This section

[*Izzy*]

popmetal got banned? ?hmm...

I've been away from the board for a while so this is news to me. ?Can someone post the thread where he stepped over the line?

IMO, I think you shouldn't ban political threads or change the Jungle at all. ?Just set your rules and make sure people abide by them. ?If you don't want name calling, then say so and punish people that do it. ?That means you punish the left and the right. ?It may mean banning SLC or some others that are left, but it should be fair to both sides. ?You have in the past allowed alot more name calling from the left than you have allowed from th right. ?I know you are a liberal, but IMO that should not play into how you moderator your board. ?Of course that's just my opinion and you are free to moderate however you feel like it.

I think you need to understand that politics by nature is a heated topic. ?Most political discussions where you have strong opinion on both sides will get heated from time to time. ?I think that maybe political threads require more attention from moderators than threads about paris hilton, but to remove the threads would be to cut a big part of this forum out.

I may be speaking only for myself, but without the Jungle section (political threads in particular), there isn't much on this forum to read or take part in. ?I mean the GNR section will be fun when GNR actually resurfaces, but for the time being it lacks any kind of interest whatsoever.

Just my thoughts.

Twas because of a PM I think

[popmetal2]

popmetal got banned?  hmm...

I've been away from the board for a while so this is news to me.  Can someone post the thread where he stepped over the line?

IMO, I think you shouldn't ban political threads or change the Jungle at all.  Just set your rules and make sure people abide by them.  If you don't want name calling, then say so and punish people that do it.  That means you punish the left and the right.  It may mean banning SLC or some others that are left, but it should be fair to both sides.  You have in the past allowed alot more name calling from the left than you have allowed from th right.  I know you are a liberal, but IMO that should not play into how you moderator your board.  Of course that's just my opinion and you are free to moderate however you feel like it.

I think you need to understand that politics by nature is a heated topic.  Most political discussions where you have strong opinion on both sides will get heated from time to time.  I think that maybe political threads require more attention from moderators than threads about paris hilton, but to remove the threads would be to cut a big part of this forum out.

I may be speaking only for myself, but without the Jungle section (political threads in particular), there isn't much on this forum to read or take part in.  I mean the GNR section will be fun when GNR actually resurfaces, but for the time being it lacks any kind of interest whatsoever.

Just my thoughts.

Twas because of a PM I think

Twas because of a PM I think

I'm sick of people insinuating lies about me. There was no PM over which I got banned. I haven't even sent any PMs lately. The reason for which I got banned is right here in this thread:
http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=23317.0
I want everyone to see that. I never said anyone was a freak and shouldn't be allowed to post. I don't hate anybody. I'm not preaching hate. I'm not defending hate.

That's all I wanted to say. Now I'm out of here and I won't be coming back anymore. I hope at least you will have the courtesy to let me make this statement. Or you can delete it and continue lying and making me into a scape goat. The fact is I'm responsible for only a small fraction of the political threads started here.

[jarmo]

You got banned for several reasons. Not just one.

If I had banned you the first time I thought you made a mistake, you wouldn't have posted in that thread.




/jarmo

[Jim]

In the days of eld, this would never have been necesary.

Thank God there's still at least one sane section in this place.

Two, actually.

I agree with everything that anybody has said, even though you are all completly and absoloutly wrong.

What I don't understand, however, is why people can't move on. There's an endless number of boards on the internet. If you dont' like one, then go to another. Shake your head and walk on. Why stay? Maybe...

Possibly, it because this board is that...damn...good.

Oh.
Now, where did the Wrestling Thread get to.

[conny]

Slipdsic, Pilferk, lynn, Jarmo - I'm shocked!

Did you even READ what I wrote?

You people should be the first to know I'm not one of those who cause the problems and attack other people. I have no problem with the board on anyone here, I was only trying to HELP] solving the problem.

That chinese thing was an EXAMPLE for fucks sake!!!

What's next? Conny is a nazi, because he was giving an EXAMPLE of racism in a conversation?

This is just pathetic!!! I'm pissed!!! 

[jarmo]

I read it, and I explained why I didn't like what you said.

You have to choose where you think is a good place to open your mouth about certain topics. It might not be a good idea to go to Germany and start calling all of the Germans nazis (just because you think that they are).

Does that make any sense to you?




/jarmo

[conny]

You have to choose where you think is a good place to open your mouth about certain topics.

/jarmo

Not where, but to whom. With some people you can have a discussion, with some you can't...

I don't wanna get into this any more, you didn't understand a single word of what I was actually trying to say.

I just want to make clear that I posted on this topic with best intentions, not trying to take sides or piss anyone off. I'm just a bit shocked about the comments I got, since anyone who's been around for a while should know where I stand.

So how people can "mistake" my example so very much is just pissing me off - they see a "signal" word or phrase, and then take that out of the context and start taking the piss without looking behind it. This is no way to discuss things, this is...stupid.

Maybe from a distance, our comments will make a bit more sense to the other one.

 

[pilferk]

Slipdsic, Pilferk, lynn, Jarmo - I'm shocked!

Did you even READ what I wrote?

You people should be the first to know I'm not one of those who cause the problems and attack other people. I have no problem with the board on anyone here, I was only trying to HELP] solving the problem.

That chinese thing was an EXAMPLE for fucks sake!!!

What's next? Conny is a nazi, because he was giving an EXAMPLE of racism in a conversation?

This is just pathetic!!! I'm pissed!!!?

Um, hold the phone. 

Where did I take you to task for the example you used?

I just said I disagree with your assertion that it's not just about respect.

[Slipdisc]

Conny,

I admit that I didn?t separate the examples you gave from your own opinion as much as I should (sorry for that).

I still don?t agree with you.

The two examples you gave here; once from a point of view of somebody who dislikes Chinese people, the second time from a 'homophobe?s' point of view, just aren?t right/logic/relevant in my book (which is only an opinion as well). The problem I have with those examples is the obliged willingness to reason from these people?s assbackwards views. Like if there is some validity to their discrimination and racism (even if it?s only true in their own minds) and that part of being a good host (or liberal and open-minded) would be to see their sides as well: ?But you have to see BOTH sides? and ?But once you come up with a liberal and open minded approach, then be consequent and do it 100% - or else you are not better than those you oppose?. Both examples you give are from people (Nota Bene: I?m not talking about your personal opinion here) who think it?s right to distinguish between people?s rights (or to be hateful towards them) based on things these people really have had no say in: sexual orientation and race. To me that?s like treating people different just because they are shorter then others. Even if being gay is against their religious believes. I think they should be able to lay their books aside for a minute and see the absurdity of treating people different because of something of which everybody in these modern times knows (or should know) you have no choice in, with only a very old book as their justification.

If Jarmo (IMO) rightfully decides that there is no room for people with the need to ventilate such ideas on this board, then such are the rules of the game here. I for one think that it hasn?t got one iota to do with ?political correctness? or "freedom of speech" (at least not in the context of a forum). Freedom of speech is a very variable term on message boards anyhow, due to the existence of board rules (in which insulting is prohibited, so there goes your freedom out of the window). To me it?s only common sense that these people aren?t given a platform to spread their Bullshit on. People have a chance to read the rules of the forum before they decide to join. If there?s something in there that conflicts with their own believes, they really shouldn?t join to begin with. The last time I checked the rules of this forum, it wasn?t allowed to insult people (=to treat with insolence, indignity, or contempt). Racism and discrimination to me, are the highest/worst form of insulting.

-PEACE-

PS:

I don?t know why certain people were banned or whether it was fair or not (I'll trust Jarmo's judgement= without hinting that they were racists or discriminating others), I?m only referring to Conny?s examples in this post ?

Furthermore, the first version of this post contained a part in which I wrongfully assumed that you edited the post with the example concerning Chinese people (thought it wasn't there anymore). When I saw that I was mistaken on that assumption, I immediately edited this post.

[Guns N RockMusic]

I've yet to see anyone show proof of this group of posters that are racists and advocate the extermination of anyone who looks or thinks different.? Popmetal never defended that looney Baptist.? Pop was in a heated argument with Jarmo and took what little room for error Jarmo left with is last example and ran with it.? Anytime there has been a blatant racist remark, the admins have banned that member almost immediately.? In recent forum history, the only member I recall advocating against homosexuality was a poster who did so on religious grounds - yes, homosexuality is a sin all the major religions.? I understand that his comment made some people uncomfortable and the issue was dropped since then.? If any members on this forum hate gays or other races they sure are doing a good job of hiding it.

It amazes me how Jarmo is lumping a group of posters as extremist and citing examples such as "I never created this board for a haven of white supremacist" without anything to warrant such comments.? Where are the posts in the jungle advocating white supremacy or racism?? Please show me and if you do, show me how you banned them right away.? It seems to me that more and more posters are coming out as middle of the road or conservative and this is casuing the most vocal members to speak up even more creating more problems.

Jarmo, you've stated that this forum is a place for all people to come to regardless of race or creed.? Then you go on to say it's easier to ban the conservatives to keep the peace of the "majority" of the board which are leftist leaning.? On all of our heated political debates, you should actually look and keep a tally of who takes what side of the argument.? You'd be suprised that it's not so easy to sterotype poster into right wing or left wing.? In my opinion, you disliked popmetal and used your admin rights and abilities to remove him due to personal reasons - Pop never defended gay hatred or racism and to suggest otherwise is to distort the truth.

IMO, either remove all politcal comments or don't mess with it at all.? Don't allow members to say "Crazy right wingers" rather than "you're a crazy right winger" as anyone with an IQ above 90 can figure out that's just as insulting and will result in the same responses as if the poster had made it officially personal.? Besides, do you really want to have political discussions where the 8-10 common, liberal posters just agree with what the first said?? And if you're going to claim that this board is open to everyone, please do so without your tounge in your cheek.? I don't mean and disrespect by this and personally think you're doing a great job with this site and board.? However, I have to ask.? When was the last liberal banned for violating the rules?? And finally, did anyone ever think that maybe just maybe the reason the leftist outnumber the conservatives is because those with conservative tendencies tend to get banned just as soon as they get some attention?

[gilld1]

Hold on everybody, pump your brakes.  From what I have seen on here both sides of the fence do their fair share of name calling and instigating.  It seems that we have some people on here that are willing to dish it out but can't take it.  What's wrong with a little heated debate?  If you can't take it then go to the Disney site and talk about Mickey Mouse.  Jarmo, you can't take away all dissenting voices from here, that's something Bush would do.  To quote Eminem:
"You find me offensive?"
"I find you offensive, when I'm in court on the defensive."
"You're all just too goddamn sensitive."

[conny]

Um, hold the phone.? Where did I take you to task for the example you used? I just said I disagree with your assertion that it's not just about respect.

Yeah well I just saw no one understood what I meant and how I was adding fuel to the fire when that was actually the last thing I wanted to do and I was like "what the fuck?".

Sorry.

Nevermind.?

[conny]

I admit that I didn?t separate the examples you gave from your own opinion as much as I should (sorry for that).

OK.

The two examples you gave here; once from a point of view of somebody who dislikes Chinese people, the second time from a 'homophobe?s' point of view,

There we go again with a "signal" word.?

To some people, sexual orientation is actually a serious ethical question and not someting they use to poke fun at or discriminate other people for the fuck of it. Speaking out against gay marriage and gay couples adopting children has nothing to do with being "homophobic" - wich is basically a psychotic reaction that doesn't give a fuck about sexual orientation and does not lean against homosexuals, but rather against other men in general, even heterosexuals. A homophobic is not a conservative, it's just someone who feels uncomfortable when being with people of the same gender - that's all.

See, that's what I mean by "signal words". And those signal words are a large part of the problem adressed in this topic. People use them to categorize certain views and groups of people because it's more comfortable that way, but they have no idea what they really mean. That leads to misunderstanding and insults.

Jarmo throws around his "white power" and "aryan nation" signal words to sum up and categorize people that actually are a disgrace to what "white power" really stands for. I bet he's intelligent enough to know the real meaning of that term or at least look it up - yet he seems to like using a signal word rather than making the effort to confront himself with the opposed and the other way around.

Extreme conservative, misbehaving by insulting other people here = white power?

C'mon...

The problem I have with those examples is the obliged willingness to reason from these people?s assbackwards views. Like if there is some validity to their discrimination and racism (even if it?s only true in their own minds) and that part of being a good host (or liberal and open-minded) would be to see their sides as well: ?But you have to see BOTH sides? and ?But once you come up with a liberal and open minded approach, then be consequent and do it 100% - or else you are not better than those you oppose?. Both examples you give are from people (Nota Bene: I?m not talking about your personal opinion here) who think it?s right to distinguish between people?s rights (or to be hateful towards them) based on things these people really have had no say in: sexual orientation and race. To me that?s like treating people different just because they are shorter then others.

I couldn't agree more with that, seriously. But to me it looks like in your book, certain views are plain wrong BECAUSE. Period. If you'd be intrested in WHY people think the way they do, and if you'd be intrested in maybe changing their minds about it because you believe it's wrong - then categorising, banning and ignoring them sure would be one hell of a bad service to your own ideals.

Even if being gay is against their religious believes. I think they should be able to lay their books aside for a minute and see the absurdity of treating people different because of something of which everybody in these modern times knows (or should know) you have no choice in, with only a very old book as their justification.

That's off topic since we're getting into that gay thing here, but well - I think your example is wrong, because if you take "modern times" as standart for anything, then goodnight. Just because a lot of people do it, doesn't mean it's right. I don't think people should stick their nose into other's sexual orientation, but when they think it is wrong, they should be allowed to say so and explain why - without being called a homophobic or ultra-conservative.

When I make the effort to explain and lay down my views and all, and all I get in return is "retarded conservative hardcore religious motherfucker" or "liberal fag" - then that's what I call an insult. Not to me, you have no idea who I really am, and I couldn't care less what strangers on a message board call me or think about me. But it's an insult to my intelligence. I mean why the fuck are people discussing a topic, when as soon as they can't find the right words they are using signal words and then start bitching like a baby because they feel "insulted"? It rains, you get wet.

Other than that, I agree with what you wrote about how this is Jarmo's place and the rules and all that. However, I can't tell if he just opened the topic to make a statement or actually discuss the issue. If he doesn't want to discuss it, then why not just use that ban button and that's that? I don't criticise what he does when it comes to that problem, but how he does it is half ass to me. I'm more for dicussing it for real, or not discuss at all. Discussing half ass and then shutting the door when it gets uncomfortable is just a waste of time.

Hard to explain for me without writing novels, guess I gotta take the risk of being misunderstood, but maybe you understand (not neccesarily agree, but understand) what I was trying to say a bit better this time?

[conny]

IMO, either remove all politcal comments or don't mess with it at all.?

I second that. Anything else would mean taking sides, and if that's intended, then it should be pronounced openly and not pushed through by shutting people with different views up. For one, it's extreme left to support gay marriage. For someone else, it might be extreme right to oppose it. Who of the two has to shut up? Who of the two gets banned? According to the rules, the one who is insulting others - neither the left or the right. But one is easily insulted, the other one isn't.

Maybe we should just start suing each other, like in "real" life? 

Chill pills for everyone, please! 

[Booker Floyd]

I definately thought Popmetal was one of the eloquent right-wing posters on this board

Most of them are a bunch of condescending intolerant fags and feminazis.

A regular Winston Churchill.

Its obviously Jarmos decision, but I personally dont mind the political discussions.

[Surfrider]

I definately thought Popmetal was one of the eloquent right-wing posters on this board

Most of them are a bunch of condescending intolerant fags and feminazis.

A regular Winston Churchill.

Its obviously Jarmos decision, but I personally dont mind the political discussions.

Well, I can't read everything people write.  I hadn't read that quote.  That is a bad.   

[sandman]

But if I have to choose in between banning just a few "conservatives" instead of the majority of the board, what do you think I'll choose?

jarmo - i'm actually quite surprised at this statement, cause i think you're a fair guy.

but it's nice to finally see people acknowledge the fact that the "left-wingers" on this board are just as offensive as those on the right.

[Slipdisc]

There we go again with a "signal" word.

To some people, sexual orientation is actually a serious ethical question and not someting they use to poke fun at or discriminate other people for the fuck of it. Speaking out against gay marriage and gay couples adopting children has nothing to do with being "homophobic" - wich is basically a psychotic reaction that doesn't give a fuck about sexual orientation and does not lean against homosexuals, but rather against other men in general, even heterosexuals. A homophobic is not a conservative, it's just someone who feels uncomfortable when being with people of the same gender - that's all.

I was responding to the people of whom you mentioned thought gay people were a disgrace. These people I think are rightfully called homophobic by me. So who?s going off on signal words here? You see the word homophobic in my thread and all of the sudden it?s the only thing you talk about, with a very bad definition of it as a guideline. As a matter of fact, I find your definition of homophobia v?ry inaccurate:

Main Entry: ho?mo?pho?bia
Pronunciation: "hO-m&-'fO-bE-&
Function: noun
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

Have your own definitions as much as you like. The rest of the world uses the one I looked up for you. I stand by my statement that somebody who thinks that gays are a disgrace (=to be a source of shame) is rightfully called homophobic by me. Or would you say that to call somebody a source of shame doesn?t indicate an aversion? The mere fact that they put some thinking into it doesn?t automatically make it rational. When somebody is willing to call somebody else (an entire person) a source of shame because of one little aspect of their being (their sexual orientation), without looking at the rest of them, they are being irrational in my book. Whether religion or something else is the foundation for those believes. Talk about signal words as much as you want, the only thing I have to work with here are the things written by you. If you mean something different, say something different. Again, I?m aware of the fact that those examples aren?t representative of your personal views on this matter.

See, that's what I mean by "signal words". And those signal words are a large part of the problem adressed in this topic. People use them to categorize certain views and groups of people because it's more comfortable that way, but they have no idea what they really mean. That leads to misunderstanding and insults.

Don?t worry I know what homophobic means, as you could see. You used an example of somebody who thought being gay was a disgrace, again THAT?S plain homophobic to me. I ?m not saying that all people who object to same sex partners adopting children are homophobic (talk about getting thinks out of context by using signal words). Maybe some of the people who object to that concept have some very convincing arguments for the kids psychological wellbeing; like the absence of a real mother figure?. I don?t know? could be.

I couldn't agree more with that, seriously. But to me it looks like in your book, certain views are plain wrong BECAUSE. Period. If you'd be intrested in WHY people think the way they do, and if you'd be intrested in maybe changing their minds about it because you believe it's wrong - then categorising, banning and ignoring them sure would be one hell of a bad service to your own ideals.

Some are plain wrong (yes) in my opinion and I can only talk for myself, nothing wrong with that. Just like Jarmo can only speak for himself and the plans he had for this board. I?m not interested in changing people?s minds or getting behind the deeper meanings of their ideas. I?m not in any way idealistic about this. The only thing I?m interested in is that discrimination and racism gets as little of a platform as possible. Calling people a source of shame because of something they had no choice in is plain discrimination to me.

That's off topic since we're getting into that gay thing here, but well - I think your example is wrong, because if you take "modern times" as standart for anything, then goodnight. Just because a lot of people do it, doesn't mean it's right. I don't think people should stick their nose into other's sexual orientation, but when they think it is wrong, they should be allowed to say so and explain why - without being called a homophobic or ultra-conservative.

I?m not saying that something can?t be wrong just because a lot of people are doing it (that?s really not what I?m saying here). I was merely saying that NOWADAYS we know that gay people are born the way they are. Where in earlier days (the days those books were written) people looked at it more like a way of life, something you chose to be or to do. I think it?s absurd to use these old standards to look at this nowadays. Why should we? We know when better now! I?m not taking modern times as a standard of everything, I?m just saying: if you know better, do better.

I?m not saying they shouldn?t be allowed to talk their minds about it, but it?s the TONE that makes the music. On a message board the rules explain how this ?tone? should be (or not) and these people should oblige to that and the people (mods and admin), who are here to look whether they live by those very same rules (they agreed to when joining the board). Freedom of speech is a farce on every message board with rules, which means people can?t always speak their minds in the WAY they would like.

When I make the effort to explain and lay down my views and all, and all I get in return is "retarded conservative hardcore religious motherfucker" or "liberal fag" - then that's what I call an insult. Not to me, you have no idea who I really am, and I couldn't care less what strangers on a message board call me or think about me. But it's an insult to my intelligence. I mean why the fuck are people discussing a topic, when as soon as they can't find the right words they are using signal words and then start bitching like a baby because they feel "insulted"? It rains, you get wet.

Since I never said those things to you nor to anybody else on this board I really can?t say much about that. Why some people act like that, or systematically engage in discussions they know they don?t carry the goods for anyway, is as much a mystery and a question mark for me as it is to you. I don?t go off on signal words; the only thing I do and have ever done is to respond to people the best I can, on as much of their points as possible. If me focusing on a word like ?disgrace? is another example (for you) of somebody using a signal word, then that?s too bad. I respond to what I read.

Other than that, I agree with what you wrote about how this is Jarmo's place and the rules and all that. However, I can't tell if he just opened the topic to make a statement or actually discuss the issue. If he doesn't want to discuss it, then why not just use that ban button and that's that? I don't criticise what he does when it comes to that problem, but how he does it is half ass to me. I'm more for dicussing it for real, or not discuss at all. Discussing half ass and then shutting the door when it gets uncomfortable is just a waste of time.

I can?t speak for Jarmo?s reasons to open this topic. However, I think that many people don?t look at it in this ?all or nothing? kind of way. Sometimes people?s decisions are formed along the way. Sometimes you have to put a stop to something if it turns into something you never had envisioned it would be.

Hard to explain for me without writing novels, guess I gotta take the risk of being misunderstood, but maybe you understand (not neccesarily agree, but understand) what I was trying to say a bit better this time?

I understand what you are saying, but I still don?t agree with it. The novel-writing however is something I REALLY recognize. I?m done with discussing these hypothetical situations now, they don?t represent your or mine opinion and therefore enough energy has been put into it. I do however enjoy a good discussion...

-PEACE-

[D]

Im a little late to this party but if u take the politics out of the jungle u are gonna have a dead message board.


I have more of a problem with all these goofy games *word association,who do u think is ugly* I mean what the hell is this shit?

I called SLC a condescending Prick and he called me an asshole and I am an asshole and he'd probably agree that he can be a condescending prick, whats the big deal?

Nothing is goin on, absolutely nothing except political topics.

No GNR, we've covered every ailment,illness,relationship,superstition,movie,book,every disease, every condition known to man at least 5 times over.

So really what is left?

I totally agree banning people who spread HATE but the Left Wing vs MIddle of the Roads vs Right Wing debates are great and people have a choice to not click on those threads if they dont wanna read em.

I shouldnt have bashed SLC with an attack but he attacked me first with the asshole so i fired back, but up until then, everything was cool about that thread.

I am not Right wing at all, I am totally a middle of the road, see both sides of everything type person.

[lynn1961]

I don't thing there's anything wrong with debate about any of these topics.   What's wrong is when people begin to take it so personally that they resort to name-calling and personal insults.