banned far right winger returns 5th time

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

23 posts / 0 new

I LOVE debating right wingers... but not dishonest ones who deliberately lie thinking that will "win" them the debate. For example claiming they read a law and their claims about it are true... when the law says the opposite... and refusing to retract when shown the law. Constant claims that I've written something when it's clear.. and the record is there for all to see, that I didn't... and again refusing to retract even if shown the original posts. Some people just lack the integrity and intellect for even semi-intelligent debate.

The current user is mavibobo. He's been banned in the past at least 4 times... but is always identifiable from his positions, misspellings, his hatred of the working poor, general right wing idiocy, debating style, never presents credible sources, etc. His former names that I know about were

workingman (3-2012 to ?)

firearm owner (1-2013 to 12-2013)

longdistance (12-2013)

audioman (12-2013 to 6-2014)

mavibobo (7-2014 to now)

I request the person be banned for the 5th time.

EDIT... on reconsideration I don't think BooBoo was CollegeConservative.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Comments

Too bad the moderators don't ban needy, whiny little bedwetters that can't hold their own with the opposition. You would last less than one day.

Teacher, teacher, mavibobo not doing what he is supposed to. Teacher, teacher, mavibobo made a face at me. Teacher, teacher.......................

Dexterous's picture
Dexterous
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2013 9:35 am
Quote Dexterous:

Too bad the moderators don't ban needy, whiny little bedwetters that can't hold their own with the opposition. You would last less than one day.

Says the person who actually DOES run from debates because he can't hold his own. After all, YOU are the person who said you'd not debate me again which is why the only thing you seem to contribute these days are drive by comments... then you again run for the hills.

I can only assume your insults are really aimed at the judgement of the mods here who have banned BooBoo at least 4 times in the past... and that you approve of forum members routinely lying, thinking it will help them "win" debates.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote ulTRAX:
Quote Dexterous:

Too bad the moderators don't ban needy, whiny little bedwetters that can't hold their own with the opposition. You would last less than one day.

I can only assume your insults are really aimed at the judgement of the mods here who have banned BooBoo at least 4 times in the past... and that you approve of forum members routinely lying, thinking it will help them "win" debates.

You assume incorrectly.

Teacher, teacher, Dexterous is picking on me.

Dexterous's picture
Dexterous
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2013 9:35 am
Quote Dexterous wrote:
Quote ulTRAX:I can only assume your insults are really aimed at the judgement of the mods here who have banned BooBoo at least 4 times in the past... and that you approve of forum members routinely lying, thinking it will help them "win" debates.

You assume incorrectly.
I'm not assuming anything. It's implicit in your protest that BooBoo not be banned for the fifth time that you're calling into question the judgement of the mods who banned him the last four times.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Bans create supermemes. Better to deal with words with words. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

rscottm
Joined:
Aug. 13, 2013 12:32 pm
Quote rscottm:

Bans create supermemes. Better to deal with words with words. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

I'm not sure what your supermeme comments means. Is it that banning will lead to only a single viewpoint being expressed?

This is a discussion forum where debates often take place. I would like to think they're between intelligent people. It's extremely frustrating to deal with Orwellian extremists who are intellectually dishonest, who are determined to claim black is white, and lie to "win" debates. I prefer fact based, rational discussions where people can absorb new facts, modify their positions and retract if warranted.

I think it would be preferable if mods actually moderated some discussions to keep them civil and fair debates. But I know its a thankless, volunteer job. As part of this effort there should be some intermediate measures such as locking threads, and cooling off periods... such as 24 hour bans. I could benefit from the occasional slap on the wrist when I go for the jugular. I just don't tolerate idiots well.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

PLease don't forget the rules on ad hominems, folks.

SueN's picture
SueN
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

"I'm not sure what your supermeme comments means. Is it that banning will lead to only a single viewpoint being expressed?"

No I mean that banning is like using antiobiotics, superbugs evolve. Banning strengthens what you're censoring. The banned speech comes out in stronger more toxic form, and you get things like the Tea Party.

I never saw a ban I agreed with. A ban is an admission you are out of arguments. Come up with stronger arguments!

rscottm
Joined:
Aug. 13, 2013 12:32 pm

Then use them as an example of how not to be. Give them enough rope to hang themselves. Banning isn't necessary; expose them, and let them prove you right!

rscottm
Joined:
Aug. 13, 2013 12:32 pm
Quote rscottm:No I mean that banning is like using antiobiotics, superbugs evolve. Banning strengthens what you're censoring.
No one is trying to censor ideas. I need debate as a way to develop and fine tune my own ideas. And rest assured... the person in question can't get more stupid. What no forum needs are idiots who routinely lie, make baseless claims they can never back up and refuse to retract even with proven wrong. They do this thinking it will help them "win" a debate despite the fact THEIR ideas have already failed and they lack the integrity to admit it. I think after debating the same idiot for 3 years, who the mods have already banned 4 times... it's clear they are incapable of learning and have nothing to teach except as examples of self-sabotaged intellects. Such people are black holes where facts and reason go to die. In such cases banning simply preserves some semblance of reasonable discussion for the rest of us. But as I also suggested... mods need to moderate and on occasion lock threads or enact temporary cooldowns. But here there seems to be all or nothing.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote rscottm:

Then use them as an example of how not to be. Give them enough rope to hang themselves.

This forum is pretty tolerant. But obviously you don't appreciate the depth of the pathology involved. Some can be hung out to dry for years and they are still repeating the same lies from 3 years ago. Anyway, I have no control over banning. Perhaps you want to start your own thread and complain that mods have banned this person 4 times in the past. And I suspect you're also not thinking about the general health of the forum. If someone is intellectually incapable of carrying on any semblance of semi-intelligent discussion... then it's not as if lurkers are cheering all the bloody noses they are given. When the same bullsh*t is repeated and rebutted, repeated and rebutted, repeated and rebutted... members stay away and lurkers tune out.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

My opinion is that if I respond to words on the internet with "that must be banned!" I have given up on words. I have been trolled and have nothing but emotion left as a response. I hate myself if I get like that. I prefer to fight words with words in an absolutely level playing field with no bans or mods. Then I can tit for tat and beat them at their own game :) As for popularity, there are technological solutions, like hiding users you don't like. We should view offensive speech as an opportunity, not a reason for banning. We should develop smart programs to recognize trolls we don't want to see, and practice censorship only at the browser on an individual basis, not at servers. We can solve the technological problem of how to give each user a customized view of a forum, without preventing anyone from expressing themselves. Technology solves this social problem and we should be pursuing such technological solutions instead of relying on bans.

rscottm
Joined:
Aug. 13, 2013 12:32 pm
Quote rscottm:

My opinion is that if I respond to words on the internet with "that must be banned!" I have given up on words.

You can hold to whatever you consider matters of great principle. I await with great anticipation your new thread protesting that the mods have had some nerve violating your principles by banning members in the past. While you're at it, perhaps you might want to also protest that Thom should never hang up on liars and morons that call his show. Now's your time to make the world just a wee bit safer for idiots.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

yes Ultrax, you have your trolls, I've mine, a z is in the name, on "women's/BS social issues" as opposed to the more economic where you reside. I feel your pain, man. a super-pisser, as I remember you'd commented on one of my blog complaint-thingies.

hang in there, it sucks out here, but you're excellent at keeping up the fight. I do read your stuff, but as eco is not my forte, mostly I just keep silent and let the more proficient argue. Best wishes, Ul, .......mlk

michellekovalik's picture
michellekovalik
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2013 2:25 pm

That Clarence libertarian guy on the rumbles bothers me a lot, so I want to respond to his points in a way that leaves him with nothing more to say. Not cut him off, have him self-shut-up.

rscottm
Joined:
Aug. 13, 2013 12:32 pm

Arguing with a piece of furniture is futile imo. Ignoring them works best for me.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote rscottm:

That Clarence libertarian guy on the rumbles bothers me a lot, so I want to respond to his points in a way that leaves him with nothing more to say. Not cut him off, have him self-shut-up.

You obviously don't get it. This is not a matter of someone "bothering" someone else. As I wrote earlier, you can hold to whatever you consider matters of great principle. I await with great anticipation your new thread protesting that the mods have had some nerve violating your principles by banning members in the past. While you're at it, perhaps you might want to also protest that Thom should never hang up on liars and morons that call his show. Now's your time to make the world just a wee bit safer for idiots.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

There are any number of problems with certain respondents on this site. Of recent, there have been comments that convey prejudice. Few if any other members comment on such posts. Paranoia and ridiculousness are part of some comments. When someone writes a post on a serious topic, often, there are no responses, or only one that may not even relate to what was originally said. When I answer people on the blog section, the people seldom acknowledge what I said and reply to the response. Many of the people here play favorites with whom they respond to in a discussion that already has been started. There a lot of uneducated, misinformed, bigoted people in America, and they all have too high of an opinion of themselves. That much is clear.

Robindell's picture
Robindell
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Robindell:When I answer people on the blog section, the people seldom acknowledge what I said and reply to the response.
I'm not even sure why there is a blog section... unless it's to attract people to the site. I think this is a topic that deserves its own thread.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

There is a one in particular who has very artfully deluded some, especially women , into beliveing he/SHE?/it/we they is a "true feminist" and instead espouses predjudice, bigotry, gay bashing, trans -bashing, xenophobia, and even animal cruelty. It is obvious with a mor careful reading "between the lines". The strategy is by using "args of authority"-siting obviously "left" writers, opinionists, and most notably, the exhaltation of someone w/a PhD. The next strategy is to supply lengthy snippets of said "authorities" defining one of my fave 8th grade vocab words, "reductio ad absurdum" args. Occasionally "dog-piling" as a strategy is also used. Finally, if all else fails, the final strategy is some form of an "f-U", written long style, directed specifically to another named poster which is supposedly prohibited.

I've written at length about the abusive nature of some of the posters at TH in my own blogs. Many others have been unjustly attacked personally besides myself and it is painfull to witness. Bullying is unacceptable.

Why bullying on adults is allowed to persist because it is labeled as "trolling" , so oh ho hum, is antithetical to everything this TH site stands for.

I really wonder if a "gender bias" exists here, meaning some "chick" with "feminen -sounding moniker" gets more of a free pass by the administartors than a poster with a gender neutral or male moniker.

As a "chick" I get overcompensation for historical domination. But............

for a "chick" to get away w/gay bashing a fellow poster because of her gender's history of victimization is unacceptable. Gender "reparations" doesn't give a woman the right to harrass, belittle, gay-bash, trans bash, or bash another man/ woman in disagreement w/he/she/it/we/they. Women's "reparation" does't mean hate speech is justified against anyone who doesn't buy lock-stock and barrell "her" philosophy. It is in fact, logically, that is the epitomy of anti-feminist, and anti-humanist.

Why does a "female" sounding moniker get away w/ "f-U" to a fellow poster? But a male moniker saying "f-U" to a female moniker or even another male moniker not OK?

A true feminist would not agree to 2 sets of rules. Equality for all. This site's established policy of consequences for bullies or "trolls" should be enforced, even for those w/or w/out the suggestion of possension of a vagina.

Bernie for POTUS 2016!!!!!!!!!!!....................mlk

michellekovalik's picture
michellekovalik
Joined:
Oct. 15, 2013 2:25 pm

A week's gone by since I posted and I can come to but two conclusions. 1: no one cares much about the forums, or..... 2: the person in question is useful as the forum's resident village idiot... to demonstrate just how ignorant and intellectually dishonest some on the right can be.

I think it's 1. Sorry Sue. I know we're an unruly bunch... and I'm guilty of many sins, but I don't see mods doing any moderation nor do I see Thom ever cite anything from his own forum.

ulTRAX's picture
ulTRAX
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Scholars who study the Internet I think have concluded that to some degree, trolling or rudeness is par for the course, not only because it reflects the aggressive, sometimes violent nature nature of Americans, and the political division or polarization that has taken place in part because of the adverse influence of conservative talk shows and diminished sophistication in reporting, but also due to the impersonal, faceless nature of computers and online communication formats such as bulletin boards.

When it comes to conservatives, one approach would be for everyone else to ignore them. There are non-conservatives who have posted who have been ignored. Thom's show is based on the premise, which any number of members have disagreed with, that regular debates or at least arguing with conservatives is needed, because after all, this is a democratic society where people can speak their minds.

Robindell's picture
Robindell
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Democratic Debates: Is It Time to Get the Corporate TV Stars off the Stage?

Thom plus logo The democratic debate, operating entirely within the context of corporate TV stars' questions and largely Republican frames, shows once again why a for-profit "news" operation shouldn't be running a presidential debate.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system