"Political Views & TMP Membership" Topic

Bronze Goat.

I think that example set the tone for this, really- he made an issue of it, and was the first person I remember eating a lifetime ban.

Short of that kind of behaviour, screw it- and I say that as someone who considers racists second only to rapists on the scale of pathetic meatbags who exist solely to serve as survival rations in the event of an apocalypse scenario.

- Monk

Political parties ?
A plague on all their houses.

To add to Murphy's list:
11) I believe that

Bill,you already have and use the power to ban users.

11) I believe that anyone who draws a check or is paid by the Government (with the exception of members of the armed forces) should not be allowed to vote due to the conflict of interest.

12. No member of staff cable company should allowed vote because they work for one of the most evil institutions on the planet:

YouTube link

Evil institutions on the planet? What company can rip you out of your house in the middle of the night and lock you up or disappear you? Which governments?

11) I believe that

funny comic and… the postman and fellow with the flintlock both resemble gentlemen I know.

I'm with 138squadronRAF, Mess rules apply.

Isn't this why God, or Bill, invented the Stifle button?
Hold your views, but please don't try to proseltyze me.

And you shouldn't disagree with a man standing behind a Gatling gun!

TMP link

Two Editor threads on censorship started in one day. Fascinating. I think that So behave yourselves: don't confuse the Editor by playing devil's advocate or some perverse reverse logic game at the polls: honesty is the best policy: if you don't abuse the privilege of answering polls, you won't run the risk of confusing our dear Editor: and causing a complete meltdown of law and order on TMP. An outraged or scared Editor will become a dangerous lord to us all. Keep Bill pacified by showing that the "voice of the people" desires that which is good, and not that which is evil….

But I like evil. :(

Politics, religion, and money are subjects I try to avoid.
Gaming, lets talk about gaming :)

Two Editor threads on censorship started in one day.

The current discussion doesn't involve censorship. If the chairman of some terrorist organization wanted to become a member of TMP, would it matter whether or not he posted politics on the TMP forums?

I would thoroughly encourange the chairman of some terrorist organization to become a member of TMP, as he would then be diverted from terrorism while he discussed buttons of the War of Jenkins' Ear, voted on his favourite Hawkwind LP, and stifled people he disagreed with.

Indeed, he might learn to stifle his opponents' opinions instead of blowing up passers by.

I say mess rules apply, for the self serving reason that I am a political extremist (and I've been arrested for it and beaten up because of it), and I can see myself banned for it.

A pox upon all of youse!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Frankly, I'm increasingly inclined to think that TMP should abandon any pretense at rules and just admit that the site is run by the Editor's whim and caprice.

"just visiting" brings up religion and within hours he gets a 5 day stint in the DH. Murphy goes full-bore political and…nothing. A certain Norwegian can use derogatory and homophobic language and avoid the DH, but others can be tossed in for something as mild as telling someone "grow up". And personal attacks are forbidden, except against the OFM. On a sliding scale that should consistently hover around "sound editorial judgement", we have long since passed "inconsistent" and now wallow in the space between "indifferent" and "incompetent".

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
--Emerson

Obviously, this is no little mind at work here.

"just visiting" brings up religion and within hours he gets a 5 day stint in the DH.

And your complaint is…?

Murphy goes full-bore political and…nothing.

So I missed it initially, but someone else hit the Complaint button and it's been taken care of. You expect instant moderation on a Friday evening post? Sorry, I was enjoying a church picnic.

A certain Norwegian can use derogatory and homophobic language and avoid the DH…

I have no idea what you're talking about, but did you hit the Complaint button? Because I don't have any complaints in the system currently that I haven't already acted on.

And personal attacks are forbidden, except against the OFM.

Calling someone's membership into question is a community matter, not a "personal attack."

I would thoroughly encourange the chairman of some terrorist organization to become a member of TMP…

That's why we're having this discussion now, so that someday when the issue comes up, the community will have already voted on a policy recommendation.

Probably won't be a terrorist leader. Might be the son of a Third World dictator. Or a KKK leader. Maybe someone with a blog that talks about stashing weapons for when the revolution comes.

Ah, four in there now. Much better.

"That's why we're having this discussion now, so that someday when the issue comes up, the community will have already voted on a policy recommendation…. Maybe someone with a blog that talks about stashing weapons for when the revolution comes."

The issue used to come up on an hourly basis, back in the days of the CA Board, and it was revealed that a significant number of TMP members did in fact hold "political" (if that is really the word) beliefs that were bat- crazy, downright racist, genocidal, paranoid, you name it.

What then? What sort of investigative mechanism will spring into action to ascertain whether this person really is part of a militia, or whether they're just a garden-variety anti-social pot-bellied middle-aged white guy with an internet connection, several copies of "Red Dawn" and a lot of unpainted 15mm SS Panzergrenadiers on their desktop?

I have no idea what you're talking about, but did you hit the Complaint button? Because I don't have any complaints in the system currently that I haven't already acted on.

Yes, I did.

I'm not complaining about "just visiting" getting the DH, I mention it to point out the inconsistency. And no, I don't expect instant moderation. However, in a thread which you started and in which you are actively engaged I thought you might have noticed. I see you have now dealt with Murphy's blatant, in-your-face rules violation with suitably harsh measures.

If someone uses their real name as their TMP membername, or lets it be known who they are, then connections can be made to their political activity in real life. This has actually happened on TMP before

Several years ago a policy like this could have been my doom LOL.

As my gaming buddies came over for one of our Wednesday night board game sessions, the passed through my family room with my miniature game table in it. Laid out on the table, to their shock, were several Ku Klux Klan robes! A sewing machine was also set up, as more were being put together and several old photos showing accurate historical photos of Klansmen were also on display.

My friends strode in and demanded to know what was going on. Was there a dark side of me that they didn't know off? Had I go over the edge? How had I kept this a secret?

The true facts were that my daughter, a theater major at a local university, was cast in a play for a national theatrical playwrights contest for original plays. It was titled "The Clucking of Hen's", a story set in the 1920's with an all female cast about the wives of members of the Klan. She had volunteered to help with the plays costumes, and the plays finale required the cast to appear in robes.

Being a daughter of a history buff, she meticulously researched the historical uniforms as I would, printed photos and made historically accurate outfits. I never thought what might be the reaction of guests coming over to visit while she was making her costumes!

I would have hated to have been banned from TMP had my friends reported me for what they THOUGHT my views were!

After that incident, I also made sure that when we took the costumes downtown to the theater, that they were transported enclosed in clothing bags instead of hanging in the back seat on the window hooks least someone else get the wrong idea! Perception is NOT always reality.

Kim

<<What sort of investigative mechanism will spring into action to ascertain whether this person really is part of a militia>>

What if they are?

I think I rell a vatch.

Bill, stop with the collective hand-wringing and march on.

If something happens, nail 'em.

Until it happens, don't fret.

If something happens, nail 'em.

Until it happens, don't fret.

Bad advice, because if and when I do nail them (if that's what I decided to do), I'm sure there would be much hand-wringing on the forums about whether I did the right thing.

So let's have the discussion preemptively. That way, at least, when the time comes, I can point back and say – see, we already talked about it, etc.

<<Can someone's political views be grounds for expulsion from TMP?>>

The answer HAS to be no, otherwise the next topic will be to determine which political views are so heinous that a ban is in order. Can you imagine what a train wreck that thread would be?

I'm sure he can, which is why he'll probably start it. 8)=

Murphy goes full-bore political and…nothing.

Me wanting the Dodgers moved back to Brooklyn is "full bore political extremism"???….

A certain Norwegian can use derogatory and homophobic language and avoid the DH, but others can be tossed in for something as mild as telling someone "grow up"

I asume you are refering to me, as I'm the most posting Norwegian on the board,(at least that I know of)
I have never degaded any LGBT stuff on the board, infact acourding to some fezzians I'm a full blown man lover, for my opinoions on gay rights.

But I did get Doghoused for NOT saying shut up to some one who made him self stupider then need be.

Also which so call derogatroy homophobic languge did I use?

Good Queen Bess, way back when in the super-tolerant 16th century said "We do not wish to open up little windoes into our subjects minds." Subjects, likewise, should not throw them open when prudence dictates they should not.

It is a question of maturity and context. This is a forum about wargaming in many forms. One might wonder what the context would be where presentist political views would be proper to intrude into this thread, and the maturity of the person to vent them.

There can be no hard and fast rule as to what will be acceptable or improper to various people on the list, but at the same time it is hard to see what hard and fast rule one could apply to specific posts. After all, politics and religion is not the purpose of this list.

There are "back-doors in." One could for example open up a discussion on the Depression and the conflicts and politics within as background for a campaign, and this could lead to a discussion of the "New Deal" by Roosevelt, which could then morph into a dicussion of the philosophical underpinnings or political classes supporting this or that matter which could then go on to examples of presentist politics today, with debates then in all their gory glory parallelling and miming those you hear on the news.

The question in the end is wether people have the maturity to discipline themselves.

While I am NOT going to comment on the politics of today, I am going to comment on the politics of the politcs of today. We have reached that point of inelasticity in America where the slightest deviation from what we believe is seen as evidence of absolute evil. Each side castigates each other and in many cases calls not only for the marginalization, but the legal victimization and -- liquidation -- of the other (in a completely Auschwitzean sense). This testifies to botht he immaturity of the individuals involved and a lack of context. Much the same happens on TMP on WAR GAME topics. Viz, the recent discussion of the character of Napoleon, (bloody tyrant or God come back to earth). It happens on rules (I like this I like that, ok if you like that then you are a scum-sucking S.O.B. and I will insult and destroy you and if I could get my mits on you, I'd strangle you with my bear hands-- or at least the words seem to suggest). The problem is that it has become de-rigeur to view ANY disagreement as a justification to dehumanize and destroy the other. If we cannot avoid this in our approach to each other in games then I see little hope that it can be done in more urgent and serious subjects. This is only exacerbated in an environment like the Internet where everyone plays this game of "liars poker" under cryptic or coded names, and where anonymity is a cloak facilitating incivility.

Unfortunately then, we cannot trust to the maturity of contributors to limit themselves and the owner/moderator will have to employ the cudgel freely.

Probably won't be a terrorist leader. Might be the son of a Third World dictator. Or a KKK leader. Maybe someone with a blog that talks about stashing weapons for when the revolution comes.

This is what the debate is over? Such far-flung possibilities as one of these guys being into wargaming, showing up on TMP, and everyone knowing who they are?

Honestly, I think there's more pressing concerns that we don't need such phantom menaces.

So let's have the discussion preemptively. That way, at least, when the time comes, I can point back and say – see, we already talked about it, etc.

Also, let's start discussions on time-travelers. I mean, what if Hitler showed up on the boards, but it was when he was a teenager! Should we ban him preemptively or not?

What about aliens trying to steal our precious water?

Also which so call derogatroy homophobic languge did I use?

Not sure, but Dirty Mexicans which you used in a topic title is offensive, even if you meant it as humor.

TMP link

I think as long as yall agree with me in gaming and politics we should have no problem.

Since I wasn't refering to any humans, it can't be offencive.

Unless you are a great suporter of minority beers.

Actually, the term Dirty Mexicans is offensive.

Substitute Blacks, or Mormons, or Irish or Muslims or Catholics or any other group and see if The Editor allows it as a topic title.

Dirty old men….

For what it is worth nothing was done in terms of banning by The Editor a couple of years back when a member's political allegience which was called out as questionable by quite a few people here. The threads where they were mentioned and their response were deleted by The Editor, but I don't recall anthing else – there may have been some Dawghausing, but that would have been for general rulebreaking on TMP, not for anyone holding specific political viewpoints per se. The member in question can and does still post here.

Therefore there is precedent to do nothing, unless The Editor has either forgotten about the aforementioned events, or has had second thoughts about his actions at the time.

And here you are with a brand new membership to tell us this?

Seriously?

There's no evidence you were even HERE a couple of years back, and no personal info to back your claims, just vague accusations of possible wrongdoing… one can only assume from this that you are an arseclown with an agenda.

For that, I raise a single digital salute to you, Jeroboam. my life's too short to listen to such pot-stirring.

I was being deliberately vague so as not to name names and drag everything up again.* Similarly the point of going through a new account. I notice your account is less than a year old. So on your terms you're not in a position to say what happened then either. Your personal info isn't exactly illuminating of any real-life information too.

Some people do remember, but in the context of this topic my posting actually adds something to the debate rather than just being noise.

*And before you say that by posting I've dragged it up anyway, I think you'll find that the posting of the topic and asking for opinions opened up that particular avenue. So I'd rather you didn't show me the finger (digital or otherwise).

So if anyone was to be banned for beign racist what IS a racist?

I have a multi racial family. After travelling around the world last year I gave the term 'racist' a lot of thought because when I made an honest observation I was accused of being one.

I have family and friends with brown, white, and yellow skins. I have friends who are Gay. Some of my grandchildren are of mixed race.

After considerable thought I came to the conclusion that there are just people of all races whom one likes and others one doesnt like. A person doesnt have to be black, white or yellow to be the sort of person you dont like. Similarly they dont have to be a certain race or colour for you to like someone.

I cant stand RAP music and was accused of being racist because it was of black origin. The fact is ….. I just dont like RAP music and most of the people who are involved in happen to be black. Fact. Not racially intended.

By the same token I really detest modern dance theatre and the ballet. Not keen on most opera either. Most involved happen to be white. I am racist against whites?

I think that for many of us we like or dislike on who the person is as a person. Not by the colour of their skin.

After my return from Rome I expressed how much I disliked being hassled all over the place by illegal immigrent men from the Indian sub-Continent trying to sell me things I didnt want to buy. They were downright annoying. But they just happened to be brown skinned. The colour of the skin was not the issue….what was the issue, was that they were being downright bloody annoying. REALLY ANNOYING and they spoilt a lot of the fun of seeing the sites of Ancient Rome. They could have been Chinese, or Russian, Japanese or any other nationality or colour. Annoying is annoying.

When I really think about it, I realise that I have lots of friends and relatives across a whole range of nationalities and races, colour etc. They are friends because I like them and presumably they like me be cause we are of like mind. Generally speaking…they dont like the people I dont like either! We are of like mind. Race has little to do with it.

Similarly there are some gay people I dont like because they are so blatantly exhibitionist…however I have a gay friend who doesnt like that aspect either. But he is hardly anti-gay for saying so. And i certainly dont have a 'phobia' because I dont like exhibitionist gay men. Hell, I'm not keen on exhibitionists of any kind. Homophobic is a very unfair lable put on too many people.

My point therefore is, that it is far too easy to label someone a racist for a comment of opinion on an issue of behaviour and attitude, rather than the comment being necessarily one of race.

One would have to be very careful deciding what was or was not racist or merely fair comment.

The flag Murphy uses as his icon could be said to be a racist symbol because of its past….but then again Murphy could simply be a proud Southerner who sees it as the flag of his region.

Similarly his 'Bongolesia' posts have drawn claims of racism. But is he just expressing his own sense of humour about how poorly some countries are run? Is that racist? Its not racist if I critizise or joke about how my country is being run, that is considered merely a political point of view. So is Murphy's Bongolesia racist at all? If he intends it to be it is, if he doesn't mean to present it as racist then its not. It might still offend some people, but the intent behind it is important.

Now football crowds in Europe jumping up and down making monkey noises at black players is very racist, it is intended to be racist and to hurt. If that sort of thing happened in TMP comments the person should definitely be banned.

The expression needs to be weighed against the statement and its intent. If it was intended to be racist, and to hurt in a racist manner, then I guess it was. If it was merely a statement of fact…not intended to hurt, then I dont think it was racist.

Hence my statement about being hassled by hordes of Sub-Continent men trying to sell me things I didnt want to buy, was merely a statement of fact. It had no racist intent. Its a fact. I certainly wasnt hassled by hordes of Italians trying to sell me things I didnt want. Again fact.

But if I had said it as a slur against their colour and race, it would be a different matter.

Therefore the easy ones would be easy, but by heck the others would require considerable thought before defining them enough to ban someone.

How do you know that all the so-called Sub-Continent men in Rome were illegal aliens?

Oh…I suppose because the Italian gents showing me around said that every so often the Police go into those areas, round them up and arrest them as illegal aliens. Also because hawkers are not permitted to sell in those areas.

Very organised ones too apparently, as they were all selling pretty much the same things and it was obvious they were being supplied by some common source.

But even if they were not illegal, the point is that they were being downright annoying and would have been, regardless if they were red, white, black or yellow.

I would have to say that everyone is probably a little bit racist even if we wish we weren't or believe ourselves not to be. The thing about racists who believe they aren't is that they most often can't see they actually are.

I think you are dead right JeremyR. But much of that is an inherited thing going back to the days of village life and small towns etc when one 'feared' strangers because they were likely to be raiding, looting and raping! Northerners were suspicious of southerners, westerners of easterners etc. It has carried forward in our psyche.

A little caution is not a bad thing at times. One just has to be careful not to let it dominate ones thinking.