Certain topics should not be allowed on sciforums

People who have not been personally present at an event have to rely on second-hand and third-hand sources.
They have to trust that those who are talking about an event are being truthful and complete in their accounts.

And this is the core of all such controversial discussions and debates.



Once there is some conflict among sources (one supposed first-hand source claims one thing, and another supposed first-hand source claims something else), or when a source admits to fabrication or is found out to have fabricated things, then people's trust in the whole process of relying on second-hand and third-hand sources diminishes.

What to do then when this trust is gone?

Some people believe that the best course of action is to simply blame the person who has lost trust, expecting-demanding them simply trust again, under threats of social exclusion, defamation of character etc. if they fail to trust again.
But people can't trust on command.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You know what? I'm relieved. Debating these things from an impartial perspective is a good thing. As long as he takes the debate seriously, I don't have a problem with it. Trolls don't take any topic seriously, they just disrupt and tease.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Can we stop pretending that banning these kinds of discussions are bad for society? You can't walk into the Elks Club and start spewing Nazi apologetics, and the world is none the worse for it. The fate of the free world does not hinge on sciforums allowing for such idiotic discourses, and Galileo most certainly did not fear private groups setting their own standards and guidelines.

Let's stop dramatizing, please.

This is a social club, and many of its members don't want to have these kinds of people polluting the place. Asking that these kinds of threads are closed and thrown in the cesspool is not an unreasonable request.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Absolute Censorship Harms Any Agenda

Absolute Censorship Harms Any Agenda

I'll try to do this as simply as possible:

(1) Absolute censorship harms any agenda — History and fable alike remind that absolute suppression does not eliminate an idea. Rather, the appearance of irrationality builds sympathy for bad ideas. Given that there are very few, if any, absolute generational lines, we must acknowledge to the one, that there are fools born every minute, and that, while not all of these need remain fools, seeding suspicion against propriety and sympathy for bad ideas is a problematic proposition. We haven't much of an agenda, these days, at Sciforums, but once upon a time the motto here was, "Intelligent Community"; increasing sympathy for Nazis is not what we consider intelligent.

(2) Sunshine really is a good disinfectant — Letting foolish behavior demonstrate itself foolish often has positive results. The only question is whether the audience can figure it out. To wit, as one of the deciding authorities, I can certainly explain that, for my part, one of the things hoped for in allowing the debate proposal to go forward would be that our neighbor would lay out the argument in a formal debate, be properly shredded, and that outcome would stand as a testament of what happens when one stupidly pushes bad ideas.

(2a) While it is true that we did not achieve this outcome, our neighbor's persistent refusal to offer any affirmative argument of any sort—even about the criteria of debate—serves well enough as an example of the mentality of Nazi advocates.​

(3) What about other people? — Well? What about them? Or, to be more specific, as complaints flooded in, I'm uncertain how many times my colleagues chose to tip their hands. I believe I did twice, insofar as I recall telling two members to lay off and let our neighbor humiliate himself. Once this point was made clear, those members did whatever it is they do, but they also backed off haranguing me. There is a larger discussion we might have someday about people's presuppositions regarding one another, and the idea that the staff here is so evil and incompetent that all we could possibly be doing is promoting neo-Nazi fascism. So, yeah. Other people? What about them? They need to get on the trolley, or go about their business. We know this community doesn't trust us, be it for cause, ego defense, or anthropology. But we do actually—at least sometimes—know what we're doing.​

We've let all manner of absurd discussion go on here before. One of my favorites is rape advocacy in disguise, which even saw a person explaining that it's a woman's fault if she's raped because men are thoughtless machines; indeed, we should note that what was otherwise an exercise in idiocy did have positive effects insofar as at least one person whose argument came down to denigrating his fellow males in order to justify rape came face to face with the idea of being a rape advocate, and gave his own position some serious reconsideration.

What we have remaining in the latest Nazi chapter is a testament to the futility of Holocaust denial. And what we have in the blowback seems to be the suggestion that even this is too much to ask people to deal with.

But absolute censorship harms any agenda.

All in all, we're just bricks in the wall. But how deeply does that metaphor run? Are we inanimate, thoughtless bricks? You know, shaped lumps of stone serving the hand that stacks us up?

Or are we capable of thinking for ourselves from time to time?

The answer to that last you owe not to me, but the reflection in the mirror.

 

agreed

i demand the moderators prove their impartiality by sanctioning the following instance of bigoted and utterly crass speech

that is very insulting and denigrating towards a certain class of women
i am personally offended

 

The Larger Issue

... your ego, apparently.

In the first place, try applying the issue in some context that isn't your pet whine of the month. Or season. Or year. Or whatever.

However, even setting that aside, let us consider—

—three forms of undesirable elements:

• Pedophiles — Generally, we shut the trap on these as soon as they come up because they are not very good at masking their agenda. As such, they present a legal thread to the site; if we allow them to continue advocating pedophilia, we might end up with investigators knocking on the home office door. While the company could certainly weather such a situation with ease, it would not be a very good future for Sciforums to be seen as such a potential liability.

• Anti-Semites/Holocaust Deniers — We actually had a backroom discussion about the prospect that entertaining a Holocaust denial thread might run afoul of certain laws in some European locales. Finding no specific consensus that we should ban the subject outright, the decision was eventually made to allow our neighbor the opportunity to present his case. That he failed to do so is indicative; see (2a) above.

• Anti-Islamic bigots — Compared to pedophiles and open anti-Semites, we have a bumper crop of anti-Islamic members. Perhaps the perception of lesser need to concretize an example of this sort of stupidity is affected by the comparative frequency with which we encounter it.​

I recognize some people need to reduce issues to extremely, even delicately, superficial perspectives, but the biggest problems we have doing our jobs as site authorities arise when we subscribe to that sort of superficiality.

This has long been the case. Perhaps it isn't so apparent to people who, like yourself, demand the utmost simplification to satisfy your complex and superior intellects. And if that is the case, well, sorry, this is how it goes, and you know damn well where the door is.

You have my attention. By all means, let us examine these famous cases, and see how many of them track back to prior occasions.

What you have in that 2008 thread is an example. We gave people as much tolerance as we could to say whatever stupid things they wanted, and they said some exceptionally stupid stuff. In the end, though, certain boundaries were clearly delineated. If someone wishes to raise the issue again, it is our expectation that they will address the issue as it stands, not from square one. We've already been down the path. We know where it starts. We know where it appears to lead. If someone wants to take up the argument, they need to be able to accommodate those two facts. Simply asking people to go back through it again is useless.

Now, perhaps we have crashed down on other people since then. Find me those examples, and let us compare those "other cases in which such speech was not tolerated". I'm happy to explore them with you.

Well, I think we both know the futility of trying to live up to a standard that refuses a successful outcome. We cannot demonstrate whatever competence you want when you are determined to believe that we cannot demonstrate that competence.

And, of course, if the only way to demonstrate that competence is to do whatever you want whenever you say so, well, excuse my laughter.

Then ... don't ... read ... it.

Only as long as I imagine people are capable of understanding it.

So, in your case, at least insofar as you have demonstrated your inability to comprehend, no.

Well, if our version of a better place isn't one hundred percent what you want, I think we both know the answer.

And you can believe it all you want.

Meanwhile, one of the benefits we rarely discuss because none of us seems certain how we feel about it is the mythical transformation one goes through in the eyes of certain members of the staff.

You raise us on a pedestal, of course we're going to appear isolated in an ivory tower.

Seriously, JDawg, if we enforce the standards you are demanding, very few of our regular members would be left.

No, really. Take a moment to actually think about it.

Otherwise, we can just put automatic filters in place, and cover our asses by making sure that common netspeak variations are covered, too. And every time you violate one of those filters, the system will assess infraction points, and yes, we could get rid of moderators altogether and automate the whole thing, and we know damn well you'll still complain about that.

So really, sir. Just stop and think about it.

You know, think?

 

i think you can

do the needful or i will fatwa sci's ass

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Generally, obvious things shouldn't be debated, unless for entertainment value.

Now in this case, the idiot is saying there was no plane. That is non-debatable. He could say that there was plane but it was remote controlled and the passengers were killed somewhere else. Now that is more interesting, and although still far fetched, debatable...

About 9/11 there are so many other debatable things (what hit the Pentagon, WTC 7, what brought down Flight 93,etc) so what steampunk is trying to debate here is is just plane stupid and not much entertainment value is there...

 

Rock and Roll

Sisyphus, stay, while I get you a bigger rock to push up the goddamn hill.

On second thought, that will do.

I mean, we both know what happens next.

 

I probably should feel pleased for writing such an apparently brilliant argument that you began your response to it with the type of insulting deflection our more elusive Religion Forum trolls save for the conclusion of their rambling diatribes...and yet I find myself a bit melancholy at the realization that a person employing such a tactic is in charge.

So the legality of pedophilia is what keeps it off the forum? Not the fact that it's disgusting and insulting to virtually all of the people who use the forum? That is a troubling revelation indeed.

This does nothing to answer the question of why you moderate anti-Islamic bigotry but not antisemitism or Nazi apologetics. Rather than accuse you of intellectual dishonesty, I'll just assume you missed it the first time. In either case, try again.

Love it or leave it, right? I must have missed the Navy Jack on your rear window.

I fail to see what's so superficial about asking that certain arguments be left at the door, and I'd love to ask you to clarify, though I'm sure, since you've chosen to be personally insulting rather than enlightening, you'll simply say "Well, of course you don't see it," so I guess we're at an impasse on this point.

This contradicts your rationale for allowing Nazi apologetics and antisemitism, unless you're saying that the next Golden Dawn recruit to rise up and assert that the Holocaust was a Jewish lie will be treated with the same expediency...?

I don't have the time or patience to slog through years of posts to show you examples of you and others cracking down on lesser crimes simply because those offend you more personally than others, nor is such an exercise necessary.

The attempt to absolve oneself of any responsibility is endemic of the moderator community here, sadly. You of all people should know this, given your blowout with James R not all that long ago.

I find it interesting that you often perpetrate the very crimes you condemn.

Well, that's one way to avoid the matter at hand. Or you could act like an adult and admit that you screwed up.

Just like you simply avoid the pile of dog poo in your living room when the puppy has an accident? Oh, that's right, we live in the real world, where people don't simply turn a blind eye to the troubling things happening just next door.

There it is! Remember kids, the higher your insult count, the bigger your e-peen!

Straw man. I never said it has to be 100% what I want. If you can't address my actual argument, why are you bothering?

Oh, right...e-peen.

Oh please. All we ask is that you do your job with something approaching consistency. Somehow it's our fault when you fail?

There aren't many left now. Why do you think that is, Tiassa? You think it's this "free and open" community you've fostered here? Or is it that you can't be bothered to weed out the problem posters when what's left of your membership is asking you to?

No, really. Think about it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yeah, because that's what I'm asking for. I'm asking for a letter-of-the-law enforcement, for all ideas that oppose mine to be silenced. Yep, that's what I'm saying.

 

absolutely
sci endorses rather than sanction, certain instances of juvenile bigotry and disdain towards a foreign culture's garb

still tho, our mods are merely human and are merely a reflection of the society at large

Meanwhile, in the United States, Muslim women have reported discrimination for their religious beliefs and way of dress. In 2009 alone, 425 Muslim women filed workplace discrimination complaints, a number that is on the rise. In one notable case , a 19-year-old Muslim college sophomore was fired from her position as a stockroom clerk at a Bay Area Hollister because she refused to take off her hijab, or headscarf, on the basis of religion. Unlike a cross or yarmulke, the Muslim veil has been the subject of numerous attacks and removal campaigns. It is the most visible sign of the Arab-Muslim culture and has long represented to the West the extremist views of Islam. However, it is not this piece of fabric but a conservative contingency that is truly the culprit in stripping women of their freedoms and futures. ​

too bad my sisters will have to endure further oppression if they decide to sign up here. my advice? don't

 

Star Wars vs. WTC 7

Lately some people have been wishing to discuss WTC 7 (not me) and their threads were closed down by saying:" we have had those discussions already."

1. The Star Wars thread is like 200 years old and still going, and nobody is closing it down.

2. For a newborn every old joke is new.

3. If there is interest for a topic, no matter how deadly beaten horse it is, why is it up to a moderator to decide if that should be discussed or not? If there is no interest, the thread will die anyway. If there is interest and people wish to discuss it, dear moderator, just shut the fuck up and let the thread go on...

After all, it is the click rate what keeps the website going. By closing down discussions, you are killing the website... And no, not all discussions will be academic, you are on the internet after all...

I just thought that should be pointed out.

P.S.: My other favorite grievance, when you guys close old threads down that has been activated by a newcomer... If there is new interest, let it live...
P.P.S.: The whole Religion subforum could be closed down, since pretty much 90% of the topics have been beaten to death...

 

So you don't think you need to provide a platform for pedophilia but you do think you need to provide a platform for Nazi apologetics and Holocaust denial? I know that's not what you're trying to say, so please clarify this.

And I don't buy that a subject is off-limits just because it has been discussed before. We discuss the same religious topics a hundred times a month in this joint. The only thing that changes are the debaters.

Um...what? You have a Nazi apologist and Holocaust denier on the roster right now, and his discussion threads still stand. Hence, it was not moderated.

Well, okay. I don't understand the purpose of this, though. I would venture a guess that this topic has already been discussed here, and more than once, so why would this instance be deemed the authoritative debate? And if you ban the discussion of it from here on out, aren't you contradicting what Tiassa said earlier about sunshine being a good disinfectant, absolute censorship blah blah, etc., etc.?

Fair enough. I only wish your moderators shared your high character.

If you think that's the only way to get a feel for what the membership wants is to poll them, then so be it. This particular case seems obvious enough, in my view.

 

correct, he actually feared being murdered . . . by the church.

 

a guy named Michael Fullerton starts 2 threads

trippy closes the first with..

the second closed by james aping trippy...

..plus necro redirects towards threads started in 07, 08 and 09.

it's weird
an entire subforum...conspiracies was created for exactly just this. why cannot we afford micheal space to air his concerns? is it his fault that he got here to sci in 2012? are we similarly going to restrict certain topics to all new members? if so, they should be aware of this during signup