QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS SITE

[Gravdigr]

Originally Posted by BigV

You should look here. If there are others, others will have to point them out to both of us. Of course, JBK has plenty of other "out there" shit, but I haven't seen any that approach "hate speech", no moreso than the regular shitstorm that sometimes comes through.

THAT is where this all came from?


















Ima be over here in the corner.

With my mouth shut.

Cuz, if I say anything that's in my mind right now, yall just might be at my house in the morning. And it has nothing to do with mowing anyone down, gay or otherwise.

Carry on.

[Sundae]

Interesting.

[Trilby]

I would vote on it.

My vote would be to ban him.

[infinite monkey]

I would vote we let the mods we voted for make these kinds of decisions, butthurts aside.

[Trilby]

Good idea. Thats what we pay them for-right?

[Nirvana]

No one cares about my opinion so here goes >

"keep your friends close and your enemies closer"

that being said I won't cry if JBK is banned...

[Flint]

QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS SITE:
How do we interpret rule number one? Would a person in "real life" be allowed to call up a talk radio program and announce that they plan to commit acts of mass violence as a religiously-motivated hate crime? Do I really have to ask this question?

There are only three RULES of the Cellar.

1. Do not try to break the law using the Cellar.

...

[infinite monkey]

omg you're all really being pathetic. Peasants with pitchforks.

I could name 3 or 4 assholes I'd like to see banned RF Yesterday but I'm not pounding my desk demanding it.

Get over yourselves. Let the mods do their jobs.

I know I come off as a big JBK sympathizer...but it's this: he HAS tried to contribute. He admits to schizophrenia. He admits to being out of it as far as social convention.

Ban or not? I don't know. He's at least given us more than a bunch of videos with no commentary (oh, but if we go back a few hundred posts OH LOOK he said something HERE) and he hasn't smoothed everything over with "I LOVE to read you clever witty people please please please don't ban me" (and this is PROOF he reads us, really) but he has written poems and shown us his artwork and yes, pissed people off.

Meh. Mountains out of molehills and having to be 'right'. JFC.

And frankly, Ibs is going to need a much thicker skin in the coming years, don't you think? He's not going to be able to 'ban' everyone he's going to run into who says stupid shit.

So many of us espouse 'teaching' and 'learning' and 'understanding' but it seems to only extend to what is PC at the moment.

JBK, apologize for your one dumbass comment. Learn from it.

Can we move on now? Or are we storming the moat?

[Flint]

Irrelevant. Obfuscation.

[DanaC]

He isn't going to learn from it, he seems to have made that abundantly clear. primarily, because he doesn't actually understand what it was about that comment that stepped over the line.

I commented earlier that this came after a string of anti-queer comments. Setting aside the question of what is or isn't hate speech, or of what constitutes censorship, I find nasty homophobic comments intolerably irritating.

It's funny though. Because so often you and I are on different sides of this argument, Infi.

On those occasions when I am the one saying, let's not ban this person they haven't done anything so very wrong, and they seem to have genuine mental health issues, I am accused of being a bleeding heart, self-appointed newbie defender. Yet here we are swapping things arounfd, and now I am a pitchfork-waving peasant who's making a mountain out of a molehill because I advocated a ban.

I don't know quite what you mean by 'what is PC at the moment' but I've always had a fairly consistent position on hatespeech and bigotry.

This wasn't a single stupid comment. It was the culmination of a series of increasingly bigoted comments. Can't recall who said it now, but I agree that this is a time where 'true colours' have been shown. The views that lie behind this latest (and over the line) comment have clearly been there all along.

From what JBK has posted since, he has no real understanding of why this might be a problem.

I no longer advocate a total ban. I think a lot of the points made by you and others, particularly with regard to fairness hold true. Likewise the fact that JBK has been very open about his mental health and this may well be a factor in his interactions.

But I do slightly resent the way objections to this poster have been characterised. It seems to me, if I find myself defending someone, it is because I am weak-willed and feel somehow compelled to place myself in the defender role and take some imagined moral highground....yet if I am the one advocating a ban, it is because I am weak-willed and feel somehow compelled to take the PC road and take some imagined moral high-ground.

What actually may be closer to the truth is that sometimes what someone does seems intolerably irritating to you, but not to me. And other times what someone does is intolerably irritating to me, but not to you.


[eta] Didn't mean that quite as snarky as it reads btw. Yo still mah homegurl.:p

[Nirvana]

Not sure if I meant to come off as PC [maybe not directed at me} I didn't want to come off as insensitive to others feelings and maybe I should have posted I am apathetic.

JBK is like watching a train wreck he is mildly interesting in an analytical way. He is not entertaining me but sometimes you just can't look away. Some people say all kinds of stuff online for "effect" that they would not dare say in public. >shrugs<

[Rhianne]

Originally Posted by Nirvana

Some people say all kinds of stuff online for "effect" that they would not dare say in public.

And they have that the wrong way around. Things you say in public are often forgotten pretty quickly. What you post online is there for ever.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Rhianne

And they have that the wrong way around. Things you say in public are often forgotten pretty quickly. What you post online is there for ever.

True dat.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Flint

QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS SITE:
How do we interpret rule number one? Would a person in "real life" be allowed to call up a talk radio program and announce that they plan to commit acts of mass violence as a religiously-motivated hate crime? Do I really have to ask this question?

I find your citing of this rule to be irrelevant.

No law was broken. No attempt at breaking any law was made. The cellar wasn't used for either of these, so invoking this rule doesn't apply.

[Nirvana]

Originally Posted by Rhianne

And they have that the wrong way around. Things you say in public are often forgotten pretty quickly. What you post online is there for ever.

If you think about all the Presidents or presidential wanna bees, they probably wish that were true!