Can This Freeper Be Saved?

7-13-02 | Joe Phillips

[BADJOE]

I don't know.

[Illbay]

Too lazy to find it, but you could probably search on "Palestinian" or "IDF". It was posted yesterday.

Not everyone was doing it--a lot were just saying "this never happened," which isn't so bad.

But far, far too many were making comments like "good, that's fewer suicide bombers."

I mean, these were little kids on their bikes, etc. I don't care who they were, or if it was on purpose or an accident or if it never happened at all. Those comments were WRONG.

[Lazamataz]

I tend towards libertarianism, but not towards Libertarianism. Know what I mean? What I mean is, the party is absurd, but the concept of minimalist government is very attractive.

Not sure about the whole drug thing, tho -- and the Liberarians (capital L) are hung up on that. I'd probably treat it as a mental health issue, make people get perscriptions for their poisons, take it out of the criminal system, force people to undergo counseling for their scrip, and make the record of who is taking what public knowledge so employers need not hire a crack addict.

[mountaineer]

Most NORMAL people, if banned, would never be so obsessive and compulsive as to become an Antifreeper

Agreed. "True believer" AFers are nuts, and are pathetic as heck. However, I believe many of the banned who have drifted over to their sites do so more out of boredom or loneliness than anti-FR fervor.

What's fascinating, in the psychological sense, is the AFers who have invaded and thus trashed the latest FR refugee site, which tries mightily to be a constitutional/libertarian discussion forum, and have jammed it up with the rehashing of 3-year-old grievances and slanders. If only their evangelistic zeal could have been put to better use.

[Lazamataz]

But far, far too many were making comments like "good, that's fewer suicide bombers." I mean, these were little kids on their bikes, etc. I don't care who they were, or if it was on purpose or an accident or if it never happened at all. Those comments were WRONG.

Agreed. Children are blank slates.

[logos]

It seems to me that the extent of the "banned FReeper" problem depends largely on your perspective. Yours, as you've stated, is that many are banned, sometimes for dubious reasons, because you hear from most of them one way or another. Plus I would hazard a guess that you generally only hear the "bannee's" side of the story - which may or may not be true concerning the reasons for the ban.

From my perspective as just another FReeper I've seen quite a few "bannees" reinstated over time, so one might say that there's been a somewhat limited "rehab" program all along. After all, a trip to the woodshed usually calms all but the most rebellious of souls, or two (three) trips in some cases.

Also, and only my observations, it seems to me that the moderator system has shaken itself out over time, and is running a lot more smoothly now than it was in the beginning. As with most human endeavors, the march of time seems to make a difference.

Having said all that, it is also my personal opinion that the tone and tenor of FR has deteriorated over time, in that there is far more posting done lately which seems to be only for the purpose of finding fault, rather than trying to find some common ground. In the early days, there were disruptors, to be sure (Ash; Eschoir; et al), but they were relatively few and known to just about everyone. Now, I see new names every day that I've never seen before, and an awful lot of them seem to be here only to get themselves banned so they can go somewhere else and complain about it.

As far as I'm concerned, something like "The Alley" is about as far as we should go on "saving FReepers" - let them rehabilitate themselves if they can. An awful lot either can't - or won't.

[Lazamataz]

FOUR year old grievances.

If they had harnessed that energy in politics, we would have a few more Republican congressmen or senators.

[wita]

Self censored!

[dighton]

There was another one, Seven Of Nine (Not to be confused with SevenofNine) who was utterly absurd. Denied that Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds. Denied he was after nukes or chem/bio weapons.

D'you mean ThreeOfSeven?

Math is hard.

[Bad~Rodeo]

The only people I see that are permanently banned are those who continually step way out of line.

Ahhhhh, censorship, what a concept.

[Lazamataz]

Could have been TwelveOfTwentyTwo.

[M Kehoe]

What I've noticed is 99.9% of the time if a poster asks JR to be allowed back on FR, Jim will let him back.

True, although sometimes I think JimRob's heart is just too generous and kind.

5.56mm

[woofer]

Freerepublic- can be it's own enemy, It has done great good, and still can, the powers that be, do read this forum.
And the worst thing is to let party loyalty stop good debate.

For a reasonable vision of what the forum would then look like, please click on over to the DUmmy (Dem Underground) and see a facsist site in action.

[meyer]

Ahhhhh, censorship, what a concept.

Ahhhh, privately owned web site. What a concept.

[Dales]

I think there are too many jerks who are given too many chances as it is. I would rather attract other conservatives than try to convert the hard cases. Going out of the way for them merely would make it so that those trying to take advantage of the system to harm our conservative efforts would have more cover.

I have a question though. If you are going to be seeing Jim in an hour or so, and if you have no intention of participating in this discussion, why didn't you just bring it up with him?

[jlogajan]

the whole drug thing, tho -- and the Liberarians (capital L) are hung up on that.

We're not "hung up" on it. It is just a matter of principle that we won't relinquish just because of its unsavory connotations. Plus there is a huge distortion in civil liberties across all fronts as the WOD zealots go after drugs. So it is not just a minor concept or side issue in the fight for civil liberties. It is front and center and civil libertarians are at the moment, on the losing end of that war.

As for being banned -- I'm surprised I haven't been banned yet -- I'm a Libertarian and an Atheist -- and have frequently defended -- drum roll please -- homosexuality and abortion!!! In fact I am surprised my house hasn't been firebombed yet! Though one poster did try to put up my home address (got an old one, though) but I had to have the sys admin delete the post because I didn't want some knuckledragger firebombing that house because there were two innocent kids living there.

[Illbay]

What I mean is, the party is absurd, but the concept of minimalist government is very attractive.

Oh, I agree. In fact, at the beginning of my encounters with the Libertines on FR, I mistook them for libertarians. I soon learned I was wrong.

After really analyzing my own beliefs, I concluded that I am not nearly laissez-faire enough even to make libertarian. Rather, I tend toward Jefferson's philosophy that government ought to be as close to the people as possible, and that local government should have far more emphasis than even the state level.

But what I see on FR is that no one wants ANY government at ANY level.

In the end, I'm not much of a libertarian, but I'm certainly not a Libertine.

[ASA Vet]

why didn't you just bring it up with him?

Maybe it was so he could refer Jim to comments on the subject by some of the more senior FReepers? Sounds like a good plan.

[Illbay]

Quoth the pre-PC-Nowgang Barbie!