Continued Discussion: Locked Threads

[Whiskers]

I meant to say that all of our most intelligent members had thier say and certainly brought the level of debate up to a great standard, but it is not the main goal of this publication to foster hate.

[L'Etranger]

Berry, I understand your definition of what this forum is supposed to be. The threads indeed sometimes heat up when participants don't realize the nature of this - or forget it. My own "temperament" is not above criticism either - but I don't think I contribute to HATE.

"Moody" opened a small, but incredible window, I find, on a modern-day ..ism that is close to frightening. He isn't stupid for sure (but a trifle vane). Answering to questions very arbitrarily and demagogishly, he gradually edged toward a "reassessment" of Adolf Hitler. I saw it coming all along, ... nauseating. The attack on GW Bush and the US with arguments that many of us even share is a probate device to pick up "the frustrated" and then "knead" them to a ready "dough" for ideas like "Cultural Purity" (which is in the end nothing but White Supremacism) and "Rule of the Fittest" and lots of related stuff that's well packaged in all kinds of attractive wrappers - like rune reading and other "hip" stuff. The leaders behind this are no longer your run-of-the-mill Sergeant Schultz-type of Nazi, but educated and highly trained rhetoricians (right word?). The driving force is of course HATE, cold hate and you are right, I'm sure, if THAT is what you sense in the long outpour of this person. And it is your right to stop this on this forum that is dedicated to one man who is basically - and essentially - a person one would have to associate with LOVE - love of human beings, love of BEING.

Hope this makes sense ....
And keep up the good work!
Thanking God eternally that I happen to live in such a messed -up, decadent, multicultural and coulourful world,
yours
L'Etranger

[Bill]

"I meant to say that all of our most intelligent members had thier say and certainly brought the level of debate up to a great standard, but it is not the main goal of this publication to foster hate."

Well, it goes without saying that no one - least of all me - was "foster[ing] hate". Like L'Etranger, I saw it coming a mile away, too, and said as much after about the second post.

My point is that you can always "push the button", and since you can go back and delete posts, there is no "too late". More often than not, strict censorship merely pushes the offensive material underground; it almost never changes anyone's thinking. There are quite a few people here, not even including myself, that are more than capable of not only pointing out the falacy in the "logic" of someone like Moody, who in all liklihood isn't going to change their mind about their position, but making an eloquent and educated repsonse that not only shows it for what it is, but allows others, who may be on the fence, to see the problem.

I guess what bugs me a little is that while I don't question your running of this site, I could easily fall into the "locked" category (and in fact, I think L'Etranger and I did at one point) in an effort to have an intellectual discussion. While I have strong views, I am basically a peaceful, tolerant person, but I am not so naive to think these things - like hate - don't exist, and it does nothing to ignore it. I think that while the reason we are here is essentially a positive thing, our host would probably be the first to admit that ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

" "Cultural Purity"... White Supremacism... and "Rule of the Fittest"...The leaders behind this are no longer your run-of-the-mill Sergeant Schultz-type of Nazi, but educated and highly trained rhetoricians (right word?)."

Exactly, but while a position is hateful and unpalatable, that doesn't make it invalid. I think in a real sense it takes practice to deal with these people to make sure that no toehold is reached; thinking that this type of idea is only fostered by a skinheads with skateboards is inviting it in the back door.

I for one would rather hear someone spew this crap and KNOW where they stand than have it suppressed and WONDER IF that's where they stand.

[Whiskers]

My point is that you can always "push the button", and since you can go back and delete posts, there is no "too late". More often than not, strict censorship merely pushes the offensive material underground; it almost never changes anyone's thinking. There are quite a few people here, not even including myself, that are more than capable of not only pointing out the falacy in the "logic" of someone like Moody, who in all liklihood isn't going to change their mind about their position, but making an eloquent and educated repsonse that not only shows it for what it is, but allows others, who may be on the fence, to see the problem.

The arguments were made to my satisfaction.

I guess what bugs me a little is that while I don't question your running of this site, I could easily fall into the "locked" category (and in fact, I think L'Etranger and I did at one point) in an effort to have an intellectual discussion. While I have strong views, I am basically a peaceful, tolerant person, but I am not so naive to think these things - like hate - don't exist, and it does nothing to ignore it. I think that while the reason we are here is essentially a positive thing, our host would probably be the first to admit that ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

There are other places that such hate can be explored. It won't be here. You and LE weren't locked. The thread was.

Exactly, but while a position is hateful and unpalatable, that doesn't make it invalid. I think in a real sense it takes practice to deal with these people to make sure that no toehold is reached; thinking that this type of idea is only fostered by a skinheads with skateboards is inviting it in the back door.

I for one would rather hear someone spew this crap and KNOW where they stand than have it suppressed and WONDER IF that's where they stand.

Tolerance of such hate is disgusting to me.

[Bill]

Excuse me?? Who said anything about being tolerant? Just the opposite. Sending them somewhere else implies that it is okay, just not here. I am saying it is unacceptable ANYWHERE, and it is our duty to do what we can to NOT ignore it when it comes to us. Call this guy (I assume) Moody on his ignorance. Show him that anyone with a modicum of intelligence is going to call him on his nonsense.

You think me tolerant of hate, you haven't been paying attention to my 845 posts.

[Whiskers]

You think me tolerant of hate, you haven't been paying attention to my 845 posts.

You are right. I haven't been. I find your posts to be banal at best. Nothing personal, of course.

[Bill]

No hate there.

EDIT: I don't think you can dismiss what you said with a "it's not personal" since it is clearly a personal attack in response to someone who dared question your authority. Fair enough. I didn't intend my question to be a critique of the stewardship of this site, and will therefore stop, since it is being construed as such. I can live with the free exchange of ideas even if limited to certain acceptable ideas and then sometimes only when put forth with the right amount of PC indignancy.

[Jagged]

More often than not, strict censorship merely pushes the offensive material underground...

I think Bill has a valid point here... except that I don't feel comfortable with the term "censorship" in the connection with editing the forums here. We're getting away with a few things, which suits me fine, but this is still a private forum, not some official forum guaranteeing everybody to publish anything for them.

So, if Berry says that Moody can take his ramblings somewhere else but that he won't spend his time or computer capacity on it, it's hardly censorship. If he said that Moody shouldn't be allowed to do the work to publish them himself, it would be.

I for one would rather hear someone spew this crap and KNOW where they stand than have it suppressed and WONDER IF that's where they stand.

Here, I totally agree. [EDIT: Not so much out of tolerance of hatred, as out of a perhaps selfish wish to be able to fight it.] Besides, discussions can be pretty boring if there's only left a circle of people agreeing on things on the whole. So, maybe exactly because I disagree with Bill on a lot of subjects, I hope he'll stay and play with us.

[Jules]

But it's not fun watching someone kick the mentally ill.

[A_Non_Ymous]

Excuse me?? Who said anything about being tolerant? Just the opposite. Sending them somewhere else implies that it is okay, just not here. I am saying it is unacceptable ANYWHERE, and it is our duty to do what we can to NOT ignore it when it comes to us. Call this guy (I assume) Moody on his ignorance. Show him that anyone with a modicum of intelligence is going to call him on his nonsense.

You think me tolerant of hate, you haven't been paying attention to my 845 posts.

Bill,

I don't think anyone really reads your position as being tolerant of hate. On
the contrary. And I thought you and L'Etranger and Jagged did a credible job
of attempting to respond to Moody's increasingly bizarre postings. Despite
what appeared to be some sort of cognitive problem, Moody several times
tipped his hand that he was nursing some sort of hidden agenda. It came out
very slowly, and if we read it aright, it was pretty nasty.

However, Berry's position on this is understandable. Moody wasn't really
open to logical debate; he just kept trying to dodge the consequences of
his postings by constantly redefining the issue. It is difficult-to-impossible
to have a reasoned debate with such people, because they never acknowledge
defeat. Instead, they use the public forum to garner attention and they hope,
approval at times. In the meantime, they fill up the forum with the equivalent
of toxic waste. When the forum is full of crap, a form of Gresham's Law can
kick in, and a lot of people who are repelled by the posturing of people like
Moody just go elsewhere, leaving the field to Moody and his ilk. I've seen
it happen.

I suspect that, in part, is at the bottom of Berry's desire to protect the
forum in the manner he sometimes does. Whether he be right or wrong,
he's got to make the call; if he didn't, he'd run certain risks, and the forum
might well be the worse for it.

Just my opinion.

LSN

[Etive]

I think that Berry was right to lock the thread. If he had allowed Moody to continue to promote his ideas certain ISP's may have banned the site and ruined it for other people.

[L'Etranger]

...

However, Berry's position on this is understandable. Moody wasn't really
open to logical debate; he just kept trying to dodge the consequences of
his postings by constantly redefining the issue. It is difficult-to-impossible
to have a reasoned debate with such people, because they never acknowledge defeat. Instead, they use the public forum to garner attention and they hope, approval at times. In the meantime, they fill up the forum with the equivalent of toxic waste. When the forum is full of crap, a form of Gresham's Law can kick in, and a lot of people who are repelled by the posturing of people like Moody just go elsewhere, leaving the field to Moody and his ilk. I've seen it happen.

I suspect that, in part, is at the bottom of Berry's desire to protect the
forum in the manner he sometimes does. Whether he be right or wrong,
he's got to make the call; if he didn't, he'd run certain risks, and the forum might well be the worse for it.

Just my opinion.

LSN

I, for my part, regard LSN's words as the perfect EPITAPH for this matter. Thanks.

[DeeCrowSeer]

Well, sorry to spoil the epitaph, but I thought I'd throw my tuppence in...

In a previous thread someone suggested that the forum was like a pub where we are all sat having a chat. In these terms Moody was the sort of chap who wanders over to your table and starts a bit of a row. At first you try to engage him, or settle him down... but when he starts shouting about hammers and anvils, then it's time for the Landlord to step in and bar him. A landlord can bar anyone he wants from his establishment, and it's never called "censorship" because he's simply protecting his regulars, and his business and his licence.

Well, that's the way I see it anyway. Mr M gave Berry the licence, and it's his "gaff". That doesn't mean he has to like us, and there's no reason why he should (although I would never deliberately seek to upset him because he was always been very encouraging to me). It's one of my favourite sites, but I'm well aware that there's a sign over the door which bares Michael Moorcock's name, Berry Sizemore's name and the legend: Right Of Admission Reserved.

This analogy works especially well for me since I reacted the same way I do in real-life pub arguments, which is so avoid eye-contact, keep my head down and try to find the nearest exit. Not something I'm proud of, and if anyone wants to say that I exhibited a "tolerance" towards hate-speech then I'm not sure I'd be able to argue the point.

D...

[A_Non_Ymous]

If I inadvertently provided an epitaph, you are certainly welcome to provide a
postmortem. ;)

We're starting to drift off the original topic slightly, which may well be all to the
good. The reaction you attribute to yourself below is not inconsistent with the
comments I made about Gresham's Law in this context.

People find the behavior of people like our favorite ex-forum member (let's
call him "M" for short, as in merde) objectionable for various reasons.
It can be wearisome or just boring and obnoxious to listen to or read such
carrying on; it can make one very angry; it can prove source of psychic conflict
which can increase one's anxiety level simply by virtue of proximity.

If one is conflict-shy or averse (as appears to describe your reaction below),
then one wants to go elsewhere just to get away from it. Many of us here aren't
exactly conflict-averse, but your reaction is completely understandable and
commendable. The best way to avoid trouble is to stay away from it, and
it might be a good principle not to involve oneself in trouble unless one can
accomplish something positive thereby.

LSN

Well, sorry to spoil the epitaph, but I thought I'd throw my tuppence in...

In a previous thread someone suggested that the forum was like a pub where we are all sat having a chat. In these terms Moody was the sort of chap who wanders over to your table and starts a bit of a row. At first you try to engage him, or settle him down... but when he starts shouting about hammers and anvils, then it's time for the Landlord to step in and bar him. A landlord can bar anyone he wants from his establishment, and it's never called "censorship" because he's simply protecting his regulars, and his business and his licence.

Well, that's the way I see it anyway. Mr M gave Berry the licence, and it's his "gaff". That doesn't mean he has to like us, and there's no reason why he should (although I would never deliberately seek to upset him because he was always been very encouraging to me). It's one of my favourite sites, but I'm well aware that there's a sign over the door which bares Michael Moorcock's name, Berry Sizemore's name and the legend: Right Of Admission Reserved.

This analogy works especially well for me since I reacted the same way I do in real-life pub arguments, which is so avoid eye-contact, keep my head down and try to find the nearest exit. Not something I'm proud of, and if anyone wants to say that I exhibited a "tolerance" towards hate-speech then I'm not sure I'd be able to argue the point.

D...

[L'Etranger]

Monsieur, votre interprأ©tation de "M" est un petit peu shocking Vous ne trouvez pas?

We can easily live with several epitaphs, thanks for your tuppence, D. There are examples of historical grave stone with more than one side: http://www.alsirat.com/epitaphs/

The bar or club comparison isn't bad. This forum is indeed a "club" for me and I accept that someone's set up rules.
As for avoiding fights - I think it is one of the strengths of "multiculturalism" which came under fire in yon locked thread - that not every member of a society need be equally talented or tempered or orientated. Some will step in and raise the sword and shield during times of storm and others may design a beautiful coat of arms to emblazon said shield with it ... thus each contributes. This is a concept utterly alien and despicable to the one-pure-warrior-fighting-jawohl-machine, hehehe.
May the sun shine on you all today!