We are all seasoned debaters. If we believe we cannot simply argue against beliefs, and instead ban users who support them, what does that say about the website? It says we are not what we advertise, and that the users here are unskilled and have nothing to offer.
The permanent ban on chap470: Justified or unjustified?
Posts
Total:
202
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Link to his profile please
Here is the only screen shot I have about this.
Adaptable's reply to my comment on that debate, but it only shows title of debate.
-->
@Swagnarok
The website will literally become illegal to participate in for users like me if it actively hosts holocaust denial. It is a serious no-go.
-->
@Mikal
I am fine with banning users who go out of their way to be overtly toxic to many other users. I supported Roosevelt and TWS’s bans.
This whole debate is really just semantics on what we call hate speech… it’s subjective nature is a good argument for cutting that section of the CoC regardless.
-->
@LucyStarfire
Can you clarify that my reply in 0 ways at all denied Holocaust?
That image is dangerous as it doesnt make clear what my reply said
-->
@AdaptableRatman
There already are users that do on this website. This website isn’t gonna be banned over the actions of some users.
Are you living in Europe?
-->
@Savant
Does the president have that authority? Seems like WyIted wanted Lashwnda unbanned, but that account is still gone.
Yes I have authority and there will be repercussions if my vetos are going to be ignored.
-->
@AdaptableRatman
As harsh as this may sound, that's a problem with the censorship-happy British government, not with this predominantly American site. Use a VPN and a new handle if you're that concerned.
I promise I won't report you to your country's crumpet-eating gestapo lol
There is no point to free speech if you never hear anything that offends you. Labeling some speech as hate speech is just censorship by any other name. Most don't know the difference between advocating direct threats to people or groups of people and some one just saying they don't like some people or groups of people. Most people extrapolate dislike for people or groups of people as advocating violence. Its willful low IQ BS.
@Adaptable
Can you clarify that my reply in 0 ways at all denied Holocaust?
Your reply was something about debate topic being illegal in Europe, and after that the user got banned. I dont remember much, but you didnt deny the holocaust, obviously...
-->
@Mharman
You are never going to be able to apply objective standards for bans. It just can’t happen. You can allow everything to be allowed, which is also not feasible and I will point back to why no sites allow it. That’s the only objective measure. But you can be consistent with applications even if it’s somewhat subjective and whether people want to play semantics or not. Most people know the difference between blatant hate speech and attacking someone on the basis of race, religion, etc and stuff that is not. This is not. Consistency is everything.
-->
@Savant
Did the user in question call for ethnic cleansing, or did they just deny that it happened?
Holocaust denial is all about the need murder any surviving Jews. Trying to separate it, would be like trying to separate out the orange from the citrus fruit.
If people show up in KKK robes burning a cross on a new neighbors lawn, we don't need further context to know that it's not about giving said neighbor a friendly welcome.
-->
@Swagnarok
UK is getting a bad rap for that when it is a fact that Germany, France etc censors far more severely. It is actually because UK is more open to truly free press laws that the press there is exposing a lot more.
Starmer is actually approaching the norm in Germany or France, as opposed to being shockingly new in severity.
-->
@Barney
Did you screen shot his posts. If so can you message me them on discord if you remember my discord name. I have 2 but access to only one account
-->
@WyIted
Did you screen shot his posts. If so can you message me them on discord if you remember my discord name. I have 2 but access to only one account
I did not.
-->
@Barney
Holocaust denial is all about the need murder any surviving Jews. Trying to separate it, would be like trying to separate out the orange from the citrus fruit.
It's often used to villainize Jews but there are instances of Jews who feel like the narrative is wrong and could be considered Holocaust deniers.
That said I would love to see context. His posts probably shouldn't have been deleted but if he came on here with no evidence and just merely spamming the board with "Jews don't exist bro so the Holocaust never happened" I could see a ban. We should have context here, especially if I need to rule on a veto
-->
@Barney
did not.
What do you or anyone reading this for that matter remember about the posts?
-->
@Barney
Please provide evidence to the President or reverse the ban. He was not properly consulted.
-->
@Mikal
Then you open the door to Barney arguing exactly what he did in post 73. Common sense says that if some denies the holocaust, they are going to say hateful things as well. You have no philosophical barrier to the “everything controversial is hate speech” grift, not one that will, in practice, prevent mod overreach anyway.
I argue there is a difference between general hate speech/ hateful beliefs… and going out of your way to target other users (tagging them to attack them, PMing them, etc).
-->
@David
@Barney
@Vader
@Savant
@WyIted
“The ability to approve or veto permanent ban propositions. Moderation will be required to submit permanent ban propositions to the President for review unless the user in question is a bot or advertising account, the situation is uniquely urgent or severe, the President is absent and/or unreasonably tardy, or the permanent ban proposition targets the President themselves. Vetos may be overridden by a simple majority vote among the moderation team.”
If the perma ban proposition was not submitted to President Wylted, the ban was illegal and therefore should be reversed.
-->
@Mikal
See abovd
To exemplify why there's not a public vote to approve each ban and keep their content around... Let's consider just a few of the new accounts from the last 24 hours:
Since it's already been clarified why we reached this decision, I'll just state where my opinion on this lies.
I do think we need a clearer policy when it comes to how we respond to issues of hate speech. Instances where someone is denying events like the Holocaust, which happened here, are the kinds of posts I've largely permitted in the past and only issued bans for when it edged into calls for further violence. I don't think that was the right choice for the site, and while I'm sure a lot of people here would disagree that its problematic enough to warrant removal, I do believe that these types of debates do far more harm to the site than good.
As for whether this warranted a ban, my perspective in retrospect is that a warning or a short term ban would have been more appropriate, particularly for a new member. It's a distinctly negative place for a new member to start on the site, and I don't think comparisons to existing members who have a history of trolling on the site is entirely warranted, but for all my personal and strong disagreement with it, I believe any member who isn't outright calling for violence deserves a chance to moderate their behavior.
Regarding where we go from here, I would like to improve the process by which we do this, which starts by being more transparent. As Vader already expressed, we absolutely should be at least taking screenshots to ensure that the community is fully aware of the reason a debate or thread is taken down and a user is banned. More broadly, I think we need to work on the CoC to make it clearer to users what is off limits and how it will be addressed by the mod team.
-->
@Barney
To exemplify why there's not a public vote to approve each ban and keep their content around... Let's consider just a few of the new accounts from the last 24 hours:
Spam accounts and bots aren’t subject to a Presidential Veto
So as far as clearing bans with the site president before we are too harsh on the mods. I removed myself from the mod chat and basically told them to do as they wish. I should still be allowed to overturn them and I have only do e so in the past with polytheist witch who I regretted doing that for later.
Bans do not need my approval but leshwanda should actually be overturned and my decision in that specific instance respected
-->
@whiteflame
Largely agree with most of this other than censorship. If it’s not calls to action, direct attacks, or just largely spam it really should be mostly allowed. If you are banning people for what you view as a negative topic, it’s policing thoughts and negative thoughts should be allowed so they can be challenged. Believing is one thing. Direct calls to action or attacks are another. It’s all consistency with application imo.
-->
@Barney
Holocaust denialism is not inherently Neo-Nazi, but you are correct that, odds are, if someone is promoting holocaust denialism that they are probably going to say some hateful stuff as well.
With that being said, from a logical standpoint, you have left yourself open to calling anything you don’t like a Neo-Nazi belief.
What about anti-Zionism? What about conspiracy theories relating to the Israeli government? What about opposition to Jewish immigration to the US? What about the promotion of stricter standards for legal immigration? What about general opposition to Jewish culture? What about opposition to the US’ alliance with Israel? What about opposition to Jewish faith? What about a belief in a superior race? What about belief in a genetically superior race, but equal opportunity under the law nonetheless? What about MAGA? What about general conservatism? What about libertarianism? What about advocacy for freedom of speech? What about extreme advocacy for freedom of speech? What about advocacy for total freedom of association? What about opposition to the civil rights act of 1964? Stances on BLM? MLK? Malcolm X? The confederate states of America? Patriotism/display of patriotism?
You may have gotten lost on this, but my point here is… where do you draw the line? Because with your logic, a power tipping mod can argue any of these are hate speech.
-->
@Barney
Again, you cannot defend awful bans, and a lack of transparency surrounding said ban, by falsely equivocating the banned user to a spambot.
Enough with the grift, and yes, it is a grift, because not even you believe spambots and holocaust denialists are the same.
-->
@Mharman
You made a mistake giving David control of the site. Iirc, Bullish and Mikal submitted an offer. Why didn’t you just pick them?
I also submitted a cash offer and would be willing to pull some money with bullish and Mikal if they want. The only issue would be to keep the place running so I offered Mike a salary to stay after I purchased the site and he refused