Should able2know ban people for having untoward opinions?

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Do u get unemployment insurance for that ??

Untoward opi....ahhhh....question......ahhmmmm.....I am no good at this. I am censoring myself and going to bed.

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Thats two life bans !

Can I wear them like garters then? I have never had the slightest inclination to be a cross dresser before, but you tempt me.

0 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

Butrflynet wrote:

Arella, It isn't just other people that it is hurting. Have you considered that you might also be doing yourself a bit of harm by obsessing so relentlessly on the subject?
...............................................

Yes!

You can certainly speak on the subject of obsessions - you're so afflicted with them that you imagine dark racist plots even in utterly unrelated remarks. You haven't answered RJB yet on the updated PC-compliant Army terms, have you? Do you know the answer or not?

You have suffered no damage, physical or psychological, from any "racists" except for such damage as your delusions are causing you - and yet you dare comment about "obsessions" to a person who has suffered from assault, a criminal act?

There's a point where tragedy crosses into farce - and you're squarely into farcical domain; with one proviso - tragedy still awaits those unfortunates you will attempt to advise in your capacity as "counselor". A less qualified person would be hard to find.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

....... 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.

The PC contingent here (standard-bearer: Snood) is worse than a lynch mob. Give me trolls any day, some of them are fun to read.

3 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

.... If someone posts a viewpoint that is considered offensive enough, should this result in their banning?

The PC police goes beyond viewpoints that are posted - they object to suspected thoughts that may lie beyond what's posted.

The couple of pages after Thomas's post I just replied to are classics of Orwellian crimethink. The most interesting result from these pages with the alleged crimethoughts is that the PCers can't come up with consistent versions of their own newspeak. Here's Orwell's version:

Quote:

..Quite apart from the suppression of definitely heretical words, reduction of vocabulary was regarded as an end in itself, and no word that could be dispensed with was allowed to survive. Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Come Baaaaack!!!

0 Replies

@High Seas,

What a f*cki' drama queen--you're as bad as Hawkeye, true Chicken Little's, the pair of ya.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

From the same post by Thomas I just replied to:

Quote:

I am, at least in part, on hawkeye's side on this issue.

So that's one more who agrees with Orwell - presumably the original "drama queen" and "Chicken Little". All in all, good company Smile

0 Replies

Tell me who among your good company has been silenced in this or any other thread at this site? That's the point, which you do not want to address, and neither does Hawkeye. You may not like the response to your stupid colored people remark, but no one silenced you, and no one even remotely suggested that you should be silenced.

The sky is falling ! ! ! The sky is falling ! ! !

-- C. Little.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

... no one silenced you, and no one even remotely suggested that you should be silenced....

Are you as afflicted by PC-induced delusions as Snood? I hope not. Nobody said he's been silenced - I certainly didn't.

0 Replies

I have no reason to assume that such a thing as "PC-induced delusions" actually exist. Just like Hawkeye, you seem to want to suggest that freedom of speech is threatened by an overbearing application of political rectitude. Neither your free speech nor that of Hawkeye has been threatened here. In fact, the subjecct of this thread is not political rectitude, it is whether or not people should be banned for their opinions. I'd surmise that RG started the thread confident of the overwhelming response he would get--and it has been bourn out. The people here, who include many, many members who despise Hawkeye and BillRM (and O'Bill, for that matter), have overwhelmingly rejected the idea of banning people for their opinions.

By the way, since you whined about it for so long, i'd say that there is a proper way to describe colored people. I suggest that you call them . . . people.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

By the way, since you whined about it for so long, i'd say that there is a proper way to describe colored people. I suggest that you call them . . . people.

the P-word

Razz

1 Reply

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Thomas wrote:

....... 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.

The PC contingent here (standard-bearer: Snood) is worse than a lynch mob. Give me trolls any day, some of them are fun to read.

You enjoy reading your own stuff?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Tell me who among your good company has been silenced in this or any other thread at this site? That's the point, which you do not want to address, and neither does Hawkeye. You may not like the response to your stupid colored people remark, but no one silenced you, and no one even remotely suggested that you should be silenced.

Setanta has spent a fair amount of his recent A2K time more that just remotely suggesting that I should be silenced. If A2Kers took his advice that I should be ignored, scrolled past, not responded to and generally ostracised then, although I might continue to post, I would have been silenced to all intents and purposes.

And it is good advice if the assertions he makes about my posts are valid. If his assertions are not valid what other conclusion can be reached other than that he is spouting nonsense. And if he is spouting nonsense a good proportion of his time what reason is there to not conclude that he is spouting nonsense all of the time?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

In fact, the subjecct of this thread is not political rectitude, it is whether or not people should be banned for their opinions.

That is nonsensical. Of course people should be banned from A2K for their opinions if they go outside a certain, quite limited, political acceptability. The principle is indisputable and has legal sanction.

The only question is the limits. And who applies them. Hence PC-compliance.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Since then, only JPB even bothered to reply to the argumentation he requested from me (and barely at that), and a whole slew of mostly abuzzers piled on to the ad hominem bandwagon… but there’s no bias… none.

I don't think I'm the only one who bothered to reply to the argument, but that's between you and everyone else who replied. I assume the "barely at that" portion of your statement is due to the fact that I didn't respond to your reply. I think that's key to much of what's happening here. Some folks are debaters. Some debaters need to "win" the point, or at least have the last word. I'm neither a debater nor someone who needs to win. I do, however, have strong opinions that I feel entitled to express here. I'm comfortable enough in my own opinions that I don't need to defend them, or attempt to change anyone's mind about my position. It's not why I'm here.

You, Rob, (and BillRM?) are last-word kinda guys. I've seen the pattern for years. That's not a criticism, it's simply an observation. There are other last-worders here too (some on this thread). I think that's where BFN was coming from when she said,

hawkeye10 wrote:

butrflynet wrote:
It has become a contest about who gets the last word rather than a discussion about the topic's subject
I disagree....it is about 2 factions, both passionate...

I partially agree with both BFN and Hawk -- two factions, each trying to get the last word.

1 Reply

This thread is out of control. It seems that even if the ability to ban should be available to A2K, we're not really capable of handling it. I don't really have the confidence that we could surgically separate threats from unpopular posts.

I'd rather Mods do grounds keeping on tags to help group topics properly and clean out graffiti. This would be a better use of their energy, and would probably help more anyways.

A
R
T

2 Replies

@failures art,

Other than cleaning spam, are there mods that cover other areas at all?

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

Other than cleaning spam, are there mods that cover other areas at all?

Yeah, it's the same people, but they act (afaik) very rarely on other issues.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I can't for a moment agree with Fart's claim that you cannot distinguish between threats and unpopular opinions--that just absurd. I do know (not think, know), that they do a lot more than just remove spam. The thing is that the rules for post content have been greatly relaxed in the last eight years.

2 Replies

Should able2know ban people for having untoward opinions?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know