S.a.m.

[Gustav]

That said, I'm not sure whether James' words can be accurately substituted by the word bigotry.

lets do an analogy.....

"i hate the dutch with a passion. they are an inferior race that fornicates with animals"

is that anti dutch hatred? anti dutch propaganda?

if so, is it also bigotry? am i a bigot for holding such views? are they bigoted viewpoints?

big⋅ot⋅ry

1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

 

[Enmos]

lets do an analogy.....

"i hate the dutch with a passion. they are an inferior race that fornicates with animals"

is that anti dutch hatred? anti dutch propaganda?

if so, is it also bigotry? am i a bigot for holding such views? are they bigoted viewpoints?

But your example is of a completely different tone than the articles.

 

[Gustav]

i rather smash my head on a brick wall than engage fetus

 

[Enmos]

It doesn't matter much either way since I feel that even a one day ban is unwarranted for misrepresenting someone's words just once. SAM got banned because of much more than that. For the record, I don't think SAM committed libel against James. It may sooner have been a misunderstanding that initiated what was long coming.

 

[Gustav]

But your example is of a completely different tone than the articles.

jesus fucking christ

forget the goddamn examples

if i write screeds full of anti dutch hatred and propaganda, would it be safe to accuse me of goddamn bigotry?

 

[Gustav]

never again enmos
i'll blow my brains out first

/chuckle

 

[Tiassa]

Are implications irrelevant?

That said, I'm not sure whether James' words can be accurately substituted by the word bigotry.

Something I've wondered about for a long time, and which has come to something of a head in the present disaster, is the issue of implications.

A simple example would be something like:

Proposition: I think gay people are repugnant.

Response: I can't believe you called your own daughter repugnant.

Rebuttal: I never said my daughter is repugnant!

Response: Yes, but your daughter is gay.​

In that case, the proposition did not consider the potential implications, in this case the possibility that people one knows and cares about might be gay.

In the issue of James' denunciation, I actually tried responding. In the specific example of this particular statement of S.A.M's:

I'm an American, James, and that's a fair question. Republicans are backing away from Afghanistan right now, starting to rally around the idea of "Obama's Vietnam". Their argument has to do with the mounting strain on troops, the increasing cost of war, the climbing casualty rate (last month was the deadliest for our troops), and the dimming prospect of progress.

What isn't particularly high on their agenda is civilian casualties.

CBS News posted a story today at its WorldWatch blog, "U.S. Strike an 'Enormous Coup' for Taliban":

[Article excerpt omitted for brevity.]​

The core questions of that thread—"What should Americans do? What should be the role of the masses in military adventurism?"—are more than valid, James. They're essential. And Americans kind of dance around this subject.​

But James did not see fit to make any substantive response that I've yet discovered. Rather, he buried a dismissal of my argument in a response ostensibly to Strawdog, but playing to the gallery:

"Add to this Tiassa's long posts claiming that all of SAM's provocations can be justified as valid issues to raise. Tiassa has never been a fan of America's foreign policy regarding Israel/Palestine; there's no secret about that."​

The end result of James' indictment and refusal to discuss it substantially is such that you can flip a coin. S.A.M.'s detractors support James, and accept whatever nonsense he asserts. Those who actually understood S.A.M.'s statement and witnessed James' flight from substantial consideration of the issue see the controversial implication that "sympathizing with the victims of American invasion and occupations is bigotry".

But James doesn't really want to consider the implications of his blunt instrument, so considering what seems to some a flamingly obvious implication equals lying. That, in and of iself, will be a tremendously difficult standard to enforce uniformly and fairly. I find the proposition that the implications of a statement or position are irrelevant to its value and effect absurd; but that's just me. Maybe my father's generation—the Boomers—were wrong when they taught their children to think before they speak.

How explicit and how exacting shall we, as moderators, be? Had we scrutinized other people over the years to the same degree, the Ban List would be considerably longer than it is, and we would have surrendered reasonable argument in favor of rhetorical sleight. Hell, I think of the time someone argued that if gays get married, why can he not marry a goat. And when he was called out on the bigotry of comparing gays to farm animals, he tried to deny ever making the comparison. Explicitly, sure, he has something approaching a point. That is, he never explicitly said, "Homosexuals are the equivalent of farm animals." But are we really going to render ourselves so goddamned retarded just to satisfy James' grudge against S.A.M.? I mean, really.

If we go forward with this standard and fail, I think James will owe S.A.M., the moderators, and the community a sincere apology. If we don't go forward with this standard, we will only be acknowledging that it was a special standard invented for S.A.M. And if we go forward and succeed? Well, we're simply not going to succeed; that much I can say with confidence. But if we do somehow pull it off, we will be lowering the bar for rational discourse while glorifying calculated deception.

 

[Enmos]

I agree that the accusation of libel and James' demand for an apology was an eyebrow raiser but, Tiassa, you know that SAM was not banned for the 'libel'.

 

[Gustav]

apology my ass
james should hang for crimes against sci

 

[Tiassa]

head vs. wall

i rather smash my head on a brick wall than engage fetus

Thankfully, those aren't your only options.

• • •​

yeah but we don't. we don't dedicate that kind of time.

And?

How is that a straw man? Your arguing that she been treated different, of which I'm not actually disagreeing, but to say others are allowed to slide is going too far.

Are you presuming that all suspensions and bans are the same? The fact that other people have been banned before speaks nothing to whether or not those actions were justified.

Simply trying to add comfort to the events by stating that at least SAM gets something out of this that could really benefit her.

(chortle! fucking chortle!)

On second thought, maybe Gustav and I will go get really drunk together and then go smash our heads against a wall somewhere.

I don't know, maybe S.A.M. should thank James for treating her like shit?

Well fair and restrained are relative terms, certainly if it took this long for James to snap you would have the say he has been rather restrained, second have you been around to other forums?, some forums are run by egomaniac Nazis that think they are ruling over the known universe! James by comparison is very forgiving and humble, though not as much as Porfiry.

So in light of his prior service ...? Fill in the blank, please.

If I don't accept the "others are worse" argument on a large scale, such as in wars, what is the threshold at which you would suggest issues are small enough to conscionably flip my opinion on the proposition?

Oooh tell us more about sciforums politics ....

See my recent response to Randwolf's inquiry.

Why thank you but it was only truthful, someone was going to accuse James of corruption, be it real or not, chances are though that the corruption was always there it was only that whistleblowers bias for certain things that made them notice it now.

Everyone has faults, sir. For me the difference is the inherent biases of perspective that we, as moderators, must acknowledge and work against, compared to something much more deliberate. In this case, James has transcended that by orders of magnitude. If String or Bells or Enmos or I have some irritating grains of sand in our bathing suits, James is trying to pack the whole fucking beach into his.

This is way beyond our usual sympathies or lack thereof. James has misrepresented people and circumstances well in excess of what usually goes on around here.

 

[Enmos]

apology my ass
james should hang for crimes against sci

Are you going to hang an effigy from your roof?

 

[Gustav]

I agree that the accusation of libel and James' demand for an apology was an eyebrow raiser but, Tiassa, you know that SAM was not banned for the 'libel'.

give him a minute to respond
he is currently bashing his brains into pulp

 

[Tiassa]

I must disagree, sir

I agree that the accusation of libel and James' demand for an apology was an eyebrow raiser but, Tiassa, you know that SAM was not banned for the 'libel'.

I would contest that assertion insofar as the alleged libel was a pretty big part of it. Please see James' indictment at the outset of the permaban discussion. He accused her of anti-Semitism, posted three links without explanation as to how they support his case, and then presented the libel issue, including a warning issued to S.A.M. (already on the public record) in which he explicitly states that, lacking an apology for the libel, he will discuss a permanent ban with the moderators. The lion's share of his case in that post focuses on the alleged libel.

 

[Enmos]

I would contest that assertion insofar as the alleged libel was a pretty big part of it. Please see James' indictment at the outset of the permaban discussion. He accused her of anti-Semitism, posted three links without explanation as to how they support his case, and then presented the libel issue, including a warning issued to S.A.M. (already on the public record) in which he explicitly states that, lacking an apology for the libel, he will discuss a permanent ban with the moderators. The lion's share of his case in that post focuses on the alleged libel.

Perhaps I misinterpreted, but I rather hear from James what his real reasons were. If it's just the libel I disagree with him.

 

[Gustav]

what about the goddamn entry in the ban list?
cant you fucking read, enmos?

 

[Enmos]

what about the goddamn entry in the ban list?
cant you fucking read, enmos?

That also says "general trolling" which, it seems to me, is the core issue.

 

[Liebling]

Let me ask you about your opinion, Tiassa;

Does S.A.M. troll the boards?
Does she look for arguments and cause conflict?
In fact, does she blatantly lie, dodge facts and purposely misrepresent others statements?
How about ignoring the arguments that she does not agree with, only to come back at a much later point and attempt to assert the same initial argument?
Do you receive a number of complaints from numerous other posters stating any of the above?

She has been warned for trolling on many many occasions. Banned at least once for just that. And you are going to crucify James R for this one issue relating to S.A.M. when there are so many issues with her to contend with? She doesn't seem to learn from her warnings and bans, so special circumstances must be adopted. Like they were with Wanderer. We make special rules for sex offenders in our country because of the excruciatingly high rate of recidivism. S.A.M. can't seem to help herself either, much like Wanderer couldn't.

I don't understand why this is cause célèbre for you. You know that I respect your opinion the majority of the time, but while it might have been a misunderstanding (which happens as we are all human) it is really not just about that incident but indicative of a very large other problem that James R and the others who supported the decision were trying to resolve.

 

[Tiassa]

(Insert Title Here)

Does S.A.M. troll the boards?
Does she look for arguments and cause conflict?
In fact, does she blatantly lie, dodge facts and purposely misrepresent others statements?
How about ignoring the arguments that she does not agree with, only to come back at a much later point and attempt to assert the same initial argument?
Do you receive a number of complaints from numerous other posters stating any of the above?

No; not necessarily; no, no, and no; sure, but that's common around here and never been cause for action; very few, especially compared to what I understand some of my colleagues receive.

She has been warned for trolling on many many occasions. Banned a few times for just that. And you are going to crucify James R for this one issue relating to S.A.M. when there are so many issues with her to contend with? She doesn't seem to learn from her warnings and bans, so special circumstances must be adopted.

One of the strange phenomena moderators have had to endure over the years is the nature of many of the complaints people file. I can't count the number of times I've followed up on a very general complaint that someone is doing something wrong, and finding that the situation does not reflect the description offered by someone with vested interest in the outcome.

And I've encountered that a lot whenever these S.A.M. issues arise. Indeed, I've been through this before with James himself; he made a general accusation, I looked it up and didn't see what he saw, and explained what I saw and why I thought he was wrong. James chose to not respond directly, but rather simply dismiss the counterpoint and ... raise the same initial argument.

Imagine that.

(Look up to #367, in which I recall that episode for Enmos.)

Like they were with Wanderer.

Wanderer had a specific animosity toward the site; S.A.M. does not.

We make special rules for sex offenders in our country because of the excruciatingly high rate of recidivism.

Jesus fucking God! Really? You're seriously making that argument?

I don't understand why this is cause celebrity for you. You know that I respect your opinion the majority of the time, but while it might have been a misunderstanding (which happens as we are all human) it is really not just about that incident but indicative of a very large other problem that James R and the others who supported the decision were trying to resolve.

I would think if the problem is that apparent, James or anyone else could bust her on something legitimate. Instead, this most recent spat has been an absolute fucking mess. Really, if it's that clear what needs to happen, why does an administrator need to lie in order to make it happen?

And let me ask your opinion, please:

Does it matter to you if the administration and moderators conduct themselves honestly, or are you satisfied with anything we might contrive to get rid of S.A.M.?​

I will address later, in more detail, one of your questions, but I have a couple errands to run.

 

[ElectricFetus]

And?

"We" did not include you.

Are you presuming that all suspensions and bans are the same? The fact that other people have been banned before speaks nothing to whether or not those actions were justified.

Not at all, your suggesting SAM case is unique, I'm suggesting otherwise.

On second thought, maybe Gustav and I will go get really drunk together and then go smash our heads against a wall somewhere.

I don't know, maybe S.A.M. should thank James for treating her like shit?

Its the internet, its not serious business. James treating SAM like shit, oh man lets call the police, what a horrible crime!

So in light of his prior service ...? Fill in the blank, please.

Well James has been around since 2001, and you said you noticed this behavior in the last few months. So was that not years of service that you found no fault with?

If I don't accept the "others are worse" argument on a large scale, such as in wars, what is the threshold at which you would suggest issues are small enough to conscionably flip my opinion on the proposition?

Yeah, again this is the internet, this is not things that matter like 'wars'.

This is way beyond our usual sympathies or lack thereof. James has misrepresented people and circumstances well in excess of what usually goes on around here.

Oh do tell! can you give us other examples of his transgressions?

 

[Liebling]

No; not necessarily; no, no, and no; sure, but that's common around here and never been cause for action; very few, especially compared to what I understand some of my colleagues receive.

I think you are being a bit biased in those answers. In fact, I am fairly sure you've warned her yourself on several occasions. Surely you've been to the politics and religion sections on this site. Although she has mostly given up posting in the religion section because of bias by Skinwalker, and while that is somewhat deserved, it is not as deserved as she makes it out to be. She causes a lot of drama and ire in many sections. Her rallies against atheists, Jews and Israeli's are mythical in their proportion and of venom, misstatements, lies, straw-men and trolling.

One of the strange phenomena moderators have had to endure over the years is the nature of many of the complaints people file. I can't count the number of times I've followed up on a very general complaint that someone is doing something wrong, and finding that the situation does not reflect the description offered by someone with vested interest in the outcome.

And I've encountered that a lot whenever these S.A.M. issues arise. Indeed, I've been through this before with James himself; he made a general accusation, I looked it up and didn't see what he saw, and explained what I saw and why I thought he was wrong. James chose to not respond directly, but rather simply dismiss the counterpoint and ... raise the same initial argument.

Sure perception is 9/10'ths of the law, right? Even here, where you are so righteously defending her... it's all about perception. But even you are admitting that there are a lot of complaints. In the sections you moderate, I am sure that you've also edited a lot of her comments out for being off-topic and it may have just slipped from your memory since you have to do a lot of that.

Wanderer had a specific animosity toward the site; S.A.M. does not.

I actually disagree with this sentiment. S.A.M. has a problem with a lot of the administration and moderation of this site, and many many of it's members. She's just not honest enough to admit it like Wanderer was. It was Wanderer's ego that did him in, not his hatred.

Jesus fucking God! Really? You're seriously making that argument?

I am only making the reference because when people can't help themselves in life, we tend to show compassion for them by stopping them from doing things that harm themselves and others. Don't you think her energy could be harnessed for a better cause elsewhere than on this site going round to round with people? Don't you think that that kind of passion is better served where it actually might make a difference? Instead of wasting everyone's time with straw-men, lies, misinformation, false arguments and outright hatred and generalizations toward entire groups of people, even if there are bits of good posts in there? The sheer amount of shit posted smells more than the little kernels of salvageable corn that you might find in all that mess. And in the end, even if they are salvagable... they still taste like fucking shit because they still reek of it.

I would think if the problem is that apparent, James or anyone else could bust her on something legitimate. Instead, this most recent spat has been an absolute fucking mess. Really, if it's that clear what needs to happen, why does an administrator need to lie in order to make it happen?

She's been busted, edited, warned and at least one ban for something legitimate. No one keeps a records of the warnings, I assume. But at least 3 other moderators have said that they are numerous.

And let me ask your opinion, please:

Does it matter to you if the administration and moderators conduct themselves honestly, or are you satisfied with anything we might contrive to get rid of S.A.M.?​

I will address later, in more detail, one of your questions, but I have a couple errands to run.

It does matter to me that the administrator and moderators are honest. I personally avoid certain fora where I know they are administrated by someone who is NOT. And there are a few who are dishonest, biased, and have outright hatred toward certain people. I know that you understand the bias because you've even admitted to being biased against at least one poster. But we are human. We make mistakes. I believe that James R is leaving this thread open to expose himself, more than he is exposing S.A.M. He's in a conundrum right now and has to figure it out in his own head. But even he's stated, as has Plazma, that it was a large issue and not just the one of libel that hung her this time. Your refusal to accept that is understandable, because you didn't agree. But that doesn't necessarily mean it was the wrong thing to do. Obviously, it wasn't a single vote but a majority vote. We get that you dissent from that decision, we understand that you disagree and are standing on principle and I respect that. But you can't expect that general populi to cheer you on when many of us have had to live with her antics in the trenches.

Administration and Moderation are thankless jobs done by volunteers for a few reasons. Some do it for ego, some do it for power, some do it because they generally like the community. Few, like yourself, do it because they genuinely care. But I think that James R cares as well, but it's a thin line between handling both the moderators and posters complaints and trying to stay fair, completely honest and unbiased.

Changing other people's perception is an unrealistic expectation that will only lead to repeated head-against-wall banging. It's far easier to remove someone who is causing many issues with many people than it is to change everyone else's perception of her, no?