unacceptable behavior in a poster
- Thread starter pjdude1219
- Start date
I have a slightly different take on this. Doesn't the pattern indicate that people like BR are the alien pod persons of whose behaviour no expectations may be had?
The question should be, can he do any better? Don't people who debate him know exactly what to expect?
Heh Heh.
It's a complete neurotic meltdown
I think originally it was a numbers game. You've heard me refer to a theoretic "culling" before, to shed our trolls and attempt to restore order. In addition to the reasonable projection that such an action would do nothing over the long run for civil order, it also became clear to me, pretty much from the outset, that it would be a numbers game. That is, if Buffalo Roam, for instance, was such a troll that he had to go, well, he's a conservative, so a liberal would have to go, as well. At the time, some of the names that came up suggested to me that our standard of parity was dangerous. In a criminal analogy, if you sentenced a violent recidivist to twenty years in prison, and he happened to be a Republican, you would also have to sentence a guy to twenty years for failing to signal a lane change if he happened to be a Democrat. That is, it seemed to be a numbers game, and not one of principles.
Additionally, there is the question of labels and conduct. Consider, for instance, the idea of racism. Now, if someone happens to post an argument that sound racist, you might say, "Uh, dude, that's kind of racist, don't you think?" But if that person posts such arguments over and over again, one might start to think the person is actually a racist. You know, the idea that one's behavior defines them to a certain degree?
So you think that person is a racist. Life goes on. Of course, that person resents being called a racist. So he asserts that you only call him a racist as a political ploy, because you have no other argument so you resort to hateful denigration.
Well, you know, I can see this happening in real life. There are some who think I'm an anti-Christian bigot, for instance, because I don't think "the Bible says so" is a good enough reason to pass a public law condemning gay people. For them, of course, the only reason I might suggest they're a bigot is because I can't find a real, logical argument, so I have to denigrate them. It couldn't possibly be the proposed laws to ostracize, disenfranchise, or otherwise discriminate against people for the gender of their legally consenting sexual partners. It couldn't possibly be that someone wrote on their own Facebook page that he hopes gays all kill themselves or die of disease. That couldn't possibly be the reason I might think that person is a bigot. Rather, the only reason I say he's a bigot is because I'm a stupid, petulant liberal who hates Christians and Republicans.
Think about racism for a minute, though. This is a functional reality at Sciforums. If I say a particular person is racist, it can only be because I hate Republicans, right? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with his proposition to end ethnic injustice by perpetuating inequality in society; it couldn't possibly have anything to do with ethnic-based scare rhetoric. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with his conduct and arguments, right? It can only be my hateful liberal elitism.
Yet he happens to be one of my colleagues on staff, and if one tries to explain the reasons why one thinks he's a racist, he'll delete the post as insulting.
It's a nifty circle. You have no real reason to think he's a racist, therefore if you enumerate your real reasons, they'll be deleted. Since ther are no real reasons on record, you have no real reason to think he's a racist. Well, what if there are real reasons? Those aren't appropriate considerations for the public sphere. Which, of course, means objecting to his policy outlook is inappropriate for the public sphere.
And that's how it works. And the administration is just fucking fine with this.
People wonder where the civility is? There's the answer. Right now the staff is obliged to protect certain forms of irrationality and hatred.
You don't like Israel setting babies on fire? You must hate all Jews, and should be punished in this community. You hate Muslims, and insist on dishonest definitions for words in order to complain about how evil Muslims are? You have administrative support. You think people should be afraid of Mexicans because they're Mexican? Right now that's not only a-okay, but it's actually inappropriate to protest this standard because the truth, that it is racist to make such arguments, is unpleasant for the fucking racist.
That is the state of Sciforums, and we got there because we wanted to be "fair" to a political outlook that felt underrepresented and persecuted.
I can't do anything about underrepresentation. But no, I don't see how giving someone who condemns Mexicans as being criminal (that is, quite literally, Mexican = criminal) an opportunity to support that argument with facts equals baiting. Still, however, we decided to give such outlooks a chance to survive and even flourish in the Sciforums community, and yes, that's where the civility has gone.
No, really. The rhetoric that casts Mexican migrant labor as an army trying to steal the United States from white people? That's all good. Suggesting it is extreme and racist? That's just elitist hate speech. Complaining about the dirty, racist Muslims and insisting that outlying, abusive definitions of a word are, in fact, the prevailing meaning? That's the standing policy. Pointing out the hypocrisy of the United States making a human rights argument in favor of Israel against the Palestinians? That's just dirty, Muslim hate speech against Jews and Americans.
These are the functional standards at Sciforums right now. These are among the reasons the moderators are actually at one another's throats. And these are among the reasons that while, yes, PJ needs to just toughen the fuck up, that doesn't mean he doesn't have a point.
I often accuse people I disagree with of myopia. I think this is one of those cases. We kept looking at superficial and short-term contexts. Yet this is the harvest we have sewn.
The recent kafir debate cost James—perhaps permanently—the faith and confidence of one moderator. Nobody really need spend a lot of effort guessing; quite obviously, it's me, and according to a longer-term outlook. It's not that I won't work with him. It's not that my lack of confidence is fixedly permanent. Rather, I've reached a point where I'm not sure by what means I can expect reconciliation. It's like my first post in the thread. I don't hate James. I would much rather fix the problems than fight with him. But I simply can't abide by the assertion that Sciforums doesn't condone personal insults. I mean, shit, who here who has read more than about five of my posts in the last year hasn't seen me insult someone? Who hasn't seen James insult someone? Who hasn't seen Bells unloading on people? The reality is that we go by a different standard than absolutism. Or, perhaps I should say, different standards. If I find the statement that "all Muslims are terrorists" bigoted, there are some who find my claim of bigotry hateful. You know, I only say that because I hate Christians, Republicans, Americans, decent people everywhere, or whatever. I see a difference between insult and unpleasant truth. Some of my colleagues do not. And some see whatever truth they want. We had a huge fight at the end of 2009 over an abstract question that essentially treads in the realm of whether or not we should substantiate the accusation before punishing the accused. And in the year-plus since, it has become quite clear: If the accused is Muslim, no substantiation is necessary. And maybe some have noticed, we just had that fight again.
It's a curious outcome. To the one, we say a lot about the scientific method and enlightened, rational discourse. To the other, we do much to perpetuate its antithesis.
And don't get me wrong; psychologically it makes sense, but even I, as hateful and extremist as some think I am, have a hard time believing so many of my neighbors in this community, and colleagues on staff, are so damnably dysfunctional.
Frankly, I wish the Company—the ownership—would tell us what we need to do for them. Because right now it seems like we're chasing the Intelligent Community by doing whatever we can to keep the traffic numbers up, or pursuing rational discourse by trying to change SciForums into Storm Front. The relationship between our hopes and our conduct is utterly broken.
Quadraphonics said:
I think originally it was a numbers game. You've heard me refer to a theoretic "culling" before, to shed our trolls and attempt to restore order. In addition to the reasonable projection that such an action would do nothing over the long run for civil order, it also became clear to me, pretty much from the outset, that it would be a numbers game. That is, if Buffalo Roam, for instance, was such a troll that he had to go, well, he's a conservative, so a liberal would have to go, as well. At the time, some of the names that came up suggested to me that our standard of parity was dangerous. In a criminal analogy, if you sentenced a violent recidivist to twenty years in prison, and he happened to be a Republican, you would also have to sentence a guy to twenty years for failing to signal a lane change if he happened to be a Democrat. That is, it seemed to be a numbers game, and not one of principles.
Additionally, there is the question of labels and conduct. Consider, for instance, the idea of racism. Now, if someone happens to post an argument that sound racist, you might say, "Uh, dude, that's kind of racist, don't you think?" But if that person posts such arguments over and over again, one might start to think the person is actually a racist. You know, the idea that one's behavior defines them to a certain degree?
So you think that person is a racist. Life goes on. Of course, that person resents being called a racist. So he asserts that you only call him a racist as a political ploy, because you have no other argument so you resort to hateful denigration.
Well, you know, I can see this happening in real life. There are some who think I'm an anti-Christian bigot, for instance, because I don't think "the Bible says so" is a good enough reason to pass a public law condemning gay people. For them, of course, the only reason I might suggest they're a bigot is because I can't find a real, logical argument, so I have to denigrate them. It couldn't possibly be the proposed laws to ostracize, disenfranchise, or otherwise discriminate against people for the gender of their legally consenting sexual partners. It couldn't possibly be that someone wrote on their own Facebook page that he hopes gays all kill themselves or die of disease. That couldn't possibly be the reason I might think that person is a bigot. Rather, the only reason I say he's a bigot is because I'm a stupid, petulant liberal who hates Christians and Republicans.
Think about racism for a minute, though. This is a functional reality at Sciforums. If I say a particular person is racist, it can only be because I hate Republicans, right? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with his proposition to end ethnic injustice by perpetuating inequality in society; it couldn't possibly have anything to do with ethnic-based scare rhetoric. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with his conduct and arguments, right? It can only be my hateful liberal elitism.
Yet he happens to be one of my colleagues on staff, and if one tries to explain the reasons why one thinks he's a racist, he'll delete the post as insulting.
It's a nifty circle. You have no real reason to think he's a racist, therefore if you enumerate your real reasons, they'll be deleted. Since ther are no real reasons on record, you have no real reason to think he's a racist. Well, what if there are real reasons? Those aren't appropriate considerations for the public sphere. Which, of course, means objecting to his policy outlook is inappropriate for the public sphere.
And that's how it works. And the administration is just fucking fine with this.
People wonder where the civility is? There's the answer. Right now the staff is obliged to protect certain forms of irrationality and hatred.
You don't like Israel setting babies on fire? You must hate all Jews, and should be punished in this community. You hate Muslims, and insist on dishonest definitions for words in order to complain about how evil Muslims are? You have administrative support. You think people should be afraid of Mexicans because they're Mexican? Right now that's not only a-okay, but it's actually inappropriate to protest this standard because the truth, that it is racist to make such arguments, is unpleasant for the fucking racist.
That is the state of Sciforums, and we got there because we wanted to be "fair" to a political outlook that felt underrepresented and persecuted.
I can't do anything about underrepresentation. But no, I don't see how giving someone who condemns Mexicans as being criminal (that is, quite literally, Mexican = criminal) an opportunity to support that argument with facts equals baiting. Still, however, we decided to give such outlooks a chance to survive and even flourish in the Sciforums community, and yes, that's where the civility has gone.
No, really. The rhetoric that casts Mexican migrant labor as an army trying to steal the United States from white people? That's all good. Suggesting it is extreme and racist? That's just elitist hate speech. Complaining about the dirty, racist Muslims and insisting that outlying, abusive definitions of a word are, in fact, the prevailing meaning? That's the standing policy. Pointing out the hypocrisy of the United States making a human rights argument in favor of Israel against the Palestinians? That's just dirty, Muslim hate speech against Jews and Americans.
These are the functional standards at Sciforums right now. These are among the reasons the moderators are actually at one another's throats. And these are among the reasons that while, yes, PJ needs to just toughen the fuck up, that doesn't mean he doesn't have a point.
I often accuse people I disagree with of myopia. I think this is one of those cases. We kept looking at superficial and short-term contexts. Yet this is the harvest we have sewn.
The recent kafir debate cost James—perhaps permanently—the faith and confidence of one moderator. Nobody really need spend a lot of effort guessing; quite obviously, it's me, and according to a longer-term outlook. It's not that I won't work with him. It's not that my lack of confidence is fixedly permanent. Rather, I've reached a point where I'm not sure by what means I can expect reconciliation. It's like my first post in the thread. I don't hate James. I would much rather fix the problems than fight with him. But I simply can't abide by the assertion that Sciforums doesn't condone personal insults. I mean, shit, who here who has read more than about five of my posts in the last year hasn't seen me insult someone? Who hasn't seen James insult someone? Who hasn't seen Bells unloading on people? The reality is that we go by a different standard than absolutism. Or, perhaps I should say, different standards. If I find the statement that "all Muslims are terrorists" bigoted, there are some who find my claim of bigotry hateful. You know, I only say that because I hate Christians, Republicans, Americans, decent people everywhere, or whatever. I see a difference between insult and unpleasant truth. Some of my colleagues do not. And some see whatever truth they want. We had a huge fight at the end of 2009 over an abstract question that essentially treads in the realm of whether or not we should substantiate the accusation before punishing the accused. And in the year-plus since, it has become quite clear: If the accused is Muslim, no substantiation is necessary. And maybe some have noticed, we just had that fight again.
It's a curious outcome. To the one, we say a lot about the scientific method and enlightened, rational discourse. To the other, we do much to perpetuate its antithesis.
And don't get me wrong; psychologically it makes sense, but even I, as hateful and extremist as some think I am, have a hard time believing so many of my neighbors in this community, and colleagues on staff, are so damnably dysfunctional.
Frankly, I wish the Company—the ownership—would tell us what we need to do for them. Because right now it seems like we're chasing the Intelligent Community by doing whatever we can to keep the traffic numbers up, or pursuing rational discourse by trying to change SciForums into Storm Front. The relationship between our hopes and our conduct is utterly broken.
Make sure the site makes money...
i think you should just let people argue back and forth on the forum. it challenges them to back up their point and if not, then they will obviously lose the argument. it's not like they can't fire back. also, this is different than real life. in real life, there would be more of a need for protection as well as mediators but this is a forum, one is not a captive at work or school or being accosted in public.
one can just choose to disengage if they want. the only reason to step in would be if one were just making no points at all and just spouting insults constantly which is just trolling or constantly off-topic.
i think you moderators are overthinking this one and too uptight/controlling.
some people do need to be banned sometimes but there is too much nitpicking or worry for a forum. it's a forum where just people of all walks of life talk. it's their choice to post as well. like i said, it's not real life.
i do think insults are mostly unethical and i am guilty of it as well but this is a virtual world and no one is forced. anyone can turn off their computer and walk away at any time or not involve themselves in threads or topics they find distasteful or engage members they dislike at any time. if one is feeling harassed, that's what the ignore option is for. or they can find a forum more suited to their needs or interests.
this is like a boxing ring where people don't really get hurt and if they do, then they are being a bit unrealistic or taking it too seriously. you don't know these people and possibly thousands of miles may separate you. it's no big deal. you can't protect people too much when exercising their mental muscle or hold them back.
i would just leave the very serious insults as ban worthy and i think you know what those are which are the more heinous ones which can be either racist or sexist but just general insults can be countered with stronger arguments. the insults are really not the issue anyways and if members on a forum like this can't tell the difference between a legitimate point vs an illegitimate point whether there is insults involved, then they are not exercising their brain enough.
or you could just enforce the rules you have which would get rid of the ones who break them (which would include me as well). it's simple as that. it all depends on what type of forum you want this to be. it's really not that difficult a choice. it's not like there aren't other forums out there or you will kill someone. you don't have to put up with anyone breaking the rules of the forum. but the moderators would also be responsible to hold themselves to that standard as well or be an example. grow a backbone and enforce your rules that you have or get out of the kitchen.
as for my personal opinion, this forum does feel a bit nazi-ish and cold. actually, it's very eerily chilly. it's like it has no soul for a science forum but that's no excuse. neil degrasse tyson is a good example of a human being that is a scientist. you are like corpses in deep freeze. i also don't appreciate banning of wacky posters because they add interest.
Last edited:
Buffalo is the only reactionary right wing lunatic we have left.
Thanks for the commentary, Tiassa. I’m just writing in to sort out of some of the larger misconceptions against myself.
Much of Tiassa’s latest gripe is against me.
No, really. I have damaged and harmed Sciforums, or his perception of it, by having what he erroneously perceives as a wrong opinion, and not shutting up about it. Yes, it is classic discordance. That or incendiary failure to accept standards. I had very a simple benchmark – no slander. Prove your crap – which struck me as pretty fair. I think it’s a standard many have aspired to here: evidentiary process. Support your argument. Even Tiassa demands the same later in his screed, but goes back and forth in his practice.
Tiassa is of course talking about me here again, so let’s not skulk around in anonymity. The facts of the case are hanging around in the previous thread; there was the distortion into other terms (bananas, limes, Sri Lankans, Africans, and so on), the attempt to coddle the discussion into an easily-dismissable accusation of bigotry against myself (which took a fascinating new dimension, as I recall) and then the outright bold-face confrontation (‘you iz bad, thems words don’t mean what youze is sayin’) and finally James just mercifully killed the fucking thing. If I were forced to recap further, it was pretty clear that the definition under discussion clearly wasn’t in fact dishonest, because it was supported and cited; nor did I attack all Muslims for using it (because clearly they don’t), or criticize anyone on this forum for using it as a pejorative beyond one guy. There’s a lot of questions we could fairly ask Tiassa at this point, given that and the above: is Islam for Tiassa, perhaps, just one person? If I called a Muslim or a Jew a ‘heretic’ or ‘Christ-killer’ or any of the other innumerable and viciously unfair names for non-Christians, would that be acceptable? Would it indicate something about my perspective, perhaps? Is dishonesty in a moderator or admin as bad a thing as for a poster? And so on. It goes, or should go, without saying that Tiassa’s characterization of the issue is very dishonest, or willfully misinformed, or simply misinformed. (Yes, these are your choices; I recall in another debate I was slagged off by you as ‘anti-American’, which was probably about as deluded as this other accusation.)
Having said that, though, you can’t fly off on a rant about how in the choices of narratives available, the forums hasn’t picked your explicit, narrow-minded bent. I can understand intimately how that would piss you off; it’s implicit in everything you write. Your standards for banning people fall low enough to graze the suspicion that they might be Republicans, or that they might have conservative bias; liberals and left-wingers would nevar nevar do anything remotely bad. Nothing done on the one hand can be anything but a boon; that on the other an accidental joy at best. (Ironically, I’m regrettably forced to share this viewpoint with you: I don’t believe that conservatism, market economy or capitalism has served the benefit of mankind at large, and that it is an abomination, and that it should end – soon.) This might not be a problem from the perspective of the dialectic on the economy, or on human suffering in a capitalist pyramid, but you have self-transposed a supposition of perfect benevolence into every issue that strikes your fancy: Tiassa Regis. It would be a comical show if the Emperor didn’t actually believe in his own image. You forget – conveniently or otherwise – the requirement of reasonability: in order for a charge to be verified, it has to make sense. The one against EFC did. Your rants against me do not. There is the difference.
Like the ones who accuse the non-Muslims of being dirty, I suppose? Awesome. It’s the strangest case of kill the messenger imaginable: point out that your, er, ‘colleague’ on the forums might be just the tiniest bit of a religious bigot, and as if by magic it is you who are at fault! It’s the perfect proving ground for the myopic. They accuse you of being dirty? No! You just accused them! Brilliant showmanship.
And Tiassa might actually unwittingly have raised a point here. See, it’s true that such attitudes are actually rare on the forums. By protecting such attitudes – like EFC’s – Tiassa is then in the business of giving voice to a voiceless element of reactionary society. I don’t recall Tiassa diving in to protect the probably slightly less extreme Sandy from such accusations; she was not Muslim, so perhaps what he’s saying about different rules for different groups on here is true. I realize my last point is nasty…but in which way is it refutable, actually? Short version: seriously, why the fuck should I conclude any different? Give me a meaningful reason why I should say ‘yea’ to the one and ‘nay’ to the other. One reason.
Yet it was and is indeed often used offensively; it carries offensive meanings as used today, and even as used historically. It really is impossible for a reasonable person to believe there is no alternative to a potential pejorative, especially in a language (English, in this case) which has an explicit alternative. Bells asked at one point whether I really had the gall to demand that other people change their languages: no, actually, although English certainly has undergone that process, and I expect or hope Bells knows this. This entire line was stupid and myopic from the get-go, and it has not improved with a few weeks of aging. How outlying is this abusive definition? As outlying as Tiassa says it is. Like a White Passport, it is an elusive beast for him to locate.
In fact, this is partially true, depending on moderator and moderated, resulting in this issue: it’s fine in your mind to go off on BR or whatever the cutsie name you’ve derived from him is this week for his personal attacks which amount to asking whether mummy was still darning his socks. But unsupported slander against another poster is no big deal to you if the target doesn’t share the correct proportion (or a very specific proportion, rather; it is accepted, for instance, to quote the ‘esteemed’ Mawdudi on questionable avenues of humanitarianism, but not Meir) of your philosophical outlook. The moderators are at each others’ throats? Really? Shocking! Do you honestly wonder why, Tiassa?
Yes, but maybe this is a problem when you get three or four mods and their students unloading on one poster, post after post, without the slightest pause to examine what the other person is saying. The entirety of the massive, blighting problems you allude to on here in my case – which, again, boils down on principle to me not letting you et al hurl slander and pointless invective at me, or bury every dissenting opinion in shit rather than stop and ponder the actual points (and I have no doubt that, had I not just put a parenthetical comment here, that you would insert your own fallacious ones again) that I’m making. Why can’t we just all agree that insults are okay? Because sometimes they’re slanderous discussion-terminators, for one thing. There are other reasons of course.
OK: who, exactly? Name names. Who the hell on the forum would possibly find such a claim hateful? This is another, real problem on the forums: the construction of massive, imposing straw men wrapped in terms like “bigoted” and “racist”, the more impressive to make them seem; to that we add the inevitable nebulous allegory – ‘some who would find’, ‘those among us’, ‘several of our posters’. Why not just write ‘the unspecified, inimical enemy’? Or ‘Goldstein’ – that’s a good general term too, and it has the advantage from my perspective of letting everyone else on the forum know you’re using weasel dialogue. ‘Scientific-process specificity! Anonymous allegation!’ For fuck’s sake, make up your mind.
The irony is murderous here: you use this precise yardstick in bashing your selected targets, then throw fits like this one when they refuse to slink into their assigned pigeon-holes. Or at least I have to assume this is what you do to the others you disagree with, since I could hardly expect a change of your standards on a case-by-case basis. The harangue about unpleasant truth is at least as true about you as anyone else you point the finger at, maybe minus Republicanism.
Except, of course, that EFC was, in point of fact, a slightly worse-than-Sandy, and matched up quite admirably with the accusations leveled against him. You rail about actual scientific method, but turn a blind eye to it when it deviates from your pre-conclusions. You could maybe gripe about Gustav’s banning or something here, if only he met your definition.
Why not take a stand by commitment? There’s an idea. If we demand – really demand – perfect, egalitarian par about arguments on all subjects, and the holding of posters to the same, universal standards, then maybe it would be good for mods – all mods – to do the same, instead of griping that their banning bang-stick is only loaded with rock salt. Otherwise don’t sling about any bullshit about the neutrality of your narrative; or not regarding me. Others will speak for themselves.
Much of Tiassa’s latest gripe is against me.
No, really. I have damaged and harmed Sciforums, or his perception of it, by having what he erroneously perceives as a wrong opinion, and not shutting up about it. Yes, it is classic discordance. That or incendiary failure to accept standards. I had very a simple benchmark – no slander. Prove your crap – which struck me as pretty fair. I think it’s a standard many have aspired to here: evidentiary process. Support your argument. Even Tiassa demands the same later in his screed, but goes back and forth in his practice.Tiassa is of course talking about me here again, so let’s not skulk around in anonymity. The facts of the case are hanging around in the previous thread; there was the distortion into other terms (bananas, limes, Sri Lankans, Africans, and so on), the attempt to coddle the discussion into an easily-dismissable accusation of bigotry against myself (which took a fascinating new dimension, as I recall) and then the outright bold-face confrontation (‘you iz bad, thems words don’t mean what youze is sayin’) and finally James just mercifully killed the fucking thing. If I were forced to recap further, it was pretty clear that the definition under discussion clearly wasn’t in fact dishonest, because it was supported and cited; nor did I attack all Muslims for using it (because clearly they don’t), or criticize anyone on this forum for using it as a pejorative beyond one guy. There’s a lot of questions we could fairly ask Tiassa at this point, given that and the above: is Islam for Tiassa, perhaps, just one person? If I called a Muslim or a Jew a ‘heretic’ or ‘Christ-killer’ or any of the other innumerable and viciously unfair names for non-Christians, would that be acceptable? Would it indicate something about my perspective, perhaps? Is dishonesty in a moderator or admin as bad a thing as for a poster? And so on. It goes, or should go, without saying that Tiassa’s characterization of the issue is very dishonest, or willfully misinformed, or simply misinformed. (Yes, these are your choices; I recall in another debate I was slagged off by you as ‘anti-American’, which was probably about as deluded as this other accusation.)
Having said that, though, you can’t fly off on a rant about how in the choices of narratives available, the forums hasn’t picked your explicit, narrow-minded bent. I can understand intimately how that would piss you off; it’s implicit in everything you write. Your standards for banning people fall low enough to graze the suspicion that they might be Republicans, or that they might have conservative bias; liberals and left-wingers would nevar nevar do anything remotely bad. Nothing done on the one hand can be anything but a boon; that on the other an accidental joy at best. (Ironically, I’m regrettably forced to share this viewpoint with you: I don’t believe that conservatism, market economy or capitalism has served the benefit of mankind at large, and that it is an abomination, and that it should end – soon.) This might not be a problem from the perspective of the dialectic on the economy, or on human suffering in a capitalist pyramid, but you have self-transposed a supposition of perfect benevolence into every issue that strikes your fancy: Tiassa Regis. It would be a comical show if the Emperor didn’t actually believe in his own image. You forget – conveniently or otherwise – the requirement of reasonability: in order for a charge to be verified, it has to make sense. The one against EFC did. Your rants against me do not. There is the difference.
Like the ones who accuse the non-Muslims of being dirty, I suppose? Awesome. It’s the strangest case of kill the messenger imaginable: point out that your, er, ‘colleague’ on the forums might be just the tiniest bit of a religious bigot, and as if by magic it is you who are at fault! It’s the perfect proving ground for the myopic. They accuse you of being dirty? No! You just accused them! Brilliant showmanship.
And Tiassa might actually unwittingly have raised a point here. See, it’s true that such attitudes are actually rare on the forums. By protecting such attitudes – like EFC’s – Tiassa is then in the business of giving voice to a voiceless element of reactionary society. I don’t recall Tiassa diving in to protect the probably slightly less extreme Sandy from such accusations; she was not Muslim, so perhaps what he’s saying about different rules for different groups on here is true. I realize my last point is nasty…but in which way is it refutable, actually? Short version: seriously, why the fuck should I conclude any different? Give me a meaningful reason why I should say ‘yea’ to the one and ‘nay’ to the other. One reason.
Yet it was and is indeed often used offensively; it carries offensive meanings as used today, and even as used historically. It really is impossible for a reasonable person to believe there is no alternative to a potential pejorative, especially in a language (English, in this case) which has an explicit alternative. Bells asked at one point whether I really had the gall to demand that other people change their languages: no, actually, although English certainly has undergone that process, and I expect or hope Bells knows this. This entire line was stupid and myopic from the get-go, and it has not improved with a few weeks of aging. How outlying is this abusive definition? As outlying as Tiassa says it is. Like a White Passport, it is an elusive beast for him to locate.
In fact, this is partially true, depending on moderator and moderated, resulting in this issue: it’s fine in your mind to go off on BR or whatever the cutsie name you’ve derived from him is this week for his personal attacks which amount to asking whether mummy was still darning his socks. But unsupported slander against another poster is no big deal to you if the target doesn’t share the correct proportion (or a very specific proportion, rather; it is accepted, for instance, to quote the ‘esteemed’ Mawdudi on questionable avenues of humanitarianism, but not Meir) of your philosophical outlook. The moderators are at each others’ throats? Really? Shocking! Do you honestly wonder why, Tiassa?
Yes, but maybe this is a problem when you get three or four mods and their students unloading on one poster, post after post, without the slightest pause to examine what the other person is saying. The entirety of the massive, blighting problems you allude to on here in my case – which, again, boils down on principle to me not letting you et al hurl slander and pointless invective at me, or bury every dissenting opinion in shit rather than stop and ponder the actual points (and I have no doubt that, had I not just put a parenthetical comment here, that you would insert your own fallacious ones again) that I’m making. Why can’t we just all agree that insults are okay? Because sometimes they’re slanderous discussion-terminators, for one thing. There are other reasons of course.
OK: who, exactly? Name names. Who the hell on the forum would possibly find such a claim hateful? This is another, real problem on the forums: the construction of massive, imposing straw men wrapped in terms like “bigoted” and “racist”, the more impressive to make them seem; to that we add the inevitable nebulous allegory – ‘some who would find’, ‘those among us’, ‘several of our posters’. Why not just write ‘the unspecified, inimical enemy’? Or ‘Goldstein’ – that’s a good general term too, and it has the advantage from my perspective of letting everyone else on the forum know you’re using weasel dialogue. ‘Scientific-process specificity! Anonymous allegation!’ For fuck’s sake, make up your mind.
The irony is murderous here: you use this precise yardstick in bashing your selected targets, then throw fits like this one when they refuse to slink into their assigned pigeon-holes. Or at least I have to assume this is what you do to the others you disagree with, since I could hardly expect a change of your standards on a case-by-case basis. The harangue about unpleasant truth is at least as true about you as anyone else you point the finger at, maybe minus Republicanism.
Except, of course, that EFC was, in point of fact, a slightly worse-than-Sandy, and matched up quite admirably with the accusations leveled against him. You rail about actual scientific method, but turn a blind eye to it when it deviates from your pre-conclusions. You could maybe gripe about Gustav’s banning or something here, if only he met your definition.
Well, the faith of the faithless is easily discarded. Look, Tiassa, you have at different points raised and lowered your own evaluations of myself – one notable time being when I wrote to James to ask for Sam’s ban to be lifted, simply because I didn’t feel it was justified; I forget the details and they are of no import. Bells, too, has at different times sworn off all contact with me, only to reopen it now and again, in order to attack me wholesale – and in one case to actually have a real discussion, which was very pleasant. I regularly seem to have somehow bought myself back into the transitory favours of some of those with whom I argue on here, only to have myself immediately re-ejected, without ever asking for either. The dramatic ‘reconciliation’ you demand goes unabashedly one-way, and it is ephemeral: the next issue will have you back on the mock castle turret, searching one-eyed for your illusory Romeo.
Why not take a stand by commitment? There’s an idea. If we demand – really demand – perfect, egalitarian par about arguments on all subjects, and the holding of posters to the same, universal standards, then maybe it would be good for mods – all mods – to do the same, instead of griping that their banning bang-stick is only loaded with rock salt. Otherwise don’t sling about any bullshit about the neutrality of your narrative; or not regarding me. Others will speak for themselves.
I would appreciate your honest answer
GeoffP
Before I waste both our time on a response you're probably not going to pay any real attention to, I would appreciate your honest answer to a particular question:
GeoffP
Before I waste both our time on a response you're probably not going to pay any real attention to, I would appreciate your honest answer to a particular question:
Do you really think that was just about you, or might there be more to it?
Total facepalm. Yeah, this is what happens when you pursue superficial rules that fail to respect important distinctions.
Why even resist that? You are better than them, and they are contemptible. They only throw that crap defense up because they think it'll work - they sense that you don't want to be labeled "hateful" or "elitist" any more than they want to be labeled "racist." So, pull the rug out from under them. They're scum. Hate them accordingly, and proudly. Wage war on them - attack the foundations of their politics, without mercy or self-doubt. If their cheap name-calling isn't going to even distract, they'll be left defenseless and terrified. Leave them broken and humiliated; it's what they deserve, and ultimately - I think - what they come here for in the first place.
Yeah, war him as well. He's exploiting your unwillingness to transgress certain boundaries in order to run that crap. So, kick that chair out from under him and stomp on his throat. He'll probably respect you for it.
So how much longer are you going to stand around wringing your hands about it while remaining implicated in such? There comes a time when one should just grab the fucking battle axe and throw caution to the wind. What do you have to lose, exactly?
You're entitled to your reading and all, but from where I sit you've got both of these exactly backwards. SAM's hatred for Jews - not just Israeli policies - is at least as obvious and vile as madanthany's racism. She's just better at finding pretexts that will cow people into accepting it. Since, y'know, if you question her you're an amoral Zionist monster who eats Palestinian babies. Geoff I'll let speak for himself.
But, so what? You want to side with SAM's sewage, that's on you. How about you spare us all the whiny lamentation that others aren't going to just bow down and accept the supremacy of your perspective? That whole passive-aggressive superiority complex bag is getting pretty stale by now.
Well, that and the inability to be honest about what such fairness adds up to.
So, yeah, the forums are politicized. I say, embrace it, and charge into the breach. The requisite stomach and backbone for keeping the debate above politicization are manifestly lacking in the powers here. It is what it is.
And the myopia is itself a manifestation of a fear of taking on larger, less immediatley-tractable issues. Which, yeah, means that you just end up walking backwards into traps.
Yeah, it's some emperor's new clothes type shit, whenever any of the powers go on about "insult." Bizarre that anybody even says that kind of thing with a straight face, by now.
Side-point, but I find the rampant misuse of "bigotry" in these contexts to be an ongoing problem. It's not really possible for a statement to be bigoted. "Bigoted" doesn't mean "hateful" or "prejudiced" or whatever. It's a description of a person, one that clings irrationally or obstinantly to an opinion (any opinion - you can be bigoted on the question of "cake is good").
So? Don't you hate those people? Why wouldn't you? They're contemptible. And they know it. That's why they jump right on the "eek you hate me" train when challenged.