Rationalskepticism,lol part III.

[Hermit]

Bigotry against disadvantaged people. And you clearly missed DDs link to SDs disgusting rape apologetics. Go back and find it.

Bigotry has a cornucopia of meanings, but the chief one is "intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself." I don't see it. And no, I will not accept "read the thread" as evidence. That's too close to "find it your fucking self because I can't be bothered", which is pretty much all you and Surr have been doing so far. Give me some relevant quotes, thanks.

[pErvinalia]

It's on the last page page or two, you lazy fuck.

Edit: it was last referenced 9 posts ago.

[pErvinalia]

Bigotry against disadvantaged people. And you clearly missed DDs link to SDs disgusting rape apologetics. Go back and find it.

Bigotry has a cornucopia of meanings, but the chief one is "intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself." I don't see it.

synonyms: prejudice

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=defi ... mAW56LioAw

[surreptitious57]

Here is a discussion thread prompted by the banning of Strontium Dog. Now have not read
it all but it summarises the feelings of members toward him and what they thought of the
ban. I include it to provide background on why S D was viewed as a disruptive member by
many and also for him to defend himself against any of the accusations if he so wishes to

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/feedb ... t51184html

[pErvinalia]

Most of us can't read that, as it's behind the members' curtain.

[surreptitious57]

Now here are some other threads that he participated in

You can decide for yourself how disruptive he was being

http://rationalskepticism.org/news-poli ... 51137.html

http://rationalskepticism.org/is-jeremy ... -4990.html

http://rationalskepticism.org/news-poli ... -4660.html

[pErvinalia]

I couldn't see much from Strontium Dog in the latter two in the handful of pages after your link. The second one seemed more to be examples of MrJonno's authoritarianism and simplistic thinking. But yeah, the first one is pure SD.

[pErvinalia]

Here's the "ugly woman" one. I'm sure it gets much worse as the thread progresses for another 18 pages or so.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/#p1640561

[surreptitious57]

Here is a discussion thread prompted by the banning of Strontium Dog

As rEv has pointed out not everyone can access it so I shall instead post the first comment
in it which was a mod note issued by kiore explaining the reason as to why S D was banned

As some of you may have noted Strontium Dog has been banned

This member enjoyed more opportunities to redress issues with his posting behaviour than many may think is reasonable
Like some before him he may not be most accurately labelled as a classic troll but his continued and frequent disruptive
influence on discussions has led us to end his membership

As this situation highlights disruptive members are difficult to nail down and therefore have considerable longevity. And to those who
feel this is too harsh an action this thread will remain open for comment. But let us make this quite clear - while banning this member
may prove unpopular the staff have not taken this step lightly. This action has been the result of discussions over an extraordinary length
of time and has been taken for the good of the forum as a whole. I would also like to note that this was the unanimous decision of all staff

[Hermit]

Scott1328 quoted the OP ten days ago here. The remaining 239 (so far) posts are barely worth skimming over. Note that in his explanation for the permanent ban Kiore explicitly rejects that SD is a troll (though he does so with all the qusi-hedging he dares to apply),and thar the only reason given for the ban is "disruption", a word that takes centre stage in the thread's title. There is no mention whatsoever of racism, sexism, bigotry or any other attributes that can be connected with the latter.

Ratskep's rules, by the way, do explicitly mention disruptive behaviour as an ultimately bannable offence. Without rigorous definition it is a convenient coverall. Before anybody here gets too pleased about Rationalia's rules, please refresh your memory by reading them again. We have the same device too - added to the initial rules soon after this forum opened for business - except here it is known as "intentional malicious trolling". Due to the marvellous malleability of the meaning of troll Exi5tentialist copped a warning or suspension and left. There is nothing preventing this forum to apply our coverall as liberally as ratskep utilise theirs. All it takes is for more mods and members to keep interpreting opinions they disagree with as forms of trolling.

[surreptitious57]

That only goes to the index page rEv but here is is the link : http://rationalskepticism.org/post1640561.html#p1640561

Here is the actual woman that Strontium Dog is referring to : http://rationalskepticism.org/post1640239.html#1640239

Hermit : you will notice that I am now posting links to what S D actually said rather than trying to remember what he said

And so no more claims from you that I do not provide evidence as it is there for anyone who wishes to see it including you

[pErvinalia]

To be honest, I think we've stacked on SD enough. In reading random threads today, I can see how he basically became really bitter by the end (like Hugin and UM). A fresh start here without the bitterness might lead to more productive debate.

[surreptitious57]

A fresh start here without the bitterness might lead to more productive debate

An excellent idea and one I wholeheartedly agree with so can everybody please kiss and make up
One can have rigorous debate without ad hominem and we can all try to do that from this day on
Besides it is far better than cock waving and point scoring which gets rather tedious after a while

[Hermit]

[JimC]

Hermit wrote:

...Due to the marvellous malleability of the meaning of troll Exi5tentialist copped a warning or suspension and left. There is nothing preventing this forum to apply our coverall as liberally as ratskep utilise theirs. All it takes is for more mods and members to keep interpreting opinions they disagree with as forms of trolling....

He got a very minor penalty, got into a huff and left. Although the potential for using the rule unwisely is there, if you look at the whole history of the forum, it is clear that it has been used extremely sparingly.

We still have Seth...