But never the tolerance of intolerance. Why does that repeatedly escape you?
What?
- Thread starter TGregg
- Start date
I see you are back to using derogatory labels without merit. That's a sure sign you've lost the battle and subconsciously you know it but your pride forces you to flail away at me to try to save face. My posts aren't "wacko", they are in history and I had very good reason to take a stand and leave the site in the past ( on ONE occasion; multiple times my ass ). In terms of posting quality, I was one of the only posters on here who posted an accurate forecasts about NA market direction from 2009-2013, and very occasionally a nice trade idea. I don't suffer fools lightly though, and a lot of my posts were of the debunking type when the site was flooded with crash calls and bearish outlooks.
But all that pales to the issue of racism in P&R. You seem clueless on this, that kind of content can't be allowed, if the owner was ambivalent, well, eventually the outside world ( eg sponsors, poster interest ) would influence that. It's occurring in the US all the time, ask the ex-LA Clipper owner about "free speech" and how well that worked for him. And what he did was pretty tame stuff compared to what some people post here.
Last edited:
TGregg is not banned from ET. The op (TGregg) say on the first post that he can not "defend" himself because his is "demodded". But really Baron is saying in a different thread TGregg can post on the ET. So TGregg really does have his freedom to speak on ET.
If you are so sure about the outside world eventually influencing the owner, why did you rush (on a number of occasions) to post in this very forum about how ET supports that sort of thing? Shall we pull up all the posts and rehash them? Because you're a shit-stirrer. It's what you do. It's who you are.
What is your problem, Tsing? Tgregg can still post what he wants. He is free to be. Baron simply decided he wants no part of it. If you have a problem, why not take it up with the person who made the decision to remove Tgregg as moderator?
Nine_Ender simply exercised his freedom of speech. You know, that thing you love so much?
Nine_Ender simply exercised his freedom of speech. You know, that thing you love so much?
Last edited:
You are free to campaign for the restoration of a moderator who regularly posts racist ideas. If that's "who you are", go for it. I think you lack character and possibly your moral compass is off kilter. I don't need you to like me, in fact I think it's likely a good thing if you don't like me.
As for who I am, I'm a well educated Canadian who happens to be white ( not that colour matters ) and who happens to have two wonderful "mixed" kids. This may motivate me more then others to address any racism or bigotry with a little energy.
You don't seem to understand that Elite Trader, like any business, may not necessarily want to openly support posters who put up distasteful messages that denigrate people based on skin colour, background, income etc etc. If you think somehow TGregg's personal rights have been trampled on here, take it to the site owner. But as I said before, TGregg ran with his ideas and is pretty hard to defend even for his friends. Is he guilty of poor judgement and poor communications, or is he racist to the core and fully capable of communicating his true feelings. I made up my mind he's pretty pure in his intent. His response to losing the mod position IMMEDIATELY brought up skin colour again ( slow learner I guess ).
But as I said before, if ET kept him an moderator ( and it seemed they would ), I respected their right to do so as long as they owned that decision. Apparently, somebody else intervened or Baron had a change of heart. This was not my doing, there was no campaign.
If TGregg came back as moderator, I wouldn't like it but that's been going on for years and it's not for my benefit he got dismissed.
@Tsing Tao: You have raised this First Amendment Right issue a few times. I don't know your background. But here is something to ponder.
You are correct that bigoted speech or "hate speech" is not an exclusion under Freedom of Speech (while "Fighting Words" are). The problem arose when the Supreme Count granted a "group libel" exclusion to Freedom of Speech in 1952. However, later court decisions have chipped away that "group libel" exclusion, and at present it is widely agreed by Constitutional law experts that "group libel" exclusion no longer exists for Freedom of Speech. So, making bigoted speech in these forum is indeed covered by Freedom of Speech.
However (and this is a big however), the bigger issue for Baron is Civil Liabilities. As a private forum, bigoted speech (and "hate speech") could -- and most likely will be -- considered a civil liability issue. Thus far, the Supreme Court has excluded bigoted speech from civil liabilities only when the institution involved is a public institution. This is a big issue for Baron and he has to deal with it -- no amount of "Warning" could waive the civil liabilities issue. However, given that this is an online forum, the law is little murky here. I am sure Baron would not want to find out either!
So, while you are correct that TGregg's speech is protected by Freedom of Speech, the bigger issue for Baron would be Civil Liabilities. Hence, one cannot necessarily, in a private forum, say whatever they choose to say citing Freedom of Speech, unless of course, you don't care what Baron has to deal with later!
Regards,
Monoid.
Last edited: