Can The Mods Just Ban Colyer Already? (AKA Why DOES He Hate AMERICA?)- Page 3

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 11:36am

I think most of us aren't suggesting that.

[tazber]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 12:19pm

Well I was trying to be diplomatic and not single out the one person who is going around screaming for a banning.

But since you've forced my hand I'll have to just say it:

Everyone's going crazy about the intolerance for free speech in the Middle East and here Reginald Tresilian is demanding the same thing.

[SonofMammaMiaSam]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 12:20pm

I think his top hat has just gotten a little tight.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 12:27pm

But, taz, as others have pointed out, one's right to free speech doesn't automatically extend to a privately owned message board. I'm not saying he should be banned*, but just that him being here isn't a free speech issue.



*Didn't we all band together once to have Amanda5 (or whatever the sock puppet was called) banned? For mostly trolling, obnoxious homophobic comments? That seems like a million years ago, so I don't remember the details, but I remember that poster and I remember people complaining (after a long, long time) and it finally stopped.

[tazber]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 12:38pm

Yea, I do remember that. She was posting really horrible homophobic stuff.

I guess I never really thought of this as being a private message board since anyone can join, but you're correct in that Rob is not bound by any type of "free speech" laws.

Don't get me wrong, I would love nothing more than to never see Jim Colyer White Supremacist on here ever again. I was just saying that he's not combative and doesn't personally attack anyone (he saves that for when he goes out a'lynchin' with the boys) so what grounds are there for banning him?

He's not interested in having a discussion about his "beliefs" and he doesn't seem to care that we all despise him.

Updated On: 10/3/12 at 12:38 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 12:40pm

If he's banned for relatively few noxious comments he's made, then arguments can be made for anyone who's made sexual, insulting, etc. comments. AKA ...a lot of us.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 12:57pm

Another good point. Although, in theory, one can get banned/suspended for whatever moderator's caprices are being indulged at any time (and plenty of people have been), so on another hand, I would see a Jim Colyer banning as more of the same, rather than a chilling message of silence being given.

But, like we all seem to mostly agree, I think the anti-troll week that Reg proposed is probably are best way to go about it. Talking about it here may seem to be a violation of that, but I think it's a good compromise.

I do like the idea of Troll Codes, a la the original meltdown color codes.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 1:01pm

I don't think discussing and engaging are the same thing.

I think we've had a pretty good, rational conversation on this topic, actually.

Except for me, of course.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 1:05pm

I think that, too. I was just sort of devil's advocating, but I agree with you.

[Kad]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 1:17pm

The trouble with troll codes is that, as seen here and in Reg's thread, what constitutes a troll certainly varies from person to person.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 1:23pm

Id be happy if we could just bring back the ability to block certain posters. Then ghostlight can block me an never have to suffer again.

[Kad]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 1:27pm

Such a miracle that would be, blocking certain posters.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 1:49pm

"Id be happy if we could just bring back the ability to block certain posters. Then ghostlight can block me an never have to suffer again."

Geez Louise, Jordan - persecution complex much? I have no desire to block you. I find you intelligent and oftentimes amusing. I can understand you're not happy with my pointing out the dichotomy of your campaign to ban another member while you break this board's rules frequently with near-impunity, but you're really going off the rails here. I don't want to block you, and lunatic that he is, I doubt seriously that Colyer "obviously wants [you] dead".

I'm not the one "suffering" here - you are. You're choosing to carry that cross. You're attacking me, personally, for doing nothing more than telling the truth. I think you'd do well to take a couple steps back, a deep breath, and try to gain some perspective. Getting upset like this over the internet can't be good for you.

Updated On: 10/3/12 at 01:49 PM

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 1:58pm

I'm not upset with you and by no means am I "suffering". Being upset with you would imply that I have even the slightest care what your opinions are towards me. I'm 100% indifferent to it.

And statements like "I think you'd do well to take a couple steps back, a deep breath, and try to gain some perspective" are always some of my favorite types of statements made to someone. They imply that said person is losing it and can't handle things. And as I always say, just because you say something it doesn't make it true.

The fact is Colyer is a troll and troll's should be taken care of. And if this new "FREE SPEECH! FREE SPEECH!" thing that all of a sudden is part of the online message board community is allowed than I'm glad. I can say all sorts of things that I've always wanted to say that go well beyond what you find so distasteful already. But obviously that's not the case so going back to blocking posters that we don't want to hear from is the next best thing and I don't see anything wrong with that. People around here love to say "If you don't like what people have to say don't read it". So there ya go. That would solve that problem.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 2:17pm

'Are any of us the better for that? Colyer doesn't seem remotely shamed. In fact, he seems proud and unrepentant.'

I'd like to discuss this quote from ghostlight's earlier post. Here's the thing, I cannot in any way control was the Jim Colyer's of the world think and believe. I can only control my response to such things. And I believe, personally, that to not push back against this type of language is a moral failing. If I have a voice, I must use it just as strongly as the Jim Colyer's of the world. So yes...I think, when I speak against what I perceive to be is a wrong, I am better for that.

I got into a rather interesting argument at a dinner party last night. The discussion was American imperialism and its attitude toward the Middle East. After I got over the urge to drown myself in the soup, I decided to engage. One woman (who had done some sociological work with Middle Eastern women) made a point about burkas. It was along the lines of 'Women there are happy to wear them, because it keeps them safe and we shouldn't have an opinion about things we know nothing about.' I couldn't let that one lie there on the table. I disagreed saying that, as a member of an oppressed sexual minority, I couldn't really get on board with that line of thought. I mentioned knowing at a very early age that I was gay and knowing, at the same time, that it was something shameful that had to be kept hidden. I referred to it as the 'metaphorical burka that is the closet.' So, even though it was my choice to lie about who I was for the next 13 years, it really was not a choice in any meaningful way. If you make a choice out fear for your safety, well...there's no real freedom in that choice, is there? It was an interesting exchange, in that neither of us backed down, but we certainly understood the other's point.

I guess what I'm saying here is that walking the middle road too slavishly can lead to moments where you won't stand up and be counted. And I think there is nothing more important than standing up and being counted.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 2:20pm

So what's your point? That you have a lot of fancy friends and went to a dinner party?

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 2:35pm

"I believe, personally, that to not push back against this type of language is a moral failing. If I have a voice, I must use it just as strongly as the Jim Colyer's of the world. So yes...I think, when I speak against what I perceive to be is a wrong, I am better for that. "

Sorry, SonofRobbieJ, for not being clearer. My question "Are any of us the better for that?" was a response to the bolded part of strummergirl's post:

""I feel like that the shaming is more well-known throughout the message board now than a few weeks ago. Most people never saw his posts before. "

I don't think any of us are better off that more people are seeing his posts. I don't think it's a good thing that Colyer has taken this new found exposure to post more.

I very strongly agree with your post that I quoted above.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 2:44pm

So what's your point? That you have a lot of fancy friends and went to a dinner party?

Wasn't that an episode of The New Normal?

[thetinymagic2]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 3:12pm

Oh, I would have to respectfully disagree w/myself at this time, as it occurred to me that it elightens one's mind, possibly to action, when one actually takes the time to read heinous white supremacist blogs. Live and learn. Of course, not easy, but there's some especailly hardcore disgusting COLYER stuff I did NOT post. I am a great believer of "ACTING UP", getting outraged, and ultimately, working towards a solution of hate crimes.

In fact, I now have the REASONS of his seemingly random posting. Mr Colyer is VERY comfortable ranting his vile unvarnished "truths' !?, 94 of them on STORMFRONT.ORG, over a 7 yr period with NO problem whatsoever, but, here, he is very careful about what he writes. Safe haven with the David Duke bunch, (not here), obviously.

I will not post those rants on this thread, but if you are seriously interested in what goes on in the mind of the falsely "secretive" Aryan, JC in a real way, PM me, and I will send you a link. JC knows exactly what he's doing.

This Thread will die out eventually, but I don't think that time is here yet. BWWers here are still posting very important, thoughtful msgs. about free/hate speech. You can't do that in a communist country, (and I've been in communist countries.) That was my no. 1 purpose. To close one's eyes esp, because it's painful. when not reported daily in the MSM, history might repeat itself. To some of the younger posters here, all you have to do is Google "white supremacy meetings" and up comes pgs and pgs and pgs of "news" that's happening daily in our country. Ciao ciao

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 3:17pm

AAAAAAH! Sorry for the misread, ghostlight!

And Jordan...it wasn't all that fancy. It's not like the time I got to hang out with Jakey (he insists I call him Jakey) at his opening night.

[Jon]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 3:20pm

Hopefully, on the day after the election, Jim Colyer, Neo-Nazi Douchebag, will swallow the cyanide capsule he keeps sewn into the cuff of his Dockers.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 4:24pm

Robbie, please show me pictures of you and Jake together. I'd like to compare them to the ones we took with each other.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 4:27pm

I don't show pics that feature both my face and my peesh.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 4:28pm

God, that word creeps me out. Lol

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 10/3/12 at 4:30pm

I went for the one word that would just make anyone's skin crawl!

Kinda like the reaction one gets when reading the lyrics to a JC,WS song.