[A Jooser]

Thought-provoking essay Totalitarianism and the Five Stages of Dehumanization by Christiaan Alting von Geusau at:
https://brownstone.org/articles/totalitarianism-and-the-five-stages-of-dehumanization/

...The fifth and final step?...

...account deleted and posts removed...

"...truth is a goal to attain, not an object to claim and thus requires humility and respectful dialogue... a society can only be free, healthy and prosperous when no human being is excluded and when there is always the genuine willingness and openness for a robust public discourse, to hear and understand the other, no matter how different his or her opinion or attitude to life." - Christiaan W. J. M. Alting von Geusau.

[lagerstarfish]

Are you saying that we should have had another poll first?

[teestub]

"...and thus requires humility and respectful dialogue...

I think if there had been some of this from him, Dan wouldn’t have got banned the first time, let alone the fifth (?) time!

[lagerstarfish]

You know who makes me feel humiliated and disrespected? Audi drivers.
You too, huh?
Yeah, them with their menacing privacy glass and superior pseudo Olympic rings.
I tell you what; we should get together and teach them a lesson. Smash the black glass and burn their log books in the street. That'll teach them to make us feel small and weak.

[Oldmanmatt]

And yet, society has recognised, that some humans must be excluded; or society breaks down

Give the Ruthless Thug full rein, soon society becomes an extension of his/her gang.

Give the Priest exemption from challenge, soon society becomes his/her church.

Extending absolute and inviolable rights of free expression, without commensurate imposition of responsibility to society’s general good, enforced with condign measures of appropriate severity; simply results in the persecution of the meek, by the strong (or, in fact, usually, the loud).

This isn’t a democratic forum. It is an owned and moderated forum, that invites people to contribute, within the framework of the promulgated rules, with the understanding that those rules are not exhaustive and the owners and moderators have ultimate say on what goes and what stays. We all know that. In essence, it is a private forum and we are guests.

This is the equivalent of being asked to leave a private party, after you have called the hosts loved ones a “pile of fetid possum’s arseholes”  and curled one down in the punch bowl. It is not a violation of your human rights or your freedom of speech, to be ejected and your shit cleaned up; from the hosts private residence.

Freedom of speech, carries an implied “Freedom to not listen”, too. I can see why you might say that that was all that was required, to ignore Dan, if we so chose. However, giving a platform to certain people, certain ideas, carries  a risk to the persons providing that platform and they are not obliged to take that risk.

In this case, Dan can wander off to larger platforms, with broader audiences and rant to his heart’s content. He’s hardly been silenced. Simply asked to go do it outside.

[Plattsy]

"...and thus requires humility and respectful dialogue...

I think if there had been some of this from him, Dan wouldn’t have got banned the first time, let alone the fifth (?) time!

There was plenty of disrespectful dialogue true. Not all of it from Dan.

[Oldmanmatt]

"...and thus requires humility and respectful dialogue...

I think if there had been some of this from him, Dan wouldn’t have got banned the first time, let alone the fifth (?) time!

There was plenty of disrespectful dialogue true. Not all of it from Dan.

But you always say that, or similar, but you never move in to support those you view as persecuted, at the time. You only ever chime in with a “tut tut” after the fact.

Did you agree with Dan’s (various) positions? The opportunity exists for you to add to the discussion, where was he right, where was he wrong?

Lay on Macduff.

[Plattsy]

Not true. I've stepped in once Matt.

[Plattsy]

And I was very tempted to say something the other day but I was pretty convinced it would make no difference.

[Oldmanmatt]

Not true. I've stepped in once Matt.

Apologies.

I’ve been busy and was in and out of the thread. In fact, I’ve been out completely since Tuesday and only returned today, having missed all the excitement.

Also, the way I wrote that was more abrupt than I meant it to be, a common error of mine.

[Oldmanmatt]

And I was very tempted to say something the other day but I was pretty convinced it would make no difference.

You don’t know that. And it might have changed the direction of the conversation. It’s easy to lose patience with somebody and lose perspective. Sometimes an alternative perspective from a neutral party, shifts everything back. It might not push it all the way back to friendly, but it might keep it on the rails.

I’m told this one got really very bad, though?

[Potash]

It is indeed correct that I had no respect for Dan nor his position.

I believe that I should tolerate his views and that he should be legally allowed to hold them. I do not think anyone is compelled to respect him or them.

His free speech rights to bleat on about conspiracy should not trump my ability to share my feelings on him.

I also fully accept that this is an owned private space and if the owner wants to police it and control speech I have the option to stand in my garden ranting. To me, a right to hold and express views, is not a right to force social media, newspapers, university etc to amplify the view for me.

There is nothing to stop Dan launching ukconspiracy.com

[abarro81]

I wrote some stuff but it's not worth it. (Can't work out how to delete so just modified.)

[Stu Littlefair]

I'd rather people weren't banned for having incorrect opinions or being loud bores about them. It would be preferable IMO to stop replying to threads any more when a poster becomes belligerent or tedious.

Instead, we are too easily drawn into being this guy (and it's usually a guy):

[Fiend]

...account deleted and posts removed...

I think it's fair to say that it's not the perfect way to deal with such a problematic thread (which had turned quite petty at the end) - it might have been better to move everything from LozT's first post including replies to a separate "Stronger Vaccine Concerns" thread and logpile it. However our glorious insect overlord is away trying to find crags / fall in the chulilla river / work out which day he's flying home, so a blunt tool of mass deletion was probably all he felt like especially if it was just tackled on a mobile 

Edit: Also, in terms of how to deal with such interactions as a poster on the forum, I entirely agree with Midgets above and his approach should be more widely encouraged in such circumstances

Edit 2: I mean I entirely agree with Midgets about gruelling socio-political debates and suchlike. Threads about climbing ethics and grades, we should definitely be "that guy" 

 

[northern yob]

I'd rather people weren't banned for having incorrect opinions or being loud bores about them. It would be preferable IMO to stop replying to threads any more when a poster becomes belligerent or tedious.

Instead, we are too easily drawn into being this guy (and it's usually a guy):

This!

It’s a shame Dan can’t interact with the forum in a slightly less infuriating way.

I’m definitely that guy when it comes to climbing ethics….

[kelvin]

It is indeed correct that I had no respect for Dan nor his position.

You're not the only one.

What you said would have been said rather sooner if the conversation was being had in the flesh.

I don't post on here so much but I do read most threads due to there being a large number of intelligent people who can deliver their thoughts and arguments in a palatable manner for others to ponder and disassemble. It's great.

Everytime Dan rocks up, it all becomes about him. Classic personality disorder stuff. Except it's on a scale of millions globally. Comparing your suffering to that of the Jews is the latest thing for the conspiracy mob. It's in vogue. My sister-in-law, my acupuncturist and my signwriter have said the same thing this week. Dan's hardly original in his deluded rantings.

I don't think I've ever come across a group of people who so keenly display the need to feel oppressed. It's bizarre.

[shark]

There is rarely any banning of users or post deletion on UKB and long may that continue.

With regard to Dan I have been supportive of him in the past as I respect his creativity and alternative views as far as climbing goes. However, typically he would post provocative stuff then request that his account be deleted.

This happened several times and became a pain in the arse. The last time it happened in March the message passed back was that if it was deleted then there would be a minimum of 12 months off as a cooling period.

Since then he has attempted or managed to re-register several times subverting that cooling off period and I have deleted his account on each occasion and this is why I again deleted it this time - not because of his views - I didn’t even read his posts.

On the general subject of non-climbing threads I personally don’t follow them. I don’t mind them happening but I do mind when I get PM’ed whilst away in Chulilla* and having to make a judgement about whether someone is trolling or not although I’m more happy to plough through climbing threads and take more nuanced action.

Finally almost always I sound out other moderators before doing anything.

*Not a criticism of those who PMed me

[duncan]

I attempted to divide the thread into the portion which contained views I vehemently disagreed with but were fair comment and the portion that had got very nasty. Of course I screwed this up as I am hopeless at this kind of thing and never attended the moderators induction and training event  .   Part of the thread was lost in the process.

Never underestimate the effect of the cock-up!

[Bonjoy]

Dan was already banned and hadn't waited for a response to a request to be unbanned before posting up again, so i think reinforcing the bar was to be expected and fair. I'd rather the thread had been left in place rather than deleted though. Nothing feeds into paranoia more than censorship. Better to lock and leave so anyone can read and make their own judgements on the merits of the arguments and the justifications if a thread is locked. I would have deleted at least two of Potash's posts though had I seen them (I was out climbing all day), which I though looked like bullying, hence a clear breach of forum rules.

[shark]

Fair point. It was rash of me to delete the posts as well 

[Nails]

To be fair I don't think the thread in general had turned nasty. It had turned frustrating with the vast amount of posts being either Dan or people attempting to get Dan to engage properly. At the end Potash turned nasty on Dan but actually did a good job of calling him out. I think Potash was harsh but justified. I have the same thing with my brother at family occassions. You can only sit by politely listening to shit for so long. At some point you have to call people on it. Everybody in the room is left feeling uncomfortable, but that doesn't mean it didn't need saying.

[Paul B]

There is rarely any banning of users or post deletion on UKB and long may that continue.

Can we have Three Nine back please?

[abarro81]

You'll have to tease him away from God first 

I didn't think Potash was mean to Dan or bullying him (unless I missed some final posts) EDIT: looked at the reinstated thread. That's not bullying, that's Dan being too off his rocker to notice the obvious trap he was walking into and then failing to engage with the substance of the discussion. Again.

[shark]

Thread re-merged / reinstated

Jon/Duncan feel free to remove any posts that constitute bullying