hello

[Legs]

Why is it lowering the tone of the backroom to post quotes that are already in that forum?
If it acceptable for people to post that racist crap there in the first place why is it wrong to quote them?

[Beskar]

You were being highly antagonistic in your responses and personally attacking other members of the Backroom.

This included many inferences such as calling members Andres Brevik and saying suggesting they are going to form lynch mobs to shoot-up muslims and black people.

This is not criticizing arguments you felt were racist, nor contributing in an acceptable manner.

[Legs]

I quoted other people on the forum who were comparing him to Breivik because of his ideological/conspiracy theory posts, and I quoted him saying he was going out to beat up immigrants.
Since the material I used is already on the forum how is it unacceptable to post it on the forum?

[Beskar]

They were not quotes you were using.

It wasn't within the quote formatting and nor did I see the member you are accusing saying those things. I only saw you say those things.

I did see the member express dismay at their own attitudes over 5 years ago. But if you are really going to dreg up ancient forum history to attack someone now, that is very low blow either way.

[Legs]

They were not quotes you were using.

.

bullshit. a quote is a quote

But if you are really going to dreg up ancient forum history to attack someone now, that is very low either way.

It is to establish a pattern. linking previous posts with current post to counter the denial of the nature of the current posts.

[Beskar]

Are you incredibly stupid?
Now, this above statement looks like that I am personally insulting you. But for clarification purposes, it was directly quoting from the thread. Being presented like this, it has no context at all about where I am bringing this example from. Obviously, I am making this clear in my example, because I am not the type of person who needs to resort to personally attacking people. But there is difficulty in trying to read a distorted post, where you are randomly using these "quotes" jumbled up with your own statements attacking another forum member.

Your presentation style is clearly antagonistic, and honestly, this should have happened sooner. Approximately two threads have been cleaned, one locked, and one deleted, all due to your responses and incitement. The Backroom whilst covering topics which are more prone to these sorts of replies/behaviours, doesn't condone such a toxic atmosphere. If you want to retort these base arguments and aggression, then I recommend engaging those types of discussions on forums which facilitate that attitude and atmosphere.

[Legs]

"Are you incredibly stupid?"
Is it accurate? or is "ignorant" or "willfully ignorant" more precise?

[Husar]

"Are you incredibly stupid?"
Is it accurate? or is "ignorant" or "willfully ignorant" more precise?

Whether it's accurate is not relevant if it is a personal attack.

[Beskar]

Why not challenge the person by contributing a source which gives an opposing opinion, explain what that opinion is in simple words, then say something like "I feel this and this better reflects the reality of immigration". A reply like this is far more constructive and allows the person to re-evaluate their position,

By insulting someone during a debate, all you do is cause them to become defensive, and simply start ignoring any points you are trying to make, thus preventing your argument from seeing the light of day. It becomes a issue of "Legs vs the world" rather than discussing why argument b is better than argument a, in your opinion.

[Legs]

Why not challenge the person by contributing a source which gives an opposing opinion, explain what that opinion is in simple words, then say something like "I feel this and this better reflects the reality of immigration". A reply like this is far more constructive and allows the person to re-evaluate their position,

So I should have written something like "your claim is entirely false, anyone who wanted to make such a ridiculous claim should have had the intelligence to look at a neo nazi rally before they made such a silly statement as it is clearly contrary to reality and entirely unsupportable by fact"

[Legs]

Well it has been deleted so I'm not in plain sight anymore phew. There are no more than 10 minutes that is roughly how long the interview is. And it isn't there.

Why do you tolerate such obvious blatent liars on this forum?
The moderator who deleted the interview in question did so because of a comment about a holocaust denier at the 40 minute mark. pretty impossible for an interviewee to make a comment at the 40 minute mark in a 10 minute interview isn't it.

[Legs]

The main reason I come here and not elsewhere is because we are allowed to discuss political issue without being interfered by mods using thier powers to suppress a political viewpoint. The deletion is an extreme overreaction and if this is a sign of a change in the way this board is moderated then I am leaving.

Interesting.
Wanting to be discussing a political issue while flatly denying the both nature and the content of the issue in question.

[Axalon]

Man, you are fighting a losing battle...

You will achieve little here, and its not because you are necessarily wrong or some such. "Right and Wrong" has traditionally never been a strong suit of this place. It won't matter. Think rather in terms of "convenient" and "inconvenient" for the site in general, and its agents/representatives in particular - and then you will better understand how this place functions, a lot better. And yeah it may totally suck, but that's the way how things are.

Other then that, an integral part of making quotes is to clearly declare whom you are quoting, and from where. You fail at both in both your posts right here. Its no point posting a supposed quote here or elsewhere if you don't bother declaring exactly whom you are quoting, and from where. If you don't, it is basically just something that you want have the looks of a quote, as to serve some end. Get my drift?

Anyhow, do something else with your time and end up a lot happier man.
Like play some new game, explore a mod or something...

- A

[Legs]

Man, you are fighting a losing battle...

You will achieve little here, and its not because you are necessarily wrong or some such. "Right and Wrong" has traditionally never been a strong suit of this place. It won't matter. Think rather in terms of "convenient" and "inconvenient" for the site in general, and its agents/representatives in particular - and then you will better understand how this place functions, a lot better. And yeah it may totally suck, but that's the way how things are.

Other then that, an integral part of making quotes is to clearly declare whom you are quoting, and from where. You fail at both in both your posts right here. Its no point posting a supposed quote here or elsewhere if you don't bother declaring exactly whom you are quoting, and from where. If you don't, it is basically just something that you want have the looks of a quote, as to serve some end. Get my drift?

Anyhow, do something else with your time and end up a lot happier man.
Like play some new game, explore a mod or something...

- A

Are the moderators and admin that useless on this forum?
I understand that the particular moderator who deleted the video may have several million personal reasons to delete the neo nazi crap which two people were choosing to defend. But why allow those two to flatly lie about the political viewpoint without taking any action

[Legs]

Personally I blame the parents , they must have done a really bad job to mananage to raise such habitual liars

[Beskar]

Moderators are not there to verify or factcheck every statement in a post. It is for those in the discussion to do that themselves, arguing why that is the case. The moderators are only there to provide an area for civil discourse. It is not the place of the moderator to simply shutdown someones post because they agree/disagree with it, that makes a bad moderator.

As such, insulting other patrons willynilly and accusing their parents of doing a really bad job would receives moderator attention on yourself due to lack of civility. Imagine you are at a restaurant with a few work colleagues, and in a discussion, you get up, shouting and insulting them. The restaurant manager would come along and ask you to leave, because you are disrupting the place.

This is what I believe Axalon is talking about, Moderators don't enforce right or wrong, they enforce civility and good conduct.

[Legs]

The moderators are only there to provide an area for civil discourse.

How can there be civil discourse when the response consists of simply repeating such obvious lies?

It is not the place of the moderator to simply shutdown someones post because they agree/disagree with it

I disagreed with the moderators choice to delete the link, but I understand it, I also understanfd that there are legal issues concerning promotion of nazi ideology and denial of crimes against humanity(which covers the holocaust denial).

Moderators don't enforce right or wrong, they enforce civility and good conduct

Civility and good conduct would cover things like honesty and integrity wouldn't it, so where was the civility and good conduct on the part of those defending that neo nazi scum?

[Legs]

Funny stuff eh? After claiming the reference was not present we now get this.

Principle aside this was an overreaction, a 5 second reference by a noted crazy in an 100 minute interview with said crazy does not make it a video promoting holocaust denial and deleting it is the same type of kneejerk overreaction by local authority that I posted the video to criticize.

Now since the "crazy" recomended the "historian" as source material to explain the basis of his political ideology how is it not promoting holocaust denial?

[Legs]

Levels of censorship on here are distinctly orwellian.
To quote Greyblades seems apt...."Cut out a man's tounge you do not prove him wrong, you prove you are scared of what he has to say."

[Husar]

How can there be civil discourse when the response consists of simply repeating such obvious lies?

There can't, you have to find other people to have a civil discourse with I guess.

[Husar]

People asked for Orwellian censorship, the Moderators try to deliver.
The customer is always king.

Since you're good at forum searches, you may be able to find the threads where people complained that moderation was too lax for a while.
Damned if you do and damned if you don't and all that.

[Beskar]

I merged three topics which were identical into this one.

[Legs]

There can't, you have to find other people to have a civil discourse with I guess.

So you say there cannot be civil discourse with people who are habitual liars, yet hand out infractions for not having civil discourse.

People asked for Orwellian censorship, the Moderators try to deliver.
The customer is always king.

Since you're good at forum searches, you may be able to find the threads where people complained that moderation was too lax for a while.
Damned if you do and damned if you don't and all that.

Since the customer is always king then you will be satisftying this customers requests about people constantly repeating claims which are knowingly false, right?

[Legs]

I merged three topics which were identical into this one.

Is that true?
Also, are you omitting something there?

[Husar]

So you say there cannot be civil discourse with people who are habitual liars, yet hand out infractions for not having civil discourse.

You forget the two other options:
a) the civil talking-to-a-wall
b) the civil not-having-a-discourse

There is noone who forces you to break the forum rules.

Since the customer is always king then you will be satisftying this customers requests about people constantly repeating claims which are knowingly false, right?

The customer is only a customer as long as he agrees to the Terms of Service, in this case called the forum rules.
Repeating claims does not violate forum rules, aggressive behavior does.
I'm well aware that it can be frustrating if the other side seems to just repeat arguments, I moved on to either just stopping the discussion or having fun with it in non-aggressive ways.

[Montmorency]

I notice the emoticon has gone out of common use in the past few years...

[Legs]

The customer is only a customer as long as he agrees to the Terms of Service, in this case called the forum rules.
Repeating claims does not violate forum rules, aggressive behavior does.

That isn't true is it.
It would depend on the nature of the claims being repeated.
That aspect is covered in the first 12 words of the relevant section of the forum rules isn't it.

I wonder, why is it you chose to the omit actual words I used? repeating claims which are knowingly false and instead cut it down to just repeating claims ........
Are you lying by omission?
I just called you a liar, is that aggresive or just accurate civil discourse?

[Husar]

I wonder, why is it you chose to the omit actual words I used? repeating claims which are knowingly false and instead cut it down to just repeating claims ........

You say it was my choice to omit something, are you incapable of assuming that I may have thought the other part less important or are you lying about my motives on purpose?

Are you lying by omission?
I just called you a liar, is that aggresive or just accurate civil discourse?

It's just rather aggressive because I was trying to help you.
If you think I'm a liar because I overlooked something or don't remember every single word of the forum rules (I'm not meant to moderate by the way), then I'm afraid I can't help you.

If you do care about what I have to say after all, I am not sure what you are referring to regarding knowingly false information. If it is about some holocaust denial, I think that material was already deleted. In many topics it is hard to make a judgement about what is knowingly false as both sides will claim what the other says is knowingly false. The moderation can not always step in and suppress what it thinks is knowingly false. I'm pretty sure that the rule is more about lying about something or someone than about suppressing someone's political opinion that they actually believe in (thus don't know that it could be false).

[Legs]

You say it was my choice to omit something, are you incapable of assuming that I may have thought the other part less important or are you lying about my motives on purpose?

Is there any reason why you chose to omit the words other than to change the meaning?

If you do care about what I have to say after all, I am not sure what you are referring to regarding knowingly false information. If it is about some holocaust denial, I think that material was already deleted. In many topics it is hard to make a judgement about what is knowingly false as both sides will claim what the other says is knowingly false. The moderation can not always step in and suppress what it thinks is knowingly false. I'm pretty sure that the rule is more about lying about something or someone than about suppressing someone's political opinion that they actually believe in (thus don't know that it could be false

Well that's simple.
If someone makes a claim about the content of a video then the video is irrefutable proof of its contents.
If the video does not contain what people claim it contains then the claims are false.
When challenged on the actual content you get further denials(excuse the pun) in response and insults.
Now if someone claims something isn't in a video when it is, and claims that they have watched the video then something doesn't ring true.
If that person then says that the lengthy interview is only 10minutes long it proves that they have neither watched the video or are aware of its contents.
Therefore everything that person has written on the subject is completely false and they have knowingly chosen to simply lie throughout the entire exchange

[Beskar]

Is there any reason why you chose to omit the words other than to change the meaning?

Brevity. I don't need to quote the rest of your post to respond to this question of yours. It is nice not to bombard others with walls of text pointlessly.