So it really just looks like the argument for deleting the thread is that it makes the people involved (including the webstie itself) look so bad that it must be shut down at all costs.
Well I hate to break it to you guys but you already look as bad as it can get. The New Deal, regulation, minimum wage, and government spending saved the country. So did entry into WWII. If you disagree with those things you are already going to be called evil racists even if you aren't, so you really lose nothing discussing the topic of race.
Well I can't really know the exact effects that seeing such a discussion will have on everyone. I think it would attract some people who see through the PC crap but don't have anything more substantial to go on. But perhaps the USA is so much more hysterical about race than where I live (which is 95% white, with most of the rest being from Asia, India, or the Middle East - and still a pretty hysterical country about racism) so the dynamics are different. Still I think most of the people who would label us racists already do.
this only applies to people older than 30 or idiots. I'm pretty sure kids are past all of that, owing to the cultural mixing I see.
Adam Kokesh made the point in one of his videos that all anyone has to do these days is shout "RACIST!" and any argument, intelligent or not, is shut down.
And owing to the onslaught of information its hard to explain why someone should spend more than 10 seconds investigating something new when it can be smeared "neoconfederate" in tha time.
Well I'm pretty sure that the 'neoconfederate' smears come from the promotion of nullification and secession, as well as opposition to big government welfare state policies that supposedly help black people (but actually don't). See my point stands: you are labelled racist even if you have said nothing about race.
Well here we don't even need to wait for someone to shout "racist" in order to shut down arguments: the Mises Institute is happy to shut things down beforehand (and I say this as someone who has donated money to the Mises Institute).
You're right, but I don't really feel that having one thread debating the existence of something that can be called race is doing all that much. I also think the instant deletion of the thread was a very poor way to handle it, and the mod who did it has still not shown himself here.
In 1848, the city marshall of Boston was ordered to find out how many truants and vagrants there were in Boston. He found 1,066 children between the ages of 6 and 16 who were either vagrant or truant Considering the fact that in 1849 the total enrollment in Boston's public schools was 20,589, the truants amounted to about 5%. In other words, without compulsory attendance laws, 95% of the city's children were attending school.
From http://www.fff.org/freedom/0491c.asp
Please move any further thread deletion discussion to the Member Issues forum.
Just letting people know that there's a new libertarian forum with an actual quote function: http://voluntaryism.freeforums.org/index.php
@Wheylous: Can you link to the voluntaryism FreeForum from LibertyHQ?
Clayton -
Is it free of arbitrary power-tripping moderation? This clown guy sanchez trying to decide what discussion is subject to moderation based on whether he feels it's relevant in a thread he didn't start which by definition has no specific topic. Lol.
Hashem, no mod here is power-tripping. Also, quit the insults.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Sure is! For example, the founder and admin of the forums said that he wouldn't have deleted that thread on his forum. It's free of trolls and spam too. You should join.
Why the heck does it require your full name on the Registration page?
Daniel, yes he was powertripping. I apologize for characterizing him as a clown guy—but only if it was a violation of forum rules I agreed to when signing up, otherwise I stand by my judgment.
Hey Arristipus, I like the idea but right off the bat a few things strike me: - There's a section for challenging admin decisions. If the designer was so sure that admins would make controversial decisions that he created an entire section for it, that worries me. If my input is valued, I think mods/admins should be restricted to doing absolutely nothing except removing real spam. Also, the idea that the challenge section is separate is related to the next thing: - There doesn't seem to be a "View all active topics" section like here on Mises.org. This section is the one reason I find these forums valuable, it's like a feed of what's going on in all sections without having to check them individually, constantly—and certainly a thread in the section to challenge mod decisions would be less noticed and so less likely to gain popularity except among people who frequent that section (but the point is this is true with all sections, the point of aggrogating them is to create a community that's not devided while the actual content is organized into different sections).
As the person who created the Voluntaryism Forum, maybe I can help.
hashem:There's a section for challenging admin decisions. If the designer was so sure that admins would make controversial decisions that he created an entire section for it, that worries me. If my input is valued, I think mods/admins should be restricted to doing absolutely nothing except removing real spam.
Having been in many forums over the years, I think there's a very good chance that people won't see eye-to-eye at some point. It could be among the forum staff, it could be among the membership, or it could be among both. Rather than have an authoritarian "my word is law" kind of attitude, I thought it would be better to have an area for criticism of how the forum is being run. I, for one, don't claim to be able to run a forum "perfectly" (whatever one takes that to mean).
hashem:Also, the idea that the challenge section is separate is related to the next thing: There doesn't seem to be a "View all active topics" section like here on Mises.org. This section is the one reason I find these forums valuable, it's like a feed of what's going on in all sections without having to check them individually, constantly—and certainly a thread in the section to challenge mod decisions would be less noticed and so less likely to gain popularity except among people who frequent that section (but the point is this is true with all sections, the point of aggrogating them is to create a community that's not devided while the actual content is organized into different sections).
There doesn't seem to be a "View all active topics" section like here on Mises.org. This section is the one reason I find these forums valuable, it's like a feed of what's going on in all sections without having to check them individually, constantly—and certainly a thread in the section to challenge mod decisions would be less noticed and so less likely to gain popularity except among people who frequent that section (but the point is this is true with all sections, the point of aggrogating them is to create a community that's not devided while the actual content is organized into different sections).
Actually there is a "View Active Topics" link near the top left of the main forum page. In addition, forum sections that contain new posts will be marked with a different icon.
Hope this helps!
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
SkepticalMetal:Why the heck does it require your full name on the Registration page?
I'm not sure, to be honest. But since it's only one text field, you don't have to put down your full name if you don't want to. The really interesting thing to me is that even I (the forum admin) can't see what anyone put down as his full name.
Clayton - I hope to make forums for LibertyHQ myself as well :P
But I guess that for now I can put some links on the "Forums" section.
While waiting for my Nov Low Content thread to be approved, here is Goldman Sachs apparently being the only prepared ones in the storm:
Sorry but how does that picture show that? Or was it a joke?
They're the only ones with electricity (according to the EPJ).
Ah gotcha. Generators, I take it?
@Autolykos
Yes, generators. I live in New York and did a tour of the Wall Street area yesterday. Pretty much everything is shut down while they're pumping out flood water. The stock exchange and the like, however, are running on generators.
Thanks!
Never underestimate the power of outsourcing. Perhaps we can work out a gentleman's agreement regarding decorum/rules that will make you comfortable with linking it.
The thing is that I wanted to make LibertyHQ be an umbrella place for libertarians. I plan to segment the forums in such a manner as to allow many different types of libertarians to coexist. For example, I wanted to make "oldies" forums for minarchists and AnCaps so that newbies aren't freaked out by sharing forums with anarchists.
But I will link your forum (for now! muahahaha)
Wheylous: While waiting for my Nov Low Content thread to be approved, here is Goldman Sachs apparently being the only prepared ones in the storm:
Approve the November thread, please?
Does that make GS preppers? And we all know that preppers are terrorists. Therefore, GS are terrorists. Not sure if the logic is valid but pretty sure the conclusion is true.