DaveDodo007... I mean... Rationalskepticism,lol.

[Warren Dew]

All of those banned that I know of had views the moderators disagreed with. Can you give any examples of people who were banned that the moderators agreed with?

If you take Tyrannical as an example - as far as I can remember his views about economics are generally to the right and therefore at variance with what you might perceive as the prevailing tendency of ratskep moderators. But he was clearly banned because of racism, not because of that.

I'm not sure what you're saying in that last quoted sentence. You're not saying that the moderators agreed with Tyrannical's racism, are you?

[pErvinalia]

Civilised society disagrees with racism. The mods aren't special in that regard.

[JimC]

Civilised society disagrees with racism. The mods aren't special in that regard.

The question becomes one of tolerating the right to say things one strongly disagree with...

Ratz has a collective view on this issue which has stood the test of time...

[pErvinalia]

Racism is against the rules there. Warren's whining makes no sense. Like most of his whining.

[Beatsong]

All of those banned that I know of had views the moderators disagreed with. Can you give any examples of people who were banned that the moderators agreed with?

There are a number of problems there. The main one being that the moderators are not a single monolithic entity that thinks with one mind about all matters. They are a group of people who have various different views about various different subjects. Another is that the fact of someone being banned who happens to disagree with the views of some moderators, does not prove that they were banned for that reason. If you take Tyrannical as an example - as far as I can remember his views about economics are generally to the right and therefore at variance with what you might perceive as the prevailing tendency of ratskep moderators. But he was clearly banned because of racism, not because of that. And that charge can't seriously be contested.

But to answer your question: presuming you are characterising the moderators as liberal and leftish in their prevailing views, the most obvious example of someone of the same persuasion being banned is good old rEv. Another would be Exi5tentialist.

Because one or two Marxist useful idiots are purged from the Party because they annoy the Marxist elite does not disprove the allegation that other members of the forum holding opinions opposed to the prevailing Marxist religious dogma have been banned because of the political undesirability of their participation.

I didn't say it does. That allegation remains to be proven of course, but I wasn't trying to disprove it here.

Warren simply asked me to provide an example of someone with views in accordance with the mods who had been banned. So I did.

[Beatsong]

All of those banned that I know of had views the moderators disagreed with. Can you give any examples of people who were banned that the moderators agreed with?

If you take Tyrannical as an example - as far as I can remember his views about economics are generally to the right and therefore at variance with what you might perceive as the prevailing tendency of ratskep moderators. But he was clearly banned because of racism, not because of that.

I'm not sure what you're saying in that last quoted sentence. You're not saying that the moderators agreed with Tyrannical's racism, are you?

No. I'm saying he was banned for racism because racism is against the FUA. If you're going to claim that people who are banned for clear and undeniable breaches of the FUA are actually only being banned because they "disagree with the moderators" (on the assumption that the moderators agree with the FUA), then that's a level of idiocy I'm afraid I can't help with.

[Mr.Samsa]

Lol, KennyC trolling his own thread. Idiot. - http://www.rationalskepticism.org/psych ... 45338.html

That's the annoying thing about trying to have a discussion with Kenny - as soon as someone points out that he's wrong, he resorts to insults and derailing the thread rather than actually responding with substance to the criticism. I've never once seen him respond to a criticism with actual evidence to support his position, except once when he tried to educate me on what behaviorism really was and did so by quoting wikipedia. He then got really pissed off when I pointed out that the sentence directly following the section he quoted explicitly contradicted what he was trying to say.

Then of course there was the recent thread where he tried to tell Imza, a cognitive scientist, that cognitive scientists don't use the terms that Imza was using...

[tattuchu]

Then of course there was the recent thread where he tried to tell Imza, a cognitive scientist, that cognitive scientists don't use the terms that Imza was using...

[Seth]

Racism is against the rules there. Warren's whining makes no sense. Like most of his whining.

The problem with that rule is that it makes discussing racism impossible because anyone who defends a position that is even slightly divergent from the religious beliefs of RatSkepians is immediately branded a "racist" even if the comments are nothing more than Devil's advocacy used to stimulate debate. This is because the fuckwits over there can't distinguish between an arguendo statement and actual racist propaganda. The same is true of every topic that is forbidden over there. Anything other than an echo-chamber parroting of horror and agreement with the religious doctrine is seen as evidence of a character flaw in the poster which must be stamped out and eradicated however possible, usually by banning them.

[pErvinalia]

So you're claiming Tyrannical isn't a racist? Lol.

[JimC]

So you're claiming Tyrannical isn't a racist? Lol.

I don't think he specified Tyr one way or another, although I would be interested in seeing whether Seth thinks Tyr really is a racist, or is just playing word games...

[pErvinalia]

He's responding to my comment which is specifically about Tyrannical.

[JimC]

He's responding to my comment which is specifically about Tyrannical.

In which case, he is either prevaricating or retreating to generalisations...

[Warren Dew]

All of those banned that I know of had views the moderators disagreed with. Can you give any examples of people who were banned that the moderators agreed with?

If you take Tyrannical as an example - as far as I can remember his views about economics are generally to the right and therefore at variance with what you might perceive as the prevailing tendency of ratskep moderators. But he was clearly banned because of racism, not because of that.

I'm not sure what you're saying in that last quoted sentence. You're not saying that the moderators agreed with Tyrannical's racism, are you?

No. I'm saying he was banned for racism because racism is against the FUA. If you're going to claim that people who are banned for clear and undeniable breaches of the FUA are actually only being banned because they "disagree with the moderators" (on the assumption that the moderators agree with the FUA), then that's a level of idiocy I'm afraid I can't help with.

There are plenty of people who are constantly in breach of the forum user agreement there who don't get banned, so the idea that Tyrannical was banned just because he broke forum rules is ridiculous. In addition, others have been banned for racism when in fact all they did was discuss race objectively, so it's not as if that rule is applied only against actual racists.

The evidence says that Tyrannical got banned for the same reason anyone else there gets banned - the moderators wanted to get rid of him personally, not because of any objective application of the rules.

[JimC]

However, unlike others, Tyrannical is openly and avowedly racist in most of his posts, not simply discussing the subject. Maybe others were incorrectly banned, but if openly making racist comments is against the Ratskep FUA, then it was legitimate, at least for him.

Rationalia does not have the same FUA, so the question does not arise.