The most absurd moderation in Sci history

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

Oh, frequently, m'lady. For instance, I once spent a couple years harping on a federal judge before I realized that I was reading the word "issue" wrongly. The frustrating thing is that the brief I complained about was still dishonest shit, even without the implications I had built up according to that error. To the one, that was embarrassing; to the other, nobody really noticed. Funny how that works, eh?

"We think we know what we are doing. We have always thought so."
— Michael Crichton (Prey)

 

[WillNever]

One might choose to argue against Bells' assessment, that sarcasm was called for, but who among the complainants will lay out the standard of how many hands we should tie behind our backs in order to make it a fair argument for who, and according to what needs? Does Will need Bells to deal with him one-handed?

Tiassa: you do not need to feel an inherent need to defend other moderators simply because you identify with that social group on this forum. Bells withdraws from conversations when confronted with logic and rational thought. Is that the way that you want to go, too?

 

[Bells]

Tiassa: you do not need to feel an inherent need to defend other moderators simply because you identify with that social group on this forum. Bells withdraws from conversations when confronted with logic and rational thought. Is that the way that you want to go, too?

I'm sorry. You were using logic there?

Hah!

Ah, you made a funny.

The ban stands. I gave him the time to substantiate his claims and he failed to. If you don't like it, as I have said before, report it. Otherwise, we are just repeating ourselves.

Now, I understand that you need to believe that you are actually important to me and that I hang on your every word in posts. I do have a life and frankly, you don't really factor into it. I had other things to do, much more important things... like scratch my backside for instance. But really, what more do you want me to say to you?

There's only so many times that I can and am willing to repeat the same thing over and over again and not have it sink in. I mean I can treat you like you are stupid, but I choose not to, because well, I have a life and yeah.. your lack of comprehension is really not my problem. So feel free to keep not getting it or misrepresenting it. If you have something more substantial to add, let me know and I will give it the time it deserves. Otherwise, please stop wasting my time.

 

[WillNever]

This were the point where you withdrew. Your latest self-absorbed and self-aggrandizing "I really do have a life, I swear!" type response continues to fail to stand up to that very rational post I made. Next...

You seem very angry on this forum. If you actually have a life, it isn't hard to figure out what's really missing from it.

 

[S.A.M.]

James:

Ok, here's the difference for me, SAM. You'll probably disagree.

I note that the Jews were a minority particularly singled out and persecuted in World War II. They were subjected to the Nazi genocide that deliberately and systematically set out to kill them, and in fact wiped out several million of them. The above comment (Norsefire's comment) is thus a case of blaming the victims of the Holocaust for their own suffering and persecution. And importantly, the accusation is both unsupported and incorrect as a matter of historical fact.

That's what makes one comment more hateful than the other.

So you make a distinction about hate speeck on sciforums regarding Jews and Anglo Saxons before WWII based on your historical perspective of how the group was treated by someone at some point in history? What kind of logic is that? Is this some kind of reverse racism?

Wait a minute, so if the same comment is made, with the word Jews transposed by Anglo-Saxon Protestants, you would discriminate against the latter based on their religion? They didn't suffer in history so hate speech against them will not be moderated the same way?

And importantly, the accusation is both unsupported and incorrect as a matter of historical fact.

What are the correct facts, according to you? What is the evidence on the basis of which you refute Norse's claim?

I am not taking sides here, I want to see how you are approaching this. Everyone talks about "facts" as if they are known to everyone, but no one actually gets around to enumerating them. Norse is Syrian and I am Indian, we have no idea what you are talking about. So why are you moderating everyone as if they are white male Anglo Saxons from western countries with a common historical perspective? Is it because you are a white male Anglo Saxon from a Western country and hence your standards apply to everyone regardless of their history or perspective?

 

[Tiassa]

Ask around, pay attention, or do something otherwise useful

Tiassa: you do not need to feel an inherent need to defend other moderators simply because you identify with that social group on this forum. Bells withdraws from conversations when confronted with logic and rational thought. Is that the way that you want to go, too?

Maybe you should ask around on that one. String, Madanthonywayne, or even James R might have some enlightening suggestions about your proposition. Even Bells. There's Avatar, too; I certainly didn't defend him in his last transgression, though if he's around by another name, I haven't noticed.

Or, perhaps, you might just pay attention to history. Just because I think you're full of shit doesn't mean my colleagues are always right.

But in the long run, one thing you seem to overlook is history. It is true that, when it comes to gaffes, faux-pas, and other stupid offenses, we tend to go lighter on members who are, in the long run, less problematic to us and, in our view, the community. Of course, that sort of reflects society, too. Criminals, at least in the United States, often receive lighter sentences on the occasion of their first offense. Chronic offenders are deemed more detrimental to the community than someone who simply fucks up, or cracks and has their day of insane venting. And to note part of Bells' response to you about your lack of comprehension: look, dude, some things just aren't that hard to figure out, and Norse's suspension is one of them. Neither is the idea of cumulative offense.

A colleague and I recently discussed between ourselves Sandy's permanent dismissal from this community. In truth, we were both a bit surprised that the cited offense had been the back-breaker. To the other, though, given her history as a poster, it was very hard to argue that she had any useful purpose in this community; that is, compared to her mountain of prior offenses, this particular one seemed, well, rather small. But the question remains how long we tolerate chronic offenders. Norse is lucky we put up with him at all anymore.

 

[WillNever]

Tiassa, that is horseshit. Sandy was an obvious yard-trash candidate, as is (or should be) Baron Max, joepistole, buffalo roam, draqon, john99 and a few other politically caricatured, undynamic persona non gratae who have been largely shunned by the few of us more intellectual posters who ignore the static lot entirely.

If you think Norse contributes nothing intellectual to this site, then that shows how well you don't know him. Check out of most his thread creations in recent times. To many, they are intellectually stimulating. I can see how a consistent "breath of fresh air" poster like him might seem threatening to forum-fatigued, jaded users such as Bells and James R. That is because they are limited people.

You might try breaking free from your own chains, as well, if you can. It's too bad you offer so little in terms of new thought recently... because I regard you as one of the best moderators on this website, purely from a fair-play standpoint. You should stop throwing your lot in with the shit-mods... before you become one of them too.

 

[Tiassa]

(sigh)

Sandy was an obvious yard-trash candidate ....

You know, when Ted Bundy was finally busted, they got him on a traffic violation. But it wasn't the traffic violation they executed him for.

All I'm getting at is that, compared to her history, it was an odd straw to break the camel's back. In the end, yes, I think the community is better off without her. But thank you for acknowledging her history as a member of this community; it reminds that you are aware that we take such issues into consideration.

If you think Norse contributes nothing intellectual to this site, then that shows how well you don't know him.

Oh, I'm sure if we searched hard enough, we could find something of value in his posts. But his balance, by my ledger, is red ink, and there's quite a bit of it.

You should stop throwing your lot in with the shit-mods... before you become one of them too.

Yeah, ask James about what happens when I think someone's doing a shitty job as a moderator.

Meanwhile, you ought to stop throwing your lot in with those who post such low quality, before you become—oh ... right.

 

[pjdude1219]

Tiassa, that is horseshit. Sandy was an obvious yard-trash candidate, as is (or should be) Baron Max, joepistole, buffalo roam, draqon, john99 and a few other politically caricatured, undynamic persona non gratae who have been largely shunned by the few of us more intellectual posters who ignore the static lot entirely.

sorry but having seen your posts I would hardly call you in any sort of group of intelligent posters doublely so if you think Norse adds anything..

If you think Norse contributes nothing intellectual to this site, then that shows how well you don't know him. Check out of most his thread creations in recent times. To many, they are intellectually stimulating. I can see how a consistent "breath of fresh air" poster like him might seem threatening to forum-fatigued, jaded users such as Bells and James R. That is because they are limited people.

or maybe were smart enough to know norse is an idiot. maybe before you say he is intelligent you should wait for him to understand what the hell he is talking about.

You might try breaking free from your own chains, as well, if you can. It's too bad you offer so little in terms of new thought recently... because I regard you as one of the best moderators on this website, purely from a fair-play standpoint. You should stop throwing your lot in with the shit-mods... before you become one of them too.

You know most of your posts lately seem to have been in this thread whining so here have some cheese to go along with your whine.

 

[Gustav]

i think joepistole is an unsung hero in sci

 

[quadraphonics]

i think joepistole is an unsung hero in sci

Seconded. It shocked me to see him included on a list with sandy et al. until I remembered that it was a WillNever post.

Sometimes I suspect that WillNever is actually the subtlest troll this site has ever known.

 

[Bells]

Sometimes I suspect that WillNever is actually the subtlest troll this site has ever known.

No! Surely not!

Norse is Syrian and I am Indian, we have no idea what you are talking about. So why are you moderating everyone as if they are white male Anglo Saxons from western countries with a common historical perspective? Is it because you are a white male Anglo Saxon from a Western country and hence your standards apply to everyone regardless of their history or perspective?

Did you just play the race card?

Considering that I am the one who banned Norse and I am neither male, born in a Western country, white or from an Ango Saxon background, would you care to revise that?

But do you think the Holocaust is different from a Syrian's perspective? Are we meant to accept that because he was born in Syria, he somehow was not taught history? Or are you suggesting that because he is Syrian, that is the reason why he would think that Jews bought about the Holocaust or are to blame for the Wars and thus, the Holocaust?

 

[Tiassa]

Don't be distracted by the shadows

Did you just play the race card?

Considering that I am the one who banned Norse and I am neither male, born in a Western country, white or from an Ango Saxon background, would you care to revise that?

Where did you learn history? Or ... how to be more specific? What myth of history did you learn first?

It's not specifically about a race card, but, rather, whether or not we are presuming one historical narrative over another. Sometimes, this is justified. At others, it is not. However, I would suggest that even if Norse is drawing from a "legitimate" historical narrative, the fact that he wouldn't support his accusations against the Jews is all one needs to stand on. S.A.M.'s question is compelling, but I'm not sure it's specifically relevant to the issue.

Don't worry about a "race card". In this case, the facts in evidence—e.g., the accusation and obvious lack of support—suffice. As to the consideration of James, the issue runs more broadly than this particular suspension. James does, after all, suffer certain curious biases. And, yes, we do tend to support a more white, Western historical narrative. That another narrative might be particularly ridiculous only speaks of that narrative, and does not excuse the shortcomings of the common Western version of history.

 

[Bells]

Where did you learn history? Or ... how to be more specific? What myth of history did you learn first?

It started in a non-Western country, taught by a Muslim of Pakistani descent and when we moved to Australia, our history teacher was actually an Indian. Which is why I find this so amusing.

It's not specifically about a race card, but, rather, whether or not we are presuming one historical narrative over another. Sometimes, this is justified. At others, it is not. However, I would suggest that even if Norse is drawing from a "legitimate" historical narrative, the fact that he wouldn't support his accusations against the Jews is all one needs to stand on. S.A.M.'s question is compelling, but I'm not sure it's specifically relevant to the issue.

It is somewhat relevant though. I mean was what we were taught somehow different to what Norse would have been taught? I was under the assumption he lived in the West and had received a Western education. But Sam brings up a valid point. Should we moderate around people's lack of education or around what they view history as being? As Norse pointed out at one point in this thread, it didn't matter if his history was right or not. So what is Norse's historical narrative? Why did he refuse to state it.

What is interesting is that Norse, in his apparently different historical narrative, has blamed the Jews for their own genocide. The irony is that his argument against the Jews is exactly what is spouted by white supremacists in America and Western Europe. You know, white Anglo Saxon individuals who would have received a Western education.

Don't worry about a "race card". In this case, the facts in evidence—e.g., the accusation and obvious lack of support—suffice. As to the consideration of James, the issue runs more breoadly than this particular suspension. James does, after all, suffer certain curious biases. And, yes, we do tend to support a more white, Western historical narrative. That another narrative might be particularly ridiculous only speaks of that narrative, and does not excuse the shortcomings of the common Western version of history.

I am curious about the Western version and the white male version. This is the first time that anyone has accused me of supporting a more "white, Western historical narrative", and I am curious.

Thus far, no one has been able to support Norse's assertions on his behalf.. You know? Tell me that I was wrong in banning him because he was right and tell me how and why. Which in and of itself, is quite amusing. So Sam has piqued my interest. How does Norse's being born in Syria somehow sets him apart in his historical perspective? As he claimed himself, it does not matter if his history is incorrect. What matters to him is what he believes. So why does he believe that? And that is what no one has been able to address thus far. Hence why this new argument to be interesting to me.

 

[WillNever]

sorry but having seen your posts I would hardly call you in any sort of group of intelligent posters doublely so if you think Norse adds anything..

or maybe were smart enough to know norse is an idiot. maybe before you say he is intelligent you should wait for him to understand what the hell he is talking about.



You know most of your posts lately seem to have been in this thread whining so here have some cheese to go along with your whine.

PJ: you are a bitter poster who suffers from ethnic guilt and has a longstanding record of acting like a baby. You were even banned for acting like a baby. However, in the last month or so... I haven't talked to you at all, so the reason that you are criticizing my "whines" which are isolated only to this thread here (and which are not even true whines) while ignoring your own contributions as one of the biggest whiners on sciforums seems incongruent. You may want to re-evaluate yourself, here. You aren't making much sense.

 

[WillNever]

Seconded. It shocked me to see him included on a list with sandy et al. until I remembered that it was a WillNever post.

Check this thread out, then. In it, I mention that Euna Lee and Laura Ling were brought home to the USA... and immediately, and without any logical reason whatsoever, joepistole enters the thread and starts spinning *MY* topic off as somehow being an Obama foreign policy success. Don't take my word for it: just look at it. His *very first* first action upon entering the thread is to spin it into one of his very typical pro-Obama machines. When I state to him that Clinton was the driving force behind that event, he then replied, without even knowing me or my political views, with something along the lines of "it doesn't matter. You would have used this against Obama if Ling and Lee weren't saved." Which was completely without any basis.

If you look at most of his threads on the forum, they all just force out the same stereotypically, unreasonably pro liberal "Obama can do no wrong" stance. He is as useless and as hard-headed a poster as buffalo roam, who is simply his opposite in ideology, when it comes down to it. They are here to promote agendas. They are not actually here to learn.

It's hard to view someone who acts out such pointlessly unyielding posturing as anything except a troll.

 

[Tiassa]

A brief consideration

So what is Norse's historical narrative? Why did he refuse to state it.

If I had to guess, which is always a dangerous venture in these situations, I would say it has to do with the historical narrative being incomplete and incoherent. Not babbling incoherence, but, rather, that its diverse elements—perhaps selected for convenience in one or another circumstance—have not yet come together to form a clear picture. Pieces of various jigsaw puzzles, forced to fit together somewhat and bearing rough seams.

I am curious about the Western version and the white male version. This is the first time that anyone has accused me of supporting a more "white, Western historical narrative", and I am curious.

I wouldn't go so far as to accuse, as such. But we tend to favor certain versions of fact, if for no other reason than familiarity. Which is, of course, a curiosity in your case, but like I said, it's not so much an accusation.

Over the years, for instance, I have tried many times to remind people of history pertaining to the American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that predate 9/11, or even the first Gulf War. This approach has largely been denounced as anti-American, pro-terrorist, and other things. The idea that "Americans deserved 9/11" is, of course, controversial, but even considering to what degree any of the victims of that terrible day in September might have contributed to misery abroad is simply off the table.

Last year, in September, the staff had a certain disagreement about a certain member. And in the course of that, certain accusations were made about the member; those accusations received some response, and at least one specific response was written off as partisan. The outcome of that was the appearance that certain considerations were unacceptable. This, of course, led to some ... er ... more serious trouble, later in the year.

The basic accusation against the member reflects a very specific Western historical narrative. This is how considering questions like torture—e.g., If the bad guys torture, how do the good guys justify stooing to that level?—comes to be seen as anti-American, pro-terrorist, or whatever.

In terms of white males ... well, white males dominate the Western narrative. Indeed, one of our fellows' solution to race problems in America always come out on the side of the beneficiaries of racism. Another sees Arab and Islamic perspectives as inherently inferior, at least according to his "official" treatment of such. If you look at the themes of our moderation over the years, they do, in my opinion, tend toward the Western and white (and, by proxy, male, sure).

How does Norse's being born in Syria somehow sets him apart in his historical perspective?

It pertains to judgments political, moral, ethical, and otherwise subjective. In the Western narrative, the bad guys include Syrians, Lebanese, Palestinians, and others who, by, say, a Syrian narrative, are either good or neutral. To use the Israel-Palestine dispute as an example: There is no question that some elements in Palestine just aren't helping things, but considering the historical development of that conduct, including Israeli terrorism—and the fact that a man who boasted of murdering women and children in the name of Israel, that is, a terrorist, should be elevated to the executive of a nation—is a notion rejected by the Western narrative. In other words, how the situation got to its present condition is beyond the scope of proper consideration.

And that is what no one has been able to address thus far. Hence why this new argument to be interesting to me.

I wouldn't disagree, but only suggest that this new argument pertains to issues broader than your suspension of Norsefire.

 

[Bells]

Fair points.

 

[quadraphonics]

It started in a non-Western country, taught by a Muslim of Pakistani descent and when we moved to Australia, our history teacher was actually an Indian.

None of which is exclusive of being indoctrinated in a Western historical narrative, note. The identities of the teachers are particularly irrelevant. There is no shortage of Westerners being indoctrinated in Western historical narrative by teachers of whatever background you care to imagine, and in non-Western countries to boot. Heck, there are Muslims of Pakistani descent right now carrying arms for the US military in the name of advancing Western historical narratives. At the end of the day, that's because being a Westerner - up to and including sharing the relevant historical narratives - does require one to be white, or Christian, or born in the West, etc.

What is interesting is that Norse, in his apparently different historical narrative, has blamed the Jews for their own genocide. The irony is that his argument against the Jews is exactly what is spouted by white supremacists in America and Western Europe.

Norsefire is a white supremacist in America. I thought everyone was already clear on that point? The alternative "historical narrative" he's claiming is not some native cultural artifact of a distant land, to be respected in the name of cultural relativism, but the plain old white supremacist, Jew-hating flavor of the Western historical narrative. Really, the whole fixation on the Jews' role in interwar Europe betrays his perspective as "Western." There's nothing "alien" to tip-toe around here. The guy is as nationalistic about Texas as he is about Syria. Even the whole identification with the parents' homeland is typically American.

You know, white Anglo Saxon individuals who would have received a Western education.

I would drop the "Anglo-Saxon" qualifiers. That stuff ceased to be salient a long, long time ago (right about when it was necessary to include the Irish and Italians in the "white" category to preserve a white majority in the USA) when it comes to big-picture stuff like historical narratives and how they relate to racism and antisemitism. In fact, a lot of the specific Jew conspiracy theories in question are more German and eastern European in their affiliation - after all, it was those countries the Jews were claimed to have ruined and betrayed, not the lands of the Anglo-Saxons (who fought a devestating war against the polities mobilized against the Jews, let's recall).

If you mean "Anglophone," then you should use that term instead. "Anglo-Saxon" might end up a useful category in certain constrained settings, but in the general case it's off-base and tone-deaf.

How does Norse's being born in Syria somehow sets him apart in his historical perspective?

The whole Syria thing is a red herring as far as I'm concerned. Apart from a few superficial affectations, his politics, history, etc. are all type specimens of standard American right-wing ideology. In analytic terms, focussing on his birthplace is generally a distraction. Except for an affection for Syria (and an open admiration for fascism), there's nothing to separate Norsefire from your standard American racist Jew-hating authoritarian right winger.

 

[Bells]

Since Norse is not here, maybe that is something we can discuss with him when he returns and he is able to give his side of where his historical perspective stems from or comes from.

I wouldn't disagree, but only suggest that this new argument pertains to issues broader than your suspension of Norsefire.

True and something that can be looked further into. But not here.

I do understand what you meant though. I just found it interesting that this was brought up in this thread. Ah well, live and learn.