I didn’t think he should have been banned.
If he can lay off the boring krisna bollocks then let him back in.
I continually find myself self-censoring my posts; Segue has a very laid back feel but I have to keep reminding myself it’s not like sitting around with your mates knocking back cold ones. No, it’s just looking at a computer knocking back cold ones. Happy New Year.
I’d like to see him debanned on the condition mentioned by Almas John. Then again, I don’t see myself volunteering as a moderator, so I don’t have much say in the matter. Moderating with Vincent on the loose could be a full-time job…
I’m not in favour of banning unless a person (or rather, the on-line persona that he or she has chosen to present) is totally beyond the pale, insults and offends gratuitously without having anything worthwhile to say, and abuses the forum in a way that spoils it for everyone else.
It disturbs me that an out-of-order moderator (and I’m NOT referring to Maoman here) can misuse the banning mechanism to pursue a personal grudge or stifle expressions of opinion that he or she disagrees with or dislikes. This is far more harmful to the forum than the worst rantings of even the most obnoxious poster.
In most cases, if someone displays a tendency to write painfully tedious or sickeningly twisted tripe, we quickly get to know what to expect when his or her name pops up and can skip over their posts when we peruse the threads. Or it takes only a couple of moments to scan a post and determine whether it is likely to be worth reading or not. And you can always use the “ignore” function if you really can’t bear to have someone’s posts appearing on your computer screen.
So I’d say let him back on, as well as Aristotle, Taiwaner, and others of their ilk who have been banished to the outer wilderness.
Prior to bringing up the topic of having him banned, Vincent seemed erstwhile in his posting. It was only after being threatened with banning that he changed his name and took on a farcical alter-ego. As such, I think he was asking to be banned. I doubt he wants to come back.
If he does want to come back as his old, controversial-but-genuine self, I say let him. One can always choose to ignore his posts if they offend too much, and what about the value of having a foil around to sharpen your own insights? I don’t mind. I think that when we ban someone for holding views dissimilar from our own, we become exclusionary and narrow-minded.
I think banning should be reserved for those who are infuriating not because they present unsupportable or controversial posts, but because they are posting simply to get a rise out of others (also known as a troll). While it is always possible that the original Vincent posted with this kind of intent, most trolls don’t put much effort into pulling off such a scheme.
As long as he is dictated to by his wants he is imprisoned on the wheel of life, and may just have to put up with reincarnation.
But seriously, whether or not he chooses to accept being unbanned is less important than whether he gets the choice.
Exactly how so?
Exactly? I have a hangover (day 2!) so I might not be able to be exact, but…
I don’t recall seeing anything posted by Vincent that was specifically more vile and offensive than some of the other attitudes that have been expressed here. Banning him because of his views does not seem to be fair, or particularly conducive to fostering the idea of a community.
I don’t really give a rat’s arse about Vincent, and whether or not he wants to come back doesn’t interest me. But if you start silencing people because of their views then you are creating a de facto ‘right’ view for the rest of us to subscribe to.
I believe in the right of self-expression, which includes the right to tell Vincent - and several other people here - what I think of their absurd opinions. They tell me what they think, and hopefully we can all benefit from the experience. The alternative is a ‘with us or against us’ philosophy, which I personally find abhorrent.
I found a reference to the quote attributed to Voltaire on this topic. Turns out he never said it, but who cares?
quotationspage.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=105
The above comments notwithstanding, if the guy (or any one else) creates too much work for the folks who make this place happen then he only has himself to blame.
Ok abit of newbie here so haven’t read that many of his posts. Some though made me laugh so hard I cried. Not necessaily a good thing when you pretending to work but I wouldn’t mind seeing his return.
[quote=“tmwc”]I don’t recall seeing anything posted by Vincent that was specifically more vile and offensive than some of the other attitudes that have been expressed here. Banning him because of his views does not seem to be fair, or particularly conducive to fostering the idea of a community. But if you start silencing people because of their views then you are creating a de facto ‘right’ view for the rest of us to subscribe to.
I believe in the right of self-expression, which includes the right to tell Vincent - and several other people here - what I think of their absurd opinions. They tell me what they think, and hopefully we can all benefit from the experience. The alternative is a ‘with us or against us’ philosophy, which I personally find abhorrent…[/quote]
Look, nobody is “silencing” Vincent. He still has his computer and he can access all of the white supremacist websites he wants and post there. He just isn’t welcome here, that’s all. Posting on Segue is not a God-given right. Every website has limits in terms of what is acceptable, and Vincent has breached those limits. The day I accept V’s “Jew-media white-homeland” bullshit is the day… is the day… well, hell, I won’t accept it. I have friends who are Jewish. My roommate is African-American. I have to deal with the consequences of my decisions and my actions, as well as my inactions. On the other hand, I would have no trouble dealing with disgruntled nazis, skinheads or whatever. Bring 'em on.
Folks, not all ideas are equal. And if you think that we need to accept every viewpoint as being equally valid, and worthy of consideration, then you’ve found the wrong website. If you want to make fun of Canadians (I am one), I have no problem with that. Mocking French military prowess? Why not? Advocating a white homeland in America? Placing blame for one’s woes on Jews? The answer is no. I’ve always felt that hateful posts had no place here, and I’ve done my best to keep them out of forums I moderate without compromising Segue’s integrity. And pleas from a few individuals on behalf of a hate-spewing poster will surely fall on deaf ears.
Lately, a couple of controversial warnings provoked a lot of internal discussion about bannings and how they are implemented. As much as we respect everyone’s opinion, a community banning process is unworkable. What we have decided on is an internal vote among moderators. If someone proposes a ban, we vote on it, and a simple majority wins. If a moderator feels that a banning is immediately neccessary, we have no problem with banning first and then possibly reinstating that person later. It’s not a perfect system, but it’s the best we’ve seen so far.
Maybe your definition of a hateful is different from mine. Could you point me to a/the post/s filled with hate. I still don’t remember seeing anything that was out of the ordinary (my standard).
I only remember posts like this:
[quote=“Vincent”]Not at all. It’s human nature to form this type of group. It’s also human nature for the groups to compete with one another–for the interests of some groups to go against the interests of other groups. So we have to ask ourselves, who are my people? With whom, and against whom, do I stand.
Gavin thinks that we are all people, and all the differences don’t amount to much, or shouldn’t. This is what my old church taught. But why should species membership be assumed to trump group membership? Why not just say hell with it, humans and monkeys are all bipeds, we have to accept them as equals–no, not just equals, a part of us? After all, humans and chimps share upwards of 90 percent of the same DNA.
Subtle differences are important. And even if there were no differences, group identity would still matter.[/quote]
I still wouldn’t say I fully agreed with any of his/her views. But I would say they were thought provoking. If they weren’t thought provoking, the posts would not have interested anyone and no one would have voted to keep him/her on the boards. He/She was only expressing their view of the world (or being a really good troll.) A view that just bothered some.
I will go on record in saying the ban was out of place.
But no worries… It’s all good. 
If I was getting a bunch of emails about a user, or if for some reason a user bothered me, I’d ban them too. 
Maybe your definition of hateful is different from mine. Could you point me to a/the post/s filled with hate. I still don’t remember seeing anything that was out of the ordinary (my standard).[/quote]
There were four particular posts that were beyond the pale. They were cut and put into the Flame Forum where they lingered for a couple of weeks before they died a natural death of one week of inactivity. As for what is beyond your standard, well, you have your own website now to implement that, right?
[quote=“miltownkid”]I will go on record in saying the ban was out of place.
[/quote]
Given that you admit that you don’t remember his offensive posts, don’t you think that “going on the record” is a little premature? :?
Oh, and I just found this nugget:
Miltownkid, substitute the word “African-American female” for “Filipina” and then tell me that that is not hateful. Better yet, invite Vincent (Acintyabedhabedhananda) over to your forum. I sure as hell don’t want him around here. I’m sure my esteemed colleague Gus (a Filipino of impeccable reputation) won’t miss him either. 
Yeah, working on it as we speak . I do remember those “offensive” posts now that I think of it. I just remember kind of skipping over them.
No, I read every single one of his/her posts and if one bothered me, it would have stuck out. I only remembered the “quality” posts.
[quote=“Maoman”]
Oh, and I just found this nugget:
Miltownkid, substitute the word “African-American female” for “Filipina” and then tell me that that is not hateful. Better yet, invite Vincent (Acintyabedhabedhananda) over to your forum. I sure as hell don’t want him around here. I’m sure my esteemed colleague Gus (a Filipino of impeccable reputation) won’t miss him either. :|[/quote]
I see why that comment would upset people. But there is even truth to that. Do a search on GOOGLE using the word Filipina. Are you telling me that you’ve never heard it in this context before? :? Language is strange that way.
Yes, I would invite Vincent to my site. I’m still putting things in place for situations like this (iplogger, the warning system, ignore etc.) It just seems like there could be a creative way to handle situations like this without having a big discussion about it after the fact. If Vincent was suspended, a poll was held and he lost the vote and got banned. I garuntee you wouldn’t hear a peep from me.
And what does gus being Filipino have to do with anything?
I don’t understand why people are defending this Vincent dude. I didn’t read many of his posts, so I don’t know how ‘thought-provoking’ they were, but I do remember one, (I forget the exact wording), where he was talking about the need for a ‘white homeland’ in America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, or some such bullshit. I say, post shit like that and you’re out. No need for a debate. I don’t care how ‘thought-provoking’ your white supremacist bullshit is - it’s still shit.
Brian
Oh, here’s the relevant quotes from Acinywhatssit aka Viincent:
[quote]Yes, I admit that whites “stole” (or more accurately, seized) North America, Australia, and southern Africa. I see this as a good thing, and regret only that they weren’t strong enough to hold onto them and expand even further. Not only would these places have had zero civilization worthy of the name without us, but regardless of how the different races measure up against each other, we should stand with our people. Certainly the other races have learned this lesson.
New developments in paleo-anthropology suggest that contrary to all our cultural programming, Caucasoids may have actually inhabited the Americas before Mongoloids. In fact the Indians may have killed off our cousins. So when whites displaced them later, they were only redressing a great wrong.[/quote]
Oooh, now that’s thoguht provoking. Makes me think ‘why the fuck wasn’t this guy banned sooner?’
Brian
I certainly wasn’t defending him. I merely believe that it would be better to allow him to post his ideas here so that the same could be refuted. I think refuting stupidity is an important task… and one that a forum such as this facilitates quite well.
To me, thought provoking is something that makes me go “hmm…now that’s an interesting point of view; i’ve never looked at it from that angle.” i don’t recall any of vincent’s post eliciting that response from me. some of his posts weren’t bad, but his racists posts made him more pain than he was worth. when he changed his name (and went the deep end with the chanting and ranting), he was just begging to be banned.
it’s also important to realize that if someone posts racists views and no one refutes them (by them, i mean the offensive views), then others reading may think we are all in agreement with those ideas. this could attract those with similar ideas. so anyone saying “oh, just skip over his posts of vincent offends you” should think twice.
with that said, i would like to thank all those that did make the time and effort to argue with vincent. 
i would have if i was any good at debating but i’m seriously no good at that stuff (nor am i eloquent) 
How’s this for eloquent: “All that is necessary for the forces of evil to triumph is for enough good men to do nothing.” – attributed to Edmund Burke
Well, close enough… tartarus.org/~martin/essays/burkequote2.html
Cheers to you who took the time to refute Vincent’s views. You da good guys
Vincent’s posts evidently were thought-provoking – they were followed by some closely-reasoned responses. Reading those responses got me thinking more than I would have about race, diversity and other stuff. That’s a good thing. I like thinking.
For example, I got to wondering: If diversity is so good, what’s so bad about Han Chinese migration into Tibet (answers on a postcard to a separate thread)? Vincent posted nothing that made me question the validity of my (different) beliefs but he did prompt me to think about them more closely.
More generally, even if they aren’t particularly thought-provoking, what’s categorically wrong with hate-filled posts? Is there any more to banning them than “Because I don’t want to read them and I don’t think others should do here either”?
I know vincent’s post is a bit immature somehow, prolly it is his mental age thing. I can forgive that rightaway. I do find that hare krishna thing an ennui, hope he mend his ways if he were resurrected. I think if a poll were held to strip Maoman of his moderatorhood, I might be the first willing to vote. 
viva la resistance
ax