Louis
Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
HUGENESS WARNING!
All,
I'm not worried about any form of popularity contest, although thanks for your comments.
What I AM annoyed about is that a self confessed troll and demontrable liar is tolerated at all. Especially in his attempts to post revisionist nonsense in an attempt to muddy the waters. Perhaps, due to lack of sleep and general annoyance I was a mite hasty, but the facts still stand. AFDave has been restricted, Fafarman and Thordaddy were banned all for the same reason: they were demonstrably oblivious to evidence, they regularly demonstrated an inability to read for comprehension, they demonstrably engaged in dishonest tactics in conversation, and their threads/comments/conversations provided no material use to the forum.
So after some sleep I'll outline my case a tad more coherently for anyone who is interested, and for Wesley:
1) It is my opinion that the poster "Ghost of Paley" is a demonstrable message board troll as defined:
"In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory, insulting, or off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others."
Here is a "confession".
Personally I do not believe this "confession" as it stands. I absolutely don't believe that GoP was two different people posting (Wes could confirm this with IP addresses I suspect, if so inclined), it is my opinion that GoP is and was a troll first and foremost, as defined above. It is my opinion that this "confession" was a gambit in a series of shell games being made by GoP in order to troll this board. What GoP's REAL opinions are about anything I have no idea, I wouldn't be certain that they are in any way represented by his posting habits here or not. I have no way of telling.
Why should a self confessed troll who espoused various asinine notions (Geocentrism, "guts to gametes" etc etc), has demonstrably distorted facts, misrepresented arguments and lied (evidence to follow) be granted ANY benefit of the doubt when he has consistently demonstrated himself to be undeserving of such a boon?
I don't grant him such a benefit. I am taking his words at face value.
I am also far from the first and only person to think this:
See here or here for example.
2) It is my opinion that the poster "Ghost of Paley" is making racist comments deliberately to inflame, this is a subsection of my overall trolling claim. Whether or not he actually believes them is moot, it's impossible to tell. From his posting habits (all the evidence we have) he is at least as concerned with issues of immigration, race and ethnicity in an obsessive manner as Thordaddy was with homosexuality. GoP is at least smarter than Thordaddy in attempting to hide his prejudices behind obfuscation.
I was far from the only poster to notice GoP obsession with racial/immigration issues.
This thread is but one example
Note the claim that as he doesn't support the USA's "Jim Crow" laws this means he is not a racist. A claim he repeats. Note also his argument is always with a "StrawLiberal", a confection of his own mind. Again this requires actually reading his arguments in context, and this is partly why he is such a subversive troll. His claims are swathed in clouds of deliberately obfuscatory ink. This too will be returned to.
This thread is another example of early GoP.
Note again: obsession with race/ethnicity/"white culture". Note again the standard "declaration of victory in absence of evidence" we know and love from such funsters as AFDave. Note again the assumption of "all liberals hate the white race/themselves/America". Note again the use of the term "Yenta", which I assume (perhaps wrongly) is a term for "whining Jew" (correct me if I'm wrong on that last one). Note again it was GoP who brought in issues of race/ethnicity etc.
Here is yet another example of GoP's assumption that "Liberal Bias" is what is wrong with the universe.
On that thread an amusing example of GoP being caught in a lie can be found here.
Another example of GoP's confusion of correlation and causation and of is and ought. This is especially the case when it comes to matters ethnic/racial.
Arden sums GoP's approach up very well:
| Quote | Don't flatter yourself, people who believe that fairies keep the stars lit up at night don't intimidate me.
And I still don't think you read the book before this, I think you just snagged a copy and grubbed around in the intro since you read a review that discussed that part of the book.
Okay, now I see here your typical, uh, 'debating' style, where you throw out 10 times more information than necessary, in hopes that people will be so overwhelmed, they'll be less inclined to see how unsupported your core point is. |
Here.
Same thread, caught in a lie, again.
Oversimplifications like this:
| Quote | | Now, if these differences are due to cultural factors, then all that needs to be done is try to fix the problem. But what if the difference is genetic? Then we have lots of lots of wasted money, a creeping totalitarian society, and demonisation of the intellectually gifted group. One way or another, finding which situation applies has important ramifications. |
Which include transparent misrepresentations of the other person's argument (in this case me and many others) and which also give away GoP's "area of concern" (i.e. nasty foreign folks hanging on the coattails of us brilliant whites). The fact that this is insinuated rather than stated out loud makes it no less racist.
Another gross distortion:
| Quote | | This just after you denied being a genetic determinist. Oh goodness, is this a silly thread or what? Well, this explains the moonbat insanity -- you are engaging in doublethink. You believe in average group differences (a racist concept), yet you accuse libertarian cultural determinists of vile racism because.....why was it again? Oh that's right, you never explained. |
In response to a comment that some racial characteristics were genetic. Note that as usual GoP a) does nothing to support his assumptions and claims, whilst performing his, whilst b) presenting a black or white argument (no pun intended) and c) repeating the justified descriptions of his posting habits back at his accusers as if that will alleviate his own responsibility.
Again I invite people to read the thread.
When asked by BWE "What is your real position?" we get:
| Quote | Basically libertarianism without the open borders. I believe in an almost absolute freedom of speech, association, and commerce, and that these freedoms apply to each American citizen. The problem is, this philosophy is best suited to those who've been saturated in Western values from birth; bring in people outside the tradition, and these values can be abused or even turned on their heads. For more detail, see "A Modest Proposal". My position hasn't moved an inch since then.
[By the way, I haven't forgotten my original position in this thread. It's just fun to mine the rich ore of insanity that you guys bring to the race issue.] |
Bolding mine. This is explicitly an argument for racial/cultural segregation. The strawman of "Not supporting Jim Crow" laws that GoP consistently uses as his "yardstick" of racism is a total red herring. One can be a racist and not support the Jim Crow laws. Segregation can mean BETWEEN nations as well as WITHIN nations.
Another telling quote from the same rich thread:
| Quote | Now, I don't agree with Auster's racial views, but he does have a good point here. If scientists ever tie racial differences to biology, then it's very likely that the Left will show their true genocidal face and argue for the abolition of whites as a distinct group. As Mr. Auster notes, it's the only logical conclusion to the liberal view on the race "problem".
By the way, this is one reason why I am not eager for the Jared Taylors to prevail; instead of leading to a "renaissance" of whites, it could very well be our death knell. Keep in mind that whites would likely be a minority in America and Europe by this time. |
Here we have yet another expression of GoP's hatred of liberals, and curious admission that skin colour doesn;t matter as long as you are "culturally white". Interesting. What was that definition of racism again?
Western Civilisation is in deep trouble. In addition to an aging population, we are experiencing historically low reproduction rates - below replacement level, in fact. What to do? Most governments turn to immigration for an answer. The immigrants, they reason, provide the cheap labor that allows for economic expansion, while their consumption fuels the growth of service-sector industries. The enriched tax base allows us to maintain the social services and trust funds that cushion retirement accounts. And this does not even account for the cultural enrichment the newcomers also provide.
There's only problem - the economy doesn't exist in a vacuum. Whatever affects the economy affects the wider society, especially when the agents of change add their own culture to the mix. Now, if that culture is sound and flexible, no real damage is done. But if they bring a diseased culture along with their possessions, everyone suffers. The immigrants don't assimilate, enrich, or even work - and thus new problems join the old. Politicians scramble for a solution. Perhaps Western society itself must change? Crime rises, liberties wither, and resentments build. This, of course, leads to yet more crime and even more Draconian laws to fix the rising tide of chaos. Civilisation ultimately collapses. Is there a way out of this mess? Yes - but I'll give my solution later.
Another racist classic. Diseased culture? Please.
So here's the solution:
1) Restrict immigration to those nations who respect our culture.
2) Buy out those immigrants who don't, and send them back to their countries of origin (where they won't be held back by the BEDs who torment them so). Perhaps an average bribe of $5000/yr for every year spent in the host country (up to 10 years), plus all their liquified assets of course
3) Let freedom of commerce and association ring through the land. Abolish minimum wage, race laws, and any other useless, government-bloating, liberty-crushing machinations on the citizen. Let people pay what they want, live with whom they want, and say what they want.
Immigrants forced to respect the prevalent culture of the host nation (what is the prevalent culture of the USA or the UK btw?). Forced repatriation of people who dare to differ from said prevalent culture (with a cash bonus! How kind). Nope these are not culturally racist in any way. In a post full of strawmen, veiled attacks on GoP's "StrawLiberal" in his head, this is the last paragraph.
Doubtless in GoP's mind, objection to his racism equates to anti-white prejudice, in fact he openly states this exact belief many times. This anti-white prejudice couldn't be further from the truth as a scan of the the threads linked shows clearly. But with GoP we don't need to let tiresome facts get in the way of a good racist "final" solution and a dreamt up liberal conspiracy.
His justification for his irrelevant political and racial sidelines:
| Quote | | While cheerfully ignoring and forgiving the gratuitous insult, let me explain the relevance to evolution. In my nation, local communities will dictate what gets taught and what doesn't. Once again, a natural selection of ideas will prevail. Can evolution handle the free-market, non-government funded competition? Ya'll have to raid your slush fund, that's for sure, and the cheerleaders might have to provide their own blow, but mainly, you'll have to adapt to the new intellectual standards if you want to survive. No circular reasoning, no ducking arguments, no ad homs. Mano a mano with the Wizard and Master, Queensbury style. We'll even provide the wheelbarrows for your prize hitters. |
Again from the same thread.
| Quote | | Immigrants from most African/Caribbean nations: Here, alas, the evidence is equally clear. They don't thrive in Western nations. Some of it's clearly not their fault, but different remedies have failed in different Western countries. Yes, the immigrants make contributions in several areas, but these areas don't outweigh their relatively high crime rates or use of social services. Worse yet, their economic failures lead to heavy-handed government programs that crush the liberties of everyone else. Look at most of Europe: you can be fined or even sent to prison for saying many things that would have been tolerated earlier. Even in the US, the average resident must navigate a complex zone of affirmative action law, corporate speech codes, frivolous lawsuits, and easily bruised feelings just to get through the day's work. |
Another great summary of what GoP's REAL hot button issue is. Again from the same thread.
Couple this to the comments I made in the other thread.
I believe I have conclusively demonstrated that GoP espouses racist ideologies as per the defintions given:
rac•ism - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rey-siz-uh m] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
[Origin: 1865–70; < F racisme. See RACE2, -ISM ]
—Related forms
racist, noun, adjective
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
rac•ism (rā'sĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
From the OED:
“The theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race”
Not only that, but even a cursory glance at the number of threads and posts GoP has made one can see that the majority are concerned with his racial and political views.
One important point to close this section. The words "racist" "racism" "bigot" "bigotted" are descriptions of well defined opinions and habits. It is in THIS sense I have continually used them. They are intended neither as insult (exactly like lair btw) or discouraging to discussion. If I want to insult GoP (and I regularly do) I call him a "cunt" or a "pointless wanker". These are insults, I do not literally believe that GoP is a female's genitals, I do literally believe he is a racist.
Again, bear in mind I categorically do NOT accept all the elements in his "claim of trolling". I accept he has trolled and is trolling yes. I do not accept his views are signifcantly different from that of his claimed "Troll Persona" and view his attempts to disavow his racist commentaries as yet another gambit in his trolling shell game.
Note well that post 13 October 2006 he was STILL advocating his racist politics, a stark disavowal of his claims to hold "different" positions.
For example:
Well, the parody certainly equated Muslim with bad. Personally, I don't think Muslim immigration is bad if:
1) The host country tolerates the Muslims while demanding tolerance in return. Muslims must realise that they are not in Islamic countries anymore; if they want to engage in Jihad they can get the fuck out. Obviously, they have a right to practice their religion without harassment.
2) The host country is very selective. They should give extensive security checks, keep the total numbers relatively small and make sure the immigrants are given time to assimilate, while deporting or locking up illegals/criminals without hesitation.
3) No affirmative action. If you can't hack it in our free market system, find a socialist republic to live in.
Basically, study what Europe does and then do the opposite. Personally, I would rather just import another passel of NE Asians instead of going through the headache -- but that's just me.
Is a basic restatement of his previous "solution" to naughty immigrants.
Another restatement of his "Pre-Confession" lliberal/immigrant conspiracy ideas.
I suggest that any interested parties read this whole thread (~12 pages). I think it is an excellent microcosm of GoP's racist politics and tactical dishonesty.
3) Rule Breaking:
To quote Stevestory at the end of the "Muslim Integration" Thread:
| Quote | Okay, well, masturbating hoboes has sealed the deal. We're done here.
I encourage anyone who wants to deeply pursue issues of race and islam to set up a blog expressly for that purpose. The purpose of this site is Anti-evolution. |
And this from Wesley on this thread.
This
| Quote | | C'mon guys, you're smarter than this.....look, technology, art, clothes, pop culture.....we agree that these things can influence society, correct? Furthermore, their influence isn't always predictable, correct? So here's an idea....suppose cultural artifacts occasionally hurt society in strange, unpredictable ways, even if they themselves are harmless? Can this happen? I'm arguing it can, while using the interview as supporting evidence. I'm not saying that Star Wars ties into Darwinism directly. But this movie did have a harmful impact on cinema. Or do you disagree? And if you agree, this suggests an analogy with scientific ideas, especially ones with a certain.....notoriety. |
from later in the same thread shows again a deliberate trolling.
Here are the rules interspersed with my comments:
| Quote | Antievolution.org Discussion Board Rules
MetaRule 1) DO NOT respond to inappropriate messages with a message.
I'm guilty of this one
MetaRule 2) DO NOT enter inappropriate messages.
I'm probably guilty of this one too
1) No illegal messages. Posting an illegal message will be considered excessively annoying.
Depends on what you consider illegal I suppose. I don't know enough about US race hate or libel laws
2) No obscenity or foul language. There is no need to express a message in vulgar language.
I'm completely innocent of this one. I've never used the word "fuck" in my life. This is humour, I'm extremely guilty of this one
3) There are many different fora. Be sure to pick the *most appropriate* forum for your message. That could be at a different board.
How is GoP's obsession with racist politics relevant to "antievolution"? He has been reminded of his love of irrelevance more than once
4) Advertisements should be limited to items of a scientific interest and should not be posted by those with a vested interest in the item being sold, unless specifically requested by another participant.
Innocent on all counts, except I do have this vacuum cleaner for sale, anyone? Anyone?
5) Messages which insult or attack an individual are not appropriate. As those messages should be regarded as inappropriate, it is also inappropriate to follow up such a message with a reply. Use email for such correspondence, or to register a complaint with the moderator(s). Pointing out gaps in fields of reference (otherwise known as "ignorance") is *not* an attack.
I hate to be so childish as to say "he started it" but just remind me who it was who came to this forum insulting "evos", "liberals", "lefties", "atheists", posting silly pictures of his violent "evo/liberal/lefty/atheist" bashing etc? I am more than aware that I am far from innocent on this one too. "Liar" is not an insult, neither is "racist". "Cunt" on the other hand is a different matter
6) Messages making claims about the actions, beliefs, or intentions of identifiable participants are an implicit call for discussion. The claimant is responsible for such claims. Failure to retract unsupported claims about other participants is grounds for banishment.
As stated above, I think I have more than justified my opinion that GoP is a racist, or at least plays one on the web. And this is a key point: GoP's intentions. Whether or not GoP is a real life racist or not is moot. Going by his posting habits here he at least is pretending to be one. Going by his own admission to have been deliberately trolling this board for at least a year (I maintain he is still doing this, I do not buy elements of his "confession"). GoP's intentions are not only crystal clear but openly stated! I don't see how deliberate, self confessed trolling for flames and fun constitutes a meaningful participation in any conversation. A good troll has some merit, GoP is NOT a good troll, he is flamebait and nothing more. GoP's deliberately dishonest, Google trawled nonsense has not led to any new or interesting insights, nor has it spawned any indepth analysis of relevant topics. At least AFDave can claim to have been on topic.
7) Each user is requested to consider the quantity and quality of his/her messages. One specific item to be aware of is that repetition of the same quoted material at a frequency greater than once per month is considered annoying.
Then GoP falls foul of this one too. We have had nigh on interminable repetions of the same well refuted fallacious nonsense, both post and pre "confession". All "supported" with near identical Google trawled nonsense.
8) Science makes no claim to be a source for all truth, i.e. events and activities which are unobservable and/or untestable are outside the realm of scientific inquiry. Religious beliefs that are outside the limits of science may be true or not; science is silent on the issue.
I could have an epistemological discussion about this but I won't
9) *Supporting* or *attacking* religious belief is inappropriate on this discussion board. A variety of other fora are more appropriate for such discourse.
This one I don't get. How can one deal with Antievolution without encountering its only source: religion? I see where we are going but surely if this applies to GoP and his comments on the evils of islam, it applies to all of us and our comments on the excesses of fundamentalist christianity? I guess then if GoP is guilty we pretty much all are, and by that token he is innocent!
10) Moderation messages not entered by the moderator are NOT appropriate on the board. Responses to moderation messages will be made via email, not on the board. Violators may be deemed "excessively annoying" at the moderators' discretion.
As far as I can tell, innocent on all counts
:Annoying: The state of being a hindrance to harmonious, or even interesting, discussion. Repeatedly being annoying will be considered excessively annoying.
:Excessively annoying: The state of being a hindrance to harmonious, or even interesting, discussion to such a degree that immediate termination of access is warranted or demanded.
If I haven't provided sufficient evidence to convince a dead judge, let alone one with full faculties, that GoP both pre and post "confession" is a total hinderance to harmonious and interesting discussion, then I really don't belong here. And not for any negative reason about myself, other than I was grossly mistaken about the integrity of the people here |
4) I am not claiming to be a wide eyed innocent, I am not. I also hope that I have provided masses of evidence for my own condemnation.
My case is simple:
a) GoP is a self confessed troll and a disruptive and disharmonious poster who certainly does not provide interesting discussion. Unless by interesting one means "car crash interesting". GoP's contributions fall foul of the same issues that have got Larry Fafarman banned, Thordaddy banned, and AFDave heavily restricted. I question why GoP has not been banned also.
b) GoP, despite his whining, is a demonstrated racist. This is not a lie on my part, and I have in no way had to distort his claims to shoehorn him into this category. Note that I vehemently disagree with Skeptic and AFDave and yet I don't think they are racists. It isn't like I pull this charge out to stifle debate or to have someone punished by teacher. Quite the opposite. I call GoP a racist because he advocates racist policies and ideology, period. I also think I have supplied plenty of evidence.
c) I have specifically requested that people state their opinions of my actions, i.e. whether or not I have lied to make these comments regarding GoP. I would like to know if GoP's claims are considered valid by my peers on this board. Not only for my own personal edification and development, but also so that I make it clear that I believe I am being scrupulously honest, and yes very uncharitable, in my treatment of GoP. Obviously I am unfit to judge my own conduct perfectly objectively, I have a POV.
5) Ignoring GoP. Yes this is an option. However, while I make no secret about the fact that I have recently come to seriously dislike GoP based on his behaviour, it is quite clear he has an interest in trolling this board and annoying me (and others) specfically. I will admit freely that I didn't dislike him until very recently, he was a curio, an amusing plaything. Needless to say I have changed my opinion.
Of course he'll claim it paranoia (an easy claim you'll note) but directly after I stated I would be ignoring him on 05 Dec 2006 he started this thread the very next day. A thread dealing with a relevant topic (amazing! ) which just so happens to be in my professional field, a fact he knows well and alludes to here. I replied on 07 Dec, and posted a few times on that thread on 08, 09, 10, 14 and 15 Dec. The conversation post 15 Dec is mostly about snakes and irrelevant to the thread's topic. I started a "troll free" abiogenesis thread on Dec 15 to enjoy discussion about a fascinating topic in the absence of GoPs shennanigans (note he was up to his usual high standards of dishonesty and bait and switch proving again he is not interested in actual discussion. A fact noted by other posters). I also did this because I was hoping to avoid discussing anything with GoP.
I might be mistaken, but I think that GoP and I had no interaction until almost a month later when he posted this on 12 Jan. Again, I am not trying to establish anything other than GoP is persistantly making a nuisance of himself and thinks I'm easy meat (which in terms of being annoyed by dishonest trolls is very true).
To the "ignore advocacy" crowd: ok then boys, girls and others. Ignore AFDave. Ignore Skeptic. Ignore Cordova. Ignore Dave Scott. Ignore Dembski. Ignore Behe. Ignore Johnson. Are you beginning to see my point? GoP is no Dembski, but he is an AFDave. A ground trooper in the anti-Enlightenment. A pawn on the side of unreason on life's great chess board.
Despite whatever claims he makes to be an "evo-loving deist" (who would phrase it thus?). One of the purposes of this board is debate and discussion. Are we prohibited from discussing things with people who differ in viewpoint? Ask yourselves why no one has the same level of annoyance with Dave or Skeptic (although both have occasionally inspired great annoyance and one of them has been restricted in his access to this board because of it). Difference is manifestly NOT the issue, dishonesty IS. Some people say that there is value to lurkers in debating these kooks, ok then, why should I ignore the vicious lies of GoP when I am amongst the best placed people to refute them (as you'll note I've done a number of times)? I realise that getting annoyed gets me nowhere, but sorry, when did being a dishonest troll become acceptable?
6) Perhaps I was hasty last night, perhaps not. I DO have very high standards of personal integrity, and it would genuinely disturb me to think I had violated them, this is why I value your input, not that I have had that specific input yet I note. I don't like making silly ultimata, but I think I am left with little choice. I would like the members opinion on whether or not I have DISHONESTLY misrepresented GoP in ANY sense. If you think I have been harsh or uncharitable, I agree and sorry, but this is a very different thing to dishonest.
Do the members of this board find that GoP's claims of my dishonesty (or indeed homophobia and hatred of disabled people having read back) to be validated based on my posting behaviour?
I consider this important and would take it as a favour if you would give the matter some consideration.
7) I think that Mike PSS's idea a few posts up is an adequate compromise. IF people think that I have not been dishonest (or a homophobe or an anti-disablity bigot should you care to read the relevant material) in my treatment of GoP, and IF the management are amenable I am more than willing to interact (or not) with a GoP Mark II as an entirely new entity on the ONE single proviso that he acts in an honest manner unlike his GoP persona. If he cannot do that, then I will absolutely call for him to be banned just like Fafarman, just like Evopeach, just like Thordaddy.
Louis
--------------
Bye.
|
