Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

SI - Site Forums : Silicon Investor - Welcome New SI Members! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Graystone who wrote (5234)	5/2/1999 2:26:00 PM
From: Souze	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 32873

Toleration of hatred is the same as condoning it, and indeed abetting it. Would the massacre at Littleton , CO have happened if the expressions of the anti-semitic, anti-black, anti-God, anti-whomever/whatever been stopped in the first place? - personally I doubt it. I don't know Emile, or the others you mention, but if each is guilty of preaching hate, I'm all for getting them off SI.

To: Graystone who wrote (5234)	5/2/1999 2:58:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 32873

Graystone, I am not familiar with the Ask God thread, so I will take your word for what happens there. But in reading your comments it occurs to me that there is a major difference between what you describe in the posts of Dwight or Chris or Jane or James (which, from your description could be characterized as statement of bigotry and prejudice) and what Vidrine posts, which is nothing less than a rationale for the Holocaust. If you read Vidrine's posts carefully you will see the outlines of a syllogism. In effect Vidrine argues that: [1] Since Jews are responsible for the murder of European Christians it follows that: [2] ... This part of the argument is left unstated. It is left to the reader to draw the appropriate conclusion. Does it take a genius to fill in the missing parts? I don't think so. This is a far cry from simple racism or religious bigotry. While I appreciate your sentiments, I think you have underestimated Vidrine's depravity. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. CTC

To: Graystone who wrote (5234)	5/2/1999 5:36:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 32873

Graystone, you make some very interesting points. I should like to try to address them, if I may. You are quite right that there is potentially a very slippery slope here: first you ban Emile, and then you have to ban Jane, and then Dwight, and then Chris, and then Tom, Dick, and Harry, and anyone else who may have let slip a crack at one time or another about some group or other, and finally someone who may just have used the word "niggardly", and so on, down and down and further down the slippery slope... But let us go into the individual cases you cite. "Jane hates Satanists." Okay -- but where are the Satanists? You of course remember the thread -- "Calling All S.I. Satanists" -- which sought to locate the people that Jane hates. The effort, you will also recall, was a failure. There were no Satanists, so there was no one to take offense.... "Dwight hates homosexuals." If true, this is a much more serious matter than hating non-existent Satanists. If SI members resemble the rest of the population, there must be quite a few homosexuals among them. Have they read Dwight's anti-homosexual posts? Has he taken his homophobic message to other threads, besides "Ask God"? Has he acted as a propagandist for the homophobes? Does he preach to all and sundry, whether they want to be preached to or not? If so, then perhaps he merits at least a reprimand!! (The same goes for James and his allegedly anti-black message.) "Chris hates those who don't believe him." Well, that is not so unusual on SI. <gg> In itself, not sufficient reason for banning... Banning, of course, is an extreme measure. I see no reason, however, why SI should not issue "warnings" when someone repeatedly posts hate messages, or suspend him/her for a day or two...Or if you think the community should handle it, we probably need a mechanism to do that. Any volunteers? BTW, what was the title of the Emile thread? You've sparked my curiosity! Perhaps it's time to revive it. Also: I read somewhere that Emile worked vigorously to get someone else banned. I don't know whether it is true; but if it is, then turnabout fair play, eh? (Although I have also read that Emile has already had one turn. In which case, one good turn may deserve another.) jbe