Quote :

"Dude--you can post about whatever you want, too. He enjoys no special privilege"

But we cannot post about whatever we want. You made abundantly clear just now the links you would go to in order to suspend people who spam up the board with bullshit about cheese, which is frankly indistinguishable from spamming up the board with bullshit about how the Jews are out to get us all.

Actually, I take that back, they are distinguishable, because even though they're both a lot of shit that contributes nothing to the site, only one of them is patently offensive and represents the sort of reasoning that justified Bergen-Belsen.

You are every bit as capable of ignoring a picture of cheese as you are ignoring a rant about "ugly kikes." Yet the offensively insane is permitted while the benignly inane is not.

Of course, the cheese thing is just one of the many problems with this site's policy, and yours.

Quote :

"and that's another thing--I am not an owner of this site...I'm simply a regular poster who was given a couple of site admin abilities and tasked by the owners (of this private enterprise) to basically preserve order enough to keep the forum chugging along, using a "very lenient approach" (their words, not mine). While I lean towards the laissez-faire style, anyway, I have always tried to execute in accordance with the "commanders' intent". "

I fail to see how any of this needed explaining, as I took care to include "owners and their agents in what I said.

And I will ignore, for a moment, that "very lenient" is wholly subjective, and that a number of people who posted images of brie and swiss probably disagree that you have been holding yourself to that standard.

7/22/2007 4:01:00 PM

Quote :

"where and when do you stop? it is a slippery slope."

where do you stop? blatant hate speech, its only a slippery slope if you are a keds wearing mouth breathing retard

7/22/2007 4:21:36 PM

Quote :

"every bit as capable of ignoring a picture of cheese as you are ignoring a rant about "ugly kikes.""

i tend to agree with grumpygop on this

7/22/2007 4:21:58 PM

Quote :

"where do you stop? blatant hate speech, its only a slippery slope if you are a keds wearing mouth breathing retard"

hypocrisy?

guth, you tell us, is that hate speech in bold?

others, is that hate speech?

i say yes. of course, not on the same level as "lowdown ugly diseased kike". far from it.

but surely, YES, it is HATE speech.

so this brings up 2 issues:

1) that's exactly where your slippery slope is. i say what you said is hate speech. guth, you are going to say it is not. then what? who decides? the board owners, that's who. and they have decided whatever they have decided.

2) you are a hypocrite. (hate doesn't have to be just about race/religion/ethnicity/etc. it can be about looks/intelligence/clothes/etc.)

7/22/2007 4:50:24 PM

Quote :

"where do you stop? blatant hate speech, its only a slippery slope if you are a keds wearing mouth breathing retard"

yeah, really? is it that simple to you, to define what is "blatant" and what is "hate"

hey ... wait a sec .... you just called me a "retard".

thats hate speech against the developmentally disabled.

ban/suspend/terminate/throw in the river

7/22/2007 4:56:00 PM

insults are not hate speech, if retard is offensive i'll stop using it.

7/22/2007 4:58:00 PM

^^^ hah, i didnt see your post before i started typing mine.

you know....

the NAZIS... in addition to killing KIKES .... also killed and medically tortured RETARDS.

theres no difference. hate speech is hate speech is hate speech.

salisburyboy hates Jews, guth hates the developmentally disabled.. plenty of people here holler about FAGGOTS, so i guess they all hate those with alternate sexual orientation.

[Edited on July 22, 2007 at 4:59 PM. Reason : ]

7/22/2007 4:58:57 PM

heres the difference between me and him, i will edit that away and apologize. apologize for using irony, its effect was apparently lost on some

here is what i should have written:

where do you stop? blatant hate speech, its only a slippery slope if you are a keds wearing mouth breathing idiot

[Edited on July 22, 2007 at 5:00 PM. Reason : .]

7/22/2007 4:59:47 PM

Quote :

"guth: insults are not hate speech"

are you fucking kidding me, faggot?



[Edited on July 22, 2007 at 5:00 PM. Reason : ]

7/22/2007 4:59:50 PM

Quote :

"are you fucking kidding me, faggot?"

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

7/22/2007 5:01:14 PM

even using faggot is not hate speech, going on a tirade about homosexuals is hate speech. or if we apply "hate speech" liberally simply insulting me would still not be hate speech. for example you could call me an ugly loser, not hate speech.


i mean this is pretty simple stuff guys, its not rocket surgery we are talking about.

7/22/2007 5:02:24 PM

so how is calling you a "diseased dirty self-loathing kike" different?

:confused:

7/22/2007 5:07:30 PM

if you were calling me one, i would take it as an un-clever insult. if you were making a statement about jews that would be a defamatory remark. christ guys, my 3 year old cousin could figure this out.

7/22/2007 5:09:21 PM

so...

"guth is a diseased dirty self loathing kike" is okay...

but

"jews are a bunch of diseased dirty self loathing kikes" is not?

is this how it works for you? is this where you draw the line between

"merely offensive un-clever insults"

and

"criminally defamatory slander" ?

...

by the way, im glad your 3 year old cousin is such an astute student of constitutional law.

7/22/2007 5:16:05 PM

she just has common sense

Quote :

"so... "guth is a diseased dirty self loathing kike" is okay... but "jews are a bunch of diseased dirty self loathing kikes" is not?"

you see, i am not jewish. so its just not very funny. if i was jewish it would be pretty mean, and common sense and decency should tell you why it should not be tolerated.

[Edited on July 22, 2007 at 5:19 PM. Reason : .]

7/22/2007 5:18:27 PM

0EPII1 and joe_schmoe win
guth, you're fucked/

retards idiots
what? retards are idiots?

guth, you lose.

STFU

7/22/2007 6:53:50 PM

hardly

7/22/2007 6:57:21 PM

Quote :

"you see, i am not jewish. so its just not very funny. if i was jewish it would be pretty mean, and common sense and decency should tell you why it should not be tolerated. "

So mean speech should not be tollerated?

7/22/2007 7:51:26 PM

So far, I think guth is right on the distinction of hate speech and insults.

We love us some insults on TWW, but those insults are figures of speech meant to offend the poster, not anyone else (even though they can be interpreted to offend others).

What SB says is not meant to offend any single poster, but meant to offend an entire group of people, and those who are even aloof to those people. They aren't meant to be interpreted ironically or facetiously. If SB could even justify his hatred with a semblance of rational arguing, I would almost not even be an issue but, alas, here we are.

7/22/2007 8:08:00 PM

I'm half-Jew (mom's side, so full Jew ) and I find everything salisburyboy says to be hilarious.

7/23/2007 2:14:26 AM

^ Does either you or your mom work directly in finance or entertainment?

7/23/2007 2:28:58 AM

My mom manages a Winn Dixie in Florida, and her mom's family (the Jew part) never worked in finance or entertainment. They worked shit jobs in New York for nothing.

7/24/2007 4:33:38 AM

i haven't read any of this thread, but I must say that I cringe at the notion of prohibiting "hate speech," because it is too easy to go too far and use "hate" to define anything with which the gov't doesn't agree

7/24/2007 8:03:05 AM

Fortunately this is a public internet forum so we can easily define what is okay and what is not.

IE. You can make jokes with racial slurs, anything lighthearted etc. and maintain the openess while prohibiting REAL hate speech which is purposefully inflammatory and insulting.

This messageboard is not regulated by the US Constitution therefore the moderators should be able to say, 'We allow free discussion and debate, but slander of a person, race, gender, etc. with no purpose other than malice is not allowed.'

If someone wants to promote hate then let them go to a messageboard that is designed for that type of content.

If SB presented original ideas and actually debated them in a proper manner then his speech would be more tolerable. As is, he simply posts a link, ignores it when those articles are questioned or largely refuted and then claims he's being censored or just randomly starts blathering hate speech.

If someone did this in your house you would kick them out and not invite them back. If someone did this in a classroom at a college they would likely be removed from the classroom. He's not presenting ideas or debate, just hate.

7/24/2007 8:11:28 AM

^One possible solution is to do what stardestroyer.net does and make rules regarding the making and supporting of arguments. On there, if you make an argument and then fail (continuously) to substantiate it with actual facts (ie facts whose sources are valid and published by an unbiased, independent group, and the method by which those facts were gathered are also on display), then you're suppose to concede the argument. Failure to do so results in punishment, going as far as suspension and banning if the person knowingly and maliciously lies about the facts.

Take racial stereotypes as an example. If I said that "all black people are stupid but are great at sports," I'd have to find some pretty damn good evidence to back up that claim. But since no such evidence exists, there's no way I could even hope to sustain that argument. And if I continued on with broken record tactics and the like, then I get suspended. There's nothing to stop you from spouting off any argument you can think of, but what matters is that you are able to back it up. You should only get into trouble if you can't back it up.

Of course, this would require a board culture that strongly promotes the practice of logic and deductive reasoning. Such a culture exists over there because all the people over there are already interested in breaking everything down logically. Over here, everybody makes arguments that are mostly emotional and knee-jerk.

7/24/2007 1:54:50 PM

I believe comprehensive sex education will decrease teen pregnancy.

To me, it's intuitive that educating teens about different methods of birth control will decrease teen pregnancy. And I really don't wanna have to go get data to back it up just to attempt to satisfy some douche bag who is gonna ignore my evidence anyway.

7/24/2007 2:06:01 PM

Imo anything short of a threat, an incite to violence, or an intentional fabrication presented as fact that carries a negative, real world consequence falls under free speech, and should not be infringed upon.

7/24/2007 2:17:38 PM

Quote :

"defamatory comments are ok?"

What makes something defamatory or hate speech is arguable. In Germany it is considered hate speech to deny the Holocaust happened, but for those few crazy enough to believe that it didn't happen it is an honest belief (not something said simply to be inflammatory). It depends on a person's perspective. The only need for a restriction is slander/libel. I think allowing people to express terms deemed hate speech is important because, to be honest, I want to know who is clearly an ignorant jackass. Only when "free speech" becomes harassment do I think it should be restricted. If I engage someone in dialog and they say something that I deem offensive or hateful it is on me to decide if I continue the conversation (or ever engage them in it again). If someone pesters me when I clearly do not wish to converse with them then it borders on harassment.

7/24/2007 3:59:38 PM

needs a ttt

8/3/2007 6:23:25 PM

so more people can see how soundly i won this, at your expense?

well, thanks!

8/3/2007 10:19:11 PM

^

8/4/2007 9:37:48 AM