither should the Palestinians, who's life and liberty has been confiscated by invaders from Europe.

Israelis are "criminals" and "invaders" etc.

Notwithstanding the negative comments regarding SAM preceding, the fact remains, that she expresses factual and rational comment, albeit at times interlaced with emotionality. Is it OK to be human?

Strawdog is on record as a firm supporter of the Palestinian cause and sides with SAM against Israel in most matters as far as I can tell.

Add to this Tiassa's long posts claiming that all of SAM's provocations can be justified as valid issues to raise. Tiassa has never been a fan of America's foreign policy regarding Israel/Palestine; there's no secret about that.

As a matter of fact, I have never denied that there are valid issues for discussion somewhere in amongst all of SAM's bile and hatred. My complaint, explained in detail above, is that SAM cherry-picks issues that invariably put her usual targets in the worst possible light, then actively works to avoid any real discussion or debate on the putative topics, instead using her time to troll, to evade and to push her usual set of agendas and opinions. SAM removes from members the possibility of having an intelligent discussion about any of the issues.

Ban SAM? Should I ban her when a reasonable fraction of the membership appears to sympathise with her politics and her approach? There are those who have argued that by not banning her or restricting her I have created an unsolvable and recurring problem on the forum. But in opposition, her cheer squad obviously thinks that SAM's version of debate on Palestine/Israel is how it ought to be done.

Like all armchair commentators, it is "obvious" to many what I, as an administrator, ought to do here. I should ban SAM. I should support SAM's right to speak her mind. I should join in her hatred rather than railing against it. I should censor her posts. I should close her threads. I should hail SAM as the saviour of the Oppressed and Downtrodden on sciforums. It's obvious.

It seems to me that whatever is finally done here will be criticised one way or the other by one group or another. An easy option is to let things slide, to go with the status quo. Then we all get the forum we deserve.... maybe.

 

[Gustav]

Put simply, if this is the new standard, fine. I can live with that. But we need to establish that new standard, and it's not fair to hold against people actions taken under the former standard that were, in fact, in line with it.

would this new standard include taking ownership of every single word, phrase and sentence of a source that was utilized in a quote?

why was i not appraised?
who raised the bar without telling me?

/rotfl

 

[S.A.M.]

would this new standard include taking ownership of every single word, phrase and sentence of a source that was utilized in a quote?

why was i not appraised?
who raised the bar without telling me?

/rotfl

No kidding.

 

[James R]

Gustav:

if you do, you go quote-mining for parts of them that put the matter into the hateful light you always wish to emphasise.

/puzzled

is that not what you did?

No. You asked for examples to illustrate my case against SAM. In effect I randomly sampled her posts. I looked ONLY at the 25 threads which she had started and most recently posted in. Of those threads, I generally posted an extract only from the very first post of the thread, with one or two exceptions where the first post was seemingly innocuous and the hate was held back until later.

SAM has 61000 posts. If I had wanted to quote-mine them for attrocious examples of her hatred, I could have done so. As it happens, I do not have the time to spare at present, nor do I have the inclination to go looking for the obvious just to please you, Gustav. I urge you, if you are honestly interested, to just go and read SAM's threads yourself. I should not have to do all the work for you. If you wish to dispute my assessment of SAM, feel free to go right ahead. Everybody has an opinion.

highlight a portion of the text notable for its rhetorical extravagance and hold it out as an example of sam's hate? an article that was quoted in its entirety?

are you serious?

As it happens, I didn't spend much time selecting posts, like I said. I didn't actually realise that that particular example was a quote until it was pointed out. Nevertheless, it doesn't materially affect any of the points I have made about SAM's promotion of and concentration on hatred of particular groups such as atheists, Americans, westerners in general, Jews/Israelis, etc.

 

[S.A.M.]

atheists, Americans, westerners in general, Jews/Israelis, etc.

Try "anti-Muslim bigots represented on sciforums".

Its more comprehensive and better suited to the word "concentration"

 

[Gustav]

Not entirety, I only posted the major points made across the article.

pardon
i looked at the first and last para and they matched

 

[darksidZz]

Very complicated issue, can't we all just relax =P

 

[Gustav]

If you wish to dispute my assessment of SAM, feel free to go right ahead. Everybody has an opinion.

hmm
i see tiassa has an opinion....

Americans are very familiar with the assertion that this is a Christian nation. Our "old money", including many major movers and shakers who wield or have wielded in the past great influence over the shape of the nation are WASPs. I've often joked that people need to get past the "Jewish" conspiracies and deal with the white Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

In 1954, we officially adopted the motto "In God We Trust" for our currency. This was a deliberate statement of our Christianity against the evil, godless Communists.

Furthermore, I would ask you to take a look at that "trolling session". You do realize that two people tried to give useful answers at the outset. (And think about that; for all the shit we've given Draqon over time, yeah, he wrote a post that was not without its utility in that discussion.) I would suggest the thread's degradation began with one of S.A.M.'s opponents by going on a personal attack. But it's S.A.M., isn't it? So you don't fucking care, do you?

of.....

/chuckle

moving on.....2 of 12 unsequenced

james
again, tell me why, please. i also note the thread remains open in free thoughts
this time i would like you to comment on the other players in that thread
lucysnow seems ubiquitous so take a moment to assess her contribution. i am of course not asking you to neglect the rest of the players

quote more posts from that thread that trouble you the most. i presume it is only sam's, correct?
thanks

...that.
he as well as i ask you to justify your characterizations. to actually read the thread. you have made some serious claims of hatred and bigotry and the onus is on you to prove it

why do you not know this?

i have also indicated that you can take as long as you want. it is somewhat odd however why 60000 posts of alleged hatred and bigotry is not quite proving to be the slam dunk that everyone imagined it to be. you say it could be done?

then do it

 

[cluelusshusbund]

What is clear is that something needs to be done. The hate, especially on this single issue, has escalated to the point where it is driving people away from sciforums and dissuading new members from joining up.

Wit that "statistical" weapon (whether real... emagined or exaggerated) you have all you need to justify a decision to get rid of S.A.M... all the rest is jus fluff :shrug:

Personaly i like S.A.M. bein aroun... even tho it means toleratin the whiners who complain about her... but that jus shows how much i enjoy hearin ponts of view that often differ wit mine.!!!

When the hate is led by the poster with the highest post count and highest posting rate, the problem is even more serious. sciforums is becoming the SAM-spews-her-hate forum, and that is unhealthy for the forum's present and future.

I have not decided what to do about this problem yet.

Ah-Oh S.A.M... looks like you'r ban is as good as signed an sealed an soom to be delivered.!!!

...you can't discuss a subject with a "Radical", their reasoning and decision is already marred with their position on the subject at hand. (Hence a Radicalist)

Yes an that only applys to 99.99873 of posters here :scratchin:

If you can't understand that, then obviously you have your own agenda which is likely something that will conflict with the moderation here because it will likely be against the forum as a whole and we can't allow that.

Good-by S.A.M... its been interestin knowin ya.!!!

 

[pjdude1219]

SAM isn't the problem the SAM bashers are

 

[PsychoTropicPuppy]

Not quite true, most people don't, most people in fact try to ignore the topic because it's of little relevance or interest to them, of course it's thrust in their face by some activist or other pushing their warez, which incidentally if anything tends to push those people that might have paid attention to a discussion further and further away from ever reading or participating.

Well..I think you're talking about me here. j/k..I try to avoid those topics because..not that it wouldn't be of interest..but more like it's always the same point of views, and most people who partake in those topics aren't open to other views, or facts, because they've already set their mind on it, and are not willing to look at it from an other perspective, so it's like talking to a wall. It's not possible to partake in those topics without eventually being called a racist, a bigot, a liar, and who knows what else...too troublesome.

Objectively, there are at any given time, far more threads on American issues in WEP than any other.

You mean on "Wired Equivalent Privacy"? j/k Well, this website has...(I think the server is located in Canada) probably a majority of US/Canadian people, or am I mistaken? No clue. Maybe people love to talk about the USA, and its problems? Also...why do you say that? Most topics concerning the USA is about the US foreign policy. It's all cluttered with US hypocrisy, What's wrong with the USA, etc. I mean...it's not a mystery that a lot of people like to blame the USA for their misery, and maybe rightfully so, but anyway.. I can't recall having said that all topics revolve around this particular theme. Just said..that people seem to love to discuss it. Maybe I should have added "some" people?

 

[James R]

SAM isn't the problem the SAM bashers are

Another example of a member who will turn a blind eye to SAM's tactics because his political views mostly match hers.

 

[Bells]

SAM isn't the problem the SAM bashers are

I am a lefty.. probably more than Sam is. But even I am sick and tired of this.

Just because I share similar political beliefs and beliefs about human rights with Sam does not mean that I do not recognise that all this crap has gone way too far and that it needs to stop.

Try "anti-Muslim bigots represented on sciforums".

Its more comprehensive and better suited to the word "concentration"

Does not mean you should resort to the same tactics.

See, this is what I just don't seem to understand. You are an intelligent woman. Yet you willingly and knowingly lower yourself to the level of the "anti-Muslim bigots", just to try to prove a point. At some point, didn't it occur to you that your message would become lost in the hatred?

I am well aware that there are "anti-Muslim bigots" on this site. And instead of tackling them head on, you have decided to join them. Only your objective is to bash the other side in a similar fashion.

I'll be honest, I really don't give a flying fuck what you're trying to push for on this forum any more. In the past, I would have, but after these last couple of weeks, you've lost me. Do you know why? Because you lost my support when you started acting like a bigot yourself. Any point you were trying to make, any message you were trying to convey has become lost and, frankly, void, because of the way you have decided to make your point. And I know for a fact that I am not the only one. We have already lost members over this issue. I know of at least one who has posted here for much longer than you have, who I would consider a valuable member and who I suspect cares a lot for this forum, who has chosen to leave because they are unable to continue watching the train wreck you've turned it into. And right now, the desire to join them is quite strong.

But do you know what really annoys the hell out of me out of all of this?

There had been a concerted push to end the bigotry. To tackle it head on. String's crack down in WE & P was a good start. And now, instead of tackling that, instead of carrying on with that push, we find ourselves distracted with what Tiassa has described as your "performance art". In short, the manner in which you have conducted yourself on this forum of late has caused a distraction and instead of concentrating on cleaning up this forum, you've just added even more dirt on the pile. Because well, the world's a stage, right? And it seems you feel the need to "perform".

Or maybe that has been your intention. After all, if we got rid of the bigots and the haters, what would you do with yourself? Who would you fight with then?

Maybe you need all this. I don't know and frankly, it's gotten to the point that I really do not care. At some point it will have to end. It seems the rest of the moderation team are willing to give you chance after chance in the hope that you'll grow up and start acting like an intelligent adult. Know this though. If it were up to me right now, you'd be out with the rest of the bigots.

 

[S.A.M.]

If my highlighting the incessant bigotry at sciforums and the moderation that supports it, [note all the questions that Gustav put to James and you, Bells which have not received any responses yet] leads to a cleanup, I will consider it time well spent, even if I have to be the "collateral damages" in this exercise. Apparently you all share my sense of frustration in not seeing any control over "freedom of expression" here. Except of course, it needed me to display the same shit I have been hearing over and over before anyone could see that yes, it is bigotry.

Even now you have James asking questions like:

So you're talking about modern Jews, SAM. What about the first Jews? Where do you think they came from?

To which my instant reaction would be: what does it matter?

I mean, this is a guy who lives in Australia an immigrant nation. Where is he coming from?

In the past, I would have, but after these last couple of weeks, you've lost me. Do you know why? Because you lost my support when you started acting like a bigot yourself.

Could you demonstrate my "bigotry" of the last few weeks? Sorry to ask, but I don't trust your judgment anymore

 

[draqon]

Very complicated issue, can't we all just relax =P

are you kidding me, this is a chance to start a new war of evil mods vs. sheep innocent sciforumers

 

[Bells]

If my highlighting the incessant bigotry at sciforums leads to a cleanup, I will consider it time well spent, even if I have to be the "collateral damages" in this exercise.

Nice. Such a martyr. I am surprised you didn't say that it is a 'sacrifice you are willing to make'. Ah, maybe Tiassa was right, maybe this is your "performance art".

 

[S.A.M.]

I doubt my willingness will have any part to play in whatever decision is reached. I have no "agenda" as you and James so succintly put it, except to highlight what I consider is wrong with the way some people are treated here. I believe I have been unfailingly consistent in that regard, across the board of race, religion or ethnicity whenever the situation has come up.

 

[draqon]

"Our Agenda and lack of SAM in it"

by James R and others.

 

[Tiassa]

The obvious question

Just because I share similar political beliefs and beliefs about human rights with Sam does not mean that I do not recognise that all this crap has gone way too far and that it needs to stop.

So, are we going to stop it for everyone? Or just for S.A.M.?

 

[Enmos]

Whatever we do could we just stop these goddamn threads ?
Just fucking decide, ban her or not. Get it over with already.