Here Today... Gone To Hell!

Mr. Jarmo, would you consider removing your ban on politics when it comes time to talk about Presidential Elect 2008? Perhaps?

This is a little premature, dontcha think?

I guess Markus's campaign starts now.....  ;D

MA'S DEMOCRACY STARTS NOW!!!!

Yes, very premature, but it was just a thought that came into my head and I was wondering if we were gonna be able to talk about politics by then.

I have a feeling we'll have to take it to PMs, Markus  : ok: Some people just can't behave when it comes to politics  :no:

Why can't we just talk about politics now?

Because the rules say we can't...

alot of people do ignore it thought and the odd discussion sparks off.

That's what i figured, it's a perfectly normal discussion topic that needs discussing, so long as you keep the assholes out of it.

well if we couldnt allow canadian election stuff on here... and we are  rather civil... then 08 us election stuff.... lol

you could all come to pinko commie SLC punks site! Its full of liberal wussies!! www.godlovesgeorgebush.com

I don't see why we can't set up a separate political section on the board here.  If you don't like politics, you don't have to go in.  If you do like it, you can still discuss it.  What's wrong with this idea?  I've asked before and never had it explained to me.

I know name-calling can spread to other threads because of it.  So if it does, that's when you break out the negative karma, probations, suspensions, bannings, etc.  Keep all the fighting in one place, people who don't like the politics can stay out, people who like it can still have it.  Where is the problem with this and why can I never get a direct answer about it?

Maybe cause they doesn't give a shit.

Oh boy I really hope that site was created as a joke? :hihi: .....No seriously it is meant as a joke right?? :nervous:

Makes sense.  But a message board where the moderators/administrators don't care and won't give the people a direct answer is like a super-secretive government that's allegedly a democratic republic.  It's just not effective.

*wonders if anyone picks up on that*

It isn't about 'not getting an answer' and you fucking know it. If you read the answers, even if you had to read between the lines (which I don't think that you would have), then you would get your answer of No.

Jarmo doesn't want constant fighting on this board, and it has been proved time and time again that the clash on this board is just too great (... at testament to the diversity of GNR fans? ... Ahem...........), the divide means that there WILL be fighting in every political thread.

What does giving Politics it's own section solve?

It isn't about not wanting to discuss politics, which is what you are insinuating, on the part of the administration; somebody so keen on politics should perhaps be a little better at reasoning reason (haha!) from given answers. Why do you think that SLC doesn't keep going on about this?

In short, that kind of child board would be unmoderatable (did I just make that word up?). And, as you know, we're all very pro-censorship... Or, sorry, readability, you know, without the insults. Without the generic slur (... you know, how every thread ends up the same? SLC is a grubby commie, Pretty is a fascist and, who was against the towel heads?)


A sentance without a comma? Now, there's a thing, I think. You, know.

Maybe it is because nobody gives a shit. Or, maybe it's because answering multiple questions multiple times wasn't in the job description.

 No the person that runs it! really hates gw unlike me! dont want to confuse any1 in thinking im a commie!

Yeah sorry, I had a really bad attitude problem yesterday. I had to punish myself but I'm much better today.

But, with the ban on politics, I think it is unfair but I am aware of how political discussions on this site can get out of hand so I'm not 100 percent aganist it.

"Why can't we discuss political topics?"

"Because, it causes too much fighting in The Jungle."

"So why not make a separate political forum?"

"Because it still causes fighting."

"But wouldn't the fighting stay in one place?"

"No, it would spill into other threads."

"So why not smite someone for taking it to another thread?"

"No!"

"Why not?"

"Because I'm the decider, and I decide what is best!"

*Duffman23235 mysteriously disappears.  Conflicting reports say he was last seen somewhere in the Siberian Gulag, Guantanamo Bay, or Abu Ghraib.*

Seriously though, it would certainly be moderateable (hell, I'd do it).  You break out a "pinko Commie" or "fascist" remark or something of the ilk, bam, post deleted, and add some negative karma.  If it happens too much, lock the topic, get the people to start a new one that maybe they can keep cleaner.  If someone can't seem to cut the crap, they get banned from posting in the political forum.

This way, the people who can talk politics without slinging insults would be allowed to, while the ones who can't do it would have something looming over their heqads reminding them to either 1. keep it clean, or 2. not talk at all.  And the ones who hate political topics could just keep it all out of The Jungle and have it in a separate place where they don't have to look at it.

Honestly, I don't see what the problem is with this scenario.  All banning it does is insult the intelligence and maturity levels of those who can discuss political topics with educated opinions and facts, rather than assumptions and insults.

^ The dude has a point, kinda, not that i'm too fussed.

But how bout they get one thread and one thread only where all things political are discussed, and when people mouth off, bitch, moan, insult as expected, smite away, then ban them, give them what they want and if they abuse it punish them, i mean a whole section is hassle but like one thread, it would be a start, maybe like one last chance, they mess it up then it's over, if they behave for like 6 months they might get a bigger reward......

The problem is that some people here have lefty opinions. Those opinions ruin all the political topics. It's a shame, really.

Yeah anybody with different opinions is wrong ::)

the problem is there is too many posters of such differing walks of life and beleifs...politics are never good to discuss with people. it can kill relationships and people :hihi:

same with religion

(http://img48.imageshack.us/img48/9363/bushsheep2drjh0.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)

Everybody should think the same.

Let me guess.......your way?

No, the problem is you right wing freaks who continue to stand by the worst president of all time.

Alright, you assholes have ruined my point.

There's no need for Slashead's jab at the lefties, nor was there a need for SLC's photo response, or the "freak" comment from Markus.

Who says moderating wouldn't be easy?  I just did it right there.

Um, only half-way. You insulted members of this board in your last post even though you didn't name names.

I still think you're moderating skills need some work.

I know.  The "assholes" comment was meant to be a joke.

For starters, I Love Jarmo Luukkonen.
On daily basis, I fantasize about me and Jarmo being characters either in Cameron's Titanic or in one of the most sweet and love filled love ballads by Nick Cave,ones where man and woman (or in this case, me and jarmo)are spending quality time where the wild roses grow.
On Daily basis, I Fantasize I was a woman just so I'd have a slim change of getting inpregnated by Jarmo Luukkonen.

Just wanted to clear some air for a rant. Now,

I'm not using internet THAT much.Still, pretty fair doze of the wonderfull, p0rn filled wonderland of net browsed ever since 1996 or so.Holy shit, that's 10 years. I have visited loads  and loads and loads  of various discussion forums during this time.Because I really enjoy reading peoples thoughts and all that emo crap.

So far, I have only ever seen ONE SINGLE FORUM that actually fucking decides to bloody ENTIRELY Perma-BAN ANY political discussion.
This one site happens to be a forum for people who ended up in there because they like a  Rock n Roll band called Guns N' Roses.
A rock and roll forum that gives out-of-the-line topic BANS. It's  so Anti rock and roll that  it's paradoxal.If Jim Morrison was alive..he would kick Jarmo to balls:(Which would harm my impregnation plans.:(


I still can't understand WHY.

2 people disagree. They both are sure they are right.They get fustrated.They might get pissed and start to fight.They might even start calling eachothers homefucks or something equally creative. It's inevitable. What is so horrible in this?
One could just ignore the fighting as long as it doesn't begin distracting the thread itself too much.
 One could start giving warnings, deleting posts and banning users that go out of the line. Why not?It's not like Jarmo has to do it all by himself. Or any of it in the first place. There have always been loads of active moderators here.I just can't imagine it would be that huge a burden for anyone.

Not having political threads just fustrates some people, makes the jungle section a lot more  boring(not an opinnion, but a FACT bitches.  :smoking: )and makes parts of the community more and more estranged to the site.
There are loads of people here who stopped being that exited about Guns N' Roses somewhere around 1983, but frequent this site because of the community they learned to "know" and appreciate, not because of the Guns N Roses.I find strict&evil bans like this plain  disrespectfull towards a very old community.


STOOOOP THE MAAADNESSSSSS

I got scared and stopped reading right about there  :o :nervous:

What about creating a baby board with one mod or two that are fond of political debate but are unbiased when it comes to their job here?

See how it goes. It'll be well more contained this way.

And, before you would eliminate threads that get out of hand wherever they pop up from time to time you would have the option (and it should be done right away) to ban anyone that posts in the political section that attacks someone based on what was said there.

A little more work for sure, but with a good mod or two the rest of the board won't be polluted with any political discussion of any sort whatsoever. ?

No, the problem is that kind of attitude.....whether you were joking or not.

And I'm not saying it's confined to one particular side of the issues, either.

It's not a matter of "easy", I don't think. It's a matter of time management.

Look, the fact is, the political threads were the hotbed of arguments, nastiness, and insults (sprinkled with doses of ignorance).  And they also tended to be HIGH volume threads.  Which means you need to spend a LOT of time pouring over them...and you can't just skim them....to find the crap that needs to be weeded out.  In addition, when "moderating" posts, you have to deal with all the crappy fallout (like being called Nazi's) and provide long, detailed explanations as to WHY stuff was "moderated" so as not to appear that you're "moderating" based on your political leanings. 

Essentially, it's a pain in the ass.  And it DOES spill over to other threads/areas, which means now you have more moderating there, too.  Which makes it a bigger pain in the ass.  And remember, none of the mods actually get PAID for this.

So, if you can, in one fell swoop, eliminate a HUGE pain in the ass for the mods, and reduce their work load (something that's important, especially now, given how active the board is) at the same time....well, you do it.  It's almost a no brainer, I think.

I can point you to at least 2 or 3 dozen others that "ban" hardcore political discussion...on a variety of topics from wrestling to music to Disney Theme Parks.  It's actually NOT that uncommon for "mature" (meaning, having been around awhile) forums to enact exactly this type of ban.   If you don't like it, or you find it somehow offensive to you principles that a topic completely unrelated to the "main topic" of the forum is banned....well, you can always go elsewhere.

I just hope politics will never be back here.

Politics=Life
Don't ban Life. :no:

I actually had hope that people would've learned by now how to discuss matters with no name calling or other stupid shit... I thought the 'trial' thread that we had going went on very well.. until...

There's always someone who has to fuck it up. I liked the political threads when they were civilized. But at one point or another they always went wrong. I don't want to discuss politics with people who don't know how to behave. And it appears that achieving a level where everyone would be smart enough not to insult another poster, is impossible.

This is a forum dedicated to a band and its music.

If you like politics you're free to discuss it at some politics forum, preferably your favorite politician's forum, so you won't have to stand people like the ones you find on this forum, who think opposite than you do, and then one of the 2 starts the name calling.

We've had too much of that shit here and it's not welcome anymore and the most recent example is that Israel / Libanon thread.

No, that was a mistake. The most recent example (oh, the irony...) was this thread with SLCPUNK & Slashead.

So, you can pretty much forget about politics on this forum if you ask me...

Christos and I pretty much have the same point of view on this.



I wish they would learn, but they just never will. Especially not on the internet. They're behind their computer screen and type whatever they want. And they just can't control themselves. I don't think I've ever seen a political thread on the internet without a racist/ anti-religion/ anti-something remark. All could go for the best and then just one guy comes in and says he hates America and Bush or he hates Islam and muslims (disclaimer: only an example, I do not approve of either of these opinions). Just one remark by one person, and everything goes downhill from there. That's how it goes. I know it's sad, but I don't think it will change anytime soon.

just for the record.. I wasnt name calling..

Like I said, that forum just needs one or two hardcore moderators who are willing and able to read everything, delete and warn when necessary, and not let things get out of hand.  The trial thread was going great until the insults, falsehoods, and assumptions got thrown around.  Had there been a political moderator to step in and get things to settle down, the thread could have been an intelligent discussion.

All I'm asking for is a trial of a new spin-off forum for politics with an effective moderator (As I said before, I'd be willing and able to do it) who can be a, well, "moderate" moderator.  Neither left-wing nor right-wing.  Neither lets everything go to anarchy, nor "fascistly" locks a topic at the first sign of dissent.  If it fails, it fails, so be it, we'll agree to drop it.  All I'm asking is for the opportunity to reopen political discussion.

I'm a member of another message board that has some of the best political discussions ever.  They have good supporters of all sides of an argument, debate their points well with limited insulting.  And it's dedicated to hockey fights of all things!

In the main forum over there, any threads that turned to name-calling or other problems were sent off to another board where the people could hurl insults at each other all day and night and it wouldn't clog up the board.  If it left that forum, they got posts deleted and a warning.  If it happened a second time, 3-day suspension.  Third time, 2-week suspension.  Fourth time, banned.

There are people at this site who can do it without name-calling (just look at some of the past discussions between myself and the former poster GNRNightrain-- we had some good-natured barbs thrown about, but also were able to keep it clean and serious for the most part).  Why should these people be punished with everyone else?

By banning political discussion, then allowing some as a "trial," you can guarantee people would start hurling insults at each other pretty quickly.  Views are bottled up for so long that any venom saved up from previous discussions would all spew out.  It could take a couple weeks for the crap to die down when it's brought back, but afterward, real political discussions could occur.

And yes, I do know that this is dedicated to a band and its music.  But we have forums here to discuss other world/life matters, sports, other music, and such.  While its main purpose is GNR, it has other discussions going on here as well.  Hell, the main reason I come here is because of the Jungle and Fun & Games sections.  You'll probably see that most of my posts are there.  I do read the other sections and post in them occasionally, but I post in those two primarily.

Like I said-- negative karma, suspensions, potential for banning in the future, etc. would be enough to help keep it cleaner than before.  It just needs a moderator who can be fair in treatment of all those being punished and willing to monitor the forum closely.  And I'd be willing to do it if tapped for the position.

Let's give Duffman13235 (aka Mal Brossard) his chance! : ok:

Why bother to keep asking for it? I have seen politics on other forums banned as well, not just here.

There are a zillion other forums you can discuss politics on.

Currently I take my political rants to my fourm, myspace and a car forum (off section is highly political) I belong to. It is more than enough. (Besides, we turned out to be correct anyway what is really left to discuss?)


Threads in the jungle are 98 percent boring, I'll admit. But that is just as much our fault as anything else. Want it to be exciting? Post something exciting...............

I agree 100 percent. This is just the kind of attitude to have.

But, speaking of the jungle, the only exciting threads to come along are the sexual threads... :smoking:

We gave it a chance, it didn't work. THAT simple.

Why get another moderator just cause some people wanna talk politics and go through the whole trouble ALL OVER AGAIN, when you can simply avoid a topic, that only 10-15 people care so much about?

You can post all you want, as far as I'm concerned no politics on this forum. It's too good to fuck it up...

And what a "chance" it was.  One thread largely ignored by moderators until things went to far is barely giving things a chance.  That's more of a "set it up and watch as it fails, rather than try to control things" than giving it an honest chance.

I used to go through and read the Jungle a couple times a day because the discussion there was so good on a number of topics.  We got perspectives from members of many different backgrounds and views: different political ideologies, different religions, different races, different nationalities.  Things did get heated at times, but it was because there was no control over things.  Political threads were allowed to run rampant with little to no control over them until the damage had already been done.  Moderation was reactive to what had happened already and the messes they allowed to grow, rather than proactive in trying to prevent further problems and cut them off at the start.  Now I check it maybe once every couple of days.  The discussions have been inane, sometimes bordering on mind-numbing (role playing?  The typical "dude, I like this chick, but I have no idea what to do, help me!" topics, the Rock-Anderson wedding, etc.).  The "What Happened to this Section?" threads make some good points.

The easy way out is just to ban politics entirely, but this doesn't help anyone out other than those who don't like political talk.  A better way for all involved is to actually pay attention to what's happening or find someone who will.  We've had a period of cooling off.  Six months with no discussion is enough for people to settle down a tad.  The one topic brought back obviously had a good start to it, but no one with any power here paid any attention to it until all hell had already broken loose.

All I've ever asked for is a chance on my idea and just keep getting the same "No, just because the powers say so" kind of responses.  It's obvious there are people here who back my idea, or at least see that I am making a good point-- they've posted in this thread.  How besides those involved here would be likely to post there at some point?  Probably more than the 10-15 estimate.

This ain't no democray sir,

you're way too much of a keano to be considered for moderation,

(the first rule of moderating is, you don't ask about moderating.......... You can speak about it afterwards, that's all right, but never ask to join us on olympus)

... And, lastly,... I may well agree with you. Well. I might not go that far, but still. I would like to see politics make a return at some point. Before the height of the religious invasion that helped bring down political discussion, a child board for politics and current affairs was actually in the pipeline!, so it isn't neglect of the idea. The thing is, the administration has decided not to allow discussion because, well, this is his house and while there may be ways "around" the problem (around), they aren't easy to solve and the OWNER of this site sees no reasons to go to the trouble of sorting something out,

not right now at least. Why should he?

Keano?  Define please.


I still don't agree with the decision, but at least this is finally closer to the response I was looking for rather than the sort of "The council says no" response with a bunch of different reasons that I;ve eventually refuted that I've gotten repeatedly before.

I still think my idea would work if given a chance and won't completely give up the fight until political discussion is permitted by the board police to return.

EDIT: Wow, this was my 600th post.

I don't know. Read between the lines. Wait, no, I meant read between the brackets. Derive a definition from the combination of said explanation and the removal of a letter. Oh, and the 'much of a.'

Please do.

Ah, too keen on becoming a moderator.  Gotcha.

If you guys REALLY want to discuss politics, why don't you do it on another board, maybe one dedicated to this kind of discussions? And maybe come here just for your GN'R/ music needs?

I don't know, just an idea.

http://messages.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=93410

http://abacomessageboard.com/

http://www.mousebuzz.com/forum/mousebuzz-questions/10986-political-statements.html?highlight=politics

http://www.crf2.com/

http://www.alpinezone.com/forums/

http://forums.di.fm/

http://forum.videohelp.com/viewtopic.php?t=124514

http://www.shottalk.com/forum/printthread.php?t=7

http://swordforum.com/forums/

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/index.php? used to have (though I'm not sure if they still do) a strict no politics rule.? It's not expressly stated in their rules, and they don't have an off topic forum, but there have been "political" posts made that were promptly deleted.

http://www.britishcarforum.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?Cat=0

http://www.ocforums.com/index.php?s=


There's the first dozen from my IE favorites (with most of them actually pointing to WHERE it says no politics, so you don't have to go searching).? If you'd REALLY like another dozen, just let me know....but I think you get the point.

Having a "no politics" mandate, when the main subject of the board has nothing to do with politics, isn't exactly rare.

With all due respect, I believe that part of the problem was that there was selective moderating.? I think it is pretty much indisputable that most of the moderators lean to the left.? For example, if someone says something insensitive about muslims or a loony liberal, they will be quickly admonished.? Yet, if someone makes an anti-Christian comment or calls someone a racist or a biggot, these insults were often left alone.? I also believe that there are buddy-buddy relationships between the moderators and certain posters.? In my opinion, this led to inconsistent moderating and banning, which in turn led some of the right-wingers to bitch and moan.? If there was consistent moderating of everyone, regardless of viewpoint, I believe that many of the problems would have gone away.

I am not arguing that the political threads should be allowed; I am simply stating what I believe had an impact on the way the threads got out of control.? However, I must say that part of the reason that the political discussions were interesting is because there are many people on this board from all backgrounds and all parts of the world.? I enjoyed reading how people in different countries perceived events around the world.?

Soooooo very, very true.

Well, I'm very glad I have somehow managed to avoid such forums this far.
How very depressing there actually are some webmasters that do something like that.

In some cases boardcrew telling people what they can and can not talk about in an offtopic forum is very undrstandable.
Official sites of various larger than life corporations, industries come to mind.Official forums that are partially  responsible for upholding a an image/brand potentially vunlerable to varying net filth might want a strict moderation. If www.disney.com/forums existed, i suppose mods there wouldn't want people going apeshit.

In my eyes, there just isn't an excuse for a "independed" webmaster,  who just doesn't have "external" issues to worry about,  to start telling people what off topic issues they can and can not talk about,
Of course a webmaster can do so.
His board and all that.
It doesn't however remove the fact that is is plain insulting and  very disrespetfull towards the community.

This was discussed before.

People who made racist comments were called racists. Then those people got upset because they were called on it.

Sand Nigger, towelheads etc.

The Katrina thread also brought the racists out too.

Crying about "left leaning" mods is not being realistic when it comes to that. Most people are not racist and find that type of talk repulsive.

You took what I was going to say.

If the shoe fits...

Don't like being called a racist?  Then don't make racist comments.  It's not that hard.

I think you misunderstood my point.? I definately think that people should be called out on racist comments.? Yet, those on the left, including yourself, have made just as offensive comments against Christians with little comment by any of the moderators.? In fact, when someone that the mods usually disagree with make such comments, they are quick to condemn that individual.? ? On the other hand, when left wingers call someone on the right a Nazi or make derogatory comments against Christians, these comments are usually left alone.? It usually takes someone to call out such comments before they are commented upon by a moderator, and at that time, the moderator also condemns the recipient of those comments.? With all due respect, I have seen you, SLC,? make as many insults or offensive comments as anyone on the right that has been banned.? Can you tell me one person from the left that has been banned from this board?  I belive the fact that you have never been banned, let alone hardly admonished, demonstrates that there is merit to my argument.  Personally, I think it is just as offensive, and loony, to make comments such as that the US inflicted 911 upon itself as it is to make comments about bombing or nuking Muslims.?

I think either you leave all comments, or be consistent and moderate both sides evenly.? I see one side constantly being condemned and called out for their comments, but not the other side.

Again, this is just one man's opinion.?

right on..

I don't recall attacking Christians in general. I do not like any organized religion and find Christianity full of half truths, and never ending hypocrisy, just like all the others.



Well of course I have to disagree with you.




But you are wrong. I have been told to calm down. On the board, and via pms from Mods, including Jarmo. So have other left wing posters. This has also been discussed before.

I think you are comparing apples to oranges. Who was banned on the right and what for? Tyrod was banned for racial slurs. Holy War, Popmetal were for insults/slurs etc as well. You guys redefine what is good and bad as the wind blows. So it is difficult for me to accept your opinion that my frowning on organized religion (including but not limited to Christianity) is the same as calling somebody a smelly sand nigger. Maybe instead of pretending to be the victim(s) the neocons on this board should learn to be a little more honest and admit that maybe their buddies were banned for pushing it just a little too far.


Which also is another good point. The point being that when Jarmo (or any other mod) would step in and say "cool it" those posters (who were banned) would then confront the Mod. They would escalate the situation, accuse them of the same thing you are, causing their own demise. When I was warned to cool it, I would either A) Cool it or B) Cool it and offer an apology to the board via a pm. But not those guys who got banned. It was always the same thing with them. I think a little honesty is in order. But if it is easier to play the victim, then so be it.





And that is just it: Personally and "I think." This does not mean everybody finds it as offensive to have a different opinion. In the greater scheme of things your view is the minority. It is a tough pill to swallow and I know you hate to hear it. But most people around the globe are more apt to take in a different opinion on our affairs in the middle east. This is not offensive, it is merely a different opinion. Comparing a alternate political theories to racism is a quite the stretch. I'd like to point out that you could not even make your point just now without throwing in the word "loony", and I bet you didn't even realize you did it.

You were banned most recently as far as I can remember........

But you sit on the left side of ....... things.

I don't wish to get into a political discussion regarding the merit of certain viewpoints in this thread.? To take this discussion down that road just confirms my original post that moderating is done selectively and the merit of opinions is determined by how many people support it.? In fact, your post demonstrates how, in my opinion, posts from those on the right are viewed.?

Read your post, you refer to Christinaity as hypocritical and half-truths.? Yet, I believe you, and a few others, have stated that they believe the United States inflicted 911 upon itself.? If you don't see the glaring hypocrisy in this, then I don't think I will ever be able to convince you of anything.? You also state that my opinion, or the opinions of those on the right, are in the "minority."? I don't know if you realize it, but this is precisely the problem.? You are arguing that the merit of certain arguments justifies the difference in treatment between viewpoints.? This is exactly what I believe most moderators believe as well.? Even assuming, arguendo, this is correct, it is precisely the fact that some arguments are deemed to lack merit because they are in the minority that these arguments are treated differently in these threads.  This, in turn, creates many of the problems in these threads.?



Oh jeez.? Do you even realize that you are attacking Christians while you are stating that you don't recall attacking Christians?

I am sure you do.


Well, of course, I am not privy to your private PMs with the Mods.? I can only discuss what I have witnessed in individual threads.? However, assuming these PMs do take place, it is unfair to reprimand some privately and others publicly.

Beyond these two, I always see those on the right reprimanded.? I seem to remember Popmetal being banned for responding to the moderators, not for his individual comments.? Yet, I remember, in my opinion, he was constantly treated unfairly on this board.? ?

Personally, your tactics of calling one a racist, a KKK member, or a homophobic with little evidence to back such comments is just as offensive as anything I have seen from individuals on the right.? More importantly, I do hold people's religion on the same level as people's race.? These are both things that people hold near and dear, and you are unlikely to get anywhere by criticizing someone on either of these grounds.? From my experience on this board, the anti-religion comments have destroyed threads just as much as any racial comment.? ?

Of course, this point is easily dissected if you believe my argument that the right wing posters are unfairly singled out for their comments, while the liberals are largely left unreprimanded.? As I previously stated, most of the time I have seen a moderator tell you to cool it down is in a situation where you began the altercation and then the rightwinger responded.? In these situations, your original comment should be reprimanded before the rightwinger feels that he/she has to defend themself.

I am not suggesting that my opinion, or the right wing opinion, is the majority on this board.? However, you are again getting into the business of judging the merit of people's arguments.? The "world opinion" that you write about is not the opinion that is being unfairly treated on this board; it is the opinion that challenges that opinion that, in my opinion, is unfairly treated.? Unless you prefer a political discussion- which you may- of like-minded individuals, it should not matter how many people or what people share a certain opinion.? If everyone shared my opinion on this board, I would look to another board to go post.

FYI, my point was strongly made with my argument regarding your 911 theory.? Perhaps you just failed to understand it.? If someone from the right suggests that most muslims are terrorists or that nuking the terrorists is the best strategy to resolve the war on terror, these comments are outside the box and are quickly condemned.? Yet, if you come forward and make an argument that the 911 inflicted 911 upon itself, even though this argument is outside the box and perhaps far more loony to many, people treat you as if you are brilliant.  This is because most on here are from non-US countries or reside on the left side of the political spectrum.? To me, this example epitomizes the problem in these threads.

Plus, conspiracy theories (about 9/11 for example) and anti-Semitism often go hand in hand.

Very true. you have a good point.

absolutely ridiculous, how did you manage to get an internet connection from your padded cell? and even so, how can you type wearing a straight-jacket? :hihi:


attacking Christians...really?...is this what you define as attacking someone or something?

one trouble with the world is that people are far too petty and sensitive to criticism or opinion...

My point is proven again.? Instead of attacking the merit of my argument, someone that disagrees with me resorts to personal attacks.? This is a constant from certain left leaning members on this board.? Yet, because of reasons, beyond my understanding, you are never called out for it.? Thanks for helping to prove my point.

Calling something a "half truth" or "hypocrisy" is not an attack?? Read SLC's post.? He tacitly referred to my characterization of his 911 theory as "loony" as an attack.? Would you disagree that this is in the same category?? Something makes me believe that if someone made these same comments regarding Islam or Muslims he/she would be strongly condemned instead of supported.  ?

I also think you missed my point.? I am not arguing that SLC shouldn't be able to make such arguments about Christians, nor am I arguing that SLC shouldn't be able to compare Bush and Hitler or set forth any 911 theory that he has.? I am simply stating that either all comments of the same level should be left on the board, or comments of the same category and offensiveness should all be condemned.? It is the selective moderating and condemnation that creates many of the problems.? Again, this is just one man's opinion.?

This discussion reminds of a United States Supreme Court case called R.AV. v. St. Paul.? There, the Supreme Court was considering an ordinance passed by the local city council that made it a crime to display a symbol which "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender."? The Supreme Court reversed a conviction under the statute and called the statute unconstitutional.? The justices held the ordinance invalid on its face because "it prohibits otherwise permitted speech solely on the basis of the subjects the speech addresses." The First Amendment prevents government from punishing speech and expressive conduct because it disapproves of the ideas expressed. Under the ordinance, for example, one could hold up a sign declaring all anti-semites are motherfuckers but not that all Jews are motherfuckers. Government has no authority "to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow the Marquis of Queensbury Rules."

My point is proven again.  Instead of attacking the merit of my argument, someone that disagrees with me resorts to personal attacks.  This is a constant from certain left leaning members on this board.  Yet, because of reasons, beyond my understanding, you are never called out for it.  Thanks for helping to prove my point.

personal attacks?? it was a joke dude...also proves my point...oversensitive...any Glaswegian told that joke would have made a jibe right back at me, its called banter...someone has extracted your sense of humour

as for your comments, this place isnt a court of law, nor does any moderator have the ability to sit down and discuss with other moderators every single post judging whether it breaks the rules or not...nor does any moderator have this all seeing ability to make the absolutely correct decision within a 5 minute period...you compare this bias to a court case which im sure lasted many weeks with the involvement of many learned individuals...dont you see how ridiculous that is to compare it to the rules and conduct of a GNR Forum?...also you would find far more insensitive comments on other less liked and moderated GNR forums...maybe if you are on some righteous trip you could start with the people that need your expertise most

Not true.? 9/11 theories are linked with anti-Zionism occasionally, but NOT anti-Semitism.? Two very different things there.? I am an anti-Zionist (anti-Israel), but I am by no means anti-Semite (anti-Jew).

There are Semitic people out there who are openly anti-Zionist (however, you won't find many openly anti-Semitic Zionists).

Dont dare criticize a liberal.. they freak out over petty things such as "In God We Trust" Or the Pledge of Allegiance, National Anthem and what not.. so as far as complaining about petty things I pretty sure the liberals have the NeoCons beat on that one  :hihi:

liberal conservative liberal conservative black white left right up down stop start..is there no middle where you are boy? you obviously dont know me, you havent even got my nationality correct...besides, arent you off topic?

 your nationality? what are you talking about..

I think the way this thread has gone is a good example of why we can't have political discussions here. :hihi:

But let's not forget, no one has made an effort to control the flow of discussion away from insults in this thread either.

Nah.......there is no respect. You don't have to pretend.




This is a good example of you downright ignoring what was just said to you. I said on the board on via pms. Then you turned around and said it was unfair that I was not reprimanded on the board like everybody else. I'm sure you are well aware of this though. I just didn't want to let you think you snuck it past me.



Strawman..........boring.



Nobody treats me as "brilliant" first of all. Second is that I have always remained up in the air about the exact cause of 9-11. Although I do feel there is more than enough evidence that can not be ignored. I really don't care to talk about my views in this thread. Mainly because I have already made them clear, and you do what you always do: misrepresent them, so you can attack them. It is beyond boring at this point.

Honestly dude, I don't really care too much about this. They are not going to come back, so why be upset about it any longer? If you feel you were slighted, then so be it.  Add it to the same column under liberal professors, and liberal media.

If you are anti-Zionist or anti-Israel, then you are clearly a racist and an anti-Semite. It means you are against the existence of a State for the Jews.
It is alright to be against the government of Israel and its decisions, but being against Israel in general is anti-Semitism.

Anti-Zionism is the politically correct and modern version of anti-Semitism.

Berkley,

Do you really think floating a political conspiracy theory is akin to racism?

Or that saying you're an agnostic (or athiest...not sure of SLC's particular belief) is akin to calling someone a sand nigger?

Or that explaining, in the course of a discussion, your particular viewpoint on organized religion is roughly the same as calling someone a towelhead?

Really?

The fact that you say you find those things offensive I find a bit...I don't know....hard to believe.? What were "WMD's in Iraq" if not a political conspiracy theory?? Why should Christians be the only ones allowed to discuss their particular ideology?

 I just don't get the hypocrisy of your argument.

Most of those on "the right" that were banned were banned because they made racist or gay-bashing remarks/posts.? How you can equate someone saying "I don't believe in Christianity" (lots of people don't, btw) to something like "Jarmo is a Nazi" or "The towelheads blah blah blah".......I just don't see it.

No, actually the OP hit it right on the head.? Anti-Semitism is racism, pure and simple.? It's basing a decision on race (race and religion, actually).

Anti-Zionism means you don't agree with Isreal, as a country, having a right to exist.? And there are lots of reasons for that belief.? SOME of them, yes, are driven by race.? Others, however, are purely political and/or economic.? There are actually some very well known Orthodox Jewish groups that are Anti-Zionists.? I mean, advocating a binational state is considered Anti-Zionism.? Yet I don't think anyone could equate the reasoning behind that as simply anti-semetic.? Even the UN has recinded it's resolution saying that Anti-Zionism is racism.

I realize you want to paint the issue in broad strokes, but the delination between the two terms is pretty significant.? They are, often, jumbled together in the heat of political debate but they are just not the same thing.


Disclaimer:? I am not an anti-zionist so can not engage in a discussion of the pros and cons of that ideology.

Ay, it's very rude to call Jarmo a Nazi.There is clear diference between a nazi and a prominent fascist, such as Mussolini or Jarmo.
JKJK!!
 :)

No, I don't; if that is how you read my post, I apologize for the lack of clarity.?

Certainly not.? But bashing someone's religion, which SLC and others regularly do to Christianity, is on the same level as an attack on one's race.? The odd thing is, the same people that make the derogatory comments against Christians are the  people first to defend and reprimand any negative comments against Muslims.? I am hardly a practicing Christian myself, therefore I am not too offended by such comments.? However, I do notice the inconsistency.

Of course not.? Although, the comments usually go far beyond simply stating a particular viewpoint.? Let me also say, most of the time someone is called a racist on this board is due more to political comments rather than to outright name calling such as "towelhead" etc.? Yet, in the religion context this is characterized as "explaining a particular viewpoint."? Similarly, if I were to make a comment regarding gay marriage, it is not seen by people such as SLC as stating a particular viewpoint, it is seen as being homophobic.? He has made comments to people regarding the same.?

You are a rationale person Pilferk.? While you may not agree with me, I think you can understand the substance of the argument I am making.


Yet, SLC can throw out the terms Nazi, KKK, homophobic, biggot etc. with little repercussion.? Wouldn't you agree that calling a person these names can sometimes be just as offensive as being called a racist derogatory term.? You can make fun of my religion/race all you want, but don't label me a biggot.

Maybe you could provide some actual examples of that going on.  I've not seen SLC ever "bash" someone's religion. Or rather, I have not seen them bash someone BECAUSE of their religion.  They've said they don't agree with it.  They've listed the reasons why, from their viewpoint, they don't agree.  I've seen them express a patent dislike for extremists.  I think there is a fundamental difference between saying "I don't like/agree with Christianity" and "I don't like Christians".  Again, if you're offended by people who don't agree with Christianity, you're going to be offended by a large portion of the world populations existence.

I've never seen SLC say anything akin to "Christian bashing" that's remotely akin to what you're portraying...or remotely as extreme as some of the anti-Muslim sentiment that has been fired off.  I've never seen SLC express hatred toward Christians, or any religion for that matter.  I've never seen him say "I wish they'd all been fed to the lions so we didn't have to deal with those stinky cross wearing idiots".  But yet I've seen things akin to "We should blow them all to hell so we don't have to deal with those stinky towelheads"...which is a pretty extreme and hate ridden statement to come across, donthca think?  And well worthy of the ban stick?


Again, I've not seen the comments going "beyond stating a particular viewpoint".  As for those called racist, I've seen that charge levied at 2 very particular people with any frequency.  And their comments, FYI, were racist.  Not political comments, racist comments, no matter what the context was.  Maybe there have been more, that I've not noticed (I don't read everything SLC posts/posted), but the 2 posters who had the charge levied at them most often had documented comments of a racist nature.

I've also not seen SLC tell someone they were a "homophobe" because they opposed gay marriage.  I've seen him say that the opposition to gay marriage seems homophobic to him.  I've seen him say that to oppose gay marriage seems like descrimination, to him.  He is, in fact, stating his interpretation of your viewpoint.  But again, how you can equate racist comments to that, I don't know.  Seems like, on a severity scale especially, night and day.  I would say, even if guilty, calling someone a homophobe is much less derogatory than popmetals departing post.


I am a rationale person, and I've always thought the same of you.  But, in this case, I just don't see your argument. I've heard it...about 1000 times...mostly coming from the "offended" on the right.  But the fact has been, up til now. if you actually look at the comments that got those on the right banned.....there's no comparison to anything SLC, or any other poster (left or right), has said.  From a severity standpoint, you know, I think the mods have been pretty fair.  It's not like SLC hasn't gotten his share of warnings on the subject....and has, seemingly, heeded them.


Again, I've not seen SLC use those terms...especially Nazi...when not either warrented (calling somoene a racist/biggot), or applied to his interpretation of someones viewpoint (homophobic). I've not read his assertions that someone is a KKK member, either.   Maybe if you could provide some links to examples, or if SLC could, I'd have more context in which to view your point.  But from what I remember......I'm just not seeing it.  And in looking at the argument that moderation isn't "fair"....I just don't see that either.

TyRod/Charity Case, popmetal, and the others that were banned.......have you READ their comments?  It's not about their leanings or their ideology.  It was about some pretty hate filled posts.......something I don't think the majority of EITHER side engages in on a regular basis.

I will have to respectfully disagree.? I meant to comment on a much broader level regarding my perception of the political threads.? It was never my intention to get into debate regarding the substance and insults of a particular individual.

Let me just make a couple of comments, I think we will have to disagree regarding the brevity and scope of SLC's comments.? From what I remember, they were not limited to the two individuals you reference.? To me, these two were the exception rather than the rule - although I still don't think popmetal made any racist comments that warranted the "racist" label he was tagged with.? I am sorry, but I don't have the time to go through the old political threads to look for examples of the things that I am talking about.? I can only post what I remember; so take it for what it's worth.

I'm sorry, but I don't see the relevance of the distinction.? Just like any derogatory term, name calling to a viewpoint or a person is directed at a person and is a low attempt to discredit that person.? It is precisely these comments that made these threads get out of control, and it is precisely these comments which never received any reprimand from the mods.

I just disagree.? SLC can throw around the term redneck to those that support Bush, but someone on the right can't refer to a terrorist as a towelhead?? How can one be OK and not the other?

dont forget NeoCons! im one of those

Pilferk, you have no idea (as usual).
If a person doesn't agree with the right of Israel to exist, he is an anti-Semite. Period.
Anti-Zionism is used as a disguise because today it is difficult to express anti-Semite opinions in the Western countries. In the Arab countries it's not a problem : you can buy The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in the street...
I know that some Orthodox Jews are against the state of Israel but it is because of religious reasons and they are a very tiny minority, even if you are calling them "well-known"...
Advocating for a binational state is hypocrite because the goal behind it is to destroy Israel. Jews would be a minority in a binational state...
So, the declination between the two terms (anti-Semite and anti-Zionist) isn't significant at all : they have a tendency to have the same goals...

Thanks, with taking the discussion personal (as usual??) for demonstrating so well why the political threads are banned.

And thanks for demonstrating, again, why you don't really understand the difference between the two terms.  Your opinion on the issue isn't really relevant.

The two things are not the same thing.? 'Nuff said.

Better luck next time, pilferk. :-*

The relevance is this: In one case you have someone referencing a specific person over a specific thing when his previous comments clearly demonstrate that reference. In another, you are depicting your opinion of a very specific opinion. In the last you are making a generalization based on ignorance that perpetuates a culture of hate, since the comment wasn't directed toward terrorists, but all Muslim and people from the Middle East. ?It's a pretty easy, and relevent, distinction. ?If you're not seeing the distinct relevance between "Given you're earlier comments, I think you're a racist", "I think that opinion is homophobic" and "Those stupid towelheads behind the counter should die".......I can see why you think what you do. ?I don't, and thus...can't see your point.


You don't see the difference in the terminology between calling someone a redneck (which, FYI, isn't very derogatory....ever been to Texas? ?They call THEMSELVES rednecks, for gods sake...and it's where Bush was Govenor) and calling a Muslim a towelhead? ?Really? ?I don't believe you. ?Because, as I said, I think you're a rational person.

 Calling someone a redneck, IMHO, is no worse than calling someone a bleeding heart liberal or a leftie, or any of the other countless terms that those on the right used to reference anyone who remotely agrees with any of the Democratic agenda. ?And those on the right never got banned, or warned. ? Only those that used specific hate speech in their posts were banned. ?Thus, the moderating has been quite fair, IMHO.

I think the mods have had enough of a demonstration now....

As for luck, I made my point. I'm not going to belabour it after your demonstration of being unable to engage in intelligent discourse.

 You've yet to make a valid point, so....I think I did just fine.

Of course you did. ;D

 ::)

Since we've now had ample demonstration as to just WHY leaving political debate at the door of HTGTH is such a good idea...right here in this thread....maybe it's time to lock the thread and move on.

'Cause, at this point, I think we've now got 2 shining examples (this thread and the Lebanon thead) of why the "political perma-ban" is justified, eh?

Poop.

EDIT - Pee.

I wasn't referring to that particular distinction.? I was referencing your argument that there is a difference between calling someone a homophobe or racist and calling someone a racist or homophobe because of a way you perceive their argument.? Although I definately believe that those terms are thrown around way too loosely on this board, which is one of the problems I have referenced, there is no difference between calling someone a racist and calling someone a racist based on their argument.?



Sorry, Pilferk, but you are making a stretch by justifying these comments.? Black people call each other the N word all the time, and gay people call each other f-- all of the time.? Does that justify it?? Does that mean I can use that term?? I doubt it very much that if I called a black person or a homosexual person on this board one of those terms that you would come to my defense.? In fact, I will bet that I would be banned before you would even have a chance to do so.

I disagree.? liberal of leftie is equivilant to a rightie or conservative.? The term "redneck" refers to an an uneducated white person.? It is a derogatory term.? Just like your argument regarding the term Zionist, which I agree with, redneck means what it means.? It is precisly these personal judgments and picking and choosing between what terms are offensive and what terms are not, which is central to my argument.? By defending the usage of this term, you have engaged in exactly the type of picking and choosing - or selective moderating- that I believe has created some of the problems int he political threads.? If you can't see the problem with using the term "redneck", then I am afraid that you never will see my point.

It just will not come back.

You can continue this thread for like 50 or 60 pages, it won't change a thing.

OK, purely hypothetical scenario here.

Let's say there is a country created that is exclusively comprised of Christians.  Any Christian anywhere in the world has the right to freely enter and reside in the country.  I say that as long as they can live anywhere they want in the world, they shouldn't have their own country.  If I am opposed to the existance of this new country, am I anti-Christianity?

This is how I view Israel.  The Jews should not have their own country, while still being free to reside anywhere they please.  Either have a country where they all live, or don't have their own country at all and live all throughout the world.  "Shit or get off the pot," to quote whoever said it first.

Pilferk, your post on the differences between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism was spot on.  Thankfully someone other than me understands it and can express it (even if he is a damned Yankees fan :hihi:).

BTW, what's "the OP"?

Guys, this thread is NOT the place to talk politics. If you continue to talk about politics, we'll just have to close the thread. I think pretty much everything has been said anyway about the initial topic.

Sorry Will, but I still have to say that this post was ignorant and full of hatred. It just proved what I said before : anti-Zionism is the politically correct and modern version of anti-Semitism.

It's quite ironic that this guy wanted to be upgraded to the rank of "political mod"...  :hihi:

There is a huge difference.? ?First, one is unfounded, the other is not.? If someone has made racist remarks, they are a racist.? That's not an insult, it's the truth.?

In addition, there is a huge difference between "that's a homophobic argument" or "I think that view is homophobic" and "You fucking homophobe".? One is wielded as an insult, the other not.? And that IS an important distinction.? If you don't see it then I guess that's where our disconnect is and we'll have to agree to disagree.


So your opinion is that every derogatory comment is just as offensive as every other and should be punished in the exact same way and that no personal judgement should be used?

Because "lefite" or "rightie" are derogatory terms used by the opposing party to describe their opponents. Just as redneck is used, in a somewhat derogatory manner, to depict the rural white manual laboring working class.? So, by your logic, such use of terminology should be immediate grounds for banning, right?

That's just not the case. Things aren't that black and white.? And thats the point.? There ARE, in fact, differeing degrees of severity.? Some warrant warnings, some warrent banning.? Calling someone a redneck is not remotely as offensive as calling someone the n word, or calling a homosexual "the f word", or calling the local workers at your 7-11 "towelheads".? It's just not.?

Your assertion is that the "selectiveness" has been used to the benefit of those with left leaning political views simply because those banned have been from the right.? I think that's a logical fallacy.? The reason those on the right were banned is because their crimes were "more severe".

"OP" = Original Poster

Sorry guys, the nazi moderator is back and I'm locking this thread.

NO MORE POLITICS ON THIS BOARD.

Get it?