Sorry James, didn't mean to intimate that I cared at all about the constitution as far as it pertains to my own personal philosophy. The mere idea of "all men are created equal" is enough to make me look sideways at the document, because it's blatantly untrue. What the rest of america does is up to them, I was just stating what I would do if I were dictator for life.

Spike: RPG.net obviously did it wrong. I gave a bit simplified version of proper behavioral modification techniques, but wasn't looking to draw diagrams, just give insight into my own philosophy. If "they're just bigots" means I'm bigotted against bigots, I can handle that. Won't bother me in the slightest, nor make me think I'm wrong because I don't like a morally distasteful and ethically repugnant practice.

All IMO of course. If you don't like it, don't vote for me when the dictator for life elections roll around.

Quote from: James J SkachCan you tell methe difference between rational and irrational discrimination?Is the former when it's your bigotry (against, say, religious people who have an opinion different than yours), and the latter when it's someone else's?

I am not a bigot against religious people.I know and am friendly towards religious moderates.
Do you find it reasonable that anyone should have a fear of two men having consensual sex in the privacy of a hotel room?

Quote from: AnthrobotDo you find it reasonable that anyone should have a fear of two men having consensual sex in the privacy of a hotel room?

The person who has to clean up in the morning

Quote from: TechnomancerNo, it offends me, and I am free to choose not to patronize a business or attend a church that uses discriminatory practices.  If enough people find discrimination offensive, the business will not make money and will either change their policy or go out of business.

True.

Quote from: Yes, they can throw someone off or prevent someone from coming onto their property (or property they are legally renting or occupying) just like the rich guys.[/QUOTELibertairianism could come to the rescue here.
Say that two gay men manage to get a hotel room, in a bigot's hotel.They are having sex when the owner ( who has just heard about the two gay men from the staff member that let them have the room) bangs on the door and shouts " Get out of my hotel you unholy sodomisers!"
One of the gay men replies "If I'm not hurting you ,physically, or anyone else in this hotel then you have fuck all to say on the matter!"
By your criteria the gay gentleman is correct.It involves no laws.
The owner isn't being physically injured, he's just upset because his archaic beliefs are being shown to be outmoded.But that also is allowed by your criteria. Problem solved?

Quote from: TechnomancerMurderers cause harm to others.  Bigotry by itself does not. It is proper for the government to punish the former and not the latter.

Bigotry by itself...I'm about to agree with you on that statement, but bigotry doesn't exist in a vacuum.It can spread.Hurt feelings can( but not always) lead to violence.

Quote from: TechnomancerNo, as I have explained, government, which gets its power from the people it governs, has a responsibility to treat all of those people equally, whereas I, as a private citizen, do not possess any such obligation.  If I do, please explain where it comes from, other than your own sense of niceness.

True. No one is obligated to be decent folk.But it is the intelligent thing to do. To at least try to get on with everyone who isn't causing you harm.The bible says "Love thy neighbour", but the  Christian hardliners might be forgetting that bit.

Quote from: TechnomancerIf some individual bigots are guilty of such crimes they should either be in jail or watched, sure. What's your point? That because some bigots commit crimes we have a right to punish or restrict the behavior of all of them?  Substitute the word "bigots" for "Muslims" or "blacks" and see if you still feel the same.
No, it doesn't. The effect of private discrimination is that someone is denied the use of property or services that belong to someone else, to which they did not have a right to in the first place.  The owner gets to decide who gets to use it, and under what conditions.  The effect of public institutionalized discrimination is that the government, which gets its power from the people it governs and has a duty to protect them, is doing the opposite.

The point is that a bit of anti descriminatory legislation would show these people that their beliefs are outmoded/nasty.I don't advocate locking them up here.Merely fining them.It may hurt their bank balance but it won't hurt them, unless they are foolish enough to keep being bigots.Then their business will suffer.
Government descrimination has the same effect as private descrimination.Why can't you see that.It is irrelevant who is descriminating.The effect is the same: descrimination.
I'm not going to change the name bigots for Muslims or Blacks.This is about religious bigots.Not ALL Muslims,ALL Christians or ALL Black people, some of whom know more about being descriminated against better than any white property owning religious bigot.

Quote from: TechnomancerIt can, it doesn't have to.  To use a previous example, this is similar to the argument the censors use to try and ban violence in video games.  Some people who play violent video games commit violent acts. Does that mean violent video games should be banned? Even though many, many more people who play these games never hurt anyone?
Do you feel like we keep saying the same things over and over.  Because I do.  I feel I've made my point, so I'm bowing out, although I will give you the courtesy of reading any further response you make (so you've got one more chance to convince me I'm wrong ).
I will say that I understand your motives for wanting anti-discrimination laws in place, they are noble and do you credit.  I share your feelings about bigotry, but I feel that the methods you espouse will prove to cause more harm than good in the long run.
In other words, I think your heart is in the right place but your methods are wrong.

I'm not talking about video games.Bigotry is a far more serious threat to society than some liberal politician's spurious scapegoat.
I think we've both gone over pretty much the same territory.Thank you for letting me reply.
Thanks for understanding my motives.
I am in support of the anti descriminatory legislation in the UK. I doubt that it will catch on around the world, as each country ,and society,has different sets of values.
My methods may be wrong in America or from your perspective, but I think they MAY work over here in the UK.
Trying to change values that lead to descrimination is never a bad thing in my book.
Thanks for having the cojones to get into a debate/argument/ verbal fistfight with me.

Quote from: Hastur T. FannonThe person who has to clean up in the morning

Good point.Lets hope that they clean up after their night of passion! And while we're at it...any heterosexuals should clean up after a shag as well!:D

Quote from: James McMurraySpike: RPG.net obviously did it wrong. I gave a bit simplified version of proper behavioral modification techniques, but wasn't looking to draw diagrams, just give insight into my own philosophy. If "they're just bigots" means I'm bigotted against bigots, I can handle that. Won't bother me in the slightest, nor make me think I'm wrong because I don't like a morally distasteful and ethically repugnant practice.

All IMO of course. If you don't like it, don't vote for me when the dictator for life elections roll around.

Personally, James, I don't think you CAN do it right. Once you've enshrined the instituition of oppression... no matter how justifiable your initial decision may be, it is eventually going to spiral out of control.  RPG.net didn't do it wrong, they just did it. Poof!  Scientifically it's too small a sample to 'prove' anything, but the way it follows the predictive model is facinating and slightly disturbing.

Depending on how you look at it, RPG.net might be considered to have done it right, if you assume they've got a close approximation of the kind of forum they'd like to have. Sure, they no longer appeal to you or I, but their goal wasn't to have a forum where everybody is one big Kumbaya singing family.

I'd suggest otherwise. First of all, they aren't done yet, of course. It could go either way, they could stop removing 'unwelcome' elements and become more open once again, or they could keep tightening the noose until the forum becomes defunct.  What I suspect they can not do is maintain their current 'stability'.

Let's analyze your comment that they got exactly what they wanted, thus have done it right, shall we?

Ostensibly, what they want is to make the site more open and accepting of everyone. Obviously this is not what they have or they wouldn't have so many bitter ex-pats, so lets parse it a bit more.

What they want, then, is a site that does not tolerate prejudice, racial, sexual, or religious, from it's posters. It wants to oust the bigots, both actual and accidental.  Mind you, I got there right before the revolution started (Nisarg, that is the Pundit, commented on one of my first ever reviews...).

How does that jibe with Jimbob being banned then?  Other than some vague anti-american rumblings he's pretty damn unprejudiced...

Oh, so they want a polite website then?  (Kumbaya?) Jimbo, just as my example, is reasonably polite but occasionally cutting in his remarks.  So, is RPG.net polite then? Not according to most of the expats... they've got more snark and bitter hatred simply covered by a veneer of civility. To some long term posters there is a definite feeling that there is an axe overhead, just waiting to drop.   A bit of hearsay, certainly. I've felt it, and I am not exactly 'long term', and only recently did I bother posting again over there.  

Need I remind you they've turned on eachother, much as the French revolutionaries did, if less permanently.  Cessna had to self ban himself for two weeks to restore order.  Several of the moderators have 'jumped ship', removing themselves from actual power rather that continue on.

Given that this thread is arguably about the Tyranny of the Majority, the RPG.net is an interesting example, in microcosm, of what happens  when it is allowed to progress unchecked. It is not complete, nor is it the 'best' example available to us, but it does remain an interesting object lesson. And not one I'd care to emulate, here or in the real world.

I did say "depending on how you look at it." RPG.net is a bad example for me to discuss because I don't care enough about places I don't like to track their history and goings ons like a lot of the disgruntled displacees here seem to do.

To use a different example, I'll point to my own experiences with a forum in the past, that my wife currently runs. It's a poetry forum, and doesn't get near as much insanity as a gaming board, but it has it's moments.

For example, a little while ago my wife told me about a girl who posted quite regularly. They really liked her stuff, and people enjoyed her presence (the carrot). However, she also insisted on posting poems every so often that were ostensibly about her suffering as a child, but in the end amounted to child pornography. My wife and the rest of the mods didn't want any of this on their site, although they do allow other sexually explicit stuff in a private subforum. The girl was warned and told to stop (the stick). She constantly defended her works and refused to stop, and was eventually banned (the even bigger stick). Now New Horizons is a child pornography free zone, and they got what they wanted.

Amusingly enough this girl started up a blog and another forum somewhere whose sole purpose seems to be to bitch about censorship, especially as it pertains to the folks at my wife's site. She takes the saner (IMO) route and ignores them.

Also, RPG.net is group run. If I were dictator for life that wouldn't be the case, so there's no need to worry about me turning on myself.