I think it's time we had another talk about the krazen situation

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Making a harmless second account = instant perma-ban
Behaving like krazen = oh well, nothing we can do, sorry guys

What a joke.

And we all know that if krazen's vitriol was directed at gays instead of poors he would have been banned long ago, like the jtfcms.

Gay hating is bigotry. Social Darwinism is not.

I really don't see how both aren't bigotry, to be honest. How is Social Darwinism not a form of bigotry? While it is obviously in principle a lot easier to stop being poor than it is to stop being gay, I'm not sure that it makes a huge difference in practical terms for most people, and hatred for gays and hatred for poors very often appeal to the same sorts of personalities (and then of course in bygone days these sorts of personalities would have had a much freer hand in polite company to express similar contempt for racial minorities and women; it's often seemed to me like certain of the tropes of homophobia are in some way or another repurposed or reconstructed from certain of the tropes of misogyny, as a lot of the tropes of (krazen-style) classism are from those of racism). I also don't think jmfcst hated gays with nearly the terrifying levels of unhinged vitriol that krazen hates poors, although I may have missed something.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Making a harmless second account = instant perma-ban
Behaving like krazen = oh well, nothing we can do, sorry guys

What a joke.

And we all know that if krazen's vitriol was directed at gays instead of poors he would have been banned long ago, like the jtfcms.

Gay hating is bigotry. Social Darwinism is not.

I really don't see how both aren't bigotry, to be honest. And I don't think jmfcst hated gays with nearly the terrifying levels of unhinged vitriol that krazen hates poors, although I may have missed something.

No, you're spot on.

[Lief 🗽]

Yeah, arguing that social Darwinism (especially krazen's unhinged, trolling and violent version of it) isn't bigotry is ridiculous.

[Torie]

Well the issue is nicely joined. If one were to go where some of you want to go, drawing the line between where social Darwinism ends, and the embracement of laissez faire economics begins, would be a task - unless of course this Forum is really for red avatars, and more moderate Pubs (hopefully not). Meanwhile, nobody thinks that rich bashing is bigotry apparently (no doubt on the theory that they can take it given their resources). It gets complicated. It is however a good discussion to have, and it should not be limited to the Cave. This is about us.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

If krazen held the political views that he does but didn't make a habit of referring to poor people as 'moochers' and 'leeches' and symbolically defenestrating them from his concept of the body politic in every other post he makes, I'd have no problem with him. RogueBeaver, to name just one example, probably has similar views to krazen when you get down to actual policy positions and RogueBeaver is an excellent poster who I wouldn't describe as bigoted at all.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I don't think it's unreasonable to compare "rich bashing" to, well, "white bashing."  Obviously racism is wrong.  Making generalizations about people is wrong - no matter who's getting attacked.  Race or class.  But I think there is significant ethical difference between saying nasty things about the poor and showing disdain towards the wealthier, better off of society.  Let me reiterate that I don't condemn any of it.  (In fact, I find opebo's 'guillotine' comments to be well overplayed.)

That isn't the thrust of the argument, though.  As Nathan said, it really comes down to rhetoric.  When you overtly belittle members of our armed forces or refer to the least fortunate of society as 'moochers' and 'leechers,' you cross a line.  And these aren't just isolated incidents.  Krazen does it every other day and uses anecdotes (NOT representative of the whole picture) to justify his hate.  I don't see why we can't treat those behaviors the same way we treat, say, sock-making.

There is no vendetta here against conservative Republicans.  I can name probably fifty users here who I disagree with most of the time and would never want them banned.  Why?  Because they are polite, well-mannered, and don't feel the need to resort to extreme rhetoric to get a point across.

[Brittain33]

If krazen held the political views that he does but didn't make a habit of referring to poor people as 'moochers' and 'leeches' and symbolically defenestrating them from his concept of the body politic in every other post he makes, I'd have no problem with him.

[opebo]

If krazen held the political views that he does but didn't make a habit of referring to poor people as 'moochers' and 'leeches' and symbolically defenestrating them from his concept of the body politic in every other post he makes, I'd have no problem with him.

To be fair, his way is a lot more honest.  It is a war, after all, and there are (innumerable) casualties.

[Torie]

So if krazen lost his negative terms for poor folks, and just stuck to, say, e.g., the concept that the poor need the lash of putting their very survival a stake (well maybe keep the soup kitchens) to motivate them to change their condition (without characterizing their ethics), then there would be no problem with krazen - at least as to his very existence on the forum. Is that a fair statement of the position of some of you?

And meanwhile characterizing the ethics of rich folks is fair game I guess. No I am not whining about the latter. I can handle it (generally by ignoring it). I'm just exploring the parameters here.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

So if krazen lost his negative terms for poor folks, and just stuck to, say, e.g., the concept that the poor need the lash of putting their very survival a stake (well maybe keep the soup kitchens) to motivate them to change their condition (without characterizing their ethics), then there would be no problem with krazen - at least as to his very existence on the forum. Is that a fair statement of the position of some of you?

And meanwhile characterizing the ethics of rich folks is fair game I guess. No I am not whining about the latter. I can handle it (generally by ignoring it). I'm just exploring the parameters here.

For me, it is, yes.

[Brittain33]

So if krazen lost his negative terms for poor folks, and just stuck to, say, e.g., the concept that the poor need the lash of putting their very survival a stake (well maybe keep the soup kitchens) to motivate them to change their condition (without characterizing their ethics), then there would be no problem with krazen - at least as to his very existence on the forum. Is that a fair statement of the position of some of you?

If he followed up with the same comments, again and again, no engagement or learning or follow-up, but used generic terms instead of slurs, it's hard to see it as much of an improvement. It would be a novelty and worth seeing, sure. But I don't know if he's up for the experiment.

And since he's here to troll, not to engage in discussion, I don't see why he would change anything. What he's doing now is working very well for him, if not for the forum.

[Brittain33]

And meanwhile characterizing the ethics of rich folks is fair game I guess. No I am not whining about the latter. I can handle it (generally by ignoring it). I'm just exploring the parameters here.

The only person I find equivalent to krazen in that sense is opebo. And I think many people find his shtick about anything dealing with the U.S. economy tiresome at this point. There are people who may make nasty comments about rich people, but I don't think their persona is to only make nasty comments about rich people to goad people to respond to give them more chances to make nasty comments about rich people.

If krazen made obnoxious comments but seemed like he was actually engaging with people, then he'd be barfbag.

[Torie]

As to the post immediately above, fair point Brittain33 - and good insight. As to your penultimate post above, why are you so certain krazen does not actually believe what he believes, and is just in your face about it?  We have other posters like that, one of whom definitely has me on his sh*t list.

[Joe Republic]

Well, since the Blue Avatar Lawyers now run the policy-making of the Moderation team, I've done the best I can with the powers I have.  My boards have been entirely krazen-free for about six months or so, even if it takes me a day or two to catch up with him.

[Torie]

Really Joe?  If that were true, I guess I am effective at least.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Well, since the Blue Avatar Lawyers now run the policy-making of the Moderation team, I've done the best I can with the powers I have.  My boards have been entirely krazen-free for about six months or so, even if it takes me a day or two to catch up with him.

Out of idle curiousity, do you just delete them with no points, or do you add a few for good measure?

[publicunofficial]

I hate barfbag, but he isn't half the terrible poster Krazen is.

[Joe Republic]

Well, since the Blue Avatar Lawyers now run the policy-making of the Moderation team, I've done the best I can with the powers I have.  My boards have been entirely krazen-free for about six months or so, even if it takes me a day or two to catch up with him.

Out of idle curiousity, do you just delete them with no points, or do you add a few for good measure?

The points system is retarded; I haven't issued any in a long time.  (Except for 50 points for the spam trolls to get them muted.)

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Well, since the Blue Avatar Lawyers now run the policy-making of the Moderation team, I've done the best I can with the powers I have.  My boards have been entirely krazen-free for about six months or so, even if it takes me a day or two to catch up with him.

Out of idle curiousity, do you just delete them with no points, or do you add a few for good measure?

The points system is retarded; I haven't issued any in a long time.  (Except for 50 points for the spam trolls to get them muted.)

Gotcha.  Thanks

[Brittain33]

As to the post immediately above, fair point Brittain33 - and good insight. As to your penultimate post above, why are you so certain krazen does not actually believe what he believes, and is just in your face about it?  We have other posters like that, one of whom definitely has me on his sh*t list.

I think it's very likely he believes what he says. But I don't think he cares if we agree with him or not. Kind of like Rush Limbaugh.

[opebo]

And meanwhile characterizing the ethics of rich folks is fair game I guess. No I am not whining about the latter. I can handle it (generally by ignoring it). I'm just exploring the parameters here.

The only person I find equivalent to krazen in that sense is opebo. And I think many people find his shtick about anything dealing with the U.S. economy tiresome at this point. There are people who may make nasty comments about rich people, but I don't think their persona is to only make nasty comments about rich people to goad people to respond to give them more chances to make nasty comments about rich people.

Christ buddy, a whole entire segment of the political spectrum is based on the idea of considering the rich the class enemy, and you want to say the only reason people say this is to 'goad'?  So we're simply not allowed to be leftist anymore?

[Miles]

Ya know, it really disappoints me to see how much of a krazen apologist Torie has become. Its almost as if Torie discounts all the inflammatory and offensive trash krazen throws around and suggests that the people who call him out on it should be labeled the villains.

I really think Torie's excuse that "oh, well, other posters say similar stuff about the rich" is really just a false equivalency. I argue with him about as much as anyone else here, but I've never disparaged rich people, let alone on the routine basis that krazen unnecessarily slanders anyone he deems 'lazy,' a 'lying cheater,' a 'moocher,' etc.  

[Leftbehind]

Read this thread and judge for yourself - I'm not convinced Torie's adverse to some of Krazen's beliefs, even if he does coat them in the desired sugary language. Makes WalterMitty look like a comrade.

[All Along The Watchtower]

It's not just the unapologetic  bigotry of krazen that is so disgusting to so many of us, but the fact that it's mostly directed at the groups and individuals in society with the least power and resources.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Read this thread and judge for yourself - I'm not convinced Torie's adverse to some of Krazen's beliefs, even if he does coat them in the desired sugary language. Makes WalterMitty look like a comrade.

Ronald Reagan was a master at sugary language. He made Bircher-style politics and coded racism/classism respectable in polite society. Just shows that as long as you are polite, some people will think highly of you, no matter how horrible your views are.