[Cooper]

	Originally Posted by AnaK
	Are you in the US? Do you agree with the right to free speech? It's kind of central to the philosophy of this country. Violence is not protected under the law, but free speech is.

Hate speech is not.

[thebrainpolice]

	Originally Posted by Distance
	Note the number of BL's defenders. I trust that you can also understand that passivity is by default, an agreement with.

Since I defended BL in this thread I suppose this is directed at least indirectly at me, so I'll respond. I'm not a storm front member and I don't agree with most of BL's political opinions, just his right to express them. I just read the sexualization of young girls thread in its entirety, and many of BL's posts were illogical, contradictory, and just plain wrong. However, the thread also led to an interesting discussion of the historical evolution of gender roles. I didn't realize the extent to which girls were sexualized in the past (i.e. in the early 1900s six year old girls wore corsets). I also didn't know that half of all women died during child birth in pre-modern times (I knew the rate was high, just not that high).

I think this is what Zsych and thod were talking about in earlier posts. Even if an opinion is bullshit, the act of refuting it can still lead to learning. I'm slightly less ignorant after reading that thread than I was before.

[gypsy stardust]

	Originally Posted by AnaK
	I do like the fact that he very rarely loses his cool or engages in personal attacks.

He's too busy puking up the same misogynist, racist, sexist, assbackward garbage time and time again to do much of anything else.

[AnaK]

	Originally Posted by Cooper
	Hate speech is not.

I don't think his posts rise to that level. And where is the law in the US that forbids hate speech?

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by Sinequanon
	This post made me happy. I am nothing if not consistent.

You are who you are, as I am who I am. I choose rebuttal of bigotry, as you choose passivity. That we're at odds over methodology is strange indeed.

Originally Posted by thebrainpolice

Since I defended BL in this thread I suppose this is directed at least indirectly at me, so I'll respond. I'm not a storm front member and I don't agree with most of BL's political opinions, just his right to express them. I just read the sexualization of young girls thread in its entirety, and many of BL's posts were illogical, contradictory, and just plain wrong. However, the thread also led to an interesting discussion of the historical evolution of gender roles. I didn't realize the extent to which girls were sexualized in the past (i.e. in the early 1900s six year old girls wore corsets). I also didn't know that half of all women died during child birth in pre-modern times (I knew the rate was high, just not that high). I think this is what Zsych and thod were talking about in earlier posts. Even if an opinion is bullshit, the act of refuting it can still lead to learning. I'm slightly less ignorant after reading that thread than I was before.

As a suggestion, read all his threads and posts. You might find a pattern between them all, that of bigoted propaganda in an attempt to disenfranchise those he fears.

---------- Post added 12-29-2011 at 02:18 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by AnaK
	I don't think his posts rise to that level. And where is the law in the US that forbids hate speech?

bl is not an American.

[Cooper]

	Originally Posted by AnaK
	I don't think his posts rise to that level.

You're kidding, right? Did you miss his latest piece of work?

	And where is the law in the US that forbids hate speech?

See hate crimes.

[Sinequanon]

	Originally Posted by Distance
	You are who you are, as I am who I am. I choose rebuttal of bigotry, as you choose passivity. That we're at odds over methodology is strange indeed.

I'm certainly not going to advocate that you shouldn't be allowed to do it, but what I do object to is the town crier act you pull, informing everyone about how much your arm hurts as you pound away at the dead horse.

[Shadizar]

Ok, I agree; banning BL would set a president which would not be healthy for the forum. How about this, make him a special topic called "BL's BS Collection"; this can be where his rinse and repeat posts can be sent so as to keep topics on track.

This would mean that BL can stay, he can even continue making topics; he just can't continue his broken LP tactic for twenty odd pages. Which seems to be the issue here, his need to have the last word.

I find it difficult to believe that BL can be considered "garnering discussion"; from what I've seen it's closer to people politely trying to "correct his level of stupid" without getting put on warning in the process. Of course, correcting stupid requires a student wants/cares to learn; of which BL has patently refused to acknowledge anything as worth learning, other than that which he's already pulled out of his ass, all links he provides is merely confirmation bias, which is repeated refuted to no avail by the more patient members of this forum.

[SShack]

	Originally Posted by Cooper
	Hate speech is not.

Yes it is. Though as a privately owned and operated web site, the entire concept of "Free Speech" is irrelevant to the operations of the INTJ forum anyway.

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by Sinequanon
	I'm certainly not going to advocate that you shouldn't be allowed to do it, but what I do object to is the town crier act you pull, informing everyone about how much your arm hurts as you pound away at the dead horse.

I see. So to respond to advocates of bl or passivity, is to be the town crier. And yet, advocates of bl or passivity are only expressing their honest views? Mirror, mirror.

[Storm]

Stasis gave an infraction to BL for the anti-semetic propaganda thread (and another user), and then deleted the thread. It crossed the line between propaganda/racism and discussion. Merely having an ill-informed viewpoint, however, can not be against the rules, as that would lead to moderators basically deleting viewpoints/threads they didn't like.

So what are we still talking about? How people whom we disagree with should STFU? Fun times. Carry on.

[yoginimama]

	Originally Posted by Kisai
	I'm going to hazard that some people are jealous of BL's ability to constantly garner attention. I choose not to participate in his threads, but it has not escaped my notice that he is very effective at what he does.

Well, yes. Hammering the same point over and over again (say, "careerwomen aren't feminine") is a very effective method of hammering the same point over and over again. You're right, he's good at that. But this is supposed to be a discussion forum. It's supposed to be a discussion forum. It's supposed to be a discussion forum. It's supposed to be a discussion forum. Yes, I heard you, but this is supposed to be a discussion forum. Well, that's not what 'discussion' means to me. 'Discussion' means what it means to me, and which is what most people think it means. No, I'm saying that discussion means what MOST people think it means, which is what I think it means. And this is supposed to be a discussion forum. It's supposed to be a discussion forum. It's supposed to be a discussion forum. It's supposed to be a discussion forum. It's supposed to be a discussion forum. Hey, I'm just being honest here and telling the truth. This is a discussion forum. A discussion forum. A discussion forum. A discussion forum. A discussion forum. A discussion forum. I already told you what it means, it means what it means to me, which is what it means to most people, which is a discussion forum.

	Originally Posted by Kisai
	How about we blame those who repeatedly argue with BL, inflating his threads? How about we choose to wag our fingers at those who fight fire with fire, vituperation with vituperation?

This is supposed to be a discussion forum.

	Originally Posted by Distance
	You may blame anyone you wish. But if no one speaks up against, it is by default...agreement with bigotry.

This is supposed to be a discussion forum.

	Originally Posted by Sinequanon
	Or it's ignoring a fool shouting on a street corner. When at the zoo, you are advised to not feed bears for your own sake, as much as the bears'.

This is supposed to be a discussion forum.

	Originally Posted by Still Standing
	I've come to realize that in a context of freedom of speech, openly disagreeing with bigotry gives it more value than ignoring it.

This is supposed to be a discussion forum.

[Shadizar]

	Originally Posted by Sinequanon
	I'm certainly not going to advocate that you shouldn't be allowed to do it, but what I do object to is the town crier act you pull, informing everyone about how much your arm hurts as you pound away at the dead horse.

You're not being very passive. Why are you giving Distance so much credence? If you would just quit posting against her, she just might stop on her own.

[Munglik]

	Originally Posted by Shadizar
	You're not being very passive. Why are you giving Distance so much credence? If you would just quit posting against her, she just might stop on her own.

I wanted to understand her motives.

Edit: He misquoted me.

[VagrantChord]

	Originally Posted by SShack
	Yes it is. Though as a privately owned and operated web site, the entire concept of "Free Speech" is irrelevant to the operations of the INTJ forum anyway.

Hate speech is still legal in the United States and several episodes in the courts have affirmed that suppressing or censoring speech construed as hate speech is a violation of the First Amendment. It's still a murky mess.

Having run bulletin boards in the 1980s and participating in numerous forums on the Internet since 1985, I have the biased opinion that web sites like INTJf are dictatorships where the members are subject to the benevolence of the owners. What varies is the range of that benevolence from moderator to moderator, forum to forum. YMMV.

[Distance]

Originally Posted by VagrantChord

Hate speech is still legal in the United States and several episodes in the courts have affirmed that suppressing or censoring speech construed as hate speech is a violation of the First Amendment. It's still a murky mess. Having run bulletin boards in the 1980s and participating in numerous forums on the Internet since 1985, I have the biased opinion that web sites like INTJf are dictatorships where the members are subject to the benevolence of the owners. What varies is the range of that benevolence from moderator to moderator, forum to forum. YMMV.

bl is a Canadian resident and subject to the "hate speech" laws of Canada.

[JTG]

I'm late coming back to the thread, but i wanted to fix a statement i made earlier:

	Originally Posted by JTG
	This one's fate is up to stasis and larkin, but in and of itself, i personally see nothing wrong with the OP. If the mods local to Politics and Current Events see fit, they'll take action.

I hadn't looked at all of the links in the post, or i would not have said it looked fine to me.

Whether to take action, though, was still not within my authority, but clearly the thread is gone now, so it was deemed to have broken our racism rule. I don't know why people are still yelling about it, unless it's just to vent general frustration

[idoj]

	Originally Posted by AnaK
	You could post your own, thoughtful threads and ignore his thoughtless ones, yes? I pretty much ignore him. I'm not offended by his opinions, as I've said, I've met men much worse than him at work.

Certainty...
The thought to ignore stupidity never occurred to me... That will definitely work!
Thanks for the insight

[VagrantChord]

	Originally Posted by Distance
	bl is a Canadian resident and subject to the "hate speech" laws of Canada.

Thanks for the clarification, I did not know that. It changes the complexion then. How, I'm not sure yet.

[Munglik]

	Originally Posted by Distance
	bl is a Canadian resident and subject to the "hate speech" laws of Canada.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Under section 319, an accused is not guilty: (a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true; (b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text; (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or (d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

This could sort of let him do it.

[Sinequanon]

	Originally Posted by Shadizar
	You're not being very passive. Why are you giving Distance so much credence? If you would just quit posting against her, she just might stop on her own.

Because, even though I disagree with her, she is still making valid points. When I disagree with someone and they've shown themselves incapable of rendering valid thought, I am much more inclined to ignore.

[Shadizar]

	Originally Posted by VagrantChord
	Thanks for the clarification, I did not know that. It changes the complexion then. How, I'm not sure yet.

Like most things in Canada, it's still covered in murk. But, it does have a prison sentence if validly proven.

Originally Posted by Wiki

Hate speech laws in Canada include provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada, provisions in the Human Rights Act and in other federal legislation, and statutory provisions in each of Canada's ten provinces and three territories. The Criminal Code prohibits "hate propaganda." The Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on various grounds, and forbids the posting of hateful or contemptuous messages on the Internet. Legislation in the provinces and territories prohibits discrimination on the same grounds as Canada's Human Rights Act in matters of provincial or territorial concern such as employment and accommodation.

[VagrantChord]

	Originally Posted by Shadizar
	Like most things in Canada, it's still covered in murk. But, it does have a prison sentence if validly proven.

If it were to go that far, wouldn't that require someone in Canada to initiate some sort of complaint with the RCMP?

[JTG]

As far as i am aware, we are primarily concerned with adherence to US law, since the forum is based in the US.

Adherence to local laws (i believe) falls in the hands of the user located in whatever nation. We're moderators, not internet police.

[Cooper]

Its very well documented here on INTJf....