patrick.net

rando says

So if an author bans you, you cannot comment on his threads

OK, so I should expect multiple threads on the same topic.

Yes, probably so.

People will self-segregate into relatively like-minded groups.

What we need is another thread about the special snowflakes and how they don't understand how awesome Trump is.

Also let's talk endlessly about how these are the 6 tenets of liberalism:

1) Everyone having the exact same income

2) Not working

3) Expecting infinite support and free shit from the government

4) Calling freedom loving patriots hateful or racists

5) Being godless pagans that are way too interested in deviant sex practices and gender weirdness

6) Fascist free speech denial on college campuses. All lefties and liberals are 100% supportive of this.

What did I forget ? (probably something about teachers ? Or perhaps how liberals actually want more terrorism becasue they refuse to condemn all of Islam because of some convoluted foolish belief that it would make radical Islamic terrorism worse) )

Hater says

patrick

Is there a reason you hide my posts?

What?

No one's posts are hidden. What post are you referring to?

Ah, there was a post which was marked "ad hominem" and indeed you were insulting another user instead of simply addressing his point.

This is not an ad hominem post. There is no personal attack in it.

Hater says

@patrick

Is there a reason you hide my posts?

They are mindless propaganda disseminating debunked lies as facts and often pure ad hominem attacks. At least your username is honest. You are full of hate.

Dan8267 says

You are full of hate.

That is actually a personal attack.

Whether or not a user is "full of hate" is irrelevant to the point the user is making, and that particular accusation the standard technique used by the left over and over to shut down civil and open debate on many issues.

rando says

Whether or not a user is "full of hate" is irrelevant to the point the user is making,

I disagree. The intent of the author is relevant to his writing. Intent matters.

Furthermore, hate is not inherently bad. Hate is an emotion, and no emotion is purely good or evil. Hatred serves a purpose. The purpose of hate is to deny evil the benefits of cooperation. Hatred is the appropriate response to harmful ideologies like Nazism and harmful behavior like terrorism. Therefore, it is appropriate to question whether or not a person's hatred is constructive or destructive. Hate can be good or bad, but either way it affects a person's position and is a valid topic of conversation.

My response to Hatred's objection to his posts being marked ad hominem stated,

They are mindless propaganda disseminating debunked lies as facts and often pure ad hominem attacks. At least your username is honest. You are full of hate.

The statement "You (Hatred) are full of hate." is materially relevant to why his posts are "often pure ad hominem attacks". It explains the root of the problem and suggests the solution, for Hatred to let go of his hate. Context matters. Saying that a person has a character flaw is not a personal attack if the context is identifying a problem and how to fix it, as is the case in my post.

Now, if I had said "you are a hateful little shit", then obviously that would be an ad hominem attack because it is no longer a factual statement, but rather a judgement of the person. The statement "you are full of hate" is not necessarily a judgement, and in the context of my post, was an objective observation.

Even if it's true, it doesn't matter.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is now usually understood as a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

Banning is up to thread authors. Let's see how that works for a while.

I did not delete any of your comments, but did delete one post which insulted Dan. There is no "post jail" yet, but I guess there should be.

Yes, that's it.

IIRC, there were like 3 comments.

Hacking is always possible, but I doubt that's it.

Those "confirm patrick.net post" emails get sent if you write a post when not logged in. Then it logs you in and publishes the post when you click on a link in the email.

Or, if you don't do that, eventually I see that the post is held in moderation, and approve it, or delete it if it's spam.

It was like "Dan is so triggered, that..."

Yup.

www.youtube.com/embed/1sONfxPCTU0

Evidently not. There is simply insufficient maturity in too many people. Immaturity coupled with anonymity equals trolling.

Patrick says

So between that and the ad hominem link, everyone should be able to moderate their own threads pretty well

Patrick - Sig Heil!

This is more like censorship ala V. Putin.

What you trying to make Patrick.net into - CNN?

Entitlemented says

What you trying to make Patrick.net into - CNN?

He's giving pussies* their safe spaces.

*) They know who they are.

Those that ban others must have Straw for backbones.

Dan8267 says

True, Patrick is trying damn hard, but he's failing. CIC is personally responsible for PatNet having lost at least 90% of its traffic. And a few other trolls, all on the conservative right, are also killing this site. If I wanted to pointlessly argue with asshole losers, I'd go to reddit.

If one doesn't like Free Speech,this is not the site for them.
No one is required to respond to others. Can anyone here simply not read threads by certain posters,
including HEY YOU.
It's impossible to not respond to HEY YOU because of the BRILLIANT ANALYSIS.

HEY YOU says

Those that ban others must have Straw for backbones.

I'm more than willing to debate this issue with you. Justify your premise that no one should ever be banned. I'll go first because I have brass balls.

Freedom of speech goes both ways. It means that a willing audience can hear ideas they want to hear, but that also means that no person should be allowed to prevent a willing audience from hearing those ideas. This is why those who shout down presenters are kicked out. It's also why trolls are kicked out. Trolls aren't silenced by bans because they can start their own threads. However, they are prevented from disrupting other people's conversations.

Your turn.

I guess I'm trying to accomplish contradictory things:

1. Let everyone give their opinion, no matter how odious, as long as they are arguing a point and not simply shitting on another user. (thus the ad-hom thing)
2. Let everyone avoid interacting with users who are simply trying to make them angry for fun. (thus the ability to ban from your own threads)

I suppose it is actually impossible to have "moderated free speech", but you could at least have fair moderation.

Which users have the best reputation for fairness and never getting angry? Maybe they should be allowed to be moderators.

rando says

Which users have the best reputation for fairness and never getting angry? Maybe they should be allowed to be moderators.

Patrick please don't add moderators. That never works out well in a long run, ego's and personality biases get in a way. I think you have it very right now where users can simply choose to block/ban certain users from their threads. That is the most free speech market solution out there. Having moderators is kind of outdated 90's thing.

Is it sufficient to let users ban such people from their own threads?

You might still have to interact with them on a 3rd party thread. But then, you could ask the thread author to ban them and they might agree.

FortWayne, you're right. Letting people have control of their own threads is probably sufficient.

rando says

I guess I'm trying to accomplish contradictory things:

1. Let everyone give their opinion, no matter how odious, as long as they are arguing a point and not simply shitting on another user. (thus the ad-hom thing)

2. Let everyone avoid interacting with users who are simply trying to make them angry for fun. (thus the ability to ban from your own threads)

Those aren't contradictory. Everyone can express their opinion, just not necessarily to another person's face. Well, that's tough. The snowflakes will simply have to get used to that.

The problem is that even with ban, people still attack each other on third party threads. This will stop when more people start using ban. Of course, it will split PatNet into two communities, one being a right-wing masturbation fest, and the other being everybody else, but that's a good thing.

I suppose it's OK if it splits, since all the threads will still be on the home page and everyone could at least read them.

Ultimately free speech is about expressing ideas, not forcing them onto others or shouting down other ideas or presenting misinformation in terms of incorrect "facts" or straw men. Those things actually detract from free speech.

Agreed about not forcing or shouting and straw men, but "alternative facts" are indeed a thing, no matter how much the press mocks it.

Meaning that there can be legitimate disagreement on what the facts really are.

So it's very hard to moderate supposedly incorrect facts without veering into political censorship.

Trumptards are destroying patnet

Ironman says

Dan8267 says

Freedom of speech goes both ways. It means that a willing audience can hear ideas they want to hear, but that also means that no person should be allowed to prevent a willing audience from hearing those ideas.

And then we have this:

Dan8267 is banning: Bellingham Bill BlueSardine Blurtman bob2356 CBOEtrader errc FortWayne GONE Heraclitusstudent indigenous Ironman lostand confused marcus No news is good news NuttBoxer P N Dr Lo R Paralithodes PeopleUnited Quigley Rashomon Strategist Straw Man Tenpoundbass The Original Bankster

Seems like freedom of speech only goes one way with Dan.

LOL. Commie Dan and Pink Pussy are not much different. Neither of them can handle facts that prove them wrong.
But you got to admit, some of their comments are extremely entertaining.

Strategist says

Commie Dan and Pink Pussy

So you are saying they are interchangeable? Not sure who pink pussy is but I have an idea who you are speaking about.

Patrick what does the rating #'s on the left mean and how do they work?

Off topic but since I got you here...
Your front page real estate doesn't have room for 4 small jump links like to:
real estate, politics, investing ?.... What happened to those?
I should ban your ass... lol

No.
Dan is interchangeable with rin. ( alt accounts )
i was banned by both within an hour's time.
Yesterday, I had several posts 'ad hominem' by both within 7 minutes time.
Both identities are infatuated with naked pictures
Do the math.

Graybox says

Strategist says

Commie Dan and Pink Pussy

So you are saying they are interchangeable?

If I ban, would it hide their posts? I don't dislike Rin, he's all right, it's just I really want to avoid pornographic material he occasionally posts.

Ironman says

Dan8267 is banning: Bellingham Bill BlueSardine Blurtman bob2356 CBOEtrader errc FortWayne GONE Heraclitusstudent indigenous Ironman lostand confused marcus No news is good news NuttBoxer P N Dr Lo R Paralithodes PeopleUnited Quigley Rashomon Strategist Straw Man Tenpoundbass The Original Bankster

Seems like freedom of speech only goes one way with Dan.

Actually freedom of speech goes both ways. You can say what you want, but you cannot disrupt other people's speech.

Sorry about triggering you piggy, but get over it.

Ironman says

Says the guy who posts pictures of old, fat naked guys and multiple pictures of sex with animals and goats..

We all know that's why you come here.

Strategist says

Commie Dan and Pink Pussy are not much different. Neither of them can handle facts that prove them wrong.

Show one time you've done that.

BlueSardine says

Dan is interchangeable with rin.

I'll take that as a compliment as Rin is a far better person than you. Also, his ban list is basically a list of trolls on the site.

It's amazing how delusional the trolls on this site are. They actually think they win arguments by being annoying little pricks as if their debunked lies and lame putdowns actually convince normal people.

I challenge any of those trolls bitching on this site to a real debate. None of you have ever been even a slight challenge, but lets demonstrate how much you actually suck at persuading people. Here are the rules of the real debate.
1. Patrick moderates and has unilateral rulings on procedures.
2. Patrick chooses three judges from academia with a background in debate.
3. Majority rule of the three judges determines the victor.

Climate change is a hot button topic that you all deny, so let's use that as the resolution. Resolved: Man-made climate change is real. I'll take the affirmative. You trolls keep saying that you "win" at disproving man-made climate change. Here's your chance to test that hypothesis.

Here's my hypothesis. None of you pussies will have the balls to accept this challenge.

Dan8267 says

Ultimately free speech is about expressing ideas, not forcing them onto others or shouting down other ideas or presenting misinformation in terms of incorrect "facts" or straw men. Those things actually detract from free speech.

you see disagreements as shouting down. You are so confused Dan, I genuinely feel bad for you.