Posting Guidelines - see no evil, hear no evil

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 23 Jan 2006, 13:44

So, I am to be sacked as a moderator. Fine.

If my own stance against those who promote violence is not to be tolerated, I do not believe that promotion of violence should be tolerated either.

In our rules we ban, and for good reason, "racism, sexism and homophobia". Unfortunately we forgot to ban mob rule. In my opinion individuals in Britain have the right to not be lynched or threatened as such based on a classification given to them by the mob.

This is not a forum rule. So far, the following opinions have been perfectly acceptable, as long as they aren't stated in the wrong tone :

1. people who have committed crimes "should be made to suffer"

2. torture is acceptable

3. children who have committed crimes should be castrated

4. vandals, who may or may not be minors, should be assaulted

5. revenge is acceptable against people who have committed crimes, as is torture

When people post opinions such as these, I think they should be made to answer for them and follow through with the logical consequences of those actions if they were allowed to be carried out by everyone.

There are other abuses of the letter of the Posting Guidelines which are tolerated (racism, religious hatred, sexism, advertising) and also of its spirit which we as moderators tolerate.

If anything, I think that failing to counter the views of those who advocate violence (but calling them the "hang 'em and flog 'em brigade" behind their backs) is worse than my approach, which is to confront them head on.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 Jan 2006, 13:48

So you are complaining that people are breaching rules that don't exist?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 23 Jan 2006, 13:50

Porty wrote:So you are complaining that people are breaching rules that don't exist?

Well, for example, we don't have a rule about fake user accounts in the guidelines but when I discovered the identity of Moi, I was shouted down by the other mods.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 23 Jan 2006, 13:52

Porty wrote:So you are complaining that people are breaching rules that don't exist?

Oh sorry, I see your point. I guess I'm saying that guidelines have a letter and a spirit, and that if they ban all different kinds of hatred and discrimination they should surely be banning the kind of violence promotion I've detailed.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 Jan 2006, 14:37

Dadaist wrote:
Porty wrote:So you are complaining that people are breaching rules that don't exist?
Oh sorry, I see your point. I guess I'm saying that guidelines have a letter and a spirit, and that if they ban all different kinds of hatred and discrimination they should surely be banning the kind of violence promotion I've detailed.

Theoretically your argument is just. However, part of the problem with you is your assertion of what counts as a call to violence. If you don't mind me saying I find your interpretation inhuman. Most, if not all, the comments you have lifted and tweaked (as opposed to quoted) are perfectly understandable reactions, voiced when a percieved wrong doing has been committed. For example no-one here is seriously proposing the castration of children but you take the statement and turn it into a call for the formation of a vigilante group who will seek out and castrate. Your passion and belief have made you blind to the rational and normal reactions of your fellow humans.

You are quite correct about the guidleines having a spirit and to me that spirit means that you should have been given a chance to modify your posts in light of the complaints made. I think they had you r number and were waiting for a chance to call it.

(Are you hidden again?)

Edit

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 23 Jan 2006, 14:45

If it is a normal reaction to call for castration, call me abnormal.

My counter-arguments to those who call for violence are intended to create an abstract picture in the mind of the person who called for it, as they quite obviously didn't think past their own nose.

It is valid to point out to someone who has just called for this person to be tortured or that person to be made to suffer, for this or that reason, to consider how the world would be if every such thought was made real.

It's not from any belief system of mine - I have contempt for any political shade which condones violence, left or right. But you are right in that it is passion.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 Jan 2006, 14:54

Never said your views were invalid nor your right to air them, It is just a question of perception and in my view, when it comes to comments violence your perception of the implications is awry.

If you take my example of "a punch in the pus" as retribution for house break in or car vandalism. A PITP can have a very positive effect on the criminal, bring perhaps the only form of justice and bring a form of closure to the puncher. No matter how much this infuriates you, it is true.

Now am I advocating violence, condoning violence or understanding why someone could use it?

edit

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 23 Jan 2006, 15:01

Porty wrote:Never said your views were invalid nor your right to air them, It is just a question of perception and in my view, when it comes to comments violence your perception of the implications is awry.

If you take my example of "a punch in the pus" as retribution for house break in or car vandalism. A PITP can have a very positive effect on the criminal, bring perhaps the only form of justice and bring a form of closure to the puncher. No matter how much this infuriates you, it is true.

Now am I advocating violence, condoning violence or understanding why someone could use it?

edit

Sure, and if you get to say that then it follows that I get to join you in a journey examining the logical consequences of that action. In the case of Franck, not only did he say it was him that would carry out the assault but that he couldn't be certain about his method of deciding if it was a minor he was assaulting. A logical consequence == Franck goes to prison for assaulting a kid.

Never mind the ironic value of replacing one crime with a worse one in the name of reducing crime!

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 23 Jan 2006, 15:11

Porty wrote:(Are you hidden again?)

Well, if Franck is allowed to target personal abuse at me with regards to how frequently or quickly I post (he said something like "I don't wait for the next vandal like you wait for the next post", which is a personal insult and hence a breach of posting guidelines - but hey, anything goes) I think I have the right to decide whether or not my name comes up on a screen!

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 Jan 2006, 15:30

Dadaist wrote: Well, if Franck is allowed to target personal abuse at me with regards to how frequently or quickly I post (he said something like "I don't wait for the next vandal like you wait for the next post", which is a personal insult and hence a breach of posting guidelines -!

You may be personally insulted by Franck's observation but you can't fault the boy's accurracy. He only just fails to nail it. When he says "...like you wait for the next post" he only errs in the fact that quite often you don't even wait for the next post!!! If you need any corroborative evidence please look up the thread at your two previous posts to this one.

Your right to remain hidden is sacrosanct.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 23 Jan 2006, 15:34

Porty wrote:
Dadaist wrote: Well, if Franck is allowed to target personal abuse at me with regards to how frequently or quickly I post (he said something like "I don't wait for the next vandal like you wait for the next post", which is a personal insult and hence a breach of posting guidelines -!
You may be personally insulted by Franck's observation but you can't fault the boy's accurracy. He only just fails to nail it. When he says "...like you wait for the next post" he only errs in the fact that quite often you don't even wait for the next post!!! If you need any corroborative evidence please look up the thread at your two previous posts to this one.

Your right to remain hidden is sacrosanct.

I missed your "hidden" question and answered it as soon as I saw it.

Anyways, the way things are going round here, soon I won't need to be hidden cos they'll have booted me off again! Oh well, internets.

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 23 Jan 2006, 17:09

Dadaist wrote:
Porty wrote:(Are you hidden again?)
Well, if Franck is allowed to target personal abuse at me with regards to how frequently or quickly I post (he said something like "I don't wait for the next vandal like you wait for the next post", which is a personal insult and hence a breach of posting guidelines - but hey, anything goes) I think I have the right to decide whether or not my name comes up on a screen!

Dadaist, put down the keyboard, light up a ciggie(if you dont smoke,start), pour a large alchoholic drink, turns off the lights and chill out!....and leave me out of your ongoing grump,please.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 25 Jan 2006, 10:41

Franck wrote:
Dadaist wrote:
Porty wrote:(Are you hidden again?)
Well, if Franck is allowed to target personal abuse at me with regards to how frequently or quickly I post (he said something like "I don't wait for the next vandal like you wait for the next post", which is a personal insult and hence a breach of posting guidelines - but hey, anything goes) I think I have the right to decide whether or not my name comes up on a screen!
Dadaist, put down the keyboard, light up a ciggie(if you dont smoke,start), pour a large alchoholic drink, turns off the lights and chill out!....and leave me out of your ongoing grump,please.

I already have a very nice Ardbeg and Laphraoig (is that how you spell it?) opened which I have sometimes as a nightcap. And current fags are JPS duty frees from Spain. Lighting is usually moody/ambient anyway.

Put down the keyboard? Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!