Certain topics should not be allowed on sciforums

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by Epictetus, Jun 20, 2012.

  1. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Was that supposed to make you look less oblivious?

    Ever heard of the movie "Boyz N Tha Hood?"

    Any recollection of the prominence that "hoodies" had in our country's most recent racial scandal (the Trayvon Martin killing)?

    LOL nice try I guess, but you're going to have to do a lot better than that.

    The fact that I recognize that we live in a racist society, and so know that certain terms have racist connotations - totally independent of my own ideas - is just that.

    Likewise, the disclaiming of any (obvious) racial connotations, and the attempt to turn the tables by projecting those onto those calling the racist on his racism, is itself a classic (cheap) tactic used by oblivious racists. You're just digging the hole deeper.

    Another classic, characteristic racist evasion. "But some of my best friends are black!"

    None of what you describe is incompatible with racism. Plenty of racists come from exactly the background you describe.

    So what? Again, nothing incompatible with being an oblivious racist about that.

    So what?

    Except we both agree that, instead, you lived up to exactly those "preconceptions." So there was no "joke" at all. Meanwhile, the one premise there (that people are going to judge you on your username) is kinda silly, and the other premise (that said judgement would be negative) itself is an instantiation of racist prejudices.

    The fact that you're from a poor background in no way implies that you aren't racist, nor does it excuse your racism. You're just trying to change the subject to something you feel puts you in a positive light, because you're defensive about having been called on the racism.

    And, sure, I've had a fairly privileged existence. I don't pretend otherwise, and I'm grateful for the opportunities I've been given. What does that have to do with anything? I'm not allowed to object to your racism because my parents were wealthier than yours? Or what?

    As are you (obviously) - difference is that I'm way better at it than you are. And I'm not an oblivious racist.

    JamesR didn't say anything that would make me look silly. What is it that you think you're talking about? He called me out, and completely misrepresented my views in the process, so I cleared that up. Why is it that you feel this need to insert yourself into that interaction?

    Yeah, good luck with that one, crybaby.

    LOL even if the mods were inclined to side with you, you're making it really difficult by being such an angry troll yourself.

    And throwing a hissy-fit over having your racism noted just makes you look defensive. This is not how people who are not, in fact, racists respond to situations like this. You're just flailing around because you know that I've got your number, now.

    Ooh, real convincing! And I'm so wounded that big bad Balerion said I was dumb!

    If that's true, then responding to it implies that you're exact the juicy target I said you are.

    Nor you. So what?

    Right - he is both over-reacting and missing the mark. There are two things, and JamesR is doing both of them.

    Even if you misread that as referring to him and some other person, why would you assume that it is you? I didn't say anything about you (or anyone other than JamesR) in that post. Seems like you're going out of your way to create some issue with me. Which, like I said, looks to be some combination of a desire to be JamesR's bitch, and a crush on myself. I'm flattered, really.

    Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night, Mr. E-Ballz.

    LOL yeah, I'm so going to take that bait...

    Go ahead and comb through the archivesin SFOG if you want all the details. I don't have time to relitigate this stuff now, and anyway Gustav can speak for himself when he returns. You don't seem to know the relevant history, so if I were you I'd avoid wading into those waters.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    This thread needs a split into Ethics, Morality and Justice. It's gotten a bit off topic.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Really? You honestly believe that "hood" refers to a hooded sweatshirt?

    This is either a reflection on your intellect or your dishonesty, and either way, we're done here.
     
  8. MacGyver1968 Fixin' Shit that Ain't Broke Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,028
    Hood is short for "neighborhood". Lakewood is my hood.
     
  9. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    It's also short for "hoodlum" when used in the context of "He's a street hood." In neither case is it short for "hooded sweatshirt," as quad so incredibly believes.

    :roflmao:
     
  10. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    The exact wording I put on the ban list was "Intellectual dishonesty/Trolling" and the infraction issued was (IIRC) for trolling/meaningless post content.
     
  11. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Fair enough. But was that related to his Nazi stuff and Holocaust denial?
     
  12. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    I suppose that depends on what that means when you ask "was that related to his Nazi stuff and Holocaust denial?"

    It seems (to me at least) that there's a couple of different ways of parsing that question, so you're going to have to be more specific.
     
  13. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    It doesn't even matter at this point. I'm exhausted from this.
     
  14. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Your call.

    I was just trying to distinguish between "Defense of his position is trolling" versus "Trolling in defense of his position" because both are "related to his Nazi stuff and Holocaust denial" in that he was banned for trolling while defending his position in a discussion of said position.
     
  15. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    I appreciate it, it's just that I've lost track of what I'm even arguing about at this point.
     
  16. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,088
    My concern as a website designer is the credibility given to any lie someone wishes to publish on sciforums.

    If someone wished to be an "attention whore" or throw Islamic propaganda by stating that something true was not true they may have a hard time of it. If these people created their own websites they would be hard pressed to find the search engines review their websites as often as sciforums is reviewed.

    Sciforums gives them a platform that is superior to what they could give themselves. I can see how censorship can seem harsh in the face of libel/slander/ignorance, but it is preferable to giving a platform to these jerks.

    I would have absolutely no problem with these "debates" if codes were introduced to the threads in question that stopped search engines from processing the pages of the topic, as sciforums is now a platform that convinces gullible people that the holocaust never happened, or 9/11 was faked.

    If someone types
    "Did NASA land on the moon"
    "Auschwitz never happened"
    "9/11 was faked"
    into google..
    Would you really want sciforums being on the top of the website hit list supporting these hurtful claims.

    My argument is that sciforums is currently a large pedestal to preach from, and that anyone wishing to spew garbage would be better "contained" on their own websites.

    Do we want people complaining to google about sciforum content? Websites are delisted regularly for silliness.
     
  17. Epictetus here & now Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    554
    I think you haven't been paying attention, James. Not just to me, but many of us.

    Of course others may disagree with me, and express contrary views, even inadvertently offensive ones. What I and others object to is deliberate trolling and provocation for its own sake. Steampunk is being absurd. Of course he knows 9/11 happened, the Holocaust happened and Einstein was a real person. What I resent is his wasting everyone's time pretending otherwise. If he proposed, say, that the sky isn't really blue and talked about subjective perception and the like, I would listen and even admire steampunk. Instead he is doing the equivalent of saying, 'the sky is not blue and never has been, and I dare you to prove otherwise, and it will be for me to decide what constitute real proof'. - which is absurd!

    As for people thinking I am a nutsoid troll, they're entitled to their opinion, but my 500+ posts here have always been frank questions, frank responses to their questions or comments that I feel I can answer intelligently, or sometimes pure fun and fooling, but never mean-spirited or absurd, provocative insults to decency.

    When people posts (what I and many others would call) crackpot ideas, I politely ask them to clarify, or if I can, explain why they must be mistaken; in short I respect their views and don't ask that they be banned.

    Obviously you are aware I have reported many posters and requested several bans, and more often than not those bans were made. I don't suppose for a moment that it was on my say-so alone. It must be that others, including some moderators, including yourself, saw that I was right. And I have never been right because I am so smart and knowledgeable about science, I have been right because I can spot the energy vampires, time-waster and deliberately offensive and provocative trolls.
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    wkhilborn:

    My own view is the opposite of yours.

    I'd love to have somebody google "Was the moon landing faked?" and find sciforums near the top of the search results, with a well-argued debate in which the silly notion that the moon landing was faked is thoroughly debunked.

    And, despite the grumbles we often get from members here, I think that sciforums actually does a very good job at exposing silly claims to the light of reason and critical thinking. You simply can't get away with saying "the holocaust never happened" here without somebody jumping down your throat within a post or two. A significant segment of our membership is pretty savvy when it comes to spotting empty and faulty arguments, and in rebutting them.

    I don't think that anybody who gives sciforums more than a passing glance could conclude that it is a place where idiocy is allowed to run unchecked.

    And think of the alternative: type in "9/11 was a conspiracy" into your search engine and where do you want people to end up? At a site that presents both sides of the argument - importantly addressing the misconceptions and lies - or one which is populated and run by "truthers"?
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Epictetus:

    I've been paying attention; I simply disagree with you.

    First, note that the Einstein thing is not a claim that steampunk made, but is a claim that was made by Chipz to parody steampunk.

    As for the other two claims, I am not by any means convinced that steampunk is just pretending to believe these things. On the contrary, I suspect that he quite honestly holds the views he claims to hold.

    Recently, I attended a talk about Creationism, in which a questioner asked the speaker (Eugenie Scott, if the name means anything to you) "Surely Creationists don't actually believe all this stuff about the Earth being 6000 years old and so on?" And the answer that came back is that, bizarre as it may seem to people with at least a little science education behind them, most Creationists are quite sincere in their beliefs.

    What makes you think that he has the right to set the standard of proof? Why must we play his game? Clearly, the guy is crying out for an education in what evidence is.

    And you think I can't, obviously.
     
  20. Epictetus here & now Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    554
    James, you don't think that anybody who gives sciforums more than a passing glance could conclude that it is a place where idiocy is allowed to run unchecked?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I, and I suppose kwhilborn, to name just two have certainly given SciForum more than a passing glance, and I think I can speak for him when I say that yes, it is most definitelya place where idiocy is allowed to run unchecked.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Ban trolls, brother, just ban them stinkin' trolls, and keep'em banned.
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Yes.

    I can't recall one. But I try not to prejudge.
     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Epictetus:

    kwhilborn has been challenged on every silly claim he has made that I am aware of.
     
  23. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    I don't think so.


    Not at all.

    He simply follows the problem of truth in its practical application.

    There are many theories of truth, and questioning some generally held tenets (such as "Did the US really land on the Moon?") is a practical application of what philosophers are otherwise so fond of discussing in theory.
     

Share This Page