Moderators: Multi Hunters, Cheating/Abuse Team
Well, I thought bigotry goes something like this:Colossus wrote:yeah, I understand that Flame Wars is meant to be a place for people to say whatever offensive stuff they want and to attack each other without hesitation or remorse, but it has been my understanding during my brief time as a CC member that Flame Wars was principally intended to be a place for people to attack each other, not entire groups of people. This guy has basically been using his posts just to promote racist, homophobic, and anti-muslim sentiments. From my reading of the guidelines before I started posting in these forums, it was my understanding that that sort of thing (along with porn) were basically the only things not allowed. If I'm wrong, whatever, I'm certainly capable of ignoring this dickhead. I just thought that the mods should be aware of the pattern this guy has developed. I know they monitor the forums, so they're probably already aware. I assume that the lack of response to his behavior thus far is tacit permission for him to say the things he's said, so fair enough. Mods?
While I feel that Gerzan's posts are tasteless, at best, I'm not sure he's a bigot, IMO.Bigotry: The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance.
i certainly respect any stance that is very skeptical and suspicious of censorship. however, b.k., i think colossus is trying to argue that gerazan is in violation of some guidelines around here. i'm interested in your opinion on that, i.e. responding to colussus's last post.....b.k. barunt wrote:Banning a bigot? Shall we bring ourselves down to his level then? And where shall we stop once you've started that ball rolling? I find it very interesting that you used the word "verbotten".
This is not a political site. I do not see a need to expose children or anybody else for that matter, to racism or bigorty. Next you will be saying children need to be exposed to sex, so they learn the merits of rape..b.k. barunt wrote:................. Young people on the site need to be exposed to racist attitudes and arguments, in order to assess their value or lack thereof. I think that this is an ideal forum for them to see these views and hear rebuttal on them.
I'm not one to say what should or shouldn't be banned. I'm pretty new here, and I'm not even premium yet, so as far as I'm concerned, that is up to the operators of the site. I like this site a lot. I enjoy the forums, and one of the things that I liked when I first logged in to the forums here was the fact that the guidelines said basically, 'look anything goes excessive abuse of others, and excessive spouting of bigoted viewpoints.' I liked that because I think the forums here are a good spot for people to converse about lots of stuff without degenerating into a constant stream of unfair, prejudiced generalizations. While I realize that people should be free to share their viewpoints (otherwise there isn't open exchange), I think that people who use the cite purely to promote their clearly racist, sexist, Anglo-supremist viewpoints, it's time for them to go. The only reason I started this thread is because I thought this Gerazan guy was exactly the sort that the guidelines were written to prevent. Apparently that's not so, so, whatever. I'll just ignore him and his posts from here on out.Anarkistsdream wrote:Bigotry should be banned...
Your first argument includes witch-hunt. Got anything to back that up on this site or is this another point you try to make in defiance of actual evidence. This site, as you claimed before, has a laid back attitude. I fail to see how that attitude would constitute and witch-hunt to anybody but those with a severe streak of narcism and paranoia.b.k. barunt wrote:The problem with banning bigotry is that, given the penchant some people have for control ("sir" sebstar are you listening?), this could turn into an endless chain of witch hunts.
If by this you mean to say that those in power tend to try and stay in power by any means necessary. Well throughout history it would prove you right. As to its value of this particular discussion I fail to see any relevance save for my previous remark.b.k. barunt wrote: If the anti bigots get this control by bans and whatnots, they will inevitably assert their own form of bigotry.
Now I could be childish again and see this as prove of your bigotry, by you glorifying it as being a rebel. But then I just have . More to the point, banning acts of bigotry does not make it more appealing. Trying an appeasement policy with bigots is appalling and counterproductive. Since this is neither a political site nor a police station there is no need to seek out bigotry. That kind of seeking would more constitute a witch-hunt then anything else. But any in your face act of bigotry is by definition easily recognizable by the majority and as such a clear guidance on when action can and maybe should be taken.b.k. barunt wrote:Resist it, and reprove it, but when you ban it you make it attractive to rebels like myself