Banning Sean1916

BEAT

I am not sure where to put this anymore, please move this if it is in the wrong place.

I am putting in my vote to have Sean1916 banned or sent to prison, if even for a little while so he understands it is wrong to post racist replies/threads.
Everthing I have read from him has been racist and offensive...see politics forum.

He had one thread locked and posts ridiculuos comments about whites being superior in others.

This is just my 2cents though :dunno:

Karl Hungus

I disagree...
It's a great topic to discuss.

Ban him if he becomes a total flaming muppet.

While I don't agree with his views, he's entitled to them. Sure, perhaps we'll reach the stage when we can all agree that everyone is equally inferior to robots, but that day is a while off yet... As are the robots. But untill then, we're naturally going to get this kind of attrition.

Boston

Where would we be if Admins actually gave a damn about voting to ban users. Politics is a hot bed of extremeist opinion. If he's still able to post there, then he can't be that bad.

BEAT

true and true. just my opinion though I guess it doesnt make it right :dunno:
anyway, guess I dont quite know what constitutes banning, although I was banned for remarking on my post count once without knowing if was a bannable offense, go figure

mike65

You cant be banned for being a nazi or even a provo lover only if you get shirty....

Mike.

subway_ie

Originally posted by BEAT
although I was banned for remarking on my post count once without knowing if was a bannable offense, go figure

How is remarking on a post count a banable offence?

hostyle

Originally posted by subway_ie
How is remarking on a post count a banable offence?

You'll know within about an hour I'd say.

Boston

God thats a sexy post count.

CuLT

Damn Nazis, turn their zero tolerance thing right back on their asses and ban them.

Boston

Hey cult, meaning to ask yea, by any chance where you outside one of my exam halls about a month back, Talking to a bloke named Gaffney.

CuLT

Yes actually.
I didn't see you, you really should have come over and scared the crap out of me for the few moments I wouldn't have recognized you .

Boston

Yea but imagine if it hadn't been you, Mark ( one of my lab partners) would have thought I was even more of a looper.

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by mike65
You cant be banned for being a nazi or even a provo lover only if you get shirty....

Mike.

How about if you post racist comments?

Lafortezza

Use the ignore button and you'll never have to read another one of his posts.

CuLT

Originally posted by lafortezza
Use the ignore button and you'll never have to read another one of his posts.

I think they tried that when Hitler came to power.

Didn't work out so well.

TwoShedsJackson

Originally posted by CuLT
I think they tried that when Hitler came to power.

Didn't work out so well.

That's one of the worst analogies ever.

It's Godwin's Law overload on these boards lately.

CuLT

Originally posted by TwoShedsJackson
That's one of the worst analogies ever.

It's Godwin's Law overload on these boards lately.

Really? I was quite happy with that one .

flogen

it may be a bad analogy, but he has somewhat of a point. If someone is making racist comments, why wouldnt they be banned rather than just ignored? That allows them to carry on with their bile.. sure, you or I can't read it, but many others can, and racism should be dealt with head on, not brushed aside.

Flogen

hostyle

Originally posted by Boston
God thats a sexy post count.

You are not your boards.ie post count

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by CuLT
Really? I was quite happy with that one .

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/

Originally posted by flogen
it may be a bad analogy, but he has somewhat of a point. If someone is making racist comments, why wouldnt they be banned rather than just ignored? That allows them to carry on with their bile.. sure, you or I can't read it, but many others can, and racism should be dealt with head on, not brushed aside.
Flogen

I couldn't agree more. Its not about discussing racisim. Thats ok. Its about allowing pro racist comments or remarks on your forum. Thats not acceptable. I'd take the same view on links to racist sites.

Lafortezza

Originally posted by flogen
it may be a bad analogy, but he has somewhat of a point. If someone is making racist comments, why wouldnt they be banned rather than just ignored? That allows them to carry on with their bile.. sure, you or I can't read it, but many others can, and racism should be dealt with head on, not brushed aside.

Flogen

No, if you don't like what they are saying then ignore them. BEAT has already brought it to the mods/admin attention and if their racist/nazi views still continue to offend her then she should just ignore them and not read. Everyone else who feels the same can do likewise.

You can't ban someone for just having opinions different to yourself, even if they are racist. Unless he is obviously trolling/flaming/acting the nob.
If he puts his point across politely then there's no reason to ban him imho.

Karl Hungus said
I disagree...
It's a great topic to discuss.
Ban him if he becomes a total flaming muppet.
While I don't agree with his views, he's entitled to them. Sure, perhaps we'll reach the stage when we can all agree that everyone is equally inferior to robots, but that day is a while off yet... As are the robots. But untill then, we're naturally going to get this kind of attrition.

DeVore

I think I banned him already. You can link directly to examples of racist comments and we'll delete them. I'm all for freedom of speech but not at the expense of the (equal) freedom to live your life without hatred being incited against you.

DeV.

[edit] I agree that politely expressed views are fine. Anything like "fu n|gger!" will get deleted and get the author banned. I'm perfectly capable of telling the difference lads!

flogen

so, lafortezza, your saying its ok to make racist comments as long as you dont get agressive? that shouldnt be the case IMO.

Racist comments should be dealt with not ignored. I know BEAT brought this to the admins attention, but that doesnt mean we should just sit back now and ignore the guy (or anyone who does this in the future). When it comes to racism, i think the very least done is the person gets a warning not to do it again.

Flogen

Lafortezza

Depends if you see Racism as a point of view that you strongly disagree with but will discuss/argue against in the politics/humanities board OR something that should not ever be discussed on boards. Depends where you draw the line. See DeV's post.

RicardoSmith

Racist comments, polite or not are racist.

Nice rig lafortezza...

flogen

I see your point that racism should be argued with, I suppose it would work better to discredit them than allow them to think they won because we wouldnt face them in what they describe as a debate... however ignoring is just as bad as a straight banning i guess...

Also, in the case of sean1916, he constantly said he wanted a debate, and when he got one he just ignored the legitimate questions, copy/pasted stuff from white power sites, and then started to make racist comments that didnt even fit under the topic of the thread. I suppose you could say he still shouldnt have been banned, because he was destroying his own case by not facing facts..

Ah i dunno... i guess it is a double edged blade, you can ban people for racism, and theyll claim victory, you dont, and try and argue with them, and they just ignore you so they can pump their bile out....

I guess letting them be ripped apart for a while is far more useful than just banning them

Flogen

DeVore

I once got banned from TCD's network for engaging (actually, starting a Usenet topic on the acceptibility of swearing online. I wasnt taking the mick, I honestly wanted to explore the idea (awww bless... student days eh?).

I got banned for obsenity for using "offensive language" in my examples. (the exact example that got me banned was "you're mother fncks sailors up against a wall" if you're interested).

People need to learn the difference between blue-print and instance.

There are a worryingly large number of people who, while claiming to be liberal, are only too fast to say "these people shouldnt be allowed to talk, I've decided".

Thats my job.

DeV.

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by flogen
....Also, in the case of sean1916, he constantly said he wanted a debate, and when he got one he just ignored the legitimate questions, copy/pasted stuff from white power sites, and then started to make racist comments that didnt even fit under the topic of the thread. I suppose you could say he still shouldnt have been banned, because he was destroying his own case by not facing facts..

Ah i dunno... i guess it is a double edged blade, you can ban people for racism, and theyll claim victory, you dont, and try and argue with them, and they just ignore you so they can pump their bile out....

I guess letting them be ripped apart for a while is far more useful than just banning them

Flogen

Well thats the whole point there was no debate. They just use it as a platform. It just starts a flame war with everyone else. If the thread is on topic then fair enough. But as soon as they start posting links to sites unrelated to the thread topic, and going off topic with their comments. Then I think their agenda is clear.

So the question is do you want to provide them with that platform?

flogen

well the minute he did go off topic, he was banned from politics (more how he went off topic than the fact that he went off topic).
Every forum has its rules about going off topic, so thats not a problem, racist or not. As for giving them a platform, well I already said its a bit of a catch 22, but in their case they tried to get a platform, the boards.ie folks just kept destroying their case, and they just kept losing and looking stupid...
I do agree that you cant be all for freedom of speech and want someone banned just because they disagree with you, although I guess I never saw this situation like that (i saw it as someone making racist comments, full stop). I think he was banned once he crossed the line, and until then he was being shot down left, right and center

Flogen

ecksor

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
So the question is do you want to provide them with that platform?

If I banned all the barely coherent morons and bigots who can't hold an argument and aren't interested in doing so as they use this system as a soapbox for their particular versions of the truth then I'd probably get a tremendous amount of stick for picking on "valuable contributors" because "I don't agree with them". There are some very obvious racists (although they protest otherwise) on the Politics forum right now debating and arguing their points of view (purely for example) but they seem to manage to do it without posting slurs and names and some of them even do it in a skillful and informative way, so why not let them.

RicardoSmith

What about illegal activities. Can they be discussed under the banner of free speech?

Boston

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
What about illegal activities. Can they be discussed under the banner of free speech?

Being a racist isn't a crime though. And illegal activities can be discussed under the banner of free speech, since when where they not?

ecksor

What about illegal activities. Can they be discussed under the banner of free speech?

No.

You don't have free speech on these boards, nor do you have unlimited free speech of the sort you're implying in Ireland. I don't see anyone else mentioning free speech here, so I'm not sure where you got that from.

ecksor

Oh, apparently we did drift into "freedom of speech" along the way. Anyway, bottom line is that the constitution in this country imposes restrictions on what you can say freely and that applies here. We also frequently restrict the freedom to hassle and disrupt reasonable discussion according to our varying definition of the term.

Boston

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
You didn't answer the question. Are illegal activities allowed to be discussed?

Yes, you're being as ecksor decribed a " barely coherent morons who can't hold an argument". Besides what connection is there between that and racism.

ecksor

Actually, I did. Perhaps "No" was too vague for you. I've been working on correcting my overly blunt responses lately and this is the unfortunate side effect.

In reality "No" is too specific, but if you want a more indepth answer then assume "No" and ask on a case by case basis, or else phrase your question in a more specific way. Most people seem to get by with a bit of common sense thankfully.

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by ecksor
Actually, I did. Perhaps "No" was too vague for you. I've been working on correcting my overly blunt responses lately and this is the unfortunate side effect.

In reality "No" is too specific, but if you want a more indepth answer then assume "No" and ask on a case by case basis, or else phrase your question in a more specific way. Most people seem to get by with a bit of common sense thankfully.

I missed the "no" obviously just like you missed the free speech bit. Too err is human no? Nothing like a good monologue to brighten your day, and that was nothing like one....:D

So back on topic...

Basically the boards.ie allow pro racist posts, links etc. Not because of free speech, as there isn't any, as you've pointed out. But because the boards have decided to do so.

Originally posted by Boston
Yes, you're being as ecksor decribed a " barely coherent morons who can't hold an argument". Besides what connection is there between that and racism.

I'm plural now are we.....

But the the insult has cheered me up no end. Thanks.

Boston

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
Basically the boards.ie allow pro racist posts, links etc. Not because of free speech, as there isn't any, as you've pointed out. But because the boards have decided to do so.

Is there any reason why boards wouldn't. Racism is allowed to be discussed in the same way illegal activities (have to disagree with ecksor there) are, once they don't promote or glorify it. Illegal activities is very very vauge anyway, you could be talking about x y and z crimes where commithed as a topic of discussion. where as talking about how to make a bomb wouldn't be allowed.

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by Boston
Is there any reason why boards wouldn't. Racism is allowed to be discussed in the same way illegal activities (have to disagree with ecksor there) are, once they don't promote or glorify it. Illegal activities is very very vauge anyway, you could be talking about x y and z crimes where commithed as a topic of discussion. where as talking about how to make a bomb wouldn't be allowed.

A discussion and posting offensive comments and links are not the same thing, IMO.

ecksor

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
Basically the boards.ie allow pro racist posts, links etc. Not because of free speech, as there isn't any, as you've pointed out. But because the boards have decided to do so.

What's your point exactly?

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by ecksor
What's your point exactly?

Q). Should Sean1916 be banned?

A). Not if posting offensive comments and links is not against the rules.

Or is he being banned for being off topic? Or not polite enough?

Boston

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
Discussing a discussion and posting offensive comments and links are not the same thing, IMO.

That made zero sense. "Discussing a discussion "

Anyway, it strikes me of the old comment, " I don't mind homosexuals, once they stay at home and I'm not confronted by them" you don't mind racists once they stay in the wood work and stfu. Has it ever crossed your mind that sometimes people have very good reasons for thinking the way they do, you may not agree with it, and that's your right, but they are entailed to their opinion, and they are entailed to expresses it here if they wish (that is what boards is for after all) once they do it in a non-adversarial manner. sometimes just having an opinion is offensive to others.

Boston

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
Q). Should Sean1916 be banned?

A). Not if posting offensive comments and links is not against the rules.

Or is he being banned for being off topic? Or not polite enough?

But he was banned for posting offensive comments, wasn't he?

RicardoSmith

Ah....being racist is having an opinion.

I thought it gets you arrested and charged for incitement to something or other.

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by Boston
But he was banned for posting offensive comments, wasn't he?

But is that against the rules if offensive is subject opinion like your claiming.

Boston

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
Ah....being racist is having an opinion.

I thought it gets you arrested and charged for incitement to something or other.

thats being subjective. You're implying that having an opinion makes you a racist, having a racist opinion makes you a racist.

If you get arrested, you're arrested for inciting others to carry out a crime, not for being a racists. I'd rather if you just came out and said something instead of all this crap. you keep hintign at this and that, whats your opinion.

But is that against the rules if offensive is subject opinion like your claiming.

If I say on politics that I support the work of sucicde bombers, thats going to be an offencive comment to alot of people, but its a fair opinion and I should be able to express it without being banned.

ecksor

RicardoSmith,

I can see that you're continuing on with an argument from http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1703804#post1703804

I didn't ban him so I'll let DeVore answer that particular question.

You seem to have taken my "No" answer without the qualification, which is fine and what was intended as the default if you weren't going to take the qualification. Doesn't bode well for you actually arguing your point successfully though.

RicardoSmith

Not really. I was interested in the semantics of it all. But a line has been draw in the sand so I guess thats the end of it. It was doomed from when Godwin's Law was invoked.

sceptre

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
Not really. I was interested in the semantics of it all. But a line has been draw in the sand so I guess thats the end of it. It was doomed from when Godwin's Law was invoked.

Off-topic, but Godwin's Law merely states that someone's bound to bring up Hitler and/or Nazis sometime if a discussion goes on long enough. Anything about discussions being over, debates being lost and so on are just addons.



Yeah, I know the "law" actually says something along the lines of "as a usenet thread gets longer the probability of a Nazi comparison approaches one" but that's close enough

flogen

really, sceptre? I thought it was that once someone is called a nazi or hitler, a thread is null and void, and is better off locked... may have just been an add on, though

Flogen

TwoShedsJackson

I think the first person to invoke the Nazis or Hitler, or draw a comparison thereto, loses the debate instantly