Moderator Censorship - James R. and Race

Is James R. biased and over-zealous as a moderator?

  • Yes

    Votes: 14 28.6%

  • No

    Votes: 35 71.4%
  • Total voters
    49
Very good Sam. Everyone i know who has paid into it get's their benefit's when they are eligible, what more can i tell you?

Man did this thread get OT?
 
Interesting. I did not know this:
Throughout a worker's career, the Social Security Administration keeps track of his or her earnings. The amount of the monthly benefit to which the worker is entitled depends upon that earnings record and upon the age at which the retiree chooses to begin receiving benefits. The ability to make the payment rests on the accounting solvency of the system, its current cash inflows from FICA, and interest plus accumulated surplus. Most of the assets in the surplus are special Treasury bonds; i.e., they are IOUs that the federal government owes itself.

The Supreme Court decided, in Flemming v. Nestor (1960), that "entitlement to Social Security benefits is not a contractual right". In that case, Ephram Nestor, a Bulgarian immigrant to the United States who made contributions for covered wages for the statutorily required "quarters of coverage" was nonetheless denied benefits after being deported in 1956 for being a member of the Communist party.
Click to expand...

So if they don't pay you due to reasons of insolvency (or changes in the social security system) you have no right to redress?
 
If you jump in front of a car be sure it's a BMW, if it's a pinto driven by a crack head you can sue but you wont get anything.:D
 
One brief comment: some people have complained of being temporarily banned unfairly. Please take what they say with a grain of salt, as I've noticed that their descriptions of the reasons for their bannings almost invariably leave out at least half the story. Not that they'd want to paint me in a bad light or anything...
 
what about the gross numerous blatant outrageous sexist threads that pop up over an over and over again stereotyping the female gender. I seriously find these people strange because you can stereotype anybody based on any characteristic. As one comedian noted, there are so many personal reasons to dislike someone, it is stupid. There are stupid men and intelligent men, stupid women and intelligent women. What degenerate minded fuks.
 
J.B said:
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
Click to expand...


Added: Thursday, 2 November, 2006, 15:49 GMT 15:49 UK
"I guess about 400 years of struggling to repair the damage of slavery and displacement imposed by the so called civilised world. That coupled with a perception that black is bad and racism that have led to an apathy in black culture.
Dylan, Sheffield"
Hi Dylan. I imagine you are unaware of the 1 million white Europeans enslaved by black and arab slavers from the Barbary coasts from the 12th century through to the 18th century. So now you can't blame white slavery for the 'sufferings of the black people' what's the excuse now?
Russell Long, Tonbridge, Kent, United Kingdom
Recommended by 62 people
Alert a Moderator


Added: Thursday, 2 November, 2006, 15:33 GMT 15:33 UK
Dylan, Sheffield "Martin Luther, Malcolm X, Nelson Mandela, Ray Charles, Chuck D... etc. No that is pride through adversity. Black Pride!"
Martin Luther was german priest (a white one!) in the 15th century who created protestantism. I think you mean Martin Luther King Jr.
Malcom X and Nelson Mandela both advocated change through violence. If you want a good black role model look no further than Bill Cosby. He's repeatedly told black kids to quit bleating about racism, get their backsides into school and WORK for a good job. He's been almost universally condemned by the black community for doing so.
[Peter_Sym], Nottingham
Recommended by 61 people
Alert a Moderator


Added: Thursday, 2 November, 2006, 16:00 GMT 16:00 UK
Facts are facts, more black men commit crime.
However the wider problem is attitude, I dont see for example chinese men walking around with a "bad attitude" and deliberatly trying to make other people feel uneasy. I see many black men doing it.
Then they will say that people single them out .. well its a vicious circle .. if you walk around aggressively guess what? People will want to steer clear of you.
I feel that black men think they should be handed things on a plate - they dont want to work for it.
And I aint gonna apologise for slavery, I dont go to Germany and expect a 20 yr old to apologies for WWII. Quite simple black men - earn your respect through work !
Colin Jones, Calne, United Kingdom
Recommended by 60 people

***********


I quite like these comments JB from your link, i did not know of the white slavery thing, it seems i have 20 years to catch up on blaming arabs & blacks for holding back my race with slavery.

Everytime i was refused promotion, everytime a arab or black policeman stopped me for robbing banks, mugging people, or stealing cars, it was all because i was white, these guys are so racist.
 
Dr. Lou: They are offensive.

Offensive perhaps but the term nigger itself doesn't necessarily lead to a ban. Context and content is everything is it not?
 
Bells said:
The little white supremacists on the forum cannot go by a crime thread (as one example) without posting something about white vs black crime. Vince and his merry little band of Islamaphobes are the same in regards to anything Islam or Muslim. Some have issues with homosexuality. Others have issues with women.
Click to expand...
yep.
 
edited quote from nickleodians quoted extract

'The atheist supremists on the forum cannot go by a religion thread (as one example) without posting something about 'delusion'. Q and his merry little band of theistphobes are the same in regards to anything religious or spiritual. Some have issues with religion. Others have issues with women.'

Supremism comes in many forms, why be supremeist about it
 
Last edited:
Theoryofrelativity said:
edited quote from nickleodians quoted extract

'The atheist supremists on the forum cannot go by a religion thread (as one example) without posting something about 'delusion'. Q and his merry little band of theistphobes are the same in regards to anything religious or spiritual. Some have issues with religion. Others have issues with women.'

Supremism comes in many forms, why be supremeist about it
Click to expand...

Learn to be original.
 
Now this is "original"

James R said:
The fact that Bells or I or a few other people put in time and effort to attempt to educate people here, some of whom have no interest in learning, is a good thing. If you're one of the people who isn't interested in getting an education, then nobody is forcing you to read our posts.

Moreover, just because a man gets an erection doesn't mean he is necessarily enjoying the experience. In fact, many men who are raped feel a tremendous sense of guilt if at some stage they got an erection. The fact is: erections are a physical response of the body, and not completely under the control of a man. A man does not have to be enjoying a sexual act in order to get an erection.
Click to expand...
 
I disagree with the simplicity

Prince James said:

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.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The difference between one topic being closed and another remaining open is often a "Beavis and Butthead" factor. If a topic shows some thought, it can certainly cover delicate or offensive subject matter. If, however, the topic proposition is as thoughtless as a couple of junior high school kids sitting around and looking for delicate sensibilities to tread on, the odds of closure or other moderation rise significantly.

Additionally, the "Beavis and Butthead" propositions often fail to generate any substantial discussion. A simple question with no real justification often draws simple "Yes" or "No" answers. Lacking any substantial discussion, what is the point? We prefer people not respond to such questions with seemingly obvious answers, e.g. "Are you out of your friggin' mind?" or "What kind of moron could even ask that question?"

Topic closure and other moderator actions are not so simple as reactions to political criticism. Should we be offended by the presumption that our actions are so simplistic? Perhaps I might, then, inquire, what in your world compels you to reduce the situation to such simplicity?

And, lastly, while I can't speak for James R, I can certainly say for myself that the more headaches a poster gives me, the less sympathetic I'm inclined to be when certain questions arise. I would ask that people consider certain points of action as not independent in themselves, but often as catalysts in the wake of increasing pressure: sometimes, a poster who says, "Can you believe I was banned for _____?" has it wrong. Whatever that offense was, it was simply the latest in a string of offenses. It's not that we're looking for a reason, else we would have found one much earlier in the situation. Rather, there comes a point when we must put a foot down, else there's no point whatsoever in dignity.
 
tiassa said:
I disagree. The difference between one topic being closed and another remaining open is often a "Beavis and Butthead" factor. If a topic shows some thought, it can certainly cover delicate or offensive subject matter. If, however, the topic proposition is as thoughtless as a couple of junior high school kids sitting around and looking for delicate sensibilities to tread on, the odds of closure or other moderation rise significantly.
Click to expand...

You could have stopped with that paragraph.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top