Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by zulu9812, Dec 24, 2005.
Well, ComradeDavo says that he's already done that - and the link remains
If it has been done, then fine. I supposed it's been reported in OT; one of the OT mods will get around to it.
We're all volunteers here; don't expect us to be at your beck and call every moment of the day, particularly during this holiday season.
The crowds have gathered at the palace gate;
They seek relief from posted hate;
But silent is the darkened hall,
Site feedback now our wailing wall;
Protected from our prying eyes
Electronic wizardry is his disguise;
The burden of his kingship's clear
As he must choose the path to steer,
Oh the pain of choosing between those most dear...
(Unless of course he's watching TV and drinking beer!)
The wise and worldly Thunderfall
Will be forced to make this call
By stating clearly what he wants, and making his decree,
Or through his silence standing firm: "For now we'll let it be."
I had to remove a sig that said, "The guy with the gay dad had sex with his ex girlfriend's mum!", because it was too sexually oriented or something. I must say I'm more than a little confused that this thread even needs to exist.
I'm with Knight-Dragon - ban them all.
I didn't actual mention the sig, but I reported the same link.
This is true, but I'm not sure that it's relevant. Why would it be worse to be "vulgar" than to be racist? Is a site with a few swear words less acceptable than one that seeks to deny British citizenship to half the population of London? Your comment is an illustration of the danger of Griffin's BNP: by avoiding direct statements of hatred, and by using "grown-up" language instead of that of the football stands, they instantly make themselves seem respectable and their views become more repeatable. As if the style or language is what determines the acceptability of a statement, rather than what it's actually saying.
Similarly, it is true that the site does not explicitly incite anger and rage or attempt to stir these things up. Yet that is the inevitable result of such views, as recent history has demonstrated time and again. Even if we accepted that the authors of the BNP website are nothing more than a group of misguided but naive pacifists, it would still be true that the promulgation of their views leads to hatred and violence. And in reality, of course, they are not quite so thick as not to know this perfectly well themselves.
I understand your point but I just don't agree with it. I accept that if you ban such things there exists difficulty over where you draw the line, but this is a false objection because a line already exists anyway. It's already been pointed out that we can't link to sites of illegal groups, or to sites that are legal but pornographic, or even, apparently, sites that use certain language. I - and, I think, most British people - find the BNP far more offensive than any pornography.
After all, wherever you draw the line there will be grey areas. You say it's simple to ban links to porn or to sites bashing former CFC posters, but it's not always easy to define porn. And suppose George Bush made a post on CFC - would all anti-Republican sites become unlinkable? The BNP is a similar grey area because its views are so repugnant and because the party and its members are so closely linked to violence and hatred, but at the same time the party itself is not illegal and the site itself doesn't say anything explicitly illegal. My argument is that that's simply not the point. At elections, winning candidates generally shake hands with all those they beat, but there is a consensus that no-one ever shakes hands with the BNP candidate. They are not illegal, but they are not considered a normal part of the political system and they are not given a platform.
Now it's not true that banning expressions of certain opinions necessitates the banning of all expressions of all opinions, or anything like that, but of course it does raise the issue of what's acceptable and what isn't. Well, as I say, any site that doesn't simply take the stand of permitting absolutely anything is already committed to having to address that issue anyway. And personally I'd rather risk heavy-handed paternalism, which admittedly I don't like, than have this sort of stuff made accessible here.
But it's not that simple. On the one hand there is the majority who are simply offended by seeing such material or links to it. But on the other hand there are people who might be influenced by it. Not everyone falls into the two camps of right-thinking liberals who are repelled by it or racist thugs who like it. On the contrary, there are plenty of others who can very easily be misled by what it appears to offer. The electoral success of the BNP and their influence on mainstream parties, described earlier, is a demonstration of this. It's been pointed out that there are plenty of children on this site. I wouldn't trust most children to be able to look behind the veneer of respectability on the BNP website and realise why the statements there are so dangerous. I wouldn't trust quite a lot of adults either, come to that.
The link advocates the forced removal of numerous CFC members from their home countries. I can't believe we're seriously discussing whether or not this is worse that linking to pornography or even swearing.
And anyone who can't read between the lines of this fascist filth and see the concentration camps in Bradford needs their head examining.
I apologise if my sig has caused offence and although I think I have been unfairly treated because of views I will remove it however if Davo does the same with his sig which I find offensive.
But ComradeDavo's sig is accurate
How can a party that has Jewish members and a Jewish councillor be Nazi?
The BNP and the Nazis have similar beliefs about what constitutes their 'master race'
Can you please explain yourself and give some examples.
Moderator Action: Joeb, Zulu:
Do that via PM/MSN/email or whatever, but not on CFC and certainly not in this Site Feedback thread.
The Staff is currently discussing the signature-rules and how the decision on it is going to be implemented. Until then there's no need to continue this discussion here. The opinions of the people involved is known.
Given that my link exists solely to counter yours, I will remove it now and expect to see yours gone next time you are online.
Also could you please go and read Rambuchan's post (#28).
well a web-site link can hardly be inaccurate can it?
Anyway, Davo has removed his signature, so hopefully Joeb will too.
I thought mine was to counter yours, which was to counter my posts in OT or somthing like that, anyway it's now been removed. As for Rambuchan's post I'm sincerely sorry for what happened to your friend and understand that a few individuals within the party aren't exactly the nicest people you will ever meet and behaved completly out of order so I'm not going to defend them. However I am going to defend your average rank and file members who are just hard working white men and women who mean well and just want what is best for their country. I think this just about concludes this thread now that the issue with my sig has been sorted and a compromise reached.
That's true, but it would be nice if there could be some sort of ruling on links in sigs in general, even if it's only that they are subject to the mods' discretion. As the rules stand, sigs (and links in general) aren't mentioned.
Strictly speaking, "racism" is the assertion that one race is inherently inferior to another. Some now use it in a looser sense, to refer to any racial discrimination at all, but I suspect that's not what CFC policy intended to mean. The BNP advocates racial separatism, not racial supremacy; it has no problem with other races or religions, it just thinks that they should be in other countries. (Of course, many of its prominent members may feel otherwise, but that doesn't change official party policy.) So the BNP is not, strictly speaking, racist, insofar as it does not officially consider non-whites to be inherently inferior to whites.
Anyway, I think racism should be allowed period. It should be permitted to express any viewpoint, within the bounds of law (CFC is American, isn't it?). This is not analogous to posting pornographic or disturbing images, which are banned for their manner of expression rather than for the content of their expression (not that there is much). Likewise, discussion of excessively detailed sex-related manners is banned categorically as a topic; this too is quite different from permitting the discussion of a topic but prohibiting specific views on the topic.
I'm not a racist, by the way (or a racial separatist, or anything like that). I believe in racial colorblindness. But I'm one of those Americans who believes in free speech as an ideal. Not, in this case, as a legal requirement, but as an ideal nonetheless that should be upheld where practical, however distasteful.
As near as I can tell, racism's "not inferior, just different" flavor is also verboten in CFC. And, I'm one that defends a fairly broad interpretation of protected free speech, but this is TF's property and I'll either abide by his rules or I'll depart. Personally I don't think links to 'bad places' in sigs is a dangerous area, provided that they are properly labelled, for the same reasons Simon and col cite.
1 - This is TF's house. We are all his guests. If he says "no" it is "no".
So a member either follows the rules or leaves if he doesn't agree with them. Reasonings along the line of "I have freedom of speech" hold no ground on CFC.
link to the rules
Separate names with a comma.