You've just repeated your previous point, with a personal slur. None of which makes your claim that people do not get banned for disagreement alone any more convincing when there is evidence to the contrary. My previous answer still applies. Just because YOU haven't been banned for disagreement doesn't mean others haven't. If there are certain subjects, interpretations, claims , or in your words "expression of ideas or sentiments" that are not approved then that is a disagreement.
I called you on misrepresenting my wording. While technically 'disagreement' since you want to pull out a dictionary, you are grossly misrepresenting the cause of banning. With the broad brush you are painting any difference of opinion is disagreement. You might as well claim that posters there can be banned for using text to communicate. My point was that if it were only disagreement necessary I would be banned. You seem to acknowledge this, without actually agreeing to it. If a poster on A+ posts hate filled, x ist or otherwise unsafe speech they will get a warning, and then a ban when they keep it up. So the bans are racism, sexism, ageism.... not 'disagreement'. Your position is one of manipulative language designed to make the A+ moderation look random and fickle. It is hyperbole.
@Myriad, that was well written. While I appreciate what you are trying for, do you have metrics on demographics? I ask because my dealings with those, down axis, has an awful lot of them explaining that letting the vile stuff get spewed is a great way to get them not to participate. So if the goal is to increase minority participation, then when racists, ableists, and what not show up, they need to be dealt with.
@ Everyone saying you don't change minds by banning. Perhaps, then again perhaps not. My reading is that most of those who hold regressive opinions are not open to reason, but will react to finding out their position is the minority one. Again, it doesn't matter. The goal on A+ is not convincing bigots and racists and what not that they are wrong, it is to have a conversation with the people who their presence silences. There is plenty of room for both spaces. My preference is the moderated one.
Do you genuinely not understand that suppressing alternate viewpoints, even despicable ones, does nothing to quash them?
Not true. But also not the goal, not on A+ at least.
This is wrong in two ways. Firstly, you can say that someone's ideas are sick or hate filled and that's fine.
You misunderstand me. When I call that person a disgusting bigot, then I've crossed a line.
Secondly, suppression of a viewpoint, even a horribly wrong one, is thoughtcrime. That's not a good thing.
The hell? Thought crime is punishing someone for their thoughts. Not criticizing or blocking someone for their words. Words are actions, not thoughts. Think whatever you want. Just be careful what thoughts translate into action.
You missed the use of "-like" as in it was originally designed to be able to submit massive numbers of spam reports in order to get whoever they felt like adding to their list banned on Twitter. I don't have to be a mind-reader it was right there in the code and all the discussions about it. If you weren't being overtly snide I might even be willing to hold your hand and trace back the line of evidence for you in case your Google fingers were broken.
Fair enough, my read of that has been that it was an error, and is corrected. Since the bot no longer reports for spam, and blocks in 15 min intervals though your criticism is pointless. The aspect you are describing does not exist. Oh wait, you were talking about the intentions of the creators, and how you know they meant to have people banned from twitter. Do you have anything other than the code to back up that assertion? A quote or something, because I think it could have been an oversight.
Using dumb, simplistic and exaggerated arguments about how you feel like sliding the connotative definition of censorship around in the same post you claim criticism isn't silencing and that banning people for..oh, wait, your claim is that the A+ forum doesn't ban people just for disagreeing because you haven't been banned, right?
Lots of ad hom, no actual rebuttal. Don't expect me to spend much time talking to you. In fact I recall that was pretty much how talking to you went last time, weren't you the one that needed me to requote you in massive blocks because you couldn't be bothered to look back a page or two?
bedlin88 said:
Apos
Not true, the terms and conditions of this place prohibit many specific words and also personal attacks.
I will grant you that, I should have added within reason and abiding by the ToS.
Thank you, there are similar rules on A+ outlining what can get you in hot water.
bedlin88 said:
Apos
The block is a tool, the opinion of being listed on it is from the collective of the administrators. It's not like it blocks on some kind of AI
.
And so, the fact remains it, the bot, is not expressing an opinion, it's an expression of an opinion/s there is a substantial difference between the two.
You are being pedantic. The comparison I drew was that both the comments here and the names held on a list there represent negative commentary on the internet about a person. Seriously why are you fighting this?
bedlin88 said:
If I am blocking a person 1 to 1, in other words I am blocking them just for me and me alone for only my reasons then no I don't need to justify it. However, if I am being given the responsibility to block people for people other then myself then Yes I would have a responsibility to justify my actions in blocking said people. And it doesn't matter if there are scores of ways to get in touch with oolon I have had exchanges with him in the past and he is hardly what I would deem an open minded individual, but that is irrelevant. The fact is those folks effected by the bot have to seek out a recourse to address that action and it is not easily spelled out anywhere? Are the people added to the Bot contacted that they have been added to the bot? Have the been told specifically why they have been added? Have they been given instructions on how to appeal that action? These are serious question and I honestly don't know. You would have more of a point if the answer is yes, and much less if it's no imo.
Emphasis mine. They are not suffering in a court of law. They are not having any of their civil liberties violated. No one has any duty to offer them an appeal. Heck, most of them probably don't even know they have been blocked. You wanted me to admit that it is possible that the people on the block list could be negatively effected by it. Sure, it's possible. However they could be negatively effected by the content of their twitter posts as well. The only people that the block bot admins are beholden to is the block bot users.
bedlin88 said:
Maybe your replying to someone else, however nothing there says anything to the fact that comparing the Blockbot to this thread is still false equivalency. I made no point on whether or not they should be held accountable. I would hold the bot is not part of the "debate worldview" since it really has nothing to do with debate, it can't address you or your points that is not it's function. It's function at the very base is to silence debate not to have it. Lastly point out to me where in my original statement I said everything everywhere should be a debate forum. I never expressed that opinion. It is dishonest to imply that I did.
My reference to debate forum is a response to your comments about how the bot is silencing debate, I think that is unlikely what it is doing is saving time for those who would be blocking individually otherwise. It is also my response to your speaking on how those blocked should have some method to address the block and to contest the blocking. If this were a court of law I'd absolutely agree with you. However it isn't. My reference to debate is your use of that word when you say 'silence debate'. You are giving the people on the other end of the blocking way too much credit.
None the less, if people are using a block bot, they were not going to enter a debate. What they want is a place free of the casual whateverism that got the folks blocked, blocked.
So no, you never expressed the opinion that life should be debate club in so many words. I read it though in the way you talk about blocking. It seems to me that you think people should not be blocked, and that is in line with the culture on this forum. If you agree that there are some places where the abusive folks just need to be blocked, then I will withdraw the comment.
It seems she took offence to me calling her Ophie. No offence intended Ophelia, Ophie was just a word I typed but if you want to read more into it, by all means. So now I can cite appearing in a blog alongside my appearances on Cops and The Jerry Springer Show so soon I'll be joining the elite world of the A-listers
