 sj |
||
|
||
BS: A new start?
|
|
|
Subject: BS: A new start? From: akenaton Date: 24 Feb 15 - 03:39 AM Considering that the "crash" has caused a ceasefire in hostilities, would it not be a good idea to split BS up into a few sections, like PERSONAL (all about me and my pals). POLITICS (social issues, US and UK). MEDICAL,(queries and advice). DIRTY JOKES (where the lads can have fun)...and one permathread for ABUSE(where the lads can have fun). At present it is almost impossible to have a decent SERIOUS discussion without the thread being hijacked, and turned into a third rate comedy show. I realise it would mean more work for the mods, who's work I appreciate greatly, but if something is not done to revamp this section, then I fear it will suffer more "crashes" and people who just like to debate will continue to leave. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: GUEST Date: 24 Feb 15 - 04:16 AM Many of the music threads are valuable cultural resources and should be preserved. But the BS threads, which are often very long, could be automatically deleted from the server at some point (perhaps 3 months after the last post?) with no detrimental effect on western civilization. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 Feb 15 - 04:21 AM IMHO if one were to be so radical in the restructuring of the 'cat the amount of programming to be done would be so great that it would be easier to re-start using a proprietary interface. Max has only so much time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 24 Feb 15 - 05:01 AM Max once told me that he wanted the forum to be an historical document of our times. We come here for the music, but we should also be able to discuss events of the day. There is a small group of people who sabotage debate on certain issues. Pity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Feb 15 - 06:37 AM After me, everybody. *GROAN...* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: akenaton Date: 24 Feb 15 - 07:02 AM For heavens sake Steve, are you incapable of discussing anything seriously, would it not be better to keep separate sections for people who just want to have fun or take the piss and others who want to take advantage of the knowledge and intelligence which abounds in this little forum. We are lucky to have so many very intelligent people here, but most of them, especially from the US, do not post any longer. Threads about "what I did last knight", "how many pints I had" and a series of English "in jokes", hardly encourages contribution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: akenaton Date: 24 Feb 15 - 07:18 AM No offence to the guest poster above, but would it not be better if we were restricted to one member name? ....the named guest thing is pointless, and just encourages bad behaviour. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Will Fly Date: 24 Feb 15 - 07:39 AM We are lucky to have so many very intelligent people here, but most of them, especially from the US, do not post any longer. Well, Ake - perhaps they don't care to debate here because of the prejudices encountered. Take this for example: I must give my support to "cruiser"in this thread. He has had the courage to say what many of us feel about homosexuality, but are too intimidated by the politically correct "Gay"pressure group. I too think homosexuality is repugnant,against nature and based on psychological problems. Cruiser says the answer is to turn away and let the homosexuals get on with their lives,but unfortunatly this is getting harder and harder to achieve, as "gay culture " ouzes from every media orifice, with all its nasty innuendo,like little boys behind the bike shed and god help anyone who tries to stop them....Ake PS At least folk music seems to be pretty clear of this scourge. Just shows what well adjusted ,sensible hetros we are. [7th March 2004] I personally find this sort of attitude and statement - and attitudes and statements like it - repugnant. So much so that, rather than attempt to take issue with it/them, I'd prefer to steer clear altogether. There's no intelligent debate to be got from it. If that's an example of "the knowledge and intelligence which abounds in this little forum", lord help us. Sorry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: GUEST,gillymor Date: 24 Feb 15 - 07:54 AM Too true, Will Fly. As long as the OP is ladling out blame for the exodus of intelligent posters he needs to give himself a generous portion for his odious views towards gays and "non-indigenous peoples". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Feb 15 - 07:55 AM Actually, I think I have a reasonable record of "discussing things seriously". Of course, my track record is one of vehemently disagreeing with most of the repellent, prejudiced nonsense that people like you and Keith post. I have been toning down the vehemence recently, in favour of being a bit more clinical and focused apropos of what I disagree with, but bigots do deserve directness. Perhaps you think that failing to agree with you is, somehow, a mark of lack of seriousness. I disagree. In all seriousness. As you are calling for serious debate, perhaps this might be a good time to remind you that the majority of interventions you made in recent long threads were one hundred percent lazy tribalism and nil percent serious debating content. Of course, the evidence for that has evaporated. Good thing, some would say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Date: 24 Feb 15 - 08:24 AM How about a section for people who just want to stir up shit against other members of society? I'd go with that. It would save me even glancing at the crap spouted here by some. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: GUEST,gillymor Date: 24 Feb 15 - 08:31 AM Good idea, DtG. Call it Loathe Thy Neighbor. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 Feb 15 - 08:52 AM "There is a small group of people who sabotage debate on certain issues." Yes there are This thread was opened by a homophobe You are a racist and an Islamophobe There used to be Muslims who posted to this forum - none now, as far as I can judge. I certainly wouldn't like to be a homosexual branded as a 'gay plague carrier' as the postings of Ake often suggest Much of what you and a tiny handful of others post to this forum would contravene British law if it were stated outside of the comfort area of the internet. If you can't control your intolerant behaviour, like back and take the flak that you draw down on yourselves without whining. Aart from the trolls, the pair of you are the worst offenders when it comes to racial, cultural and sexual intolerance. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: GUEST Date: 24 Feb 15 - 09:29 AM Here we go at another circle jerk again.....have at 'er boys. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Rapparee Date: 24 Feb 15 - 09:49 AM Not that long ago there was a "new start": Max decided (it's his ball, after all) that people like Clinton Hammond, Martin Gibson, Claymore, and others were no longer welcome and poof! they were gone. Never to return! New rules were put down (see the FAQs). It can happen again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: akenaton Date: 24 Feb 15 - 09:56 AM Not me GUEST, they dig up part of a ten year old thread out of context, so I'm out until we get some serious responses on how to make the forum better. Will, if you look at that thread you will see that these remarks were aimed at the media's treatment of homosexuality (comedy etc,) not homosexuals personally. I have never been asked or warned by admin not to put my views forward, if you don't like them, argue against them or move on to another thread.....Play the ball, not the man. These responses illustrate the problems here. Everyone should be able to put forward their views, as long as they are not libellous or personally abusive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Date: 24 Feb 15 - 10:13 AM From: akenaton Date: 24 Feb 15 - 09:56 AM ... Play the ball, not the man. A good example of which being From: akenaton Date: 24 Feb 15 - 07:02 AM For heavens sake Steve, are you incapable of discussing anything seriously Hypocrite. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 24 Feb 15 - 10:20 AM That was a response to a piss taking post from Steve. Not a gratuitous personal attack. Steve and Jim have both made such personal attacks on me, which makes my point so I will leave it there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 Feb 15 - 10:24 AM I agree that there are saboteurs of civilised discussions. I disagree as to who they are. As a historical document of our time this forum fails in that so many are excluded. I think we have no African-Americans left, and never did have any Afrikans, Arabs, or people from the Indian subcontinent or far east, or the Russias. I am not certain but I think no Indonesians (in the generic sense) or Micronesians. We have had one or two Australians, no first Australians and no First Americans (inaccurate thought the term be). No Latin-Americans. One French person (I think) and one German and one Italian, but no Spanish. No central Europeans. We have had few overtly Jewish commentators. I know personally and well one Muslim and one homosexual who no longer come here because of unpleasantness. I know tolerably well one Romany who rarely comes here for similar reasons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Date: 24 Feb 15 - 10:30 AM It was still a personal attack delivered by the very person who said that the issues should be addressed rather than the person. As I said, hypocrite. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: GUEST,# Date: 24 Feb 15 - 10:36 AM I want to know why lower case 'e's look like 'c's. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: GUEST Date: 24 Feb 15 - 10:53 AM "so I will leave it there. " Would that were the case Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Date: 24 Feb 15 - 10:57 AM if you don't like them, argue against them or move on to another thread One of your views is that homosexuals are all perverts and should not be allowed to marry. Many people, including myself, have argued against that and your only response is to say they have been brainwashed by some sort of media cabal with an agenda to promote homosexuality. It is little wonder that you are ridiculed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 24 Feb 15 - 11:17 AM Akenaton I too find your views on homosexuality abhorrent. To my mind your comments border on the illegal and I would happily see you prosecuted for airing them on a public forum. Right minded people strove for decades to have the draconian laws relating to homosexuality repealed and for this section of our society to be able to lead the life they wish without fear of discrimination. There is obviously still work to do when people like you spout such prejudiced and jaundiced bile. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 Feb 15 - 11:17 AM I meant I disagreed with KtheA at 0501 mudcat time about who to blame. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Feb 15 - 11:38 AM If you think my 06.37 post was piss-taking, you've got another think coming. I was being deadly serious and I was expressing, in as concise a way I could muster, my severe despondency at the abject let's-carry-on-as-usual attitude revealed in your post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 24 Feb 15 - 11:54 AM 06.37 post in full, "After me, everybody. *GROAN...*" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Feb 15 - 12:09 PM And have you a point to make? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: wysiwyg Date: 24 Feb 15 - 12:10 PM It's a GREAT idea, Ake! Go ahead and start it on another site-- when it's up and running I'll be thrilled to join. I've been looking for a place to move a FB anti-racism group cos I miss the option of threaded structure, but I've looked into doing it and the mod job to set it up is over my limit. Can you make us a little AR section at your place? ~Susan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 24 Feb 15 - 12:20 PM Probably a bad idea, Akhenaton, any thread is likely to be hijacked. And probably because you were the opening poster, the usual subject comes up, even though you did not mention it yourself in that post. Perhaps you could be more diplomatic, but however you frame it, those of us with traditional ideas on what constitutes marriage will be labeled prejudiced whatever . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 24 Feb 15 - 01:15 PM Will Fly, the first amendment allows people to say things they believe, even if you don't agree with them. It's as simple as that, with the usual hate speech caveat. Ake didn't bring that obnoxious statement into this conversation, YOU did this time. Is this testing the waters, to see if you can ratchet the conversation until he says something else you feel entitled to attack him for afresh? We recognize dog whistles thrown into the forum, so when threads are started with the sole purpose of fighting they are deleted. If a non-PC opinion is contributed to an ongoing thread, there are choices to be made by the participants in how they respond - or not. I disagree with his opinion on this matter, but as the saying goes, I have to defend his right to say it. All of you would be much better served if you IGNORED the things you don't agree or approve of. Lead by example - give no more oxygen to bad ideas. You are your own worst enemies when it comes to this arguing. Resolve to bite your tongue and let the stupid stuff just pass by unacknowledged. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: pdq Date: 24 Feb 15 - 01:26 PM ...check this out: Dan Hicks and Bill Kirchen |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Musket Date: 24 Feb 15 - 01:39 PM "Those of us with traditional views on marriage..." Nice one pete. Be easier to shorten it to "bigoted hatred of others." As Mudcat does have a record of what everyone says going back years, Akenaton does not have to lie about what he puts. It is there for all to see if you have the stomach to read his words such as "perverts" and linking being gay with paedophilia, saying gays shouldn't marry because they fuck around anyway, and that they carry diseases. By the way SRS, there is no such thing as the first amendment. Neither Will, Akenaton nor I are bound by foreign statutes. We are all British. Mudcat is not a US website, it is available and editable in any country so those publishing are subject to the law where they reside and publish. I have said to moderators many times that we want to carry on having Mudcat available as a music resource but risk ISPs being forced to block content if incitement to hatred is not taken down by the website owners. Akenaton potentially breaks two laws with his incitement to hatred and publishing malicious content. Both are illegal in the UK. Akenaton is in The UK, publishing from The UK and available in The UK. He has no right whatsoever to say it because decent progressive countries with a civilised outlook protect their people against hatred. Get Max to put a "This website contains material which unsuspecting people may find upsetting" and an agree to view button if you must give the oxygen of publicity to those who lie about whole sections of society in order to influence people to hate them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Will Fly Date: 24 Feb 15 - 01:42 PM That's as may be, SRS - BUT - I was attempting to demonstrate a reason why "so many very intelligent people here, but most of them, especially from the US, do not post any longer." And the reason - one of many - is clear, to me at least. Free speech is indeed open to all - particularly on this forum - but many on this forum don't want to enter into debate when there's no hope for any reasonable discussion on topics of which this is just one example. This is nowhere near an attempt to hijack a thread - my illustration was aimed squarely at the topic. If I've failed in that attempt, then so be it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: GUEST Date: 24 Feb 15 - 01:44 PM Hey Musket, stuff a fucking sock in it already why don't you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Date: 24 Feb 15 - 01:45 PM Much as I value your opinion, SRS, I think you are wrong here. If freedom of speech is to be of any use it must be for all. If someone chooses to make a remark on an open forum they must accept the consequences, including abuse from people who disagree. In this instance the consequences are that people have remembered a quote from a long time ago that explains that the opening poster may have an agenda for that opening post other than what it seems. I consider this place to be akin to an open bar where many things are discussed. If someone regularly comes in mouthing off with controversial comments and gets shouted down by a number of other regulars then something must happen. The choices are that a number of regulars take their business elsewhere, the landlord takes action to prevent the fuss or the big mouth eventually gets the message. I have yet to see how it pans out here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: GUEST Date: 24 Feb 15 - 01:47 PM "Free speech is indeed open to all...." Some of our posters would deny that to those with whom they disagree though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: GUEST Date: 24 Feb 15 - 01:53 PM ".....the big mouth(s) eventually gets the message." We have all been waiting for that to happen but it seems that the big mouths are flush with self-righteousness but sorely lacking in self awareness. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Date: 24 Feb 15 - 01:54 PM Some of our posters would deny that to those with whom they disagree though. Bollocks. No poster can deny anyone anything. We are the customers. Max is the landlord. The mods. are the bar staff. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Date: 24 Feb 15 - 01:56 PM ...and some people even lack the moral fibre to put a name to their sly little digs, don't they dear. Nothing more than a drive by shooting without any ammunition. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 24 Feb 15 - 01:58 PM I think we have no African-Americans left, and never did have any Afrikans, Arabs, or people from the Indian subcontinent or far east, or the Russias. Richard, although I don't disagree with the basic thought of your 10:24 post, I will quibble with you just a little. Perhaps three to five years ago we did have at least one Russian Mudcat member, for a relatively short time, and limited to a single thread. His name, as I recall, was Alexander (or Aleksander?), and he was translating a group of 19th century Russian prison poems to English, with a view to publishing, I think. His "upstairs" thread was short-lived, but for some few months I PM'd with him, giving native-English-speaker suggestions for more colloquial equivalents of his English translations. Suddenly he stopped responding to my PMs. Perhaps he had ISP or computer or censorship problems, or more likely, he may have decided that the sort of suggestions or rephrasings that I suggested didn't fit with what help he wanted. I was sorry to see it come to an end. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 Feb 15 - 02:04 PM Thank you for reminding me DaveO. I think I remember the thread now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Will Fly Date: 24 Feb 15 - 02:14 PM "Free speech is indeed open to all...." Some of our posters would deny that to those with whom they disagree though. The point is missed. I wouldn't deny free speech to anyone - we can all say exactly what we like as far as I'm concerned - but the OP was asking why some people don't post on Mudcat any more. I've tried to answer that question with an illustration of the problem. I wouldn't attempt to stop anyone from posting what they want, or bully them into not posting what they want. But many would prefer not to respond, to stay away, to deny their own opinions in fact - because in many cases and on many topics it's futile to try for a reasoned debate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 Feb 15 - 02:15 PM I think I should mention that (I am pretty sure) it has several times and authoritatively been said that the First Amendment does not apply to this site - It is Max's site and he makes the rules about what can be said (that is how it goes, the merits of this particular view can be debated). Mither's point about which law applies is also of potential interest but not where I am going with this post. It seems undesirable that in the applications of Max's rules racism homophobia and religious hatred go (largely) uncensored, as do illiterate rants (OH LOOK A SQUIRREL) while pithy condemnations of such things are routinely deleted, that those on the political right go unchecked while those on the political left are condemned from on high and threatened with expulsion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: akenaton Date: 24 Feb 15 - 02:29 PM Will, I know some excellent posters who left because of the abuse that I received for my views, and the abuse they received for supporting my right to free speech. The legislation in favour of bringing homosexuality into mainstream society is a serious and far reaching issue....it deserves to be properly debated, as there are many questions about the practice of male to male sex which require to be answered. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Feb 15 - 02:40 PM SRS, your 01.15 post is so wrong-headed. You attack Will Fly, one of the more measured and thoughtful posters here, and defend an utter bigot. What's that all about, eh? And pete, I don't give a monkey's what views you hold or whether you express them. But if you post from wilful ignorance, as you often do, you're going to get told. And if you so much as hint that you want to impose your views on homosexuality or gay marriage or the teaching of evolution on anyone else, you're also going to get told. And tell your mate Ake while you're at it that it applies to him too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: akenaton Date: 24 Feb 15 - 02:41 PM What about the original idea of breaking BS into sections, or even a kiddies section(for the lads to piss and have fun)......and a serious section where people like Will, Amos, Bill, and all the intelligentsia can debate issues which affect the whole future of society? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Date: 24 Feb 15 - 02:46 PM and the abuse they received for supporting my right to free speech. But your right to free speech has never been denied. It is you who are trying to deny people the chance to respond in whatever way they see fit. You are free to say homosexuals are perverts. I am free to say that you are a knobhead. See? Both opinions. Both freely expressed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 24 Feb 15 - 02:46 PM Perhaps one of our learned brethren could look at the possibilities of some of these posts as being in breach of current UK legislation. Perchance if the posters were at risk of being legally culpable we might be able to rid this fantastic forum of their homophobic and/or racist/bigotted comments. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Will Fly Date: 24 Feb 15 - 02:55 PM I really don't want to get drawn into a debate on homosexuality with you Ake - not because I'm afraid to do so, but because I think to have it "properly debated" with you is impossible. But, just this once, let me remind you of your own words: At least folk music seems to be pretty clear of this scourge. Just shows what well adjusted ,sensible hetros we are. Do you call this "proper debate"? I don't. How could I or anyone else honestly reason with such an attitude? Let me expand a little with an example. My immediate next-door neighbours are two guys in their 40s who have been together for many years. A couple of years ago they had a civil ceremony to celebrate and legalise their partnership. After attending the ceremony as guests, me and my mates played some jazz in our local pub for their evening celebration. The guests were mainly locals from our village. The whole day was brilliant. They're a deeply loving couple and very popular in the village, with friends of all persuasions. And they're damned good neighbours to have. Why should this partnership in "mainstream society" be a "serious and far reaching issue"? Who gives a tuppenny damn about what "male to male sex" they practice in the privacy of their own home? If I invited you round to a party at my place for a musical evening, what would you say to them about all this if they were part of the company? You use what I consider to be weasel phrases like "serious and far reaching issue", "properly debated", "many questions", etc. I frankly think they're just a cloak to hide the basic homophobia of a "well adjusted, sensible hetro". Scourge is your word. So what's to debate? You don't use reasonable language - there's no point. Which is why I usually don't debate this and other topics - and neither do other people. And I won't in future. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 24 Feb 15 - 03:03 PM This is a site from the United States, and the first amendment affects our views of who can say what. "Freedom of speech means freedom for those who you despise, and freedom to express the most despicable views. It also means that the government cannot pick and choose which expressions to authorize and which to prevent." -- Alan Dershowitz Mudcat isn't the government, and as noted, we tend to remove threads intended exclusively to start fights. Trolls are escorted off the property. But in the orderly progression of a thread, if a statement is clear and cordial, even if it is what many of us might consider discriminatory, it usually stays. By the time a lot of people have responded negatively in a thread it is impossible to delete the original post without taking out all of the responses, and then some of you get pissed off that your precious words of outrage were deleted. Deleted! It is troubling that several of you are so determined to put a good face on your argumentative behavior, blaming everyone else, as if it is something that mudcat needs or requires of you. It doesn't. The subject matter is less a problem than the fighting. Seriously. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: wysiwyg Date: 24 Feb 15 - 03:04 PM Ake, what about my post upthread responding to your idea? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 Feb 15 - 03:26 PM That is weaselly, Stilly. The First Amendment addresses the laws that government can make, and nothing else. The assumption that US law prevails in cyberspace is profoundly offensive. Will you perhaps send a gunboat? Mither has set out excellent reasons for the application of UK law to relevant hate speech. I will continue, but meat under the grill... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Date: 24 Feb 15 - 03:40 PM Meat under the grill? Is that a euphemism? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: GUEST,HiLo Date: 24 Feb 15 - 04:26 PM "Free" speech is not divisible. You either have it or you don't. Many western countries do not have it, they have controlled speech. A good democracy should be like a good Library, it should have something to offend everyone. If democracy cannot take that risk, there is something wrong. I am more reluctant to post here not because some people express views with which I disagree, but because some people do not know how to disagree, so we end up with bullying and name calling and people defining "hate, phobias and anti social speech by their own definitions. I find that offensive. And I find the perpetually offended a bore. Discuss the issues yes, but do not assume that you are the judges who decide for the rest of us what is offensive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Ed T Date: 24 Feb 15 - 04:47 PM ""Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you'll understand what little chance you have in trying to change others.""~Jacob M. Braude |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Date: 24 Feb 15 - 04:49 PM So, HiLo, you advocate free speech for all by telling people to stop saying what they find offensive and trying to define how they should post? Funny that... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: GUEST Date: 24 Feb 15 - 05:04 PM Hear, hear HiLo! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Feb 15 - 05:06 PM This is not about what is " offensive". This is about arguments from ignorance and sheer bigotry being taken on. We have a moderator here who defends the bigot-in-chief and castigates the rest of us for calling him on it. Who prefers us to remain silent, apparently, whilst the bigot gets free rein. Her blessing, almost, it seems, to spout his illiberal nonsense, preferably unchallenged. None of this has anything to do with free speech, first bloody amendments or the right to not be offended. If you have a section where free discussion is allowed, that includes being able to tell a bigot that he's a bigot, and why. It includes being able to tell science-deniers that they are ignorant, and why. Otherwise it isn't a section for free discussion. If it isn't, say so. Cards on the table. I don't mind, honest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Richard Bridge Date: 24 Feb 15 - 05:08 PM It was meat for eating, and it was under the grill in my cooker. Night night. Hilo, you don't get it. There is no such thing as total freedom of speech and never has been. Try advocating a nuclear suitcase bomb in a sensitive place and see what happens. Whatever preconceptions the USA might have about freedom of speech (often erroneous for the reasons I gave above), they do not create defences to offences of hate speech uttered in the UK, about the UK, and to the UK. We have, I am glad to say, our own laws. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Date: 24 Feb 15 - 05:16 PM Damn! I thought I had stumbled upon some sort of strange activity that I could call you perverted for, Richard. I do hope you realise though that your comment may be considered offensive to vegetarians? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Date: 24 Feb 15 - 05:17 PM Oh, sorry, Night night to you too. Early start tomorrow. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Jeri Date: 24 Feb 15 - 05:28 PM "Free speech" means something different in the UK than it does in the US. Max is in the US, the website's in the US, and free speech isn't guaranteed on privately owned websites anyway. The fact that some people are too dense to understand their way isn't the only way, are doomed to perpetual frustration. It's not going to change because some people bitch a lot. In fact, the more people bitch, the less likely it is anyone will listen to them. If you object to the way things are run here, you can always leave. If you don't leave, we can assume you don't object all that much. People stay here because they enjoy things they find here. It's obvious that for some, what they enjoy most is bitching. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 Feb 15 - 05:30 PM "There is no such thing as total freedom of speech and never has been" Absolutely - if there was, laws controlling the spreading of race or cultural hatred would just not exist. What freedoms we do have (debatable) is balanced by the expectation that we will be responsible how we use those freedoms A number of people here (those who gripe about having their fun spoiled among them) are more than happy to take advantage of the freedom from threat of prosecution to air their race and cultural hatred and their often extreme bigotry - no matter who it offends as long as they are free from having to answer for their behaviour. I am not gay, but the OP's long-term diatribes about the threat of homosexuals to normal people (those with "traditional views on marriage", for instance"gives me offence - god alone knows how any gay member of Mudcat feels. As far as Muslims are concerned, Mudcat is a no-go area for any "culturally implanted" Muslim - from a purely selfish point of view, as a lover of all traditional music cultures, that leaves me feeling deprived - I can't begin to express my feelings as a liberal-minded humanitarian (Ake regularly makes his contempt for liberals known as well). AS much as I appreciate the right to air my non-musical views on this forum, I would rather see this section closed than allow it to be used as a platform for racial, cultural or gender-intolerant hatred, as it is being - regularly. Abuse it and we'll lose it, simple as that Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Greg F. Date: 24 Feb 15 - 05:31 PM It may be well to consider that the U.S. right of "free speech" is not by any means an absolute right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Ed T Date: 24 Feb 15 - 05:45 PM ""name calling "" Well, many chastise others for doing this, while doing the same thing themselves, in one way or another. I find that to be a challenging exercise in logic. Quite often a potentially good discussion gets off the rails not by what is said, but by who says it-with other posters bringing old battles (or previous "hurts") into an entirely different discussion, often tainting the discussion. As to name-calling, I recall a good potential discussion "tainted" right up front by a posters "name calling" in the thread heading, refering to another person as a "whore" (no reasons were provided). How could that be "reasonably" seen as contributing to reasoned debate on a topic? I am not intending to demonize any other mudcat member-just using one example to pointpout oint that, while many may claim to be "sin free", there are few "innocents" when it comes to encouraging civil Mudcat debate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: akenaton Date: 24 Feb 15 - 05:46 PM Suzan.....I thought you were being sarcastic. Anyway, I like a lot of the people here although they may disagree with me on some issues; and there are few forums with such a civilised and knowledgeable membership.....we should realise how lucky we are to belong here and seek to protect it....not criminalise it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: akenaton Date: 24 Feb 15 - 06:06 PM Steve. I have never seen you put up any counter argument to my views on legislation on the promotion of homosexuality. I have put up many reasons why there are problems with this legislation, associated STD rates, the "redefinition" question, open "marriages", unions and relationships, numbers of lifetime sexual partners, the social experiment of fostering by same sex couples....etc etc. That is simply for clarification, I have no wish to get embroiled in another tedious name calling exercise. What about the original post and the idea of splitting up BS into adults and juveniles? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Feb 15 - 06:06 PM Well now, we have a person who I believe to be another moderator complaining about "bitching". So what exactly is "bitching"? If I tell someone who is exhibiting bigotry that he's a bigot, and why, am I "bitching"? If I tell someone who, by any measure you'd care to apply, does not understand science, and who denies evolution, that he's ignorant, and why, is that "bitching"? And may I ask if that kind of alleged "bitching" is a greater or a lesser sin than the bigotry or wilful ignorance that prompted it? Can you justify why you repeatedly castigate the "bitching" yet you never criticise the blatant exercise of ignorance and bigotry? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Ed T Date: 24 Feb 15 - 06:12 PM ""Just remember, there's a right way and a wrong way to do everything and the wrong way is to keep trying to make everybody else do it the right way"". ~M*A*S*H, Colonel Potter (BTW, it's comedy, just in case it escapes anyone) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Feb 15 - 06:16 PM Steve. I have never seen you put up any counter argument to my views on legislation on the promotion of homosexuality. I have put up many reasons why there are problems with this legislation, associated STD rates, the "redefinition" question, open "marriages", unions and relationships, numbers of lifetime sexual partners, the social experiment of fostering by same sex couples....etc etc. Simply for clarification, you have amnesia. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: GUEST,HiLo Date: 24 Feb 15 - 06:39 PM Dave, please read my post. Not what said at all. Free speech is not divIsible. You agree or you don't. SimPle |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Feb 15 - 06:58 PM ""name calling "" Well, many chastise others for doing this, while doing the same thing themselves, in one way or another. I find that to be a challenging exercise in logic. Like when a moderator who tells us off for bitching calls us "dense"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Ebbie Date: 24 Feb 15 - 07:04 PM For the record, I see no need for chopping up the BS section. A number of years ago, it was decided to separate the BS from the main thread- and I'm glad for that. It is easy now to find a particular thread. As to the issue of whether or which post to delete or admonish I tend to agree with those who feel unfairly singled out for objecting - even if vociferously - to an opening salvo that is offensive to many. 'Free Speech', in the US is, as I understand it, is a legal term which doesn't really translate well to common discourse, no matter how often we shout "It's a free country; let him talk!" Suppose a poster made a series of statements that we all agree is W A Y over the top, whether it were extolling some tyrant or some other distasteful person or whether making a case for slavery or other non-negotiable subject- I wonder, would the Mods step in and shut down the poster or would they jump down the throats of those who objected? I would be all for stepping in and shutting it down; frankly, I think it would be my preference to just plain CLOSE THE THREAD without comment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: GUEST,Hilo Date: 24 Feb 15 - 07:51 PM Richard, read My post please. I do "get" It. There is No free speech, only controlled speech. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Greg F. Date: 24 Feb 15 - 09:23 PM It also may be well to consider that the in addition to "free speech" there is something called "common decency". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 24 Feb 15 - 09:48 PM "It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them." --Mark Twain |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: michaelr Date: 24 Feb 15 - 10:00 PM Mark Twain said some pithy things in his time, but that one leaves me scratching my head. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 24 Feb 15 - 10:36 PM Same here - but I thought I'd see who stands up and salutes. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Ebbie Date: 25 Feb 15 - 12:50 AM :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Janie Date: 25 Feb 15 - 12:58 AM No better master of sarcasm or social commentary than our Mr. Clemons. Think about it. You will soon stop scratching. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Richard Bridge Date: 25 Feb 15 - 01:53 AM What's god got to do with it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Jim Carroll Date: 25 Feb 15 - 02:52 AM "promotion of homosexuality"!!!! Which just about sums up the malevolent ignorance which surrounds the subject. Nobody has, as far as I am aware, ever "promoted" homosexuality; the last few decades have been fight for recognition of what is a reality for a large umber of human beings. Putting that on par with selling a new brand of perfume is ignorant in the extreme. Civilisation has surely moved on from the idea that ones sexuality is a matter of personal choice, like where you buy your shirts, that is neanderthal thinking. "There is no free speech, only controlled speech." Utter nonsense, there is "self-controlled speech, or there have to be laws to protect society from those who are unable to control themselves" Nobody can prevent an individual from not liking blacks, or trusting Asians, or despising homosexuals.... or any of the other idiosyncrasies or intolerances of today's society, but once they begin to advocate their 'little weaknesses' publicly, they become a threat to the freedom of large numbers of others who share this planet with us. The latest shenanigans surrounding the Ukip councilor who stated publicly that she "didn't like negroes" springs to mind. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: akenaton Date: 25 Feb 15 - 03:01 AM Apologies to akenaton will be considered!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: akenaton Date: 25 Feb 15 - 03:18 AM Ebbie, your post is a perfect example of how Fascism takes hold. If we disagree or are offended by some outrageous statement(as in your examples), we can easily prove by debate the idiocy contained within them. Hurtling abuse or censoring the offender only reinforces their views. When the offensive statements can be backed up by facts and are provable to be harmful, to self or society, then it is time to review ones own opinions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Date: 25 Feb 15 - 03:26 AM Apologies for what? Nothing in the article confirms your opinions that homosexuals are perverts and should not be allowed to marry. Did you actually read it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: akenaton Date: 25 Feb 15 - 03:33 AM Dave, I am not obliged to explain anything to you, my opinion of you remains unchanged. I am sure other members will be able to grasp the implications of the PHE findings. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 Feb 15 - 03:47 AM The item linked to above is the most joyfully-replete with weasel words of any piece I've read in months. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: GUEST,Dave the Gnome Date: 25 Feb 15 - 03:58 AM From: akenaton Date: 24 Feb 15 - 09:56 AM ...Play the ball, not the man. From: akenaton Date: 25 Feb 15 - 03:33 AM Dave, I am not obliged to explain anything to you, my opinion of you remains unchanged. One rule for me, one for everyone else? Third time of saying. Hypocrite |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Richard Bridge Date: 25 Feb 15 - 04:28 AM If it saves the NHS money it seems a good idea. People will pursue their sex lives. It's human nature. You can't stop it. It seems that dear Ake would like the drugs not to be provided, so that the NHS spends more money, and more homosexuals die. What a nice man. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: GUEST,McMusket Date: 25 Feb 15 - 04:31 AM Akenaton loves free speech so much that; He posted that he had been talking to a QC and was going to take legal action over some comments posted about him. Notwithstanding that was a fairy story because you can't libel anonymous people anyway so he hasn't seen any solicitor, never mind the person his solicitor would instruct. He offered me physical violence on these pages. He knows I live close by him and he threatened me. It is still there in the memory banks of Mudcat. Presumably because red neck moderators don't think attacking gay men is a problem. By the way. Max doesn't publish Akenaton's posts. They are published by Akenaton and the legal rider that exists in both countries is displayed on the bottom of this Web page. Scroll down and see it. It says copyright exists with Akenaton therefore his bile is subject to Scottish law. Scotland has a progressive liberal government led by The SNP, a party that stands for everything Akenaton despises, although if you want a laugh, he posts that he supports them! He can say he doesn't like whole sections of community. No problem with that. Same as I can say I will piss on his grave and dance a merry jig on it for good luck. All of that is opinion. However, saying derogatory lies put forward as facts in order to sway opinion is incitement to hatred. UK ISPs such as BT. Virgin etc have a legal duty to block websites that do that. I for one wouldn't want to lose the excellent music resource just because of someone being encouraged to display his personality disorder. If Mudcat was fit for purpose, the three people posting as Musket would not feel the need to confuse identity because bigotry and hatred, if Googled, would not include your identity If anyone Googled certain awful subjects, then they would come across links with Steve Shaw, Will Fly Richard Bridge etc attached because Mudcat is searchable. I too would like to use my real name but as academic with GMC registration (I'm a medical doc) I for one don't want to risk that. This is why the original Musket stopped using his real name. (By the way Bridge, out of interest, it wasn't "Mither" who posted above, it was me.) Remember, because moderators don't understand moderation, your real name can come up in searches for all kinds of nasty subjects that don't get deleted. Everything from reasons to hate gay people to lies about Muslims, advocating bombing schools and hospitals in Palestine and even, using Akenaton again, reasons to limit promotion for women in the armed forces. Oh and because the challenges to despicable posts get deleted, those reading might wonder why you are posting but not challenging hatred. If Mudcat were moderated, if would be all academic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Will Fly Date: 25 Feb 15 - 05:11 AM This thread, as far as I'm concerned, is not about free speech. It revolves around the issues of debate, discussion and why Mudcat people stay away from posting. When I saw that the idea of a New Start had been posted by Ake, I was struck by the irony of such a thread being opened by someone who, from what I had read cursorily here and there, appeared to summon up the demons of hell when the subject of homosexuality arose. I've never participated in threads on homosexuality or religion or similar controversies because there seemed no possibility of logical debate or reason or give and take, or of any changes of mindset. In short a waste of time. However, because I've never read these threads in totality, I decided I would go back through Ake's posts to determine for myself - through his own words - what his stance on homosexuality was. My conclusion, at the end of it, terminating with the quote from 2004, was that Ake simply hates queers. As it happens, I don't have a problem with accepting that fact. I've known many people who hated queers. I've known many people who hated jews, or West Indians, or drunks, or Irish or commies or neo-Nazis. All specimens of hated humanity, by the way, with whom I've made good music from time to time over the years. So Ake, as far as this subject is concerned, in my opinion, is a bigot. Now I learned very early in life - at my daddy's knee, so to speak - that there is no purchase in trying to reason logically with bigots. It's pointless. After years of trying to reason with a father who spoke constantly and disparagingly about wops, niggers, Fenians, yids and wogs, etc., etc., I gave up. It taught me a lesson. When people are faced with threads on Mudcat which contain the fixed opinions of bigotry - whatever the subject - they have two choices. They can ignore the thread, which is what I do most of the time, or they can participate in the hope (to my mind fruitless) of reasonable debate. The abuse which often arises in such a debate then puts people off from participating in BS threads. And there's no question that participation from many Mudcatters has fallen as a result of the acrimony. There's no question of a "new start" to the BS section, as far as I can see, or any hope that 'Catters who have moved away from it will return unless the honest spirit of discussion and reasoning prevails - which seems unlikely to me! Now, I've been taken to task for singling out Ake and putting him and his views on homosexuality in the spotlight in my first post. I did that purely because the opening thoughts in this thread came from I've been very sad for some time to see that good, wise people who I've known on Mudcat have dropped away from participating. And the reason that they've dropped away, as I've discovered through private email discussions, is because of the nature of the diatribes in the BS section. And, yes, I've had the argument thrust vociferously in my face that you don't have to read them if you don't want to - which doesn't stop the nature of the BS section being so depressing that it just puts people off. I had a private email exchange with Spaw, some time before he died, in which he described his weariness with the way Mudcat discussions were going. A sentiment echoed by others. Finally from me, the question of "don't feed the troll" and other exhortations, such as "leave it alone and it'll go away" from the Wise Ones. If someone posts an outrageous or barbed comment anonymously to stir up trouble, then the advice holds good. But if an outrageous comment about a section of society is posted by a known member, then to leave it alone without a response allows it to remain there - like a turd in the bottom of a cookpot - for all to see. That problem lies fairly and squarely with the originator of the comment - whoever he or she is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Richard Bridge Date: 25 Feb 15 - 05:35 AM Well put Will |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 25 Feb 15 - 05:42 AM As far as Muslims are concerned, Mudcat is a no-go area Not just Muslims, but people of any faith find Mudcat an unfriendly place. Any and all religious belief is regularly ridiculed and mocked by the same group I mentioned earlier. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 25 Feb 15 - 06:05 AM Arch-liberal Steve just posted that if Pete "imposed his views" (i.e. expressed his views) on religion or evolution he would be "told." Note, not debated with. Our pack do not bother with reasoned debate. If he dares express his views he will be mocked, ridiculed and insulted, and a marker put dowm that anyone expressing similar views will receive the same treatment. Bullying repression of the views of others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: GUEST,McMusket Date: 25 Feb 15 - 07:35 AM And purposely twisting public health statistics in support of Akenaton's homophobia should be left alone? Saying, in respect of one of Keith's anti Muslim rants that "Christians don't.." invites ridicule. Live with it. The notion by those with bigoted views, especially the rather odious diatribe of Keith A of Hertford and Akenaton can spread malicious crap but bleat about bullying when put back in their hole is laughable. If you are proud of your pathetic views, defend them rather than spout them and then complain when exposed as wannabe Alf Garnett characters. How dare you call questioning of your sad outlook on life religious persecution? I'm a member of my local library literary club. When you call me a liar without your posts deleted for saying so, you are persecuting members of my literary club. Sanctimonious? Keith wrote the book. (less than twenty years ago, eminently and all other authors agree with him... (Piss take from historians threads if you must know)) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: GUEST Date: 25 Feb 15 - 07:52 AM Oh please Musket do have Mudcat shut down in the UK, pretty please. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: Greg F. Date: 25 Feb 15 - 09:40 AM "leave it alone and it'll go away" Didn't work all that well with Nazism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: GUEST,MikeL2 Date: 25 Feb 15 - 09:53 AM Hi Will Well said. I am in complete agreement with what you have said on this thread. Cheers MikeL2 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: A new start? From: akenaton Date: 25 Feb 15 - 10:03 AM From a "thoughtful and reasonable" Mudcat poster. "Ake simply hates queers!" You obviously have not read very much of what I have written on the subject Will, impossible anyway in the time at your disposal since the start of this thread. You are simply a liar or have failed to understand my point I do not "hate" homosexuals, I have stated that to do so would be idiocy. They are a fact of life and seem to have no control over their sexual preferences. I first became involved, when I supported another member in their opposition to the re-definition of traditional marriage to accommodate a tiny sexual minority. Since then, I have been continually badgered by people like you to explain my reasons for opposition, or to respond to attacks like the two you have posted today. I have always done so civilly listing the reasons for opposition and the relevant stats, facts, figures, sources to support it. As far as I can see, you have never at any time put up any counter response to my stance on the issue. No explanation of the horrific STD rates which affect male homosexuals, no comment on "Open relationships" the "new monogamy" and one of the likeliest conductors of STD. No comment on "homosexual fostering" and its effect on the psychology of young children In fact you have made no comment at all, other than to call me a bigot and admit that you have no reasonable argument to supply. I remember very well a time when homosexuality was a serious crime....I opposed that law strongly....is that the action of a "bigot" a "Queer hater" or any of the other insults hiding in your "thoughtful and reasonable" posts You are no better than the pack of Muskets and their assorted followers....they have no adequate response available either. You think yourself so aloof from such matters your ego has been massaged too long in my opinion. Surprise me and say something relevant, reasonable and which makes some sort of sense. |