The permanent ban on chap470: Justified or unjustified?

Author: Sir.Lancelot

Posts

Total: 202
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 7,900
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@David
@Barney
@Sir.Lancelot
@AdaptableRatman
Doesn’t matter because David allows this and holds the same beliefs that Barney does.

David, Barney, Ratman… all of you are spineless censorcuck bitches unworthy of running this site.

Most others believe this as well, but they are pulling punches because they are your friends. I am not your friend.
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 208
Posts: 1,176
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
-->
@Vader
I've said this to the mods so this isn't something that is coming out the blue to them, but I fully disagree with wiping the slate clean of that user before some users had adequate time to review the users posts. I think it's a disservice to the community as a whole to not at least have screenshots of the post, or an alternative is to give an adequate timeline of when the posts will be deleted so that people can be informed and actually look. I presented this to the mods and they were in agreement and we are looking on a solution

I can't speak of the user and the ban itself since I, obviously, didn't get to see the users posts
Thank you for being direct and forthcoming on this.

And yeah, I'm inclined to agree with you. 
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 15,858
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
Precog'ing the response of "if you are in contact with the moderators, how come you didn't see those posts when they were deliberating?"

Respectfully, deliberating Holocaust conspiracy posts is not something I like to do on my birthday. I was out with family and friends golfing and eating sushi

Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 7,900
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@Barney
Btw, equivocating a user with beliefs you don’t like to a spambot is hilarious.
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 4,238
4
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
4
7
6
-->
@Vader
Happy birthday
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 208
Posts: 1,176
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
-->
@Vader
Happy birthday, Vader
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 15,858
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Savant
Thank you!
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 15,858
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Thank you as well!
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 694
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
-->
@AdaptableRatman
I am with you backwards.

Genuinely advocating for the genocides Stalin did as heroic and pushing him as a hero are dangerous to allow. I do think it is strange that Communist regime logos like the literal logo of what Stalin used (hammer sickle, the USSR flag too) are allowed to be donned legally in Europe where of course all Nazi
stuff is banned to ever dare show/don.

Both should be banned, not just the Nazis. There is no way at all to be a so-called good guy USSR Tankie. The regimes of Tankies were consistently genocidal and abusive and USSR was statistically the worst or on par with some.
I don't think either should be censored. I think that the arguments that John Milton put forward in his Areopagitica were largely correct, and that the Church's attempts at censorship fanned the flames of revolt in the Protestant world and caused grave injury to Christendom. When the Counterreformation moved towards apologia and a battle of letters they had much more success at stemming the bleeding.

I deny not, but that it is of greatest concernment in the Church and Commonwealth, to have a vigilant eye how books demean themselves as well as men; and thereafter to confine, imprison, and do sharpest justice on them as malefactors. For books are not absolutely dead things, but do contain a potency of life in them to be as active as that soul was whose progeny they are; nay, they do preserve as in a vial the purest efficacy and extraction of that living intellect that bred them. I know they are as lively, and as vigorously productive, as those fabulous dragon's teeth; and being sown up and down, may chance to spring up armed men. And yet, on the other hand, unless wariness be used, as good almost kill a man as kill a good book. Who kills a man kills a reasonable creature, God's image; but he who destroys a good book, kills reason itself, kills the image of God, as it were in the eye. Many a man lives a burden to the earth; but a good book is the precious life-blood of a master spirit, embalmed and treasured up on purpose to a life beyond life. 'Tis true, no age can restore a life, whereof perhaps there is no great loss; and revolutions of ages do not oft recover the loss of a rejected truth, for the want of which whole nations fare the worse.

We should be wary therefore what persecution we raise against the living labours of public men, how we spill that seasoned life of man, preserved and stored up in books; since we see a kind of homicide may be thus committed, sometimes a martyrdom, and if it extend to the whole impression, a kind of massacre; whereof the execution ends not in the slaying of an elemental life, but strikes at that ethereal and fifth essence, the breath of reason itself, slays an immortality rather than a life.

Good and evil we know in the field of this world grow up together almost inseparably; and the knowledge of good is so involved and interwoven with the knowledge of evil, and in so many cunning resemblances hardly to be discerned, that those confused seeds which were imposed upon Psyche as an incessant labour to cull out, and sort asunder, were not more intermixed. It was from out the rind of one apple tasted, that the knowledge of good and evil, as two twins cleaving together, leaped forth into the world. And perhaps this is that doom which Adam fell into of knowing good and evil, that is to say of knowing good by evil. As therefore the state of man now is; what wisdom can there be to choose, what continence to forbear without the knowledge of evil? He that can apprehend and consider vice with all her baits and seeming pleasures, and yet abstain, and yet distinguish, and yet prefer that which is truly better, he is the true warfaring Christian.

I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue, unexercised and unbreathed, that never sallies out and sees her adversary but slinks out of the race, where that immortal garland is to be run for, not without dust and heat. Assuredly we bring not innocence into the world, we bring impurity much rather; that which purifies us is trial, and trial is by what is contrary. That virtue therefore which is but a youngling in the contemplation of evil, and knows not the utmost that vice promises to her followers, and rejects it, is but a blank virtue, not a pure; her whiteness is but an excremental whiteness.

And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously, by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter? Her confuting is the best and surest suppressing. He who hears what praying there is for light and clearer knowledge to be sent down among us, would think of other matters to be constituted beyond the discipline of Geneva, framed and fabricked already to our hands. Yet when the new light which we beg for shines in upon us, there be who envy and oppose, if it come not first in at their casements. What a collusion is this, whenas we are exhorted by the wise man to use diligence, to seek for wisdom as for hidden treasures early and late, that another order shall enjoin us to know nothing but by statute? When a man hath been labouring the hardest labour in the deep mines of knowledge, hath furnished out his findings in all their equipage: drawn forth his reasons as it were a battle ranged: scattered and defeated all objections in his way; calls out his adversary into the plain, offers him the advantage of wind and sun, if he please, only that he may try the matter by dint of argument: for his opponents then to skulk, to lay ambushments, to keep a narrow bridge of licensing where the challenger should pass, though it be valour enough in soldiership, is but weakness and cowardice in the wars of Truth.

For who knows not that Truth is strong, next to the Almighty? She needs no policies, nor stratagems, nor licensings to make her victorious; those are the shifts and the defences that error uses against her power. Give her but room, and do not bind her when she sleeps

Mikal
Mikal's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,259
3
3
6
Mikal's avatar
Mikal
3
3
6
I guess my point is that believing in racist things does not mean you are saying or promoting hate speech. No different if someone was saying they didn’t believe the civil war happened. That is fundamentally different than dropping the N word. 
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 17,733
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Savant
Does the president have that authority? Seems like WyIted wanted Lashwnda unbanned, but that account is still gone.
President has authority to veto Perma Bans. Simple majority to overrule the Prez
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 7,900
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@David
@Barney
And don’t forget: You do not have the right to decide what is filth and what isn’t. That is the prerogative of the users.

Because you have deleted his posts, the users cannot evaluate what was said. This is by your intention.

Sure, you could have been more secretive. But it does not change the fact that hiding what you hid is incredibly dishonest.
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 7,900
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@Mikal
The best way to argue this is to simply accept that hate speech is a form of free speech.
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 208
Posts: 1,176
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
-->
@Barney
If this was a conspiracy to keep genocidal white supremacists from knowing they're not welcome here, I would not have done it so publicly as to even post about it in the public moderation log. Rather the ban reason in his profile would just read "bot" with no public statements, and then no one would complain.

Instead, we're quite open that there is a level of filth unwelcome here.
That's perfectly acceptable, and congrats on that. They are filth and shouldn't be welcome.

Now please answer the following question.: 
  1. How did the user in question call for genocide and white supremacy?
Because while it is your job to get rid of filth like this.
It is also your job to convince us or make an effort to prove to us that they fall into this category.
And you wiped their profile, so hopefully you can provide the clarification you erased. 


ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 17,733
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Vader
Precog'ing the response of "if you are in contact with the moderators, how come you didn't see those posts when they were deliberating?"

Respectfully, deliberating Holocaust conspiracy posts is not something I like to do on my birthday. I was out with family and friends golfing and eating sushi
Was the President even consulted?
Mikal
Mikal's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,259
3
3
6
Mikal's avatar
Mikal
3
3
6
-->
@Mharman
I think there is a better way to frame it. Blatant hate speech is not a good thing and there is a reason why sites don’t allow it. The issue is he was banned for hate speech without committing hate speech.   
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 7,900
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@DebateArt.com
You made a mistake giving David control of the site. Iirc, Bullish and Mikal submitted an offer. Why didn’t you just pick them?
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 15,858
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@ILikePie5
Not that I am aware of
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 7,900
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@Mikal
The “good reason” is that it offends some users.

But this isn’t Twitter, Bluesky, tumblr, Facebook, Reddit, or instagram. This is a debate website, where free speech must be considered a right. The rights of the users do not end where some people’s sensitives or fears begin.
Mikal
Mikal's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,259
3
3
6
Mikal's avatar
Mikal
3
3
6
-->
@Mharman
Id argue against that. I am for free speech but hate speech largely is a tool for harassment. It’s also impossible to grow a site with blatant racism or hate speech allowed. Even if you look at KIK, it’s right wing as fuck and they don’t put up with it. Again this was not hate speech. I think the issue with moderation on any site is when it’s largely inconsistent. Yes if you are calling people the N word or other racist things, you deserve a ban. That’s not the same as banning someone who is a member of the KKK that abides by community rules. Big difference 

Simple question is 

Was a rule broken? 
It seems like no, and a ban still happened because of a belief. Those are fundamentally different things. 
LucyStarfire
LucyStarfire's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 1,105
3
4
7
LucyStarfire's avatar
LucyStarfire
3
4
7
He was banned because Adaptable said it violates laws in Europe. I didnt screenshot what the guy posted because I didnt know he will get banned.
LucyStarfire
LucyStarfire's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 1,105
3
4
7
LucyStarfire's avatar
LucyStarfire
3
4
7
He made a debate topic "Holocaust: truth or propaganda".

I have screen shot of that at least, in my notifications.
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,486
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
Has anyone preserved the posts he was banned for making so we can read them and make up our own minds?
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 7,900
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@Mikal
Using this logic, you can just equivocate anything to hate speech. Just argue that advocating for certain beliefs or historical narratives are hateful in nature, and argue things close to that are dog whistles.

Here’s a question:

Fuck outta here with that gay retard shit nigga
… Would this be a bannable offense to you?
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,631
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
I respect Spartans. They were fierce warriors and often up agaisnt much more violent and abusive regimes. The men were also as genuinely masculine as it gets.

This is also an AI made pic and seemed to have Roman aspects to it but I didnt put Roman in the prompts. It also is a subliminal message to Wylted.

You do not respect the Catholics and actively condemn the faith. Therefore, you are appropriating with a Baldwin IV profile pic.
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 694
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
Id argue against that. I am for free speech but hate speech largely is a tool for harassment.
The problem with this is that 'hate speech' in the US has no legal definition because any laws to regulate it have been struck down as unconstitutional. The only places where it has an actual legal definition are Eurotrash shitholes where the gestapo will break down your door for complaining about immigrants on Twitter. In Germany, this poster likely would be put in jail, not banned. So if you disagree with this ban, you can't really agree with the idea of banning 'hate speech'. In what way is hate speech precisely defined that restricts its application to cases like this in a hard, inflexible manner? It's a vague term which is highly amenable to abuse and shouldn't be anywhere in the code of conduct.
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,486
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
Honestly holocaust denial by itself is shitty and disrespectful to the memories of those who were murdered but doesn't amount to advocating for another holocaust, nor does denial that it happened amount to claiming that the victims warranted being killed (incitement). I don't think espousing the viewpoint warrants an auto-ban unless it's accompanied by something worse.

With an ongoing genocide (assuming that there obviously is one), I could see genocide denial as being a roundabout way of arguing that no action should be taken to stop the genocide, which is a roundabout way of arguing in favor of the genocide. But the Holocaust ended 80 years ago. The regime that orchestrated it doesn't exist anymore. The people who orchestrated it are overwhelmingly dead now. There's no credible short-term risk of it happening again at the hands of a Western government at least.
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 7,900
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
I almost debated drafterman on this when the site was just getting started.

I don’t think this site will be flooded with Neo-Nazis either. Most of the users that joined recently are not Neo Nazis, and it’s reasonable to think Neo Nazis will have their ideas opposed and debunked in front of their eyes on this website.
Mikal
Mikal's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,259
3
3
6
Mikal's avatar
Mikal
3
3
6
-->
@Mharman
No. That’s attacking someone which I think is permissible to an extent but that’s fundamentally different than telling a black person 

“Listen here you N word” 

Yes some things will be subjective but it’s about being consistent with application. Attacking someone on the basis of race or gender is not good or never will be good and there is a reason why no one allows blanket usage of it. I think most people have enough brain cells to parse when legit hate speech is being used and is purposely meant to attack someone 

This was not that lol. 
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 2,631
3
4
8
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
3
4
8
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
For a guy who talks so highly of European regimes and political thinkers elsewhere on the site, insulting West Europe so severely is not becoming of you.

America is far more degenerated away from family values and most things you claim to stand for, than Europe is.