Moderator Censorship - James R. and Race

[spuriousmonkey]

And ironically in light of the Dr Lou banning he doesn't ban real racists or deletes real racist comments.

 

[S.A.M.]

Yes, he did.
For saying I love niggers. Obviously that's ridiculous.
He also closed a thread and gave me a little red-spot warning for saying black women are sexually intoxicating enough to make men impregnate them accidentally.
You know, race is clearly a bit of a soft spot for my man james. He's not equipped mentally or emotionally to deal with the subject arising in this forum. It's all a bit much for him if anything(positive or negative) about an ethic group is discussed, he just totally loses it.
I don't think there's anything off the wall about suggesting these aren't desirable character traits for a moderator.

Yada Yada Yada

I find all this obsession with race so Ho-Hum. The only reason why white supremacists give a damn is because of affirmative action. If you don't like the apples, don't shake the tree.

 

[Prince_James]

James R.:

The post that specifically provoked this one:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=59350

I dispute your claim that I "immediately ban discussion" of racial issues, and as Genji has said, the very fact that many threads on the issue exist and remain open seems to refute your point.

Considering the complaints I've seen posted, it would seem to imply otherwise. But I'll let others who have felt that threads have been unjustly closed speak for themselves as I search for a few ones if I can, too.

I have said quite clearly at other times that I see no reason for sciforums to become a platform for white supremacists and other racists. There are plenty of alternate forums for those people to vent their bigotted hatreds, but relatively few forums for intelligent discussion of science, politics, religion and so on.

Should not there be freeodm to express opinions backed by reasonable discussion? I am not suggesting that we let in "ha ha ha, niggers suck!" idiots, but certainly you cannot say that "racists" are categorically incorrect.

We have a few clear racists here, and they are allowed quite a bit of lattitude in promoting their racists agendas - much more, in fact, than I would personally put up with if I did not believe in certain principles of free speech.

Which ones, if you might present? For I am aware of few.

Racism must be confronted if it is to be shown up to be the shallow and unintelligent thing it is.

Indeed, all systems which are held to be contrary to reason must be shown to be absurd in such a manner.

In your case, we have recently disagreed on the subject of rape. However, I have not censored or edited any of your posts on that subject, so you cannot complain of biased moderation in a personal sense. I wonder whether you therefore feel frustrated and go looking to complain on behalf of unnamed others?

I assure you, I hold no hard feelings based on that thread. I am sorry, in fact, that you'd even think that. As noted, for the most part I think you are quite the nice chap. I have painfully few problems with you as a person.

It is, of course, entirely up to you whether you choose to keep posting here. If you find sciforums is no longer to your liking, you are very welcome to find an alternate forum which suits you better.

Having said that, I have no particular desire to see you leave.

I have no intent to leave, no. I did not mean to imply that. Frankly, James R., I am not too upset about this, just enough to put it forth for discussion.

 

[leopold]

That out of the way, it is my opinion, and evidently the opinion of at least a significant minority here, that James R is consistantly crossing the line.

i personally would like to debate this matter with ANYONE that provides evidence that james, or any mod for that matter, is "crossing the line".

In any thread even remotely related to race, James R immediatly bans discussion, even when it is completely amicable.

maybe that's because there is no biological bases for race.
i also noticed you didn't include any links or examples to james "crossing the line"

Evidently, his political beliefs being criticized through people actually thinking to discuss something he finds uncomfortable is enough to warrant him banning discussion on it. There have also been other accusations of bias and it is time for these things to stop.It is seriously getting despotic and is hurting SciForums.

links? examples? anything?

Thus have I put forth this thread as a petition for James R to stop his over-moderation, to discuss specific accusations and other topic-related things, and to poll the Sciforum opinion of James R.

after i voted no i noticed the poll isn't going too well for you is it?

Again, this is nothing personal, but it is getting to the point where SciForums is becoming less appealing owing to the actions of James R. and his moderation style.

i take it you are one of the three that voted yes.
i bet at least one of the other two are on my ignore list.

i have noticed, and madanthonywayne can back me up on this, that even though james bans certain subjects he will in fact let them be discussed if the discussion produces intelligennt debate, if it produces more light than heat, if the thread is moving forward and the discussion is not going in circles.

 

[Nickelodeon]

"No"

 

[leopold]

James R.:
The post that specifically provoked this one:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=59350

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58333

 

[Rosnet]

No.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

As for over-moderation I would say no.

Dr. Lou: Yes, he did.
For saying I love niggers. Obviously that's ridiculous.

What's ridiculous? You loving something called a 'nigger'? Or the oxymoron? What is a nigger anyway?

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

What's ridiculous?

He banned me for saying I love niggers, do I have to draw a diagram?

You loving something called a 'nigger'?

They're "things" now? Wow, that must be one of those "real racist comments" spurious was talking about. What do you know? They are offensive.

 

[tablariddim]

no...

 

[imaplanck.]

I've also notice inconsistency. The mod in question keeps locking my perfectly valid scientific enquiries into human sexuality, yet I've seen pure gratuitous sexual explicit posts(including that of an illegal nature) go unchallenged.

 

[Roman]

Yada Yada Yada

I find all this obsession with race so Ho-Hum. The only reason why white supremacists give a damn is because of affirmative action. If you don't like the apples, don't shake the tree.

You, my dear, haven't spent enough time in America. The reason why they give a damn is because they hate black people.

 

[leopold]

He banned me for saying I love niggers,

only james can clarify this. maybe you should PM him and request that he post his reasoning.
i said something similar, that i was a nigger lover, but the thread i posted in was already in the cesspool and i did get alot of flak from other posters for saying it.

to be honest, and you must agree lou, that the word 'nigger' must be used at a absolute minimum on the board because it's offensive to alot of people.

 

[J.B]

I have said quite clearly at other times that I see no reason for sciforums to become a platform for white supremacists and other racists.

White people are largely responsible for the current economic and social circumstances that many black Americans find themselves in today.

WOW, I'm responsible for black people?

I feel so superiour.

 

[J.B]

This was banned. For what reason? I don't know.

BBC NEWS
Thursday, 2 November, 2006

Is There A Problem With Young Black Men?

Why are young black males in the UK and the US more likely to get sent to prison than any other ethnic group?

In the US nearly half of all of prisoners are black, most of them men. Yet black people make up only 12% of the total population.

In the UK the DNA profiles of nearly four in 10 black men are on the police's national database - compared with fewer than one in 10 white men.

But why is this? Are black males more prone to criminality than those from other ethnic groups? Do you fear young black men where you live? And, as some argue, is hip hop culture promoting attitudes and a lifestyle that easily leads to crime? Or is this simply a case of one group of people being let down by their communities and then targeted by the police and a media dominated by white people?

Give your opinion, and read others:
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?sortBy=2&threadID=4598&&&&&&edition=2&ttl=20061103190718

 

[Rosnet]

WOW, I'm responsible for black people?

I feel so superior.

Come on, where does he say that???
He says:
"White people are largely responsible for the current economic and social circumstances that many black Americans find themselves in today."

And again, I don't think he means all the white people, but just some people.

 

[J.B]

Rosnet,

Do you really believe that "White people are largely responsible for the" fact that "black Americans" have by far the highest standard of living then any other blacks anywhere in the world?

Can't you give black folks some responsibility for that?

 

[Rosnet]

Well that is another matter. And I wouldn't know very much about that. But my point was that that was what JamesR said, and not, like you seemed to be saying that "White people are responsible for black people". Which has some other meaning altogether. That's like saying you're responsible for your children or something.

 

[J.B]

That's like saying you're responsible for your children or something.

And that is what I have told James R since day one.

James R treat's blacks like children.

Thats why he closes these threads, he thinks he protecting them.

 

[Rosnet]

NO NO NO!!! I said, what you said ("WOW, I'm responsible for black people?") sounds like that. But that's obviously not what JamesR meant.