why is there suddenly a plethora of racist threads?

[Si modo]

Originally Posted by daisym

Tonight I can see:

two threads in War & peace thinly veiled as platforms for racist rhetoric:
Riots in France Worse than 2005 Riots
Guess Who's Guarding U.S. Nuclear Weapons (Israel of course)

under culture and media issues there are 4 similar threads:
What's Wrong With Whitey ??
Winston Churchill: "Jews Responsible For Communism in USSR"
Where's the Great Black Hope ??
"Hatin Whitey" by Jew David Horowitz

previously there was a thread in which the OP was an attempt to glorify hatred and intolerance of people on the basis of race.

What I think needs to be said is that effectively these threads are all saying the same thing.

They are nothing but a platform for vilification of Jews and people of African origin (probably others as well if you look closely).

Why are there no constraints on this man creating new threads, since they are all effectively an excuse to spread racist poison on the web?

Does USPO really want to be a vehicle for this man preaching hatred?

One's poison may be another's ambrosia. Free speech (within the rules), not good taste, is what is enforced here. Anyone one who has given a skim to the rules knows this.

[partofme]

It's not censorship. It's Marc's site and he can do what ever he wants or put people in charge that can do what they wish. I think they should be allowed to stay but with limits on the amount of threads they can create. I wouldn't mind that sort of limit on everybody. I can't think of anybody that has been here for any length of time that creates that many anyway.

[ThorHammer]

Originally Posted by partofme

It's not censorship. It's Marc's site and he can do what ever he wants or put people in charge that can do what they wish. I think they should be allowed to stay but with limits on the amount of threads they can create. I wouldn't mind that sort of limit on everybody. I can't think of anybody that has been here for any length of time that creates that many anyway.

Moon, for one.

[ThorHammer]

Originally Posted by Si modo

One's poison may be another's ambrosia. Free speech, not good taste, is what is enforced here. Anyone one who has given a skim to the rules knows this.

Free speech doesn't apply here, since it is a privately owned site.

[moon]

It's not censorship. It's Marc's site and he can do what ever he wants or put people in charge that can do what they wish.

Not unchallenged, they can't, and there ought to be more challenges than there are. That's not the topic though.

[ThorHammer]

Originally Posted by moon

Not unchallenged, they can't, and there ought to be more challenges than there are. That's not the topic though.

I think there have been plenty of challenges. The Holocaust threads come to mind.

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

Moon, for one.

Well i was gonna say use moon as an example for the calculation; the amount of threads he starts, if you average it up to a per day or week ratio then reduce that number by about 10% or so its still probably too many threads to be starting.

[Si modo]

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

Free speech doesn't apply here, since it is a privately owned site.

And the owner can do as he pleases...absolutely. It seems that the owner has set up rules where free speech is enforced (within decency).

[moon]

I think there have been plenty of challenges. The Holocaust threads come to mind.

Good.

[moon]

Well i was gonna say use moon as an example for the calculation; the amount of threads he starts, if you average it up to a per day or week ratio then reduce that number by about 10% or so its still probably too many threads to be starting.

There are plenty of lame-brains that swiftly run out of standard responses , that's for sure. I get just as wound up about mindless slander, plagiarism and innuendo as some do about extremism. Lol.

[Speakeasy]

Originally Posted by moon

A ghastly suggestion. It would eliminate everything other than frontpage mainsteam comment. Lesser forums would die of starvation. It would be censorship by ration book.

I wouldn't exactly call it 'ghastly', but it's certainly not our preferred solution. If it was, we would've implemented it awhile ago.

The problem is, this site is incredibly prone to thread dumping. If NAMBLA decided to make their home here, there's nothing to stop 100 of their members from coming here and basically making every other thread about the pros and cons of man boy sex, as a terrible example. Obviously, this goes against what we're aiming for here.

So, some sort of thread creation limit seems feasible in this case. But, an all across the board thread limit for everyone doesn't sound like fun. So, should we enact one for people with less than 500 posts? People who've been here less than a month? Only registered users can create unlimited threads?

Basically, how does this site defend against massive thread dumping?

And discussing other members in public is odious.

I'm keeping an eye on this thread to make sure it doesn't devolve into a discussion about a specific member. The concern raised is a real one and one we've been trying to think of a solution to long before the recent spate of White Separatist/Nationalist/Whateverists.

[moon]

moon;
Total Posts: 11,425 (8.43 posts per day)

Us Presidents have a lot to say. If you want to stop me making posts then quit posting stuff for me to respond to. Outcome=site closure due to apathy. Anyway, anybody that doesn't speak eight times a day ought to see a therapist. Lol.

Basically, how does this site defend against massive thread dumping?

Allowing free speech seems to me an admirable defense. Who wants to target free speech ? ( unless it's us )

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by moon

There are plenty of lame-brains that swiftly run out of standard responses , that's for sure. I get just as wound up about mindless slander, plagiarism and innuendo as some do about extremism. Lol.

So what you're saying is that you can find more new things to create more new threads about?

[moon]

So what you're saying is that you can find more new things to create more new threads about?

Don't keep getting personal with me, Traveler, because you always come off worst.
I post according to what's happening in the world and what I think about it. Some members just post because they've got the hots for other members. I ain't one of them.

Now then, Speakeasy is available for sensible discussion. Take advantage of it and get out of my pants.

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

I wouldn't exactly call it 'ghastly', but it's certainly not our preferred solution. If it was, we would've implemented it awhile ago.

The problem is, this site is incredibly prone to thread dumping. If NAMBLA decided to make their home here, there's nothing to stop 100 of their members from coming here and basically making every other thread about the pros and cons of man boy sex, as a terrible example. Obviously, this goes against what we're aiming for here.

Well how about a little more discression used to be more harsh to those who intentionally aim to harm the site. For example what you may let go for say a regular poster who usually stays within the rules you clamp down on first time on those who seek to dirupt or stack the site?

So, some sort of thread creation limit seems feasible in this case. But, an all across the board thread limit for everyone doesn't sound like fun. So, should we enact one for people with less than 500 posts? People who've been here less than a month? Only registered users can create unlimited threads?

Basically, how does this site defend against massive thread dumping?

Maybe there are smaller caps on those that are here longer, the longer you're around the mor you can post based on warning assesments on thread dumping/spam threads/duplicate threads/violations in the OP etc etc. But who the heck is gonna create and implement such a system?? Eventually the suggestion will arise that contributing members get to start more threads; not addressing the contextof the problem directly but how many of the WN's or whoever are contributing members? Even indirectly it may work.