Question/suggestion Re: CoC

Gideon · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Aug 29, 2006 Posts: 1140

Montequest is a certified asshole.
_________________
Chief of Asshole Certification

edpeak · Heavy Crude Joined: Feb 04, 2005 Posts: 166

So as not to muddy the waters, I'll separate what
would have been the P.S. from my post responding on the
points themselves:

P.S. I am not going to try to address people who tell me I love groups whose actions, in fact, I strongly oppose (e.g. ADL), and who tells me he "knows" what groups I belong to, who "knows" that "threads that implicate your group in a manner you don't like" is what I am worried about etc." Apparently he "knows" I love the state of Israel, whose policies I oppose, but you can't reasons with folks who *know* they can read your mind. [Or "People less able than me to separate your behavior from whatever group you call your own will project the hate of your deeds to your people" they will project their hate onto 'homo sapeins' apparently...Or Asian People, or Jews, or etc, but not 'people for civil forums']

I've always been disgusted at how certain right-wing "pro" Israel
groups accuse those who criticize that government of being against
Jews. I'm EQUALLY DISGUSTED at the opposite, as we have seen here: if
you oppose racist/antisemitic speech (not even censoring but letting
the CoC policy make it clear that this is NOT welcome and letting them
know that is looked DOWN upon) then they will pretend that this is the
same as being a supporter of the Israeli government

..and playing their same silly game it's only a matter of time before
they accuse me, someone who thinks our CoC should not "censor" but
clearly say we discourage and look down upon statements like
"I want the asians all dead. Period. They are a vile race...[they are]
Nasty germ like bacteria. The poster child for humanoid parasites"
...must mean that I'm not only a supporter of the Israeli government
but also a secret supported of the Chinese Communist Party...all for
speaking out against "They are a vile race" you must be for the CCP,
how pathetic, these folks are just like the ADL (with their values
reversed of course) and these people, on the one hand, and the ADL., on the other hand, deserve one another so very much (the world deserves neither of their antics...)
_________________
http://www.geocities.com/newlibertyvillage/earthstar.htm
http://www.which-hobbit.com/
http://www.postcarbon.org/

edpeak · Heavy Crude Joined: Feb 04, 2005 Posts: 166

It's a bit silly to try to debate someone like Gideon who claims 1. to
be able to read your mind and 2. tells you that your intentions are to do
something you don't have any power to do (not being a moderator, so
you aren't going to have any more power over how policy is enforced
than he is).

It's a bit like saying "I know you want stop signs are the
intersection (1) because I can read your mind and know you only want
to stop White folks and (2) You will selectively enforce the
definition of "didn't stop at a stop sign" even though you are not a
member of the police, but I just *know* you will somehow have power
over how to enforce that...so I say let's have NO stop signs at
intersections, since I love free speech and you hate it and you love
thought control" Is that the best folks like Gideon can do?

So instead, let's review what we already know, shall we? It's already
been pointed out to Gideon that

MonteQuest · Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 10:26 pm Post subject: Re: Question/suggestion Re: CoC

Good lord.

Since the current version of the COC was drafted by me, I guess I should tell you that we cover the concerns mentioned here in one sentence. Written into the COC in the first paragraph.

"We reserve the right to remove any post that we consider disruptive or inappropriate, even if that post is not specifically forbidden by our published rules."

Have an issue with a post? Notify a moderator.

MQ
_________________
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.

Jack · Dark Lord Joined: Aug 11, 2004 Posts: 5123

By and large, the site supports free speech strongly.

Censorship is deplored.

That is not merely my opinion.
_________________
Dieoff. Fun to watch. Better with hot buttered popcorn! new_popcornsmiley

edpeak · Heavy Crude Joined: Feb 04, 2005 Posts: 166

lateStarter · Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:21 pm Post subject: Re: Question/suggestion Re: CoC

I can't believe that I actually just read (ok, mostly skimmed) all three pages of this thread... It just confirms the following for me:

1. I have no life.
2. We are all doomed. All this mindless arguement/discussion over nothing will be just what the human race continues to do as we drive over the cliff at full speed... We really are no better than yeast, we just have the ability to express our opinions (pontificate).

BTW. In no way am I implying that yeast cultures are somehow inferior by comparing them to humans. If by chance, yeast also possess the ability to pontificate, please do not attempt to contact me directly.
_________________
Remember, with globalisation "everyone is a winner" in the "race to the bottom". - rogerhb

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. A.C. Clarke

Gideon · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Aug 29, 2006 Posts: 1140

Montequest is a certified asshole.
_________________
Chief of Asshole Certification

Zentric · Intermediate Crude Joined: Mar 14, 2005 Posts: 730

Ah, yes, Gideon. The righteous, the faithful, the "moral" Gideon. Gideon, the "expert" debater. Who loves you, Gideon? Who could love you, but for those sequestered in your own domicile?

Still waiting to hear back from you on the other thread, btw. Smile

MonteQuest · Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 4:36 pm Post subject: Re: Question/suggestion Re: CoC

edpeak · Heavy Crude Joined: Feb 04, 2005 Posts: 166

MonteQuest · Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:32 pm Post subject: Re: Question/suggestion Re: CoC

edpeak · Heavy Crude Joined: Feb 04, 2005 Posts: 166

The Aftermath

(Or, "Peacekoil.com's Vile-Gate" as it may be entitled when (not "if")
shared with the rest of the internet)

The substantial amount of time patiently put into politely but
painstainingly documenting the fact that ethnic ad hominems are
regularly posted to these forums has amounted to not inconsiderable
time donation from someone who values the excellent
content, forum subject categories, and (yes it's still usually true)
thoughtful posters on these forums.

It would be tragic to the site and its reputation to let that be
marred by ethnic ad hominems, particularly since there is such a
simple, censorship-free way to reduce the incidence, by merely putting
in a reminder which is parallel in nature to the reminder about the ad
hominem in general.

Had someone with different intentions than mine gotten ahold of the
string of examples of some of these base racist examples, they would
have, quite easily, and with far less time expended, spread that all
over the internet, on a continual basis: "This is what that site does
not deem important enough to discourage by so little as a mere short
mention in their CoC"

Instead, patiently, I've used a quiet combination of facts and logic
(something some people find insidious and dangerous).

All that has been expected -- and this is not unreasonable -- to
expect the responses from peakoil.com management team to be, not just
technically honest but fully honest, to be internally logically non
self contradictory, and put doing the right thing above other
considerations.

Patiently documented have been glaring examples (i) that are
acknowledged to be unacceptable (ii) that happen regularly on the
forums and (iii) which as noted above can have their frequency reduced
(if we accept the same logic that has put a dozen other items in the
existing CoC) with a simple non-censoring reminder in the CoC -- and
even with language that avoid having to (god forbid!) use the word
"hate" but which is a mere extension of the existing reminder about ad
hominem attacks

In response, various explanations have been put out, and none have
stood up to scrutiny based on simple facts, and logic: all one needed
to do in most cases is to compare with the existing CoC -- where some
terms are, sure enough, left un-defined (yet are still useful as
notices and reminders to users), where there is, sure enough, room to
list ten types of posts to be avoided, where "ad hominem" is,
certainly, explicitly listed, all done, it turns out, without any of
these existing aspects being censorship, etc, etc -- and any easy ways
to brush off the suggestion for a mild little modification of the CoC
to address the problem, evaporate, as they don't hold water (if they
did, it would be hard to explain why they apply in this case but not
in the other dozen cases already in the CoC -- unless of course this
was an area that happened so utterly infrequently so as to be
virtually invisible -- something the documented examples show is not
the case)

Finally, after answers like "but the 'We reserve the right to remove
any...' clause exists" are given, which clearly don't address the
issue at hand, as demonstrated, again, by comparing with other clauses
that exist, finally then, and only then, we are told that "We had a
'hate speech' clause and we removed it, as it is too hard to define
and not smack of limiting free speech...This was the site owners
decision" (Never mind that that "too hard to define" is about as good
a non-inclusion reason here, as it would have been for the "ad
hominem" clause).

Maybe it was worth it just to have that come out, though it would have
been nice had that been stated at the outset, even if it too doesn't
hold water, it does shed some light. And this was a Research and
Discovery process as well as a case of charity (trying to help
peakoil.com but it's apparently insisting on shooting itself in the
foot -- in the morality, in the honesty, more accurately -- which is
its right) Without speculation about whether it was a threat of a mass
exodus/uprising by the racist wing of the membership, private threats,
or something else which causes this non-sequitur of an earlier
"decision", it's good to have it stated openly.

(Next time someone asks about it, they may not be given this more
fully honest answer, and they may get the "but the 'We reserve the
right to remove any...' clause exists" answer instead, alas. Such
lines do not give the reader confidence nor evidence to believe that,
"We didn't just fall off the turnip truck here. These issues
have been throughly considered" as is asserted. They give an
impression opposite to "thoroughly considered". If there were valid
reasons why this case is different from every other case, those valid
reasons would have been given earlier in the thread, one
imagines. None of the "reasons" have held any water. My favorite is
the notion that a Coc that states "no ad hominem" is pure good, while
one that states "no ad homimen towards people or groups of people" is
pure censorship. One isn't sure, to paraphrase Noam Chomsky, what
reeks more in this case, the hypocrisy or the moral cowardice)

* *

The final chapter may have been written already. I'm going to assume
it has been (moderators and/or owner(s) can contact me by email if
otherwise --wait, no, just wait a week or more before I check
the thread again; if you email me privately, it will "prove"
to some people that the Asians-andJews-And-Africans run
the world you see!) and I will no longer regularly check this thread. There are more
constructive uses of one's time than try to save a site from choosing
moral cowardice hiding behind false claims of "we don't want
censorship" straw men...although until recently looked like it had not
been written; either way it will have been written by the moderators
and the owners either

1. To openly say, "The regular appearance of statements like "I
want the asians all dead. Period. They are a vile race...[they are]
Nasty germ like bacteria. The poster child for humanoid parasites
(http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic25228-0-asc-45.html)
don't bother us, and that's our final ruling as owners/moderators"

That would at least have the virtue of honesty. Or,

2. To do the right, honest, non-censoring, prudent thing by a
modification of the CoC that adds a reminder that those kinds of
posts are not what this community is about.

That would be the right thing to do.

There is one other route, which I hope is avoided, namely

3. To try intellectual acrobatics and logical contortions (to falsely
assert that "We the moderators DO care, but, unlike the other dozen
cases which DO merit a CoC line, we can't spare so much as two words,
"or groups" next to "Ad hominem" in the CoC) to claim that somehow in
a dozen other cases, a reminder makes sense -- but not in this
case.

How somehow, magically, in those other dozen cases, it's not
censorship to mention them in the CoC, but in this case it "would
be".

How somehow in other cases, one can have a term be useful without
having to define it (e.g. "ad hominem" or "graphic violence") but in
this case, magically, somehow it's no good unless we can define
"hatred" or unless we can define "ad hominem against groups" or
"against ethnic groups" etc -- and since we find it hard to define,
then in this case (unlike all the others) the difficult nature of
defining the terms means, in this case unlike the others, that it must
be left out of the CoC, etc.

This third path will be judged by almost all outside objective
observers with whom it will be shared as tantamount to #1, and have
the additional disadvantage of taking up more time to arrive at this
result which is as unsatisfactory as #1.

- - - -

Evidently it's #3 aka #1.

Back to work on fighting Global Warming, awareness of Peak and
depletion of the unsustainability of perpetual growth based economic
models (normally raising awareness of "vile" hateful ad hominem
towards ethnic groups is a much much smaller percent of my time;
congratulations, who have succeeded in making it a much larger
percentage during this period -- and perhaps a somewhat less small
percentage in the future)...back to work on those, but far
less often on this site....

I've lost more respect than I thought I could for this website, but
hey, I'll let the public make up its own mind, from the archived
copies kept at my end, of this thread, they can make up their own
mind. Perhaps some of you think the general public will be proud of
Peakoil.com and moderators and the "owner(s)" when they (and future
historians) read this full thread. I rather doubt it, but suit
yourself with this fantasy it you so wish.

Goodbye

EDpeak
[Page snapshot captured 3/24/07][b]