h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hey! I've just been put on warning by the Italics. Seems that if I keep on doing whatever it was I was doing, I'll be put on pre-mod. People say that this is an important right of passage.

And I've even been named and shamed. I *think* the italics have got hold of the wrong end of a stick and think I was being a nasty troll. It's hard to judge why. Perhaps they have office politics issues of their own.

(And, yes, I am allowing for the possibility that I've been something rhyming with a banker. I don't *think* so - but I would say that, wouldn't I?)

La-di-da!

right=rite

Tusk tusk. You've been saying rude words again? SHlTE is all I can say to that.

What was it that you were doing (advertently or otherwise)?

Gah!

These trouble makers. Hanging is too good for 'em.

Sorry, Gnomon, but the terms of my ASBO probably prevent me from explaining why (shades of Joseph Heller?). In fact - it was trying to explain that got it slapped on me in the first place. Others may care to explain.

>>Tusk tusk. You've been saying rude words again? SHlTE is all I can say to that.

No...'shite' passes the fither. It was another far more dangerous word.

FWIW, I took no offence at the terminology used. I know it is fundamentally wrong, but I don't get offended at it. I can argue my corner far better than any censor.

However, let's not be disengenuous about this. I suspect that you would be more than happy for views that actually are racist to be censored on the grounds that they are wrong & offensive. Racism is a viewpoint, as is anti-racism. Allowing one means being obliged to allow the other.

For this reason, I am against Mr Ed being discouraged from continuing his misguided rants.

I hadn't been following any of this because I unsubcribed to the thread in question after the first 20 or so posts. From a quick peek it looks as though all the contentious posts have been modded, so I'm not going to give an opinion on it. However, I will say that like SWL, I reject censorship and have spoken about this on H2G2 before when we were banned from talking politics during the election.

Congratulations, Edward! I've been done for the same thing.

SWL - I'm happy(ish) to discuss matters with you elsewhere. But gonnae get the hell out of my Journal Entry? Nothing personal, but I didn't expressly invite you, and protocol suggests that Personal Spaces are different to open forums. Cheers.

Hiya Edward! Just wanted to congratulate you on your very first ASBO. I've never had one yet.

I'll be honest and say that I'm a bit confused as to why it happened, as I had a former visitor here stalk me around this site and say far worse (and, unlike in this situation, untrue) things about me, and they would do NOTHING to stop it.

Anyway, I don't want to exacerbate things by getting into it here... watch for an email in the near future.

I'm happy to oblige and explain what happened (from my POV obviously).

The Veil and Cross thread F135418?thread=3577992 has included alot of discussion about racism. There was an extended period of time in that thread where one researcher was named as racist - this happened after much posting about the ways in which the researcher's arguments were racist, but eventually some people got frustrated to the point of actually using the descriptor 'racist'. So it's not like it was just name calling - there was a whole context to it.

Edward was the most vocal in this naming, but others agreed and posted in milder or more oblique ways. Edward also went over the top a few times, and the term "the Bonobo Threshold" was coined for those times when you realise there is nothing else you can say other than that the person you are talking to is a (having exhausted all other avenues of discussion).

Personally, I tend to walk away when I reach the Bonobo Threshold. Edward doesn't and some (shock, horror) rude things were said. AFAIK, none of those posts were modded, or at least there wasn't a big spate of moddings.

There were a wide range of opinions expressed at the time about the value of naming someone a racist. And to what extent doing so rudely was useful. The person who had been named racist was involved in all that discussion and held their ground and didn't appear to be overly offended (at least they weren't yikesing any posts) although things did get heated for a while. Eventually the thread settled down and got back on track.


After quite some time (a week? or more?) another researcher, who had been in the thread early on but hadn't posted for a long time, came back and posted something fairly innocuous but to the minds of a number of researchers it was based on a racist view point (the comment was that a certain (non-white) English musician wasn't really English because his parent's weren't born in England). Given the context of the thread, it was appropriate to respond to that by challenging the inherent racism (as some saw it).

There followed a series of posts between Edward and the other researcher. A number of Edward's posts got modded. I didn't see alot of them, so I don't know why they were modded - for calling someone racist, or for doing so in a rude manner, or for just being rude.

The offensive name called, apparently, was 'eejit'.

At this point (in the middle of the spate of moddings) Jimster (Smij) appeared and posted a somewhat vague post about everyone stopping posting insults, which was strange IMO as the only person being modded was Edward, so it's not like everyone was throwing insults around. There was still good discussion happening about the issues.

(Edward did post a somewhat sarky reply to Jimster, so perhaps there is an animostity happening there between the two of them as well)

The conversation continued on for some time on various on topic topics. Jimster posted again, clarifying his earlier post, saying that there were legal issues in calling someone racist, and reiterating the stuff about not namecalling, especially not calling someone racist.

He also put a warning about locking the thread.

The next post was one by Edward, which has been hidden, but apparently asked if Jimster would be getting legal opinion on calling someone racist. Jimster replied that they certainly would.

He also said that if someone posted something racist to yikes it (rather than call them racist).

And that they've repeatedly warned that calling someone racist may be deemed harassment, and that posts written to wind people up could be removed without further notice.

At this point I posted asking for clarification on a number of points, not least what 'without further notice' means (i.e. will such moddings not get an email, as Edward appears to not have received emails for his removed posts). It was the weekend by then, but I haven't had a response from the Eds and now the thread is locked.

I am unaware of where the repeated warnings about calling someone racist being harrassment are.


The thread continued over the weekend. Edward also posted asking for clarification about discussing the racist views of people, and gave a couple of specific examples of (presumably) well known Brits. That post has been removed, the thread locked, and the last post is one by the Eds that is quite pointedly blaming Edward

I don't really understand what's going on. It appears that the Eds have over-reacted. The thread hasn't been a hotbed of insults and aggression. Or maybe h2g2's tolerance for conflict has significantly lowered. I suspect part of it is to do with the Eds taking action when moderation isues start to take up too much of their time. Rather than letting a situation get out of hand (remember the Della wars) they seem to step in much more quickly now and shut things down. I can the advantage to that from their pov, but I can also see the potential for this disrupting the community.

I *really* hope that when they come back with the legal decision, they provide some clear guidelines that it is ok to discuss the views of people and whether they are racist views or not, even if we aren't allowed to name the person themselves as racist. It's incredibly hard for me to see how racism can be discussed if we can't analyse and critique people's views on race, ethnicity etc. And I'd hate what would happen to this site if we weren't allowed to discuss racism.

Just to clarify my earlier point about there not being a spate of moddings in the first part of the VC thread:

There were 3 moddings in the first 1400 posts. 2 of them were mine (one I used a rude word to describe the BNP, the other I overquoted and got modded on the copyright rule). The other one I don't know.

The original use of the term racist applied to a specific reasearcher, and the subsequent, long discussion, happened within those 1400 posts.


The more recent spat, there were 7 moddings in the last 114 posts.

Sorry to triple post, but I've asked for some clarification about moderation emails here:

F55683?thread=3739143

I try not to get involved in discussions like that. My reaction tends to be to back off and try not to make eye contact. For example, I have stated that I will not reply to, or if possible even read, anything posted by SWL.

Yes, I understand the impulse (although mine is more often to engage in confrontation ). It's a bit tricky though, as SWL was starting lots of threads (in Ask, maybe the Forum) that often turned into Muslim/Islam bashing threads. I was certainly feeling some frustration about this.

Once the VC thread got started it seemed to serve as a focus for those discussions, and it gave people a change to challenged the views in a way that had continuity.


I've started a thread in Community Soapbox to discuss the thread closure:

F55683?thread=3739146

Congratulations Eddie

I always knew you had it in you!

I am getting increasingly concerned about the Beeb's rules regarding free speech. I am sure DNA would have a few words to say as well about how they are managing his legacy.

My question is always how is the pursuit of truth enhanced by silencing anyone who's approach, opinions or attitude you don't like?

If a person is a bigot of any particular shade, be it political, racial, sexual or religious, the best way to show their stupidity is to debate with them openly, not silence them. This will require, at times, intense and even dangerous debate in order to drill down to the truth.

A few years ago, the legendary Hootoo and I were engaged for some months on h2g2 with a gentleman called Justin the Preacher. There were no depths we did not plumb with that man. We were abused time and again and we gave as good as we got. But none of us reached for the yikes button. Why? Because what we were discussing was just too important.

Eventually JtP went away. No-one was hurt. Few even remember him now. It was ever thus.

I do wonder though if we would be allowed to do this now the Mod's have to contend with BBC rules that take into account all the debate-suppressing legislation of our New Labour masters.

Orwell is my prophet, let his truth be heard.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

>>If a person is a bigot of any particular shade, be it political, racial, sexual or religious, the best way to show their stupidity is to debate with them openly, not silence them

Hmm. I'd *like* to think that. Certainly I don't believe in silencing anyone. However, I think it's something of a liberal conceit that the wrongheaded can always be reasoned into the truth. Sometimes you simply have to say, "No. Decent people don't think like that." That's not stifling debate. It's commenting on it.