Banning of Balerion

5 people to not piss off:

1. Customers
2. Your Managers
3. Police
4. Judges
5. Forum Moderators

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's a lie. I entered the thread to discuss the possibility of him ever being released, the ability of humans to be redeemed, and the philosophical differences between prison as rehabilitation vs. retribution. I only entered the Islamic debate when you and another poster started saying that anyone who had a problem with Islam was a bigot, and dangerously close to Jim Jones and Adolph Hitler politically. Ironically, it was Geoff who corrected me, saying that it was Islamic supremacy that was the danger, not regular, every day, moderate Islam. And I publicly agreed.

Nor did I ever complain about Islamic fundamentalism. I complained about your generalization.

Your response to that comment:

You do realise that he went on to murder dozens of children and set a bomb off because he felt that Islam was a poison to his society, yes? And you seem to recognise that with him.
​

You followed that with:

In short, when you come into a thread and parrot the ideology spouted by Breivik in court and in his manifesto, don't then whine when you are lumped into his pathetic racist corner. You see, Breivik's main complaint is that he could not apparently discuss the matter, just as you are complaining about it here. Only difference between you and his ideology and beliefs about Muslims is that he went ahead and decided to murder as many of them and their children in that youth camp as he could.

A man walking around with a gun and shooting children in the head because they were either Muslim, not white or children who supported a Government that allowed immigration is to me, worse than people protesting over the cartoons, wouldn't you say? That is what your side did. That to me is the worst of the lot. Any individual who sees fit to enter a youth camp and shoot dozens of children dead is the worst of the lot. For you to complain that the people he was trying to eradicate is worse, is you blaming the victims, which frankly, isn't really surprising.

You and your little right wing lackey's in this thread have been noticed. You can try and derail this thread as much as you want about complaints about Islam. Keep in mind that it was one of your own who went ahead and deliberately murdered children by shooting them in the head because of their race and political beliefs.​

Does anyone see why I might react angrily? Who here wouldn't, if they were told that the only difference between yourself and a mass murderer is the act of killing--not the philosophy, not the motivations, not the mental acuity or stability...merely the act itself?

And then this punk has the nerve to act offended when someone responds as Geoff did, which is passingly mild compared to the comments above? I mean, seriously?

See, this is the point where, were all things equal, Tiassa would jump in and demand that you supply evidence to support your claim or face a permaban.

My first comment on Islam in the thread was that it was a poison to society. A comment I clarified at Geoff's request, and would say and have said about any fundamentalist group, religious or otherwise. I never, not once, not ever, said anything anti-Muslim. Ever.

I'll be awaiting an apology, and your resignation, for such a blatant and disgusting lie .

Given your penchant for lying, I'm not exactly confident that you're telling the truth now. And what do you want, a cookie? You think we should be glad that you decided for once not to sleazily abuse your power? Apparently you do, otherwise you wouldn't be banging that drum so hard right now.

...Are you serious? Do you know where we are right now?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ok...
Welcome back Barerion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your waiter and your chef.

 

Oh that is beautiful!

 

Everybody Loves Robert Loggia

Except, of course, that evidence was already obvious?

Given your penchant for wailing, fist-banging, roll-around-on-the-dirty-floor temper tantrums, what, exactly, do you expect?

Consider, please, that it's not just moderators you pitch your hissy cows at.

Do you really think every one of those tantrums is clean?

Or, maybe, do you think you get a little more leeway when, at the very least, your critique can be discerned in order to assess its merit?

And, yes, people generally get even more room to maneuver, twist the political knives, and have the skeezy sorts of fights they really enjoy when the underlying argument has merit.

Here, try this, as it doesn't directly involve you ... except on these occasions when it does:

• There are a number of members in this community whose purpose of late seems to be to make virtually any discussion they join about themselves. You might notice in some of these, as various individuals are offended at suggestions that they are behaving in a racist, sexist, anti-Jewish, &c., are not exactly productive, as the discussions tend to get distracted by people demanding that they are not as bigoted-ugly as the argument they just posted makes them look.

True, there is always at least some of that going on, but there is also a question of "how this behavior is trending". (I know, twenty-first century neologia are abysmal.)

Instinctively, people in general seem to disdain that behavior in others; whether we recognize its elements finds some dimension of an answer in how much we overlook the same behavior in ourselves, and that is certainly an appropriate consideration in its own right.

However, in the long run, when it comes to the idea of rhetorical nonviolence, cooperative and progressive discussion habits, and collective search for truth, it is quite clear the members of this community only want so much of that.

In the end, barring a memo from upstairs telling us it's officially hands-off, no holds barred, spam- and stalker-patrol, we still have certain obligations.

The problematic behavior that stands out is what gets our attention.​

One of the things that stands out is when someone specifically demands that moderators pay attention to them.

When one who is ignorant of relevant historical issues wants to tell a moderator what to "stay the fuck out of", there really is no question that the individual wants our attention.

And when the response to that desired attention is to skip any pretense of a policy enforcement issue and cuss out a moderator, well, the obvious question that really ought not need to be asked is what one expects to happen next.

There are other behaviors that show up on our radar, like a consistent failure to recognize the difference between a twist of the political knife and outright libel. The thing is that, well, sure, there are many subtleties, and myriad intricacies, in such diverse communities as these, but oft astounding are many things we find ourselves needing to explain to people.

For instance, this is one of those odd occasions on which people are upset because a process within our community worked. Tiassa said, "Oh, for fuck's sake." Bells said, "Stop. You do not start this here, on this point, on this occasion. Leave it for another day." Tiassa said, "Okay."

And here's the thing: I've got an habitual libelist upset that his rhetorical Molotovs will receive the scrutiny long refused them according to some perverse Venn overlap of diverse priorities among disparate individuals. And I've got an habitual complainer upset that determinedly trying to cuss out a moderator is somehow frowned upon.

Guess what? It's just another day at Sciforums.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Your surgeon.

 

Tiassa, could it possibly be that..."the discussions tend to get distracted by"... various biased individuals that are Posting Libelous Accusations that another Poster is "racist, sexist, anti-Jewish, &c.," in the first place?

Tiassa, is not true that setting any arbitrary "starting point" in any "Cause and Effect" argument, is in itself, a completely biased action?​

 

Feel free to provide a single example (or more, since I'm apparently this raging bigot who can't stop being all bigot-y) of me making anti-Muslim remarks.

I really do find it ironic that you and Bells--two of the hissiest hiss-fitters this side of the Real Housewives--so repeatedly accuse others of throwing tantrums. Your man-period in the middle of the Syria thread is just one example of a hundred times that you've completely lost your mind on this forum, and yet you're actually trying to paint me as some sort of drama queen? I mean, really? Is it that you have no self-awareness, or is this like your threatening PM, something you only say because you can get away with it?

As the clownish moderators in question, it's you and Bells who get to determine whether or not the argument has merit. And since the argument here is that you and Bells are a couple of rancid trolls who use this forum to compensate for what must be absolute disasters of personal lives, your being the arbiter of such matters is a natural conflict of interest. Which is why you should take my original advice and just stay the fuck out of it. But you couldn't do that, because it wasn't dramatic enough, I suppose.

From my experience, it's quite the opposite. A person makes a comment about radical Islam and is immediately branded a bigot by one of two moderators. Or another member says that there are crazies on both sides of the political spectrum, and he's called a secret Republican--which makes him by explicit implication a misogynist, homophobe, and all-around bigot, as well as an unethical jackass. In other words, it's the rush to label everyone as a racist, sexist, anti-Semite, etc., that seems to be the most common roadblock to thoughtful discussions. Rather than addressing the merit of the comment, you or Bells tend to immediately attack the person, put them in a position where they have to explain that they aren't any of the foul things you so irresponsibly accuse them of being. And then you act as if the comments made by the accused are so widely agreed to be bigoted in nature that they require no explanation, but I'm sorry, that's bullshit. Case in point: You and Bells now both saying I've made anti-Muslim comments. Are either of you prepared to support those claims with facts? No, of course not. We'll just say, "Hey, you're the one making the anti-Muslim comments." Is it that you think saying it enough times makes it true? Anyway, these outright misrepresentations are the icing on the troll cake, and the real reason these threads tend to go downhill. If you two would just stay out of them, then perhaps we could actually get somewhere once in a while.

Then hold Bells accountable for her comments to me and to Geoff.

But, see, I already know you won't, so the statement quoted above is already false. Why don't you come clean, for once, and just admit that you enjoy bullying people here. I imagine it would be somewhat cathartic.

Except that in every case of me or Geoff, or likely anyone else who has had the displeasure of crossing your or Bells' path, the reaction you call attention-grabbing is merely a response to the shithead comment from one of you, like "Shut up while you still can," or "The only difference between you and Anders Breivik is that he actually went out and did it."

Again, this is in response to said moderator vomiting special-colored text all over the thread because a member spoke to Bells the way Bells speaks to everyone else. See, we all know the relevant historical issues: You lie, you defame, and you infract. You're a troll with access to moderator powers. All Geoff did was give Bells some of her own medicine.

It's a fair question. I certainly expected to hear from you. Never expected you to pull and internet tough guy act, though. That surprised me. For whatever reason, I thought you were above that. In the end, it's irrelevant. You had a hissy fit, and needed to be chided for it. I did that, and it clearly had an effect on Bells, whose own shame made her convince you to stay your hand. So, I bit the bullet for GeoffP. Not the first guy I would have expected to do that for, but not one undeserving, given the circumstances.

C'mon, let's be honest with each other here. Are you really telling me that what Bells said to Geoff was political knife-twisting? Or what she said to me? And if you think it was, then what's the difference between what she said to him and what he said to her?

I would really love an explanation, because it seems to me that the difference between knife-twisting and libel is who said it.

I have to wonder if the shame was yours, rather than hers. Hmm. After all, the "shut up while you still can" PM was a bit out of character for you.

Either way, mission accomplished.

Nice power trip. What makes cussing out a moderator such a big deal? Is that an admission (finally) that you believe yourselves to be somehow above us?

I mean, considering how none of your are accountable for anything, and that you come on here and call comments by a regular member "libel" that are just "political knife-twisting" when wielded by one of your own, it would be oddly reassuring to at least hear you admit it.

 

What you said to me is quoted in the post above. If you can show me an example of when I "parroted the ideology spouted by Beivik in court and in his manifesto," I'd love to see it.

And the "your side" comment was entirely without merit. What I said was that fundamentalist Islam was poison to society. That's what I said, and I didn't say it in the context of "Yeah, he's bad, but he's right about Islam." I came in saying that he was awful and what he did was awful and that he should never leave prison again. My first comment about Islam came only when you started generalizing people who took issue with that form of Islam as being bigots. But I guess it wouldn't help your case to put my comment in context. It's easier to misrepresent me, and outright lie.

What's tragically funny about all of this is that even if I were a bigot, or anti-Muslim in some way, that wouldn't excuse you likening me to a mass murderer. You'd still be in the wrong.

Would you like to know the six words I wrote and then deleted before settling on that one? If you want to give me a pass (because apparently swearing gets you banned now) I'll gladly share.

http://www.sciforums.com/Anders-Breivik-Faces-Sentence-of-3-Months-Per-Murder-t-113310.html

In what way could that possibly be construed as being anti-Muslim? Islam is an ideology (and I was talking about fundamentalist Islam, not Islam in general); a Muslims is a person. Did I say Muslims are poison to society?

Own your mistake, Bells. Stop trying to weasel out of it.

You keep saying "in a thread about a man...yadda yadda yadda," as if I weren't responding to your sweeping generalizations about everyone who disagreed with you being a bigot. Again, a clever but dishonest attempt at framing the situation in a light that doesn't make you look like a scumbag.

Holy shit, are you allergic to the truth?

The thread had devolved into mudslinging. It was no longer about a man killing 77 innocent people, it was about which posters were most likely to succeed Breivik in his mission, since so many of us were so dangerously close to him, ideologically. My comment was about those generalizations, not about Islam.

I know. That would require integrity, and at least a passing sense of irony.

Let's see...Tiassa tells me to "shut up while I still can," and I tell Tiassa to "Go fuck himself," and I'm the one who gets flagged for abuse? Right...

And my "abuse" of you was using your real first name, which you've used on the public forum previously. How dare I use public information! GASP!

Do the two of you plan this shit out beforehand, or is it just serendipity that a pair of sleazy liars keep finding each other like this?

You probably know this because you have said far worse than any other member of this forum, and have been banned from multiple forums as a result.

Well personally I am in the comfort of my own home.

So because you're you, and you put a smiley face at the end of it, that makes you claiming that I'm clinically insane okay?

Seriously?

And what am I supposed to say to that? What is my recourse here, to such a fucked-up statement as that? Can I ask how you manage to write such lengthy posts while perched on your broomstick?

 

This is ridiculous.
How long ago did this dispute over Breivik take place?
How can it possibly have any bearing on this weeks events?

 

History, my friend is always used for perspective and argument. There are times when it is best forgotten,aye?

 

Aye, aye!

 

Marmaduke says aye too.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Miaoaye!

We are presently searching for the stowaway that stole my chicken legs.

 

Sorry, he likes young hot gals. Thus the divorce.

 

How about we put this like water under the bridge. And just let these issues float on by. Balerion has been here longer than me. And he is "colorful" and has a way with words.
I don't always agree and I don't always disagree either. I say IMO keep him! And let's drop any issues.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Oh? What evidence is this?

True, true. There's a very fine difference between 'misrepresentation' and 'misrepresentation'.

Gosh, I sure hope you can find such people out and oust them. I have a related problem with someone who sees no difference between, well, libel and libel.

I guess if I were being cynical, I'd wonder how the process of moderation degenerated to the point that another moderator had to step in, but I do think I understand how you're interpreting the meaning of 'functional process'. If I may be permitted to use what I think a reasonable parallel: it's like if the President of the United States suddenly lost it because Putin flipped him off on the vid-phone and lunged for the Red Button, only to be tackled by his advisors and dragged kicking and screaming to the ground - a perfectly normal, functional process.