Banning Turks

[crusader1492]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

What is the point of allowing them to deny the Genocide when it's the same bs over and over? Why is it so hard for you guys to understand the forum atmosphere drops each time some thread on the Genocide is opened by a turk or a turk comments on an already existing one. Why are you guys so lax on this issue?

I've been sitting at my computer now for about five minutes contemplating your question. My initial reaction is to try and defend the mods concerning their stance because I know they're smart guys and good Armenians...At the very least, I am trying to understand how their stance can be good for the forum. Alas, I'm coming up with nothing.

The bottom line is that there is really no excuse to let Turks come here and "get their fill" at the expense of forum unity.

Anonymouse has always said he loves the community atmosphere of this forum...I agree with him. However, this community will always have the potential to be ripped apart by the toxic nature of Turkish propagandist.

[jgk3]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

Is it really so hard to devise a way to "give them their fill" with minimal effort? You guys know your points that cannot be argued, it's just a matter of combining them all into a seamless short document that Turks will be forced to read each time they bring the issue up. I can make a sticky out of it if you guys decide to produce one and you can cite it whenever you talk to Turks from now on, should make the process easier.

I personally don't mind it if Turks come here in small doses and hearing our points, could be helpful for them and even us if they ever begin to question their own leadership and take a hint that their government today is essentially rooted from the one initiated by the Young Turks.

This is a panel for discussion for all sorts of things, and people who are curious about Armenians are welcome too join, we're obviously not trying to establish a nationalist party here though you're free to contribute and enrich the forum with your points of view on it, hopefully explaining why there is logic behind it to members that previously did not comprehend it, as was my case once.

[crusader1492]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

Is it really so hard to devise a way to "give them their fill" with minimal effort? You guys know your points that cannot be argued, it's just a matter of combining them all into a seamless short document that Turks will be forced to read each time they bring the issue up. I can make a sticky out of it if you guys decide to produce one and you can cite it whenever you talk to Turks from now on, should make the process easier.
I personally don't mind it if Turks come here in small doses and hearing our points, could be helpful for them and even us if they ever begin to question their own leadership and take a hint that their government today is essentially rooted from the one initiated by the Young Turks.

This is a panel for discussion for all sorts of things, and people who are curious about Armenians are welcome too join, we're obviously not trying to establish a nationalist party here though you're free to contribute and enrich the forum with your points of view on it, hopefully explaining why there is logic behind it to members that previously did not comprehend it, as was my case once.

Great idea...but how would you "force" them to read it. Would you make it so that when they sign in they can only access the "anti-denialist" thread?

[jgk3]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

lol, that would be funny. But no, it would be up to us as members to ignore their take on it by perpetually citing our document as our only reply until they show signs of coming around (or at least assimilating our point of view in a half decent way as a speculative possibility)

[yerazhishda]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

Armanen,

I feel your pain. However, admin will not ban unless rules are broken. Therefore, one can spew Turkish propaganda here as long as they do it with "decorum"

With that said, I believe a new rule should be put forth.

That is, Genocide Denial is a bannable offense.

That would solve 90% of the infestation.

I don't know why this couldn't be a solution. Genocide Denial (and all its corollaries - we were only 'deported', Turks were killed to the same extent, blah blah blah) is tantamount to denigration of the Armenian People and Nation and such be a banable offense.

[yerazhishda]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

Wouldn't Genocide denial fall under this rule:

"-post messages which insult the Armenians, Armenian culture, traditions, religion etc"

[crusader1492]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

lol, that would be funny. But no, it would be up to us as members to ignore their take on it by perpetually citing our document as our only reply until they show signs of coming around (or at least assimilating our point of view in a half decent way as a speculative possibility)

That's all well and good, but I don't see it working. I like my idea better.

[jgk3]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

In any case, making the document is step 1. Lets return to the focus of the thread instead of discussing our logistical strategy within these forums in dealing with Turkish posters (even though it sounds deceptively in line with the thread title).

[crusader1492]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

I don't know why this couldn't be a solution. Genocide Denial (and all its corollaries - we were only 'deported', Turks were killed to the same extent, blah blah blah) is tantamount to denigration of the Armenian People and Nation and such be a banable offense.

I think you have to keep it simple. That is if someone says concretely, "there was no Genocide", some type of automatic response (be it a warning, banning etc) should occur.

Anyway, it's not going to happen, so I just assume drop it (for now )

[Anonymouse]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

Wouldn't Genocide denial fall under this rule:

"-post messages which insult the Armenians, Armenian culture, traditions, religion etc"

I think you and crusader have a misunderstanding.

The rule refers to outward manifestations of insulting Armenians using vulgar and or insulting speech. That because we all subjectively may be insulted by this or that statement or phrase is not enough. By that logic, we should ban all sorts of stuff that we each subjectively deem 'offensive.' Much like in law, the standard is one of reasonableness, i.e., we try as much to look at this objectively.

The fact that people come here questioning the genocide (regardless of their reasons - ignorance, arrogance, propaganda) is not enough to ban them.

There are two strands of questioning: [1] Those that legitimately come here to argue because they want to debate the actual substance regardless of why they believe what they do, and [2] those that are here to post rants and nonsense simply to elicit a reaction. Those in the latter category are without question banned when either we see them or you inform them to us.

However, I have to say, the emotional response you and crusader have shown is not becoming. You are anti-free speech and your intolerance toward disagreement is a sad testament to us as Armenians. I don't care what rationale you put forth. You even disagree with Armenians here who post dissenting views, resorting insults. There is no room for that.

If a Turk comes in here breaking rules and does not hide their intention in terms of insulting us, they will be banned. However, most Turks who do come here, advocate their views because they either don't know better or because they generally and genuinely believe in their version. If their expression inadvertently insults us, that is not grounds to ban them. These are the people who are trying to have a dialogue with and reach out.

How does that look and reflect on us Armenians when we engage in the same anti-intellectual rigidity with which we accuse Turks of behaving?

While we are on it: I am against all laws that prohibit free speech. In Europe, there are laws that penalize those who question the Armenian genocide as well as the holocaust. I do not support such laws, no more than I support the Turkish government making it a crime to do the same in their own country. What do we end up with these two things? We end up with the rule of force declaring truth, which is the lowest denominator of establishing truth.

Truth should stand on its own criteria and methods, not as a result of government fiat. Prohibiting thought in forbidden ways or creating thought crime is the worst thing we as a civilization and as a people can do. By supporting such restrictions on expression, we end up being no better than the Turks who stifle freedom of thought in their country.

This issue is settled as far I am concerned. Do not raise any more questions about banning Turks because you find their presence distasteful. If you don't like it, leave.

The end.

EDIT: I also support jgk3's idea.