He has rejoined several times since then. — SophistiCat

might it be thought that "Prishon" was another avatar of said "Marco"? I must say, the notion occurred to me almost immediately that "Graveltty" might in actuality be "Prishon" with a newfound discipline, mostly because of the whole "physics" thing, but also...uuhhh...general tenor. — Michael Zwingli

For what it's worth, I was a strong supporter of Marco in his original iteration, the name of which I can't remember. You can go back and see how several of us tried. That being said, he has not just been resurrected once, or twice, or a few times. I've lost count. At least 10 I think. He clearly has some problems and he's taking it out on the forum. From the things he's said, this isn't the first on-line community he has disrupted.

Whatever my thoughts on the original banning, he clearly does not belong on the forum. He's the last person who should be unbanned.

A couple of questions: what is "flaming", what defines a "troll", and what is a "sockpuppet", or rather, what is "sockpuppetry"? (I don't use "social media" platforms like Facebook, etc., so I'm probably way behind the curve on such terminology.) — Michael Zwingli

Although racism or similar sin may be the harshest judgement, based on my observations, the most common reason given for banning is "low quality posts." That's what Marco was gotten for. That standard is much less definitive and is open to wide interpretation. Some people think the moderators are too quick to judge.

Banned @Michael Zwingli

Reason:

I am an unrepentant misogynist. For me, the concept that a woman should be considered the equal of a man, if he is any kind of man, is simply fucking ludicrous — Michael Zwingli

:up:

I'm asking this out of curiosity. Don't worry, I'm not going to go into one of my rants. Was he banned for a pattern of behavior or just this one post?

One post. See:

"Racists, homophobes, sexists, Nazi sympathisers, etc.: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them."

If there were some subtelty or ambiguity a pattern of behaviour would probably be necessary to make a judgement but there wasn't in this case.

If there were some subtelty or ambiguity a pattern of behaviour would probably be necessary to make a judgement but there wasn't in this case. — Baden

As I wrote, I wasn't arguing. Just curious.

"Racists, homophobes, sexists, Nazi sympathisers, etc.: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them."

More than the usual clarity here. But it leaves a question as to "espousing."

"espousing: 1. adopt or support (a cause, belief, or way of life)." (Online dictionary.)

I saw his post and thought he was saying of himself - perhaps for a kind of clarity or understanding of himself by others - that he was not a nice person, evidence being his own beliefs; his remark, "I am an X, and for me Y." As regrettable and reprehensible as the X and Y were, I did not take them for espousal, nor do I see how they could be taken as espousal.

I submit, then, that some editing to the rule for additional clarity is needed, or at least a PM warning. I myself prefer clarity.

"espousing: 1. adopt or support (a cause, belief, or way of life)." (Online dictionary.) — tim wood

I am an unrepentant misogynist. For me, the concept that a woman should be considered the equal of a man, if he is any kind of man, is simply fucking ludicrous — Michael Zwingli

How you could read that as not adopting and supporting sexism is beyond me.

:up:

:cool:

How you could read that as not adopting and supporting sexism is beyond me. — Banno

It has been explained that he was banned for the one post. Presumably the espousal occurred in that post. I infer from your remark you see his as espousal; i.e., an expression of views he adopts and supports. Show me how you get that.

I think the basic difference is between supporting inequality and merely stating your dislikes.

Don't think the semantics matter enough to edit anything in the guidelines. Besides, yes, stating that women can't be equal to men is adopting a sexist belief by definition.

I don't pretend to have clean hands when it comes to forum rules. That said, in addition the misogyny, I got hung up on:

" . . . there is a certain European ethnicity . . . which I hold deep and intensely felt prejudice against. Never mind which, and never mind why."

I want to know which, and I want to know why. But I also thought that could easily run afoul of forum protocols. While I hold deep and intensely felt prejudice against certain cultural activities, like FGM, I distinguish that from ethnicity and other immutable characters, like sex, etc.

Show me how you get that. — tim wood

You'r weird.

Show me how you get that. — tim wood

From my read, the bolded qualifier is an espousal in the form of an implicit norm (or duty):

"I am an unrepentant misogynist. For me, the concept that a woman should be considered the equal of a man, if he is any kind of man, is simply fucking ludicrous." — Michael Zwingli

While I hold deep and intensely felt prejudice against certain cultural activities, like FGM, I distinguish that from ethnicity and other immutable characters, like sex, etc. — James Riley

Wow. Did you just espouse transphobia?

Thought crime! Banned! Cancelled! :grin:

Wow. Did you just espouse transphobia?

Thought crime! Banned! Cancelled! :grin: — apokrisis

Contrary, I distinguished it. :smile: I get what you are saying, but I think being what one is, while changing another's perception of what that is, is to remain immutable.

Show me how you get that.
— tim wood
From my read, the bolded qualifier is an espousal in the form of an implicit normative:

"I am an unrepentant misogynist. For me, the concept that a woman should be considered the equal of a man, if he is any kind of man, is simply fucking ludicrous." — Michael Zwingli — 180 Proof

Real men are secure. Baby men are misogynist.

:100:

Not that I will miss him, but I don't think his general attitude was against forum rules,or expressing such extremist beliefs. If the rules means that even one single post referring to such issues can cause ban. Then ok.

In general though, I think that treating racists like that is one big cause that we keep having them all around us in societies. Of course not the only one, but it's like we "spill water to the ride" , making it keep turning.

When you close the door in such way to a person like that, you just make him more "angry" and so more vulnerable to his idiot beliefs as to keep supporting them.
Maybe some people just need a push as to change and maybe in some cases (maybe not many but still some), reasonable conservation (as for example in such forums) is that push as to help them change their attitude.

I would not mention that, if from his general posts had that kind of rhetoric and seemed like a fanatic. But it didn't seem that way with him.

Anyway it's only my opinion. Not a judgement as to tell you "how to do your job".

It has been explained that he was banned for the one post. — tim wood

I see this as more the weak link. The post did "adopt and support" the bannable view. But I think of espousing more as trying to force your views on others in a way that is unreasonable.

I'm not familiar with the guy and his post history. But it struck me more as a posturing than an espousing. Even a note of self-mocking.

The judgement call is whether delving into his views for more context is worth the bother. On something as low stakes as an internet forum, rough justice is justice enough. :wink:

Real men are secure. Baby men are misogynist. — praxis

Thought crime! Stereotyping, ageist and offensive to cis-males who identify as anxious.

(There is no escaping, is there?)

Besides, yes, stating that women can't be equal to men is adopting a sexist belief by definition. — Baden

Are you familiar at all with American football, especially as played in the National Football League? There are considerable financial rewards for those who can play in that league. No women play in that league. Any conclusions seem to you reasonable? Further, what he said was , "For me...". And so forth. My quibble is with the understanding and application of "espouse." Whether the poster is a nice fellow does not fall under espousal, and his self-disclosures about himself don't either. They could, if he pursued them, but apparently he did not.

Now you stated that any averring of unequality is "adopting a sexist belief by definition." Categorical unequality means different from. Denial of difference means the same as. Are you insisting the women and men are the same? That seems a little unnuanced.

I feel bad for Zwingli being banned. He was in the process of learning some new things about Buddhism, things that were actually making a difference for him. And now we'll never know.

Are you confused as to the distinction between espousing and advocating? That is the only thing I can think of that makes your view at all coherent.

Espousing: adopting of embracing
Advocating: promoting

The rule is espousing, not advocating.

The self-disclosure is a clear example of espousing.

Real men are secure. Baby men are misogynist.
— praxis

Thought crime! Stereotyping, ageist and offensive to cis-males who identify as anxious.

(There is no escaping, is there?) — apokrisis

I was using Zwingli’s own persuasion technique in an effort to counter what he was promoting.

Don't really want to venture into your self-made linguistic quagmire tbh as the matter is fairly straightforward. We don't want sexists, racists etc here. Zwingli is an avowed and (apparently) proud sexist. Therefore he is not welcome here. I don't think the guidelines are unclear and I don't find your attempt to parse this out very informed.

His post, which did seem to come out of no where, started by describing his love of the Jew, which I was happy to hear because often "who do you hate" posts don't end that way. He then described those he hated, and it was women and some unidentified European ethnicity.

I'll admit that had it been Jewish people he hated because they'll never measure up to regular people and he further claimed he was unrepentant in that belief and any suggestion otherwise was absurd, I'd hope he'd be summarily banned. If he weren't, I'd feel unwelcome here.

So, think that one through guys, and realize mean spirited hateful statements have consequences beyond what you might think. This isn't the boys locker room. Everyone is welcome here. Excusing his conduct might seem kind hearted to him, but it wouldn't be to many others.

I think that treating racists like that is one big cause that we keep having them all around us in societies. — dimosthenis9

Boringly, we mods are not in the business of reforming anyone. Just enforcing the rules.