Mods Gone Wild

[Bells]

No. That's precisely why S.A.M should not have received special protection for being a brown Muslim.

So you don't think that someone who attacks another because they are a "brown Muslim" should be sanctioned?

S.A.M does possess an anti-Western sentiment, and she has attempted to mitigate the behaviour of (Islamic) terrorists. It is *not* racist to postulate that perhaps her race and religion had a hand in the formation of her opinions.

Nonsense. There are many of us who also possess some "anti-Western sentiment" when it comes to the war and the treatment of Palestinians, for example. And yet, when others debate us for it, they debate what we are saying, not where we come from or our religion or lack there of.

I have found that almost every brown Muslim I have ever met has strong underlying anti-Western sentiment, and attempts mitigate the behaviour of Islamic terrorists.

So you think having "anti-Western sentiment" is based solely on one's skin colour and religion?

I'm sorry. But from what I have seen, left-wingers tend to assume that any criticism leveled at a minority is motivated by bigotry and racism.

If they use example 1, then yes it is motivated by bigotry and racism. Example 2, no. Now, for some on this forum, well one moderator in particular, even if one uses 'example 2' against Sam, then they are automatically racist, even though their debate or issues mention nothing about her personally but merely the words she uses. That is what I have an issue with.

For example, do you think that in light of what you are saying, that I could cry out racism and sexism against Tiassa when he calls me hysterical and delusional, seeing that I am coloured and a woman? No. I would not. But if another person spoke that way to Sam for example, without mentioning her race or her religion or her colour, then Tiassa would label that individual as being racist and bigoted. That is the area that I disagree with here.

That even with no mention of her race or religion, that anyone who disagrees with Sam or takes her to task over just her words and opinions, people are being described as being racist and bigoted.

I disagree. The moderation was just attempting to rationalise away bad behaviour of a moderator with diplomatic immunity. Just like when they pre-emptively dismiss complaints as being motivated by nothing more than a 'personality clash'.

Half the time, I would say they were.

 

[S.A.M.]

You're dealing with exceptionally neurotic behavior. Such a straightforward approach, no matter how honorable, obvious, or whatever else we might suggest such an appeal to truth might be, simply won't have the intended effect.

Whatever currency the market chooses has only the value people are willing to allow it. This is especially true with moral currency. You're attempting to use truth to appeal to people who demonstrate a neurotic devaluation of truth. If the Israeli government sometimes acts like great tyrants of history, some people will sling any old shit they can to duck reality. And sometimes, it's not the judgment of others they are fighting against. Rather, they are trying to silence the inner accuser, a self-indictment. It often seems, to the neurotic, easier to facilitate the symptom formation than address the cause. I see this all around me in life, whether it's politics or business or family. People often think it much easier to suppress conscience than face up to its indictments. To the one, they will choose the unhappiness of maintaining an intricate network of self-deception. To the other, they cannot necessarily help themselves.

Yes, the polite thing to do is presume people rational, capable, and decent. And beneath it all, they are, at least, decent and capable. All of this bluster and hatred does pursue justice. But you also need to acknowledge to yourself that you're dealing with dysfunction; the grotesqueries of their fancy are symptoms of a deeper, more personal conflict.

Yes I noticed that. Its why the responses never address the arguments, only my "bigotry". Makes it so much easier when you can just block out the horrors being perpetrated on a daily daily daily basis. Has James even found the Palestinian refugees as yet?

So whats the alternative? Continue to tiptoe around the psychos in the room? Pretend they don't exist? Ignore the dying?

As you would be well aware, I no longer have access to the mod forum.

You don't need the mod forum. I asked for an example of my post which you defended even though it was beyond the pale.

 

[Bells]

You don't need the mod forum. I asked for an example of my post which you defended even though it was beyond the pale.

All of which are in the mod forum. I have requested that Tiassa post everything he and I have posted in there since I joined. Plenty of examples there when he posts it.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

I have found that almost every brown Muslim I have ever met has strong underlying anti-Western sentiment, and attempts mitigate the behaviour of Islamic terrorists.

I’m betting that you’ve met very few Muslims and that you’re impugning an entire religion based on your own biased (if not outright bigoted) analysis of a small data set. (That’s assuming you’ve actually met any Muslims and actually discussed their views on terrorism and are not simply lying, which is reasonably likely.)

So, give us the numbers.

As a counterpoint, I can tell you that of the Muslims I know, none condone acts of terrorism, be they Islamic or otherwise.

Coincidence? I don't think so.

 

[S.A.M.]

Bells:

Are you saying that all of my objectionable posts were made as a moderator in the mod forum?

 

[Bells]

Bells:

Are you saying that all of my objectionable posts were made as a moderator in the mod forum?

Nope. I am saying that my defence of your posts were made in the mod forum.

 

[S.A.M.]

Nope. I am saying that my defence of your posts were made in the mod forum.

I don't care about your defense, I just want to see an example of a post you considered as objectionable and yet defended. Don't you remember even one?

 

[WillNever]

Official Statement from Sciforums High Society:

Due to the observed unfair moderation practices of James R and other forum-fatigued moderators who are allowing their jaded, cynical, and prejudicial expectations of users of the board to dictate their acts of moderation, High Society group is making an official statement of depreciation and contempt for ALL perpetrators of this low-down, scumsucking behavior on the part of the moderators. We see this kind of innately and purposefully unfair moderation as a serious violation of ethical values and that sort of thing is simply not acceptable in our eyes, and therefore we officially disapprove of it. We consider anyone who sits by while users are alienated in this way to be UNPRINCIPLED if they do not decry these acts in a large, bold voice. Bullying users of your board is wrong, regardless of whatever you think of their viewpoints.

 

[Bells]

I don't care about your defense, I just want to see an example of a post you considered as objectionable and yet defended. Don't you remember even one?

Pick any of your arguments with Q as one example. Some of your responses were objectionable, but Q's attack of you bordered on the insane and reeked of racism and bigotry.

 

[S.A.M.]

Really? Like which one? I thought I did a pretty good job of using his arguments against him in a most scientific manner.

 

[CheskiChips]

Official Statement from Sciforums High Society:

Due to the observed unfair moderation practices of James R and other forum-fatigued moderators who are allowing their jaded, cynical, and prejudicial expectations of users of the board to dictate their acts of moderation, High Society group is making an official statement of depreciation and contempt for ALL perpetrators of this low-down, scumsucking behavior on the part of the moderators. We see this kind of innately and purposefully unfair moderation as a serious violation of ethical values and that sort of thing is simply not acceptable in our eyes, and therefore we officially disapprove of it. We consider anyone who sits by while users are alienated in this way to be UNPRINCIPLED if they do not decry these acts in a large, bold voice. Bullying users of your board is wrong, regardless of whatever you think of their viewpoints.

I challenge the society to a debate on this topic. You first.

 

[StrawDog]

Official Statement from Sciforums High Society:

Due to the observed unfair moderation practices of James R and other forum-fatigued moderators who are allowing their jaded, cynical, and prejudicial expectations of users of the board to dictate their acts of moderation, High Society group is making an official statement of depreciation and contempt for ALL perpetrators of this low-down, scumsucking behavior on the part of the moderators. We see this kind of innately and purposefully unfair moderation as a serious violation of ethical values and that sort of thing is simply not acceptable in our eyes, and therefore we officially disapprove of it. We consider anyone who sits by while users are alienated in this way to be UNPRINCIPLED if they do not decry these acts in a large, bold voice. Bullying users of your board is wrong, regardless of whatever you think of their viewpoints.

Seconded. This used to be a Board for FREE, Creative and Objective discourse, and these ideals should be upheld.

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for
people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
-- Noam Chomsky

Come back Dave W, all is forgiven.

 

[mordea]

So you don't think that someone who attacks another because they are a "brown Muslim" should be sanctioned?

But that's not what happened. People attacked S.A.M because of her anti-Western rhetoric and disingenous debate tactics. Some then associated her behaviour and opinions with being a brown Muslim. Whether or not you agree with such an association being made by a particular individual is irrelevant to the truth of the original observation.

Nonsense. There are many of us who also possess some "anti-Western sentiment" when it comes to the war and the treatment of Palestinians, for example.

I don't consider valid criticism of one's government to qualify as 'anti-Western sentiment'. However, there is a point at which valid criticism turns into a rabid obsession. When you derail threads to bitch and whine for the 50 millionth time about the West while ignoring the atrocities of non-Western countries being discussed in that thread, I'd say that you have an anti-Western sentiment.

And yet, when others debate us for it, they debate what we are saying, not where we come from or our religion or lack there of.

If I argued for racial segregation, would you associate such views with me being a WASP and my (hypothetical) membership with white supremacist organisations?

So you think having "anti-Western sentiment" is based solely on one's skin colour and religion?

Not any more than cancer is based solely on cigarette smoking. However race (which is associated with culture) and religion definitely influence ones views on certain subjects.

If they use example 1, then yes it is motivated by bigotry and racism. Example 2, no. Now, for some on this forum, well one moderator in particular, even if one uses 'example 2' against Sam, then they are automatically racist, even though their debate or issues mention nothing about her personally but merely the words she uses. That is what I have an issue with.

I agree here with you, in part. However, simply mentioning S.A.M's religion should not automatically invalidate one's assessment of her.

 

[Gustav]

poor bells
so desperate for redemption

/snort

hmm
perhaps she can retire her handle and reinvent herself?

/snigger

 

[Bells]

hmm
perhaps she can retire her handle and reinvent herself?

I am not you.

But that's not what happened. People attacked S.A.M because of her anti-Western rhetoric and disingenous debate tactics. Some then associated her behaviour and opinions with being a brown Muslim. Whether or not you agree with such an association being made by a particular individual is irrelevant to the truth of the original observation.

So if she was a white Muslim her opinions would not be the same?

Even in attempting to justify it, you are being racist.

I don't consider valid criticism of one's government to qualify as 'anti-Western sentiment'. However, there is a point at which valid criticism turns into a rabid obsession. When you derail threads to bitch and whine for the 50 millionth time about the West while ignoring the atrocities of non-Western countries being discussed in that thread, I'd say that you have an anti-Western sentiment.

We are all allowed our little obsessions. Granted, she is a tad more obsessed then some. Okay. A lot more obsessed..

If I argued for racial segregation, would you associate such views with me being a WASP and my (hypothetical) membership with white supremacist organisations?

Ermm no. But if you started spouting racial superiority and demanding that we become like the supremacist organisation that you "hypothetically" belong to, then a connection could be made.

But that's not really the point here, is it? The point is that Sam could discuss anything at all and she would be attacked by some quarters of this forum and they would insult and abuse her for her religious beliefs and her ethnicity. That is what many of us opposed.

Not any more than cancer is based solely on cigarette smoking. However race (which is associated with culture) and religion definitely influence ones views on certain subjects.

Of course it does. But let me ask you a question. Sam is a Muslim and an Indian. I am an atheist living in Australia. But we both share a similar opinion on the treatment of Palestinians by Israel. Why do you think that is?

I agree here with you, in part. However, simply mentioning S.A.M's religion should not automatically invalidate one's assessment of her.

No, but when you keep going on and on and on about it, in every post you respond or aim at her, then it does and did become a problem.

 

[Gustav]

I am not you.

ahh
i suppose your delusions force you to imagine i had done both, eh?

/pats

 

[sweet Pentax]

i wish i would have so much time to waste like some others here have
when debates don´t lead to a goal - start a full-scale war or move on.

 

[Tiassa]

Slick it up to ya?

But this is our version of baby oil bikini wrestling.

 

[Giambattista]

Seconded. This used to be a Board for FREE, Creative and Objective discourse, and these ideals should be upheld.



Come back Dave W, all is forgiven.

Thirded. However, I'm not sure I would have mentioned any names in particular.


Who's Dave W?

 

[Pinwheel]

Dave W Bush, of course.