The Steve T and Tone whatever thread

[TillieTrotter]

Stone Roses didn't do it for you then Crystal! ;-)

[SeanMacGabhann]

Sounds like a sensible concensus to me

huzzah

[SeanMacGabhann]

And that post made me chuckle tillie!

[louisiana]

I think banning should be reserved for those that are gratuitously offensive towards individuals.

Someone holding offensive views is part of life. These people exist, however much you would like them not to.

But if they insult community members, then that's different (that imperils the future of the group/forum etc.).

Indeed, someone who imperils the sustainability of the community/forum/group is someone who should be banned.

[lozzyloz]

Much of what I feel has already been echoed above. Banning somebody for free speech is a contradiction unless it's inciting violence. I despise organisations like the BNP for what they stand for but actually feel that weirdly they do a good service.

Partly because it keeps the debate alive as to why their views are so wrong and partly because it 'outs' the kind of people that hold those views and whom the vast majority of us want to be disassociated from.

But spare a little compassion. When I come up against these people I sense that they hold these views because deep down they've been emotionally wounded in the past and carry around a lot of bitterness and anger making it difficult for them to form lasting, meaningful and caring relationships with people they want to be close too.

[TillieTrotter]

lozzyloz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Much of what I feel has already been echoed above.

> Banning somebody for free speech is a

> contradiction unless it's inciting violence. I

> despise organisations like the BNP for what they

> stand for but actually feel that weirdly they do a

> good service.

> Partly because it keeps the debate alive as to why

> their views are so wrong and partly because it

> 'outs' the kind of people that hold those views

> and whom the vast majority of us want to be

> disassociated from.

>

> (tu)

[RosieH]

lozzyloz, you're a better person than me with the emotional wounding stance - but I do believe fervently in the right to free speech.

And I think there is a sort of service going on on here - if I'm having a bad day, I have something to rail against (repeated assertions of fake domestic violence claims in order to secure council housing? on another day, it might have driven me to the very brink of capital letters), on a good day I have something to smile wryly at / ignore.

[SeanMacGabhann]

The outburst on the Immigration thread made me chuckle - partly because of who did it and how out of character it seems (from what I know of them) but mostly because of the time of the posting and knowing what fuelled it

But this thread was a step too far IMO and it has been good to see pretty much everyone in agreement with each other on this one

[????]

So to not share or even question the liberal view on immigration's effects on society makes you a BNP voter.......mmmm if you can't ban 'them' smear them?

[mockney piers]

Aren't you just smearing the forum quids, for it's resolute lack of banning? If the woolly pinko liberalism isn't fascist enough then smear it? Bloody middle class clique with its liberal values, I spit on you *chaatpoo*

[????]

Liberals in not being very liberal shocker

[RosieH]

Quids, gerneralising a little, no? Has the forum en masse denounced as BNP the views of those who question immigration?

[????]

You're a liberal

You're a racist fascist

There are smears and there are smears

Thus speak a true liberal

[taper]

No-one has a right to free speech on a private site such as this. What is allowed and what isn't is, within the law, a matter for the owner.

All that said, i don't think TLS is malign; just your standard issue Daily Mail reader, with a bad case of rosetinteditus. It is incumbent on us to make plain to him where he is talking out his backside. And let us hope that the discourse tempers his views a little. I don't think he's been particularly bad on this thread. He has come closer to crossing the line elsewhere.

[TillieTrotter]

"My idea of an agreeable person is a person who agrees with me"...Benjamin Disraeli. Obviously (maybe) said in a tongue in cheek manner but it shouldn't be the case

[????]

taper Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No-one has a right to free speech on a private

> site such as this. What is allowed and what isn't

> is, within the law, a matter for the owner.

>

> All that said, i don't think TLS is malign; just

> your standard issue Daily Mail reader, with a bad

> case of rosetinteditus. It is incumbent on us to

> make plain to him where he is talking out his

> backside. And let us hope that the discourse

> tempers his views a little. I don't think he's

> been particularly bad on this thread. He has come

> closer to crossing the line elsewhere.

Well said Taper - and although he's quite capable of looking after himself, I don't think hes should be subject to personal abuse (with some fairly implicit chuckling support from several posters) or accusations of racism without some serious evidence. The worst bits of cliquiness that do from time to time emerge on here.

[bignumber5]

Whilst the principle sounds good, ????, do you think it's possible for more than 3 people to publically agree on something liberal or lefty on this forum without a knee jerk clique-card being played? It's almost as tiring as the tripe that has started this call to censorship...

[????]

I'm quite happy with sound argument against Tony's points of which there have been many - but calls to ban, abuse and accusations of racism without firm evidence all sound knee jerk illiberal reactions. Personally, I try my best to fight prejudice everywhere not just those ones that tick the boxes at SE22 dinner parties

[SeanMacGabhann]

Easy Don Quixote, most people on here seem to be on your side - many people have reported this thread and those posting on here are here to say it shouldn't be on here

[bignumber5]

Agreed, but the cycle of he starts a thread about something controversial, we argue, he argues back, we shout racist, he shouts realist, you shout clique... well, it's certainly getting repetitive. They're all knee jerk reactions after a point, but the last one is no better and no less irritating than the others.

[mockney piers]

Has snorky hacked quids account?

FYI Tony has never even been close to a ban, and the clique consensus seems to be happy wih that.

For my part I find him tedious and he annoys me, mostly because he reminds me of my stubborn father. He lectures wihout listening. I don't know wether he's racist or not, I suspect not, but frankly I dont care, none of my business, but he does himself no favours by bringing race into everything, everything, and it's boring. He does this, not the wooly dulwicho-fascists.

[????]

I agree Big - it is boring. I'd rather (and possibly support it) Tony was banned for being boring ;-)

[????]

Quids has a cold and hence a Stella/night nurse hangover and is in fighting mode - agree with your FYI MP

[????]

anyway, I'm off to listen to my later period Bowie CD that a crypto-fascists wooley liberal cliquer did for me

[bigbadwolf]

The only thing that really gets my back up regarding Tony is his childish use of emoticons, I hate emoticons and have only ever used them once to mock him. The one I and I'm sure a lot of other hate the most is the one that wheres sun glasses and has a 'dirty Beppe' tash.