Should able2know ban people for having untoward opinions?

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

....Just out of curiosity, how do you respond to Butrflynet's point that BBB, her mother, never asked for your protection, and that she doesn't appreciate your assuming the mantle of her knight in shining armor? When moralizing, there is such a thing as "none of your business". How is the protection of people who don't want to be protected any of your business?

Alleged do-gooders stepping forth in "defense" of those who never wanted it? I question their motives! It's "the li'l woman" in the case you quote, or else it's the handicapped, or the homosexuals, or the coloreds, or the whatever other potential "protectees" - but the 14th Amendment already protects them all. Enough with this victimization industry - Orwellian at best. Speech must be kept free!

1 Reply

I believe the last thing this site needs is censorship, whether applied in blanket fashion to folks labelled as "trolls" or in degrees, as some here have suggested. There are many folks here who annoy each other - the same thing happens in just about every venue in life.

The anonymity of the internet does indeed enable some folks to abuse this and other like forums. However, I believe the bad side effects of censorship would outweigh any benefits - even if a non-partisan, objective method could be found to identify offenders meriting sanctions - something I also seriously doubt.

I do believe that the previous actions of monitors to temporarily close threads that were getting out of hand, and to occasionally delete particularly egregious posts were generally very effective in limiting the worst offenses. I have the impression that such actions have become far less frequent over the past months and that may be an area in which some improvements can be achieved. For all I know there may be some reasons for this such as a potential shortage of monitors.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Occom Bill wrote:

Clearly, he recognizes Shorteyes' deliberate advocacy of rape, but chooses to cater to him anyway, based on his gut instinct alone.

I am, at least in part, on hawkeye's side on this issue. I have myself argued on A2K that statutory rape laws are going too far in America, and that I'd prefer that they be reformed back to the status quo ante of America's founding era. I did this in a thread whose initiator had started it with a Jermiad about teenagers routinely losing their virginity around the age of 13. (Which, of course, was also common in the founding era, when the age of consent was 12 years under the Common Law.) I think I presented my argument in a civil, factual tone---no less so than my usual posts at least. For that I got lynched by a mob of righteous people making false allegations about my my criminal record (nonexistent), my mental health, and the presumable safety of leaving me alone in the same room with their daughters.

Having dealt both with trolls and with lynch-mobs trying to enforce "morality", I prefer trolls, thank you very much.

2 Replies

fbaezer wrote:

I am for democracy and discussion, but the absence of a central authority, the unchecked autonomy of rival groups, and the inability to arbitrate quarrels through formal mechanisms is a death warrant to any social organization other than a loose group of acquantainces with no purpose.

This alarmed me when I first read it. Able2Know could be in real danger. However, maybe A2K falls into the category of "loose group of acquaintances with no purpose." Websites organized around a single purpose are more likely to have a central authority and formal mechanisms. I prefer posting on A2K because it offers variety rather than a strictly defined purpose.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Currently my personal position is that I will not have sex with someone who is passed out, or is so drunk that they can not walk. Other than that I believe my partner has the ability and right to consent.

What people can not seem to understand is that every time you grant a group of adults some special protection you are also taking away some part of their adult rights at the same time.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Having dealt both with trolls and with lynch-mobs trying to enforce "morality", I prefer trolls, thank you very much.

Clever.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

"the coloreds"?

1 Reply

I'm sympathetic to Bill's argument, but in the end the Ignore option can be employed much more quickly and with far less controversy that notifying Robert and asking him to ban someone.

If Robert gets to ban people, it's up to him to decide who to ban and on what basis. The argument that he is not being consistent in his reasons for not banning someone can and will be used against him if and when he actually does ban someone.

He offers users wide latitude which is appropriate --- especially in light of the fact that he has provided the Ignore option.

It's an interesting discussion though.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Occom Bill wrote:
My not too infrequent calls for rape-advocates to kill themselves for the good of society, usually submitted in a heated exchange. As understandably repugnant as that is to many a member; would it not be more so if I directed such a hateful statement at a teenager pouring his heart out on a depression thread? Is there no difference?

No difference. Your **** stinks just as bad to me as theirs. Of course, judgments like this are in the nose of the beholders. But I'm the person you happen to have asked.

That answer doesn't even address, let alone answer the question, Thomas.

Thomas wrote:

PS: Just out of curiosity, how do you respond to Butrflynet's point that BBB, her mother, never asked for your protection, and that she doesn't appreciate your assuming the mantle of her knight in shining armor? When moralizing, there is such a thing as "none of your business". How is the protection of people who don't want to be protected any of your business?

I'm not under the illusion that I'm protecting anyone from anything, Thomas, and I've assumed no mantle of anything. I was disgusted to see BBB verbally assaulted, as I've been disgusted to see others verbally assaulted, and continue to be disgusted by the tolerance for this despicable behavior... just as I'd be disgusted to see it in an office, a bar, or a grocery store.

This whole Bill thinks he's the Sheriff bullshit is just that. That I wouldn't step around an assault on my turf, and that I wouldn't step around an assault on yours, is no reason to ascribe such an idiotic fantasy to me. I don't happen to share your apparent apathy for the plight of strangers, don't see any reason that any particular venue should tolerate barbaric cruelty, and as much as I dislike the bogus labels I'm receiving for being as human online as I am in person; I'm not under any illusion I can do anything about that either, in case you were going to ask.

If BBB suffered one iota more because of my reference to RM’s despicable treatment of her, for that I am truly sorry. Any damn fool would realize that was certainly not my intent, and it boggles the mind that so many people would look past the initial offense with apathy, while heaping scorn upon those repulsed by it enough to want to see it discontinued. Robert has some very loyal friends indeed.

4 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

fbaezer wrote:
I am for democracy and discussion, but the absence of a central authority, the unchecked autonomy of rival groups, and the inability to arbitrate quarrels through formal mechanisms is a death warrant to any social organization other than a loose group of acquantainces with no purpose.

This alarmed me when I first read it. Able2Know could be in real danger.

Not unless more of the rest of us join in this Leninist Weltanschauung - alarming as you say and known to lead to catastrophe in all prior occasions when it's been tried. Barring none. Fortunately so far it's only shared by someone by the name of Fido - though of course other creeps wishing to supress free speech might be lurking on the fringes of this forum. Leave them where they are, ban nobody - our freedoms protect them too and the creeps are in a sense vital to us remembering at all times how valuable our freedoms are. Let the creeps and communists post all they want.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Occom Bill wrote:

Robert has some very loyal friends indeed.

Or maybe he's just plain right in this disagreement, and you are just plain wrong.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Lash wrote:

"the coloreds"?

Yeah.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Occom Bill wrote:
Robert has some very loyal friends indeed.

Or maybe he's just plain right in this disagreement, and you are just plain wrong.

Perhaps both of them have good points that are worth considering, rather than adopting such a black-and-white view of things.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Perhaps both of them have good points that are worth considering, rather than adopting such a black-and-white view of things.

Both of them have good points, which I did consider. Having considered them, my judgment is that Craven is right and Bill is wrong. What's the problem with drawing conclusions about points, if you do it after considering them?

2 Replies

@fbaezer,

Thanks a lot for taking the time to go into it. As you can see by my Samoan problem, even so-called restriction to basic laws STILL requires more subjective judgment than I'd thought previously... I didn't have the Abuzz experience, so perhaps those who did might speak to these ideas. Would they have made a difference in the demise of Abuzz... do you think member conflict resolution, interactions by rival groups, and administrative hierarchies are vitally important issues or keys to longevity for a site like ours?

Again, fbaezer, thank you. You're the first member I've seen step up with something concrete.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Lash wrote:

"the coloreds"?

Yeah.

Cycloptichorn

Yeah.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

The problem is political correctness - facts go by the wayside, PC remains intact (Lash, that means you). Orwell got your case down pat:
[quote]...As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete
melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech
that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of WORDS chosen for
the sake of their meaning, and more and more of PHRASES tacked together
like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house...[/quote]

3 Replies

@High Seas,

Nothing forces you to choose outdated and offensive terminology, other than your inner preference for doing so. It's just as easy to use modern terminology and there's no reason not to do so - except for one.

Bringing up PC as a response, as if those who point out your willing use of the incorrect term, is a weak-ass defense and nothing more than a continuation of a long strategy of Conservative victimhood, as if asking you not to be offensive is akin to harming YOU in some way.

It is not.

Nevertheless, I don't pretend that you should be banned from the site, despite your proclivities in this area.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Occom Bill wrote:
My not too infrequent calls for rape-advocates to kill themselves for the good of society, usually submitted in a heated exchange. As understandably repugnant as that is to many a member; would it not be more so if I directed such a hateful statement at a teenager pouring his heart out on a depression thread? Is there no difference?

No difference. Your **** stinks just as bad to me as theirs. Of course, judgments like this are in the nose of the beholders. But I'm the person you happen to have asked.
That answer doesn't even address, let alone answer the question, Thomas.

Admittedly, I phrased my answer badly. Let me rephrase it: Your **** would stink just as bad to me in both cases.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Why would you call a group of people "the coloreds," High Seas?

1 Reply

Should able2know ban people for having untoward opinions?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know