The most absurd moderation in Sci history

[quadraphonics]

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.

LOL, if that's the worst example you can find to tar joepistole with, then you've just proved that he is indeed an upstanding contributor :]

His *very first* first action upon entering the thread is to spin it into one of his very typical pro-Obama machines.

First and last, I'd note. He's hardly being argumentative there - he expresses approval at the release of the girls, and attributes it as a foreign policy success for Obama (something he also aknowledges being happy about). So what? He said what he thinks, honestly, and left it at that. There's no refusal to consider other points of view, confrontational repetition, etc.

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.

You seem to have joepistole confused with Ganymede. Joepistole only made the one post in that thread.

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.

Joepistole is up-front about what he believes, argues cogently, and is (in my experience anyway) generally restrained and respectful. I'm not sure what more you can ask of people here. Not everyone is here to reappraise their entire worldview, but so long as they also aren't here to beat others over the head with it I don't see the problem.

You, on the other hand, seem to have a rather serious control-freak/paranoia issue plaguing you. The silly attempts to present yourself as spokesman for some sort of elite community, the pretension to "own" threads (see language above), the wildly misplaced accusations about joepistole, etc. You're clearly here to preach (which is okay, as such) but it seems to trouble you when you encounter people who aren't here to listen uncritically to sermons.

 

[James R]

SAM:

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?

Yes. See my previous post.

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?

No.

They didn't suffer in history so hate speech against them will not be moderated the same way?

Hate speech will be moderated.

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

What, that the Jews were responsible for the Holocaust?

Tell you what, SAM. Why don't you post your evidence that they were, and I'll respond. That's what Norsefire was asked to do.

Do you wish to repeat his claim and defend it?

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?

What's your historical perspective, SAM? Is it antisemitic? Because that's what I'm seeing, reading between the lines.

Do you think the Jewish people brought the Holocaust on themselves by their own actions? At least tell me what you really believe, even if you have no supporting evidence.


WillNever:

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.

Interesting that you think we're limited. My perspective is that Norsefire is limited. He flips from one idea that he fixates on to the next regularly, whenever he learns something new. He's like a kid who believes that whatever he found out most recently is, like, the best. He is excited by ideas, but not very well read. He cherry picks and ignores things that might challenge whatever idea he has the warm fuzzies about at the time.

Maybe you're limited, WillNever. Have you considered that?

 

[Tiassa]

Something, something, Burt Ward

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

Has Norse had his turn in the About the Members threads? I don't recall that we've had one for a while.

I just found it interesting that this was brought up in this thread.

In a way, it seems—or, perhaps, feels—if not inevitable, then at least somewhat expected. Sometimes we, as a staff, offer some canned answers to inquiries and, knowing S.A.M., we should expect that eventually she would pick up on some of the inconsistencies that result from those points. And while I certainly can't map it from the front side—nor, at present, after the fact—it does not surprise me that the route eventually led to the inquiry at #145 above.

Maybe I'm just cynical, and the outcome is coincidental. I just remember biting my tongue at some point in reading S.A.M. and James' conversation, and deciding to try to stay out of it. Naturally, I did not follow my instinct. And, yes, as soon as James said, "You're making an incorrect assumption there," I knew this one would get sticky. And, in truth, so far it hasn't been all that bad. But I suppose that's actually beside the point.

Ah well, live and learn.

For my part, it is often unclear just what I have learned until the point is irrelevant.

 

[WillNever]

LOL, if that's the worst example you can find to tar joepistole with, then you've just proved that he is indeed an upstanding contributor :]

You view consistent and irrational pro Obama thread hijacking as an upstanding contribution...? You wouldn't be letting your personal political swayings seep into your judgment here, woud you be..?

You seem to have joepistole confused with Ganymede. Joepistole only made the one post in that thread.

You are right... therefore, we should add Ganymede to my list of trash-posters. Joepistole for the hijacking, Ganymede for telling someone how they would react, accompanied by a lack of evidence.

You, on the other hand, seem to have a rather serious control-freak/paranoia issue plaguing you. The silly attempts to present yourself as spokesman for some sort of elite community, the pretension to "own" threads (see language above), the wildly misplaced accusations about joepistole, etc. You're clearly here to preach (which is okay, as such) but it seems to trouble you when you encounter people who aren't here to listen uncritically to sermons.

Perhaps you have me confused with someone else, quad. Control-freak issues? Who or what have I attempted to control? What have I been paranoic about? Do you have evidence of either of these things? Show me the evidence, then. Have we even met in another thread besides this one..?

 

[WillNever]

Interesting that you think we're limited. My perspective is that Norsefire is limited. He flips from one idea that he fixates on to the next regularly, whenever he learns something new. He's like a kid who believes that whatever he found out most recently is, like, the best. He is excited by ideas, but not very well read. He cherry picks and ignores things that might challenge whatever idea he has the warm fuzzies about at the time.

Maybe you're limited, WillNever. Have you considered that?

I have noticed that about Norse too. It simply means that he is a highly mutable person who improves his understanding of the world with every new thing he learns. It means that his intelligence has not become crystallized yet, as has irreversibly taken place in many of the aged posters on the site, who are perhaps jealous as a result.

 

[quadraphonics]

You view consistent and irrational pro Obama thread hijacking as an upstanding contribution...?

If you consider someone stating a simple, straightforward opinion - and then bowing out - as "hijacking" then you have bigger problems than any one poster here. And let's note that you've hijacked this very thread.

Who or what have I attempted to control? What have I been paranoic about? Do you have evidence of either of these things? Show me the evidence, then.

Just look at your statements in this thread: the insistence that any thread you start is "yours" and so that any voicing of any opinion you do not approve of represents a challenge to your rightful "control." And in hysterical terms no less: joepistole posts a single sentence stating his view, and this gets interpretted by you as "hijacking," and then you declare him an ideological enemy and go around trashing his name in other, unrelated threads. And not only that: you go so far as to post links to that thread as if there's something to see there, without even bothering to review and notice that you're confusing joepistole with Ganymede. It looks an awful lot like paranoid ideation to me.

Have we even met in another thread besides this one..?

Several times. And you've evinced total ignorance of me every single one of those times... which is another troubling sign.

 

[Tiassa]

High Society

Who or what have I attempted to control?

Well, there was the episode with the Official Statement from Sciforums High Society. That one was pretty funny.

 

[WillNever]

You seem fixated on that event Tiassa -- moreso than most anyone else on this forum. Hardly anyone but you marks that event now. Meanwhile, several people in High Society group supported my actions in that event... and I still do. However, in what way does it exemplify control freak issues?

Or are you simply attempting to immaturely character snipe..?

And let's note that you've hijacked this very thread.

How so? This thread is not about me. I have kept it that way. Two people have tried to divert the subject on to me again, however, due to their staunch unwillingness to argue the points.

 

[Tiassa]

Are you amnesiac?

However, in what way does it exemplify control freak issues?

That you started expelling members who dissented from your "Official Statement".

 

[WillNever]

You are revising, Tiassa. At least two people who dissented are still with us. I expelled only those who, *in* their dissent, showed disrespect toward members of the group or the ideals of the group.

 

[quadraphonics]

How so? This thread is not about me. I have kept it that way.

This thread also isn't about parmesan cheese, but the fact that you haven't made it about parmesan cheese doesn't mean you haven't hijacked it.

This thread was not about joepistole, but you have made it about him. That is a hijack.

And, yes, I'm a champion derailer myself, with an illustrious history of hijackings. Call me a hypocrit all you want (I'll just point out that you're the only one who's complained about hijacking), but don't doubt my acumen in recognizing a derail.

 

[Tiassa]

(chortle!)

You are revising, Tiassa. At least two people who dissented are still with us. I expelled only those who, *in* their dissent, showed disrespect toward members of the group or the ideals of the group.

Thank you for making the point for me.

 

[WillNever]

You shouldn't thank me because I didn't.

 

[Tiassa]

Laser up!

You shouldn't thank me because I didn't.

​

Whatever you say, Will. That's how it goes, right?

 

[WillNever]

Yes, it is. I did counter your point though, with the knowledge that respectful dissenters remained. I did do that.

 

[Gustav]

excellent guys
now gently coax sam into the fold, give gendy some space and room to maneuver and things are gonna be just.....great!

 

[James R]

It means that his intelligence has not become crystallized yet, as has irreversibly taken place in many of the aged posters on the site, who are perhaps jealous as a result.

Here's my guess. I'm guessing that you're not "aged". I'd put you as early 20s - at least that's how your posts read. And I think that if anybody is jealous, it's probably you, because you lack life experience.

How old do you imagine that I am, by the way? Interesting that you describe me as "aged". I guess that to you, anybody over about 26 seems, like, ancient.

 

[WillNever]

I have not said you were aged. Why: do you see yourself that way?

For the record, 40+ is what I would consider aged.

 

[S.A.M.]

But do you think the Holocaust is different from a Syrian's perspective?

Yes, I think it is. Europeans feel guilty about the Holocaust, this colours all their attitudes to Jews. Asians and Arabs have no guilt and they have a history of colonial repression under the same Europeans, so they don't see why they should have to walk on egg shells or be subjected to ridiculous European standards of what constitutes vacuous meaningless concepts like antisemitism because the holocaust is not sacrosanct to them.

I'm not sure exactly why you banned Norsefire. Unsupported opinions about any group, religious or political are as common as dirt on sciforums and are never challenged. I cannot recall the last time the mods challenged anyone's historical view of anything that didn't concern Jews. And history is hardly written on stone. No one can use any historical claims as definitive evidence because history is what other people say it is. But when it comes to Jews, what you do to any people doesn't count as much as what you say about Jews. You better be on the right side of opinions about Jews or else you're an antisemite. I can actually imagine a visceral reaction in people when they read criticism about Jews. Simply saying the word Jew would bring out the hives. This is a very strange and unique standard. If it was used for any other group, it would be racism.

What, that the Jews were responsible for the Holocaust?

Tell you what, SAM. Why don't you post your evidence that they were, and I'll respond. That's what Norsefire was asked to do.

Do you wish to repeat his claim and defend it?

This is what I mean. We have all these glorious historical facts but does anyone want to lay them on the table? Nope, not one single time.

Its all apparently "understood" that all these glorious historical facts exist...somewhere.

Well since you have given no evidence why you do not believe Norsefire, I shall put both him and you in the same category of "not enough information to make any decision"

What's your historical perspective, SAM? Is it antisemitic? Because that's what I'm seeing, reading between the lines.

Do you think the Jewish people brought the Holocaust on themselves by their own actions? At least tell me what you really believe, even if you have no supporting evidence.

The Holocaust card won't work with me. You could just as easily attack me for the 2% aborigines who have no say in their self determination if I describe the high incidence of child abuse in their community.

So yes, I am quite sure that anything to do with Jews, anything at all, if it is negative, "feels like antisemitism" to you. As an Indian, however, I have no need to apologise for being critical of what I see wrong with the religion or culture or politics of Jews simply because you don't have the same freedom.

Hate speech will be moderated.

Yes but you couldn't even bring yourself to call it hate speech when it was not against Jews, so I suppose, yes, hate speech will be moderated, only you reserve the right to decide if the same set of words are hate speech, depending on who is the target.

 

[hypewaders]

Mod Note:

You Report, We Decide.