Offensive Material and Dealing With Troublesome Posters

There is a post I posted on this forum as well as on several others around the internet. It is called "The Bigot at the Bar." It has received some reaction in some places. It really didn't get much attention here. However, it was deleted on the Objectivist Living forum. Is that because their standards are higher than the standards here or the Atlas Forums or anywhere else where ths post did not get deleted?

(Michael Stuart Kelly has given me permission to protest his board's policy on other boards, only not on his board.)

I read a thread on OL about how Dragonfly was restricted, on this board, to the Dissent forum. They were sympathizing with him about that there and talking about how much better posters are treated on the OL. Michael Stuart Kelly described his way of dealing with troublesome posters, rather than restricting them to a certain forum.

I didn't see my name mentioned, but I saw myself included with posters who insult others, push others around. That's the only reason, he said, he would delete posts, and he only did it a few times. My deleted post was not directed personally to anyone on the OL, unless they identified with the bigot. It didn't push people around any more than Mark Twain, Edger Allen Poe, William Faulkner, or Harper Lee push people around. It didn't push people around any more than Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Letter From the Birmingham Prison" pushed people around. By deleting it and refusing to talk about it, not allowng me to even talk about it on the OL, I think he is pushing me around, even though I thank him for allowing me to protest on other boards.

There is an issue of offensive material. Some parents don't want high school teachers forcing their children to read Catcher in the Rye or To Kill a Mocking Bird. Should we protect young minds from harsh truths about realty? Should Ayn Rand be banned because she is an atheist?

The OL is not a high school classroom or a government. It is private property, as is ROR, and the owners have a right to do whatever they want as long as they don't intiate physcal force against someone. However, what does it say about an admin who deletes material which may be too harsh, too real. Is he trying to make his board a clique? Is this the only way he can deal with issues which disturb him?

I delete material on my board also. There is no other way to control obnoxious posters who can post any kind of garbage and be abusive and childish. However, I don't think my deleted post was that bad. What do you all think? Will you sympathize with me here as others are sypathizing with Dragonfly on the OL?

bis bald,

Nick

Post 1

Monday, August 7, 2006 - 10:33pm

Mr Nicholas Neal Otani writes:

[Nick's post 'Bigot at the Bar'] has received some reaction in some places. It really didn't get much attention here. However, it was deleted on the Objectivist Living forum. Is that because their standards are higher than the standards here or the Atlas Forums or anywhere else where ths post did not get deleted?

I can't quite figure out on my own why your 'Bigot' post was deleted. What explanation was given, Nick?

By deleting it and refusing to talk about it, not allowng me to even talk about it on the OL, I think he is pushing me around

Do you really feel this way, pushed around? It's not like your 'Bigot' piece hasn't had a chance to be read. It's all over the place. I find it on three pages of Google results.

However, what does it say about an admin who deletes material which may be too harsh, too real. Is he trying to make his board a clique? Is this the only way he can deal with issues which disturb him?

I don't know what it says. I don't know that your post was found to be disturbing, nor that he felt it to be 'too harsh, too real.'

However, I don't think my deleted post was that bad. What do you all think? Will you sympathize with me here as others are sypathizing with Dragonfly on the OL?

Well, as I say, I don't know why it was deleted (or rather, I don't know the stated reasons).

Yes, I sympathize with you, Nick. I empathize with what I take to be your lack of understanding: why is my post gone? But I don't sympathize with Dragonfly in the same way. In the view of the owner and leaders of this site, he is a dissenter (or has shown a pattern of behaviour that the owner and leader consider antithetical to their community) and can not be allowed to infest the better threads . . . you, of course, are not yet viewed as an Anti here.

Two further comments, each of which is only tangentially related to the notion of 'Troublesome posters.'

First, in an attempt to understand you, I have been reading your output on a variety of forums. My empathy for you increased by so doing: I feel bad for you, Nick. You don't seem to have a lot of supporters out there -- you seem to have spent an awful lot of time arguing pointlessly with people you have scant respect for (and in turn, you seem to have engendered little respect or affection for yourself.

In your present circumstances I imagine you feel marginalized. You can't yet find a position as an instructor that reflects your level of education, experience and expertise. You are short of money. You are unhappily divorced. You don't have a lot of communication with your son, and you don't seem to have a circle of friends with which to take joy in the pleasures of life. Perhaps this colours the rest of your engagements with people, be they stupid human resources bureaucrats or nasty pseudointellects on the internet.

Second, your postings don't show much grace or empathy towards other people -- people with whom you seem to disagree, or with whom you feel unable to dialogue with. Case in point the unpleasant aside to Jenna Wong.

Have you ever given some time to think over the various reactions you have and you seem to engender? Have you ever reasoned out why people don't find you -- as the French put it -- sympathique?

Post 2

Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 10:43am

Do you really feel this way, pushed around? It's not like your 'Bigot' piece hasn't had a chance to be read. It's all over the place. I find it on three pages of Google results.

I was responding to a statement by Michael Stuart Kelly which was an allusion to an earlier statement by me. I was telling Rich Engle, who commented on how I get into these extended and unfriendly debates with people like Bridget and Ed T., how I do sometimes like to take positions and not let others push me around. Michael Stuart Kelly said that the only people whose posts he deleted who complained about it were those who said something about not wanting to be pushed around. He went on to say they were the ones pushing people around with their offensive posts. I am responding that my post does not push people around, but his deleting it does push me around on his forum. I' not accusing him of pushing me around on other forums. So, no, I don't feel pushed around on other forus were I am allowed to post things which do not personally attack posters.

Well, as I say, I don't know why it was deleted (or rather, I don't know the stated reasons).

He stated, in email to me, that the post was too spiteful, not what he and Kat wanted on the OL. He also admonished me not to call his friends bigots. (I called one person a bigot after he accused me of the same, and this was not included in the post that was deleted.), and Kat told me, in a post, that she thought some of my posts were inflamatory, even though others were freely insulting me and beng inflamatory to me.

In the paragraph I referred to where Michael Stuart Kelly explains his policy on deleting posts, he implies that the only posts he deletes are the ones which are very abusive to others on the board. I wanted to make clear that my deleted post was not directly directed at others on the board. It was a post about bigots, in general, who support their views with relativism. There may be individuals on the board who can identfy with that, but my post did not mention their names. They would have to project meaning onto my post to make it a personal attack on them.

... you, of course, are not yet viewed as an Anti here.

I am by some. I said repeatedly that I am not an Objectivist, I am my own kind of Neo-Objectivist, and I have been criticizing pure Objectivism. I am a dissenter. However, I haven't tried to post elsewhere. I don't mind just posting in this forum. Perhaps I would, though, if I were forced to be here.

You don't seem to have a lot of supporters out there -- you seem to have spent an awful lot of time arguing pointlessly with people you have scant respect for (and in turn, you seem to have engendered little respect or affection for yourself.

I am sort of a loner. That may seem sad to some, but I like the freedom. I don't measure my worth by the number of followers and friends I accumulate. The Great Gatsby gave successful parties and was very popular, yet he was also alone. How many friends came to his funeral? I do have a few long-time regulars on my slow moving board. When somethng significant happens in my personal life, like my father's recent death, I share with them.

Have you ever given some time to think over the various reactions you have and you seem to engender? Have you ever reasoned out why people don't find you -- as the French put it -- sympathique?

I can't blame others for not being interested in me if I am not much interested in them. And I am not interested in a lot of people. But then, talking about the French, I'd rather be an Alceste than a Philinte.

bis bald,

Nick

(Edited by Mr. Nicholas Neal Otani on 8/08, 10:51am)

Post 3

Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 8:39pm