time to ban the EDL posters

55 posts / 0 new
Last post
Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Jul 4 2010 20:05
time to ban the EDL posters

Please. Other posters have been banned for lesser shit than spouting racist crap. Enough is enough.

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Jul 4 2010 20:40

Seconded.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Jul 4 2010 21:02

On the other hand, that does feed their martyr syndrome, and using them as a theoretical punching bag is potentially useful to provide reading material for any undecided types who happen to read the threads they're on - it's not like they get particularly involved on any threads which aren't EDL-related so it's easy enough to avoid them.

Thrashing_chomsky
Offline
Joined: 3-06-07
Jul 4 2010 21:33

They have displayed zero arguing ability.

I'll happily discuss nationalism nationality and religion with some random EDL member, but only if they don't come to my meetings with the intention of intimidating me or are completely inept at debate.

Ban em

gypsy
Offline
Joined: 20-09-09
Jul 4 2010 22:17

they are a pretty sinister bunch.

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Jul 4 2010 22:39

Can libcom block IP addresses? Or can banned posters just keep coming back when they feel like it?

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Jul 4 2010 23:21

marsella?

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Jul 5 2010 09:05

we ban people who broke rules on racism or trolling, etc. So Arthur was allowed to post until he made a racist comment, and more recent trolls who also made discriminatory comments were banned immediately.

Nate's picture
Nate
Offline
Joined: 16-12-05
Jul 8 2010 13:48

I'm quite surprised that you don't ban anyone who is part of the EDL regardless of their forum behavior.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jul 8 2010 15:03

Well we pretty much did when the antifascist meeting thread was opened, but in general we've had a policy of not banning people /purely/ due to their politics. Also I didn't really figure out arthur was EDL until recently, but that may be from just not noticing his posts before.

Boris Badenov
Offline
Joined: 25-08-08
Jul 8 2010 19:51

Wouldn't it be a good idea to make forums like Announcements and Organise visible only to registered members?

Farce's picture
Farce
Offline
Joined: 21-04-09
Jul 8 2010 19:58

Don't think so. It'd make more sense to just not put something in announcements if you don't want people knowing about it. If the EDL/cop reading this can be bothered actually turning up to events, then I'm sure they can take about 3 minutes to register on a forum.

gypsy
Offline
Joined: 20-09-09
Jul 8 2010 20:18

thats true. arthur was a member for ages.

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Jul 8 2010 20:41

right but it might not be a terrible idea to have a secret forum for certain strategy discussions open to known users.

Yorkie Bar
Offline
Joined: 29-03-09
Jul 9 2010 00:09
jesuithitsquad wrote:
right but it might not be a terrible idea to have a secret forum for certain strategy discussions open to known users.

Which is why libertarian communist organisations have their own internal forums. Libcom just isn't the place for that sort of sensitive stuff, it's not what the site is about.

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Jul 9 2010 00:16

fair enough but it just seems like broader problems like this one are bigger than one organization

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jul 9 2010 07:45

We used to have private forums, but had to remove them due to performance issues, for this reason if no others it's extremely unlikely that'll happen.

That doesn't preclude the possibility of a private forum - it's just not possible to have it integrated with the rest of the site.

gypsy
Offline
Joined: 20-09-09
Jul 9 2010 08:00
jesuithitsquad wrote:
right but it might not be a terrible idea to have a secret forum for certain strategy discussions open to known users.

This sounds good.

Nate's picture
Nate
Offline
Joined: 16-12-05
Jul 9 2010 23:05
Quote:
Well we pretty much did when the antifascist meeting thread was opened

Cool. Thanks.

Quote:
in general we've had a policy of not banning people /purely/ due to their politics.

why?

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jul 9 2010 22:57
jesuithitsquad wrote:
fair enough but it just seems like broader problems like this one are bigger than one organization

And then how do you define membership?
Do you allow members of long-standing?
Members of groups etc etc.
These would probably stop the infiltration by the casual fascist but unless you are talking about early stage organisational meetings this would be pointless.
Basicallly if you are going to use the internet to advertise things then fascists will hear about them. You might do better with posters etc locally because fascists tend to be a bit thin on the ground and they're less likely to come across them.

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Jul 10 2010 02:27

Of course you have a point and I certainly wouldn't presume to be the one setting the criteria (and to be fair maybe it would be useless), but it just seems like it would be useful to have a platform for cross-organizational, transcontinental discussions that wouldn't be appropriate for discussion on an open, public messageboard.

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
Jul 10 2010 11:24

I think that in regard to Arthur it was right to engage him until he himself exposed his racist agenda very clearly.
One point about banning him eventually, which I agree with, was that it was said that he was racist towards Muslim workers - which he was. Also his comments about "burka clad nobodies" was an incitement to violence against women wearing particularly clothing, open season on them. If they're "nobodies", they can be attacked and abused with impunity, hit from behind and their clothes torn off, and this is what Arthur was advocating.

Road Runner
Offline
Joined: 4-07-10
Jul 11 2010 10:50

I'm not sure whether you have noticed or not, but Islam (of which Muslims are followers) is not a race, but a total belief system. Therefore you cannot be racist against a Muslim.

Also, @LittleBigJ, I love the irony about using the word libertarian in a thread about banning people because they have a different viewpoint.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Jul 11 2010 11:03

Libertarian means many things, not just the freedom to do what the hell you want. For example, in a libertarian communist society we might as a mass exercise our collective freedoms against parasitism, prejudice and the establishment of new elites by restricting the minority who try to indulge in said pastimes.

Not that you've come on here with the least interest in actually learning anything about the nuances of libertarian thought and neither did they, hence their being banned.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jul 11 2010 11:15
Nate wrote:
why?

Generally people with completely incompatible politics to the site don't last long for other reasons. Figuring out what politics is and isn't explicitly allowed would be a real pain. Sometimes it's fun arguing with trots. Not all people who come across the site and have incompatible politics are internet discussion forum veterans (although a lot are). All this post is personal capacity of course.

Rob Ray's picture
Rob Ray
Offline
Joined: 6-11-03
Jul 11 2010 11:19

Plus on the whole as long as people aren't trolling this site is supposed to act as an outreach tool no? Which would make debating with people of other backgrounds fairly important. Tbh I think the limits the admins set tend to be sensible, ie. you're alright unless you take the piss or you're being actively bigoted.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Jul 11 2010 11:39
Road Runner wrote:
I'm not sure whether you have noticed or not, but Islam (of which Muslims are followers) is not a race, but a total belief system. Therefore you cannot be racist against a Muslim.

Also, @LittleBigJ, I love the irony about using the word libertarian in a thread about banning people because they have a different viewpoint.

OK then so you're sectarian. The way you talk about muslims is similar to how racists (and most bigots) talk and is underpinned with racism, especially the non-sensical idea of the English as a race.

You're not being banned for having a different viewpoint, EDL posters have been banned for making racist statements. Racism is not a negotiable viewpoint it is a belief system that, unfortunately, some people subscribe to.
Libertarianism is about self-control as much as about self expression. So while you might think it's cool to shit in the middle of the floor the rest of the community might think it best to ask you not to and if it was a serious problem to make you stop doing it.

gypsy
Offline
Joined: 20-09-09
Jul 11 2010 11:47
Road Runner wrote:
I'm not sure whether you have noticed or not, but Islam (of which Muslims are followers) is not a race, but a total belief system. Therefore you cannot be racist against a Muslim.

Also, @LittleBigJ, I love the irony about using the word libertarian in a thread about banning people because they have a different viewpoint.

Lol you ban people on EDL forums who have different viewpoints. Pot calling kettle.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jul 11 2010 12:00
Road Runner wrote:
I'm not sure whether you have noticed or not, but Islam (of which Muslims are followers) is not a race, but a total belief system. Therefore you cannot be racist against a Muslim.

It's not strictly accurate for anyone to say you can be racist against "all Muslims", however, no-one has said that including you. But I have no idea how you can go from that to saying you can't be racist against "a Muslim". Same as you can be racist against "a Christian" or "a Buddhist".

While neither Christianity nor Buddhism in the UK is associated with any particular ethnic or cultural groups, the specificities of immigration patterns into the UK and communalist government policy mean that the majority of people who identify as 'muslim' in the UK are from Bangladeshi or Pakistani backgrounds. In fact I know someone who's parents are from each country, and while he's not very religious, he describes himself as muslim - to describe that (dual) national background rather than religion as such. So while it's not strictly accurate to talk about being racist against muslims, in practical terms that is how it's experienced on both sides. http://libcom.org/library/croissant-roses-new-labour-muslim-britain covers the history of this pretty well.

Thrashing_chomsky
Offline
Joined: 3-06-07
Jul 11 2010 12:15
jef costello wrote:
Libertarianism is about self-control as much as about self expression. So while you might think it's cool to shit in the middle of the floor the rest of the community might think it best to ask you not to and if it was a serious problem to make you stop doing it.

My new facebook status. Cheers Jef

baboon
Offline
Joined: 29-07-05
Jul 12 2010 12:25

I agree with the arguments against the idea that, because it's a belief issue, however tenuously held, you can't be racist against muslims. We have seen it very clearly demonstrated by Arthur above that you can.

What Arthur, and the EDL generally, represent, is the racist agenda, including a major racist campaign against muslims, carried out over the last ten years by the British state and orchestrated in great part by the previous Labour government. The EDL are part of the offspring of this divisive and anti-working class campaign, wrapping themselves in the flag of a non-existent English race.

What I find amusing about these clods, is their total ignorance of the way that the British state has, for the past 50 years, harboured, sustained, sometimes help create and used Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic terrorists for its own imperialist ends. For a clue about this, see Mark Curtis in The Guardian, July 6.