Should Racism be tolerated in these forums?

[Bells]

I agree you should hear others opinions that differ from you because shutting it out doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's better to know the true opinions of others and what thier concerns are even if they don't coincide or agree with yours. It's all a learning process.

Yes. But should it be limited? We all know there are racists on these boards. How many times must we all be subjected to discussions on the superiority of one race and the inferiority of another? None with any scientific proof, only links to site where 'white power' is the norm?

 

[S.A.M.]

Since there have been some questions about why I voted to abstain, this is why (also written in the mod forum)


I abstained because while I agree that racism should not be encouraged on sciforums, I am not certain that banning all racists is an answer. I would rather they were arguing with people who think differently than huddled together in their groups. However I do recognise their disruptive influence on the forums, so I do not want to vote yes, but as a moderated forum, by shutting out unpleasant ideas, we also miss out on the chance to allow new and young members from seeing rebuttals to their arguments. There was a post by desi which brought this sharply into focus for me.

However, I do agree that Sudoku is not one we want to entertain here any more. He seems to have no other interests.

 

[Till Eulenspiegel]

Posts or threads can only be disruptive if you allow them to be. I participate in another forum on which there is an individual who exhibits trollish behavior. I simply ignore his threads and gloss over his posts as do many other posters.

All that is needed is an ignore button. If someone annoys you so much just place that person on ignore and their posts will not show up on your screen.

 

[James R]

I don't really have time to deal with spuriousmonkey's latest tantrum in detail right now, but I will post more on this when I get time. In the meantime, just a few comments:

evidence
http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1581978&postcount=130

fucking apologize!

You dishonestly post a single post instead of linking to the entire thread.

For a fuller picture, I invite people first to read my reply to the above, and take a look at the rest of the thread, if they wish. See here:

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1583487&postcount=135

spuriousmonkey's post appears a few above this one.

abolish infractions. yes

and yet I received an infraction from the troll James R based on nothing and you all act like you are stupid. Like there is nothing there.

This is a lie. spuriousmonkey did not receive an infraction from me. He received a warning to stop his current campaign of trolling.

I must say. James is one hell of a moderator. Every time the atmosphere on sciforums is improving he manages to blow it. singlehandedly.

WHAT THE FUCK ALL YOU ALL PLAYING AT KILLING THE SPIRIT OF SCIFORUMS?

Contrary to spuriousmonkey's ego, he is not the "spirit of sciforums".

Something to think about.

 

[Gustav]

time is confused

 

[Gustav]

rerun?

how do you address these heinous charges?

/shouts

 

[Gustav]

/thinking/about/something

 

[quadraphonics]

by shutting out unpleasant ideas, we also miss out on the chance to allow new and young members from seeing rebuttals to their arguments.

True, however, the problem with this is that the racist activist types tend to be energetic enough to drown out any rebuttals. They'll just turn on the firehose and bury any rebuttals under pages of links and invective, where nobody will ever see them. In the end, the only thing new members will see is thread after thread of unchecked bigotry.

If you get someone who's actually intellectually honest making racist arguments, then, okay. That person will be susceptible to a reasoned rebuttal of their position, which will have positive effects on the discourse. But those people are exceedingly rare.

 

[S.A.M.]

I was thinking more about the problems associated with seeing or hearing only one side of an argument as is present in the racist websites.

 

[Zyxoas]

Did I just see JamesR discussing Spuriousmonkey?
OH NO I'M CAUGHT IN A TIME LOOP!!!

It's like the bastard spawn of the incestuous coupling of Star Trek and Quantum Leap.

Aaaarghhh...:runaway:

 

[Till Eulenspiegel]

If you get someone who's actually intellectually honest making racist arguments, then, okay. That person will be susceptible to a reasoned rebuttal of their position, which will have positive effects on the discourse. But those people are exceedingly rare.

You seem to be saying that someone who begins as a racist and posts in honeyed words and finally gives up his/her racism and comes around to your non-racist point of view is okay but someone who doesn't do those things is not.

Who is to be the arbiter of intellectual honesty? Who decides what rebuttal is reasoned? Why must rebuttal, reasoned or not have what a particular poster sees as positive effects on the discourse?

What happens if the person does not rant and rave or use invectives but persist in his/her racist views? Are people who are not convinced by others less worthy of posting than those who are convinced?

I hate racism as much as the next person, maybe more since I was the child of parents who were born in Germany growing up during and immediately after WWII. As such I was subjected to racist taunts. I hate racism but I hate censorship even more.

 

[quadraphonics]

You seem to be saying that someone who begins as a racist and posts in honeyed words and finally gives up his/her racism and comes around to your non-racist point of view is okay but someone who doesn't do those things is not.

No, not really. I was trying to draw a distinction between the activist types, who don't honestly debate so much as propagandize, and honest, rational people who may have unfortunate ideas about race. Is there some reason you can't make your point without putting words in my mouth?

Who is to be the arbiter of intellectual honesty?

The mods, presumably.

Who decides what rebuttal is reasoned?

See above.

Why must rebuttal, reasoned or not have what a particular poster sees as positive effects on the discourse?

Not just "a particular poster," but the moderators. The entire purpose of having them is to positively influence the discourse.

I am not proposing making me King of SciForums (although that would probably be a good idea, if I had the time to spare).

What happens if the person does not rant and rave or use invectives but persist in his/her racist views?

The point is not the persistence of views per se, but the persistence of propaganda. As long as said person is still behaving well and engaging in reasoned debate, I don't have a problem with it.

Are people who are not convinced by others less worthy of posting than those who are convinced?

No, but people who are not even open to being convinced by others in the first place are not worthy of posting.

 

[Till Eulenspiegel]

No, but people who are not even open to being convinced by others in the first place are not worthy of posting.

Does that mean you might possibly be open to being convinced racism is okay or are you not open to being convinced by others?

I don't ask this to be cute or funny. We all feel our views are the most valid. That is why we hold them. Isn't it unreasonable to expect others to be open to changing their thinking to coincide with yours unless you are just as open to changing your thinking to coincide with theirs?

 

[quadraphonics]

Does that mean you might possibly be open to being convinced racism is okay or are you not open to being convinced by others?

In theory, sure. I said just a couple of posts back that everyone is at least a little bit racist, and I still think most people are basically decent. That right there is fairly close to accepting racism as "okay." And, since you apparently missed it the first 10 times I said it, the issue is not racism per se, but racist activists who seek to coopt SciForums as a propaganda and recruiting outlet.

I don't ask this to be cute or funny.

Well, then, the outcome doesn't match your intentions. Why don't you go read my previous post again, and then formulate a rebuttal that is more than a flip response to the closing line?

We all feel our views are the most valid. That is why we hold them. Isn't it unreasonable to expect others to be open to changing their thinking to coincide with yours unless you are just as open to changing your thinking to coincide with theirs?

Yes, and that's why I've said repeatedly that penalties should be reserved for activist types who are here solely to propagandize.

For somebody who'd pretend to lecture me on the virtues of respecting other people's ideas, you're exhibiting a notably lacking grasp of mine.

 

[Tiassa]

time is confused

Time is linear,
Memory's a stranger,
History is for fools:
Man is a tool in the hands
Of the great God Almighty ....

(Roger Waters)​

It's all part of the big lie, which is why it all makes perfect sense.

Prescribed solution: smoke more dope.

:m:

 

[Gustav]

hmmm
perhaps we must see this as an opportunity. to hide our oversight and maintain some semblance of respectabilty. we must devise a strategy to return the monkey to villainous status while tearing out our hair over our beloved jamesr's plight

so... explore angle from james's viewpoint. it is horrendous. the man was collectively beaten and condemned by sci for crime he did not commit!!!

what have we done? we have done wrong by jamesr. our captain, guiding us thru titanic type shit.................................

quick, line the peasants..

i will devise a fitting punishment for the monkey
sorry aint good enough

 

[Gustav]

hurry
the baryon flux will close in 5hr 2mts 44sec
hurry

 

[Gustav]

fucking spurious
just waltzed out of here and back to posting crap

 

[vslayer]

i voted yes on this poll, my reason for such is this: the best way to end racism is not by sweeping it under the mat and pretending that it doesnt exist, but by publicly disproving it. the next time you see an "x-race has higher IQ" thread, how about joining in there and proving the bigots wrong? if we just lock the thread and walk away we are letting them win. it is showing them that we cant counter their argument, that they are right, and the worst part of this is that should our site be viewed by children(as it often is) they will stumble across these threads, and see pure racist propoganda with nothing to put it into context or nullify it. then we have our next generation of racists.

 

[mountainhare]

Tiassa:

The problem facing the racists is that there is no intellectually honest argument for racism.

There is no intellectually honest argument for Creationism. Or any of the topics in the pseudoscience forum. And your posts... well, let's just say that intellectual dishonesty and racist ranting are your forte. Yet the facists on this forum don't have the compulsive need to censor such claptrap. Let's just be honest with each other, Tiassa (if you are capable of such a feat): The claim of 'Intellectual dishonest' is merely an excuse to conceal the fact that the moderation on this forum are pushing an agenda.

Mental enslavement? You're entitled to believe what you want.

Not at the University of Delaware. Nor on Sciforums. Oops, I just had a thoughtcrime, and needed to apply crimestop. My bad!