Does GMG has a blacklist?

[Florestan]

I think it has. Any topic that results in discussing "race" or "nationality", even on a purely theoretical basis, bearing no practical implications whatsoever, will end being labelled as "filth" and getting locked.

All GMG-ers are equal, but some are more equal than others, having the power to lock any thread that is not to their liking.

"I am right, and you're wrong, but for your right to be wrong I am ready to die", Winston Churchill allegedly said.

The motto of The Diner, in stark contrast, should be:

"I am right, and you're wrong, and you must shut up!"

[Frumaster]

I think the thread was closed just because it got way off topic.  Maybe if you started a thread with an appropriate title, the mods would let it slide...but I don't know, I haven't been around here for that long.  Anyway, back to reading my book about Napoleon...

[Florestan]

If it got off-topic, it could have been split, as it happened with other threads.

It's not the first time that topics considered "sensitive" get locked.

[Lethevich]

As much as people might disagree with some others on GMG, at least in the locked thread all parties were being polite and reasonable. I even learnt some interesting things from JdP without it "corrupting" me. Perhaps people not interested in the discussion can simply close the thread.

[Bulldog]

There was an ongoing discussion between DavidRoss, Christo and me, which was strictly off-topic. Having it cut short without any explanation is a basic lack of civility, to say the least!

But the moderator did offer an explanation.

[Florestan]

But the moderator did offer an explanation.

Well, disregard the above comment, I confused two different threads.

Still, I think locking a thread which was going on polite and civil, as Lethe correctly remarked, smells censorship.

[Bulldog]

Perhaps people not interested in the discussion can simply close the thread.

Come on.  You know as well as I that only moderators and  the OP can lock a thread.

[Florestan]

Come on.  You know as well as I that only moderators and  the OP can lock a thread.

She meant "ignore", obviously.

[Que]

I think it has. Any topic that results in discussing "race" or "nationality", even on a purely theoretical basis (...)

If it got off-topic, it could have been split, as it happened with other threads.

There was an ongoing discussion between DavidRoss, Christo and me, which was strictly off-topic. Having it cut short without any explanation is a basic lack of civility, to say the least!

It's not the first time that topics considered "sensitive" get locked.

You are obviously referring to another thread.

Q

[Bulldog]

Still, I think locking a thread which was going on polite and civil, as Lethe correctly remarked, smells censorship.

We've gone over this stuff in the past.  This board is not a democracy; it has an owner and selected moderators.  They can do whatever the hell they want with the site - that's reality.  We have the option of remaining as members or moving on.  So, censorship is not applicable.

[Bulldog]

She meant "ignore", obviously.

It wasn't obvious to me.

[c#minor]

This is pretty funny...

But to stay on topic i will say that the other "blacklisted" thread that propelled this thread was getting a little ridiculous. Even though it might of been a polite discussion it did have some less than "politically correct" (to put it lightly) comments about an entire religious people.

I still do not think it should have been "closed" but i can understand why it was.  

[Florestan]

You are obviously referring to another thread.

Q

Yes and I realized that. I apologize for this, but I still don't understand what was so "filthy" about the locked thread.

[c#minor]

Yes and I realized that. I apologize for this, but I still don't understand what was so "filthy" about the locked thread.

Really???

[Florestan]

We've gone over this stuff in the past.  This board is not a democracy; it has an owner and selected moderators.  They can do whatever the hell they want with the site - that's reality.  We have the option of remaining as members or moving on.  So, censorship is not applicable.

If you prefer "silencing dissenters from the politically correct orthodoxy", so be it.

[Florestan]

Really???

Yes, really. Would you care to enlighten me?

[Bulldog]

If you prefer "silencing dissenters from the politically correct orthodoxy", so be it.

This has nothing to do with my preferences, and I consider your above comment dishonest at best.

[Lethevich]

Don - dictatorship it may be, but people can still grumble

Really???

I refer you to my message to you in the original thread - what is so "filthy" about some of the verifiable statistics mentioned in that thread? It's not that I have a "racist" agenda to push these - I had not thought about them before, and it was precisely because they seemed reasonably convincing to me despite being contrary to my usual point of view which prompted me to ask you this.

[Florestan]

This has nothing to do with my preferences, and I consider your above comment dishonest at best.

It was an ironic comment, it had nothing to do with you personally and I'm disappointed you didn't get it.

[Josquin des Prez]

Sometimes i feel i'm not very well liked in this forum. I wonder why that could be the case.