Posted by Lou Pilder on July 7, 2014, at 8:37:43
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-iyphuno » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on July 7, 2014, at 6:50:07
> > > > > > > I am relieved to know that you have never accused Dinah of fostering antisemitism, whether by action or inaction. It would be nice if you could reassure her of this.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - Scott
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Scott,
> > > > > > You wrote,[...you have never accused Dinah of fostering anti-Semitism...reassure her of this...].
> > > > >
> > > > > > I have offered her the opportunity to post a link to any post that she thinks accuses her of fostering anti-Semitism
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it accurate to say that you have never accused Dinah of fostering antisemitism by including her in a group of people that you have accused of fostering antisemitism?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > - Scott
> > > >
> > > > Scott,
> > > > The deputies had the opportunity to discuss notifications and Mr. Hsiung has stated to consider any reply as coming from all of us.
> > > > On top of that, Mr. Hsiung says that he will either post in the thread or contact the requester of notifications , except for some of mine. He then says that he is doing that because it may be good for him and the community as a whole for him to ignore my notification.
> > > > But how can he leave my notifications outstanding if the deputies could act without his permission if they wanted to? And why could it be good for him to ignore my requests in the notifications? What is this "good" that could come from ignoring my notifications, if you know?
> > > > Lou
> > >
> > > Have you ever accused the deputies of fostering antisemitism?
> > >
> > >
> > > - Scott
> > >
> > > Scott,
> > What are the criteria that you use to determine if one is accused of fostering antisemitism, if you know?
> > Lou
> >
>
> According to your own criteria, has antisemitism ever been fostered on Psycho-Babble? If so, who do you believe is responsible for this? If not, then shall this be your last post on this subject?
>
>
> - Scott
>
Scott,
The question of who is responsible for anti-Semitism being fostered in any community IMHHHO, falls on all of those that could prevent it from being fostered. Here, in this community the content is controlled by Mr. Hsiung and his deputies in the great part, but members could also influence the thinking here in relation to allowing anti-Semitic statements to stand to be considered to be supportive and that they will be good for this community ad a whole by being apathetic, (bystander apathy) oe even supporting Mr. Hsiung and his deputies to allow those statements to stand without sanction to the statement where it is originally posted. A case could be brought against all those that help, or helped, Mr. Hsiung to put this forum on the internet, including The University of Chicago. There is a disclaimer that has been posted on the email address of Mr. Hsiung to give the impression that they are not involved in the operation of this site, but the site was considered research from that university at the start, so a subset of jurists could think that they are part of this even though they have posted the disclaimer, for there was help by them to attract readers when they could be seen as in some way part of the experiment in the beginning and can not disjoint themselves after it got people to join, for some could have joined because they thought the forum was in some way affiliated with that university.
Also, the laws concerning defamation in the U.S. on the internet allow the owner of internet forums to be immune from liability if they allow the third-party users to post defamation toward an individual {in certain circumstances}. But here, the defamation can be considered by a subset of readers to be directed toward an identifiable set of people, the Jews and also Islamic people and those that are non-Christian faiths, which a subset of readers could consider to be a hate-crime. They may not get judicial relief in the U.S. , but in many Islamic countries, Mr. Hsiung could be convicted of insulting Islam for not posting a repudiation to {No non-Christian will enter heaven}and other statements that insult Islam as it is seen unsanctioned by the fact that there is not a tagline by Mr. Hsiung or any of his deputies linked to the post where it is originally posted so that the statement can be considered to be not against his rules and supportive and will be good for his community as a whole according to Mr. Hsiung's thinking and that he want readers to try to trust him in what he does. That could mean to a subset of readers that he could be advocating hatred toward Jews and Islamic people and other non-Christians by allowing what could put down Jews and the others to be seen as civil and supportive. The law in the U.S is awaiting a Supreme Court ruling that will come next term if they allow the case in question to be heard. The case is a parallel case to the situation that I find myself in here, as that third-party posts are allowed to stand that defame Judaism and me personally by the owner and his team of deputies of record for the posts. And worse, I am allowing Mr. Hsiung and his deputies the opportunity to post repudiations to those posts where they are originally posted, and that opportunity is being rejected to some of those as can be seen now.
And all those members that have their hands in wanting those statements to remain unsanctioned by there not being a tagline posted by the administration to be civil where the post is originally seen, could be thought by a subset of readers to be helping Mr. Hsiung and his deputies to keep statements that defame Jews and me and the others to be seen as supportive, which could stoke the furnace of hate by supporting Mr. Hsiung and his deputies of record.
There are many ways for an administration to foster hatred toward the Jews. One way is to not apply their own rules to anti-Semitic hate posts and allow them to be seen as supportive. A question for courts to decide is if the deputies have a {duty} to sanction posts that are against the rules of their forum, or could they ignore their own rules? In some countries outside the U.S., failure to sanction a post that could induce a person to commit harm, convicts those in charge of the internet forum as being guilty and are liable for the deaths of the persons. The question is if failure to act is the same as "fostering"? That is the word that the high court will decide if they hear the parallel case next term. My friend -of- the- court brief will have the thrust to show what happens to me and Jews in this forum as a result of the deputies and owner leaving anti-Semitic statements and defaming statement against me to stand un repudiated as to having a tagline posted to the statement where the post originates. I will be competing with AOL, Google, Amazon and a host of other internet forums that have already submitted their friend of the court briefs, for they do not want to be held liable for if they allow third-party hate or defamation. I would guess that the issue is not one of what is right or wrong, but an issue of what happens if the courtt says that forum owners could be held liable for third-party defamation posted on their site if they do not post a repudiation to those posts. If they rule in my thinking that they have a duty to stop those type of posts, they would have to hire people to review each post before it goes on-line. That could cost a lot, but it could create jobs for out-of-work journalists.
My brief will go to the lawyers bringing the case to the high court, which have their offices near were I live in Southern Ohio. Their office is in northern Kentucky. My brief will be much different than AOL, Amazon,and Google's, focusing on the potential spreading of hatred toward the Jews and others by a psychiatrist that has strict rules not to post what could lead one to feel put down or lead someone to feel that their faith is being put down, and allows {No non-Christian will enter heaven} to stand without the tagline to not post what could put down those of other faiths to the statement where it is posted, which is different from that the owner of the site that will be the subject of the high court, is not a psychiatrist. You see, the tragic consequences that could befall Jews by the fact that anti-Semitic statements can be seen here as supportive, has historical parallels that a psychiatrist could be aware of in particular but not limited to the relation historically between psychiatry a and mass-murder.
The high court will not meet until this October again, so for now, all I can do is try to stop Mr. Hsiung from allowing the anti-Semitic statements to be seen as civil where they are posted without his tagline to please be civil and hope that the deputies of record post why they did not sanction the posts in question when they were first posted. Until then, Mr. Hsiung can allow the fire of hate to be seen as to be still burning and not put it out by posting a sanction to the posts in question where the post originates. As to if by the omission of the sanction there induces the fostering of anti-Semitism, there are a subset of readers here that could act out when they see a statement not sanctioned as to be not against Mr. Hsiung's rules, so they could act out in a drug-induced mind-altered state to commit mass-murder as many psychologists are now writing about in relation to school shootings and mall-shootings and such. That is one of the differences in my brief from Amazon and AOL and such. Here the population is allowed to be persuaded that they can take psychotropic drugs that alter their minds and can induce hostility and suicidal thoughts in them. That makes this site a potential haven for Jew-haters to have gratification to see the anti-Semitic statements being allowed to stand in their original posting, for a subset of readers could think that Mr. Hsung and his deputies of record are validating the hate.
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:1067704
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20140304/msgs/1068003.html