POLL: Should treasonous, racist bastards be allowed to remain on ET?
- Thread starter Gabfly1
- Start date
I dont get it. Baron creates the politics and religion section in order to filter out controversial and aggressive talk, but you complain that the talk is too controversial and aggressive for you.
Censoring and deleting threads is a touchy subject. If you start going down that road then it can create unforeseen difficulties and then there are the moral issues behind preventing free speech. I have seen where some other sites and blogs have done a lot of editing creating a site with a one way view of the world. Do you really want a one way view of the world?
Look, we are all adults here. If someone says a bad word, then I know its a bad word. I do not need anyone to delete or edit out the word. In fact, I would be offended if Baron deleted or edited such speech as that goes against the American way. If someone writes or says something then let it be. I know all of the bad words and what racism is. I can sort through whats right and wrong. If the words are bad, then let them stay there. If you want to be constructive then reply back in a civilized and constructive manner. Let the racist words be examples of the wrong thing to say and point that out. Do not reply back in a violent manner, but be civilized and tell them you are offended by such remarks.
However, whatever you do, do not edit or delete the speech. In America, everyone gets to speak even the racist and insane. If you start going down that road of not letting people speak, then you open up a can of worms. Again, this is America. Let people speak...either dont read the thread or reply back in a manner which demonstrates the right and wrong things to do. We are all adults here and so we can make a determination of whats right and wrong. I dont need anyone here telling me what a bad word is...
Censoring and deleting threads is a touchy subject. If you start going down that road then it can create unforeseen difficulties and then there are the moral issues behind preventing free speech. I have seen where some other sites and blogs have done a lot of editing creating a site with a one way view of the world. Do you really want a one way view of the world?
Look, we are all adults here. If someone says a bad word, then I know its a bad word. I do not need anyone to delete or edit out the word. In fact, I would be offended if Baron deleted or edited such speech as that goes against the American way. If someone writes or says something then let it be. I know all of the bad words and what racism is. I can sort through whats right and wrong. If the words are bad, then let them stay there. If you want to be constructive then reply back in a civilized and constructive manner. Let the racist words be examples of the wrong thing to say and point that out. Do not reply back in a violent manner, but be civilized and tell them you are offended by such remarks.
However, whatever you do, do not edit or delete the speech. In America, everyone gets to speak even the racist and insane. If you start going down that road of not letting people speak, then you open up a can of worms. Again, this is America. Let people speak...either dont read the thread or reply back in a manner which demonstrates the right and wrong things to do. We are all adults here and so we can make a determination of whats right and wrong. I dont need anyone here telling me what a bad word is...
Controversial and aggressive is okay. Treasonous and racist? Not so much.
Censoring outright hate is the civilized thing to do. This is a privately-owned web site. The owner has the right to set the tone and standard for his own site, so keep your freedom flag and slippery slope at bay. The question is, will the owner adopt minimal standards in this regard?
Quote from Gabfly1:
Oh, the drama.
Thunderpussy, you really need to learn when to pick your battles!
Continuously moaning to the mods about marginal little issues is a surefire way to <b>never</b> get taken seriously, even if one day you happen to come up with a legitimate complaint.
And this is coming from someone who used to kind of like you, until your continuous <i>kvetching</i> just caused you to lose all respect in my eyes. I'm not saying I never whine about anything, but you've taken 'running crying to the teacher' to a ridiculous extreme.
You are principally insulted that I don't take your Ayn Rand any more seriously than I would any other cartoon character. This seems to be where we largely parted ways. Frankly, I find it somewhat surprising that you would condone hate speech riddled with racism and treason. That goes well beyond a simple difference of opinion. Calling me names when I have yet to insult you personally is just the cherry on top. Clearly we live by different standards. I prefer mine.
I will complain about hate speech, racism and treason wherever and whenever I see it. It is a principal that I live by. What principals do you live by?
This just in: This is a feedback forum.
Sedition is a term of law which refers to overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.
Typically, sedition is considered a subversive act, and the overt acts that may be prosecutable under sedition laws vary from one legal code to another. Where the history of these legal codes has been traced, there is also a record of the change in the definition of the elements constituting sedition at certain points in history. This overview has served to develop a sociological definition of sedition as well, within the study of state persecution.
The difference between sedition and treason consists primarily in the subjective ultimate object of the violation to the public peace. Sedition does not consist of levying war against a government nor of adhering to its enemies, giving enemies aid, and giving enemies comfort. Nor does it consist, in most representative democracies, of peaceful protest against a government, nor of attempting to change the government by democratic means (such as direct democracy or constitutional convention).
Sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power. Treason is the violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or state, giving aid to enemies, or levying war against one's state. Sedition is encouraging one's fellow citizens to rebel against their state, whereas treason is actually betraying one's country by aiding and abetting another state. Sedition laws somewhat equate to terrorism and public order laws.
Typically, sedition is considered a subversive act, and the overt acts that may be prosecutable under sedition laws vary from one legal code to another. Where the history of these legal codes has been traced, there is also a record of the change in the definition of the elements constituting sedition at certain points in history. This overview has served to develop a sociological definition of sedition as well, within the study of state persecution.
The difference between sedition and treason consists primarily in the subjective ultimate object of the violation to the public peace. Sedition does not consist of levying war against a government nor of adhering to its enemies, giving enemies aid, and giving enemies comfort. Nor does it consist, in most representative democracies, of peaceful protest against a government, nor of attempting to change the government by democratic means (such as direct democracy or constitutional convention).
Sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power. Treason is the violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or state, giving aid to enemies, or levying war against one's state. Sedition is encouraging one's fellow citizens to rebel against their state, whereas treason is actually betraying one's country by aiding and abetting another state. Sedition laws somewhat equate to terrorism and public order laws.
I'm an IDF veteran while Sameeh is a Pali terrorist sympathizer and Bernard Richards has mentioned that he's an IRS special agent (=professional extortion thug), and yet I can still somehow respect <i>them</i> on a personal and individual level. Riddle me that.
Whoever came up with calling you Thunderp**** instead of Thunderdog was so clever and fitting that I couldn't resist using that a couple times. But since it <i>is</i> a little below the belt on my part, I promise not to call you that again.
But you really should pick your battles more carefully. ET is a board where a troll can clearly imply that grown men humping 10 year old children is perfectly fine as long as the local politicians have made no laws expressly prohibiting the practice (and no action was ever taken against that particular troll) ...so do you really think that covertly implying that Obama is an N-word without actually saying it would get anyone banned? Don't be silly.
Here's the difference. I remember years ago when Z made casual and repugnant general references (in the chat room, I think), and I remember saying so. As I recall, one or more of his prior handles have been banned for one reason or another. However, I do not personally recall his verbally attacking a specific member's children. It may have happened, but I was not there to "witness" it. However, I do know that the aggrieved member in question also happens to be a shameless opportunist as evidenced by his own conduct as he repeatedly brought up his children over and over again rather than leaving them out of internet discussion boards as a responsible parent would do regarding this subject matter. And he repeatedly did so quite coincidentally on those occasions when the other member posted political views different from his own.
Recently, moderators said that if evidence of such alleged misconduct was presented, action would be taken. I can understand that moderators would be reluctant to act on someone else's say-so without accompanying evidence. And so, whenever I see evidence of what I consider to be inappropriate conduct, I point it out. Again, I refer to hate speech, racism and the like. I can take personal insults as well as anyone, and I hurl them right back. This is different. It's the cockroach that should not be allowed to multiply by going unnoticed.
T-Dog, I think a part of what Hank is saying is this. You already know that the owner will not adopt the standards you describe. You of all people know it beyond a shadow of a doubt. You know it because you've see things so much worse than a coward who can't bring himself to use the actual word substituting the word niggardly as a sniggering epithet. You know it because you've seen what Hank described above.
Since you already know 100% for sure that the member to whom you refer won't be banned, this thread becomes sort of pointless, and is just a way for you to say 'I object to this guy using the word 'niggardly' as a thinly veiled racist epithet'. I hear you on that but let's face it, that's what we see every day on here, especially since the black man took their White House. If you feel that way, you should just start a thread saying as much, right? That's what will strike guys on here as whiny - the fact that you already know nothing will happen.
EDIT: Just saw what you posted re: moderators saying that if evidence was presented, action would be taken. T-Dog, please tell me that you don't actually believe that. If that were the case, HWCBM (He Who Cannot Be Mentioned) would be gone permanently.