These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Should CCP Remove Fon Revedhort from the CSM Election?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#41 - 2013-03-29 01:14:43 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
]Wrong.

Our freedom of speech does not extend to hate speech. Not much to be done about it, since our Supreme Court has upheld the notion that hate speech is not protected.


I'm asking your personal opinion, what with you defending Fon Revedhort's hate speech and all.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
duckmonster
Perkone
Caldari State
#42 - 2013-03-29 01:14:47 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
duckmonster wrote:
Considering the fact that Russian Neo-***** have been responsible for countless murders, beatings , stabbings, and so on, then definately the safety of other CSS reps it is a genuine concern.
Show me where Fons is guilty of any of these things?

We've labelled him a Neo-****. I don't believe he's applied the label to himself. I'd call him an ultraconservative nationalist. He'd be as at home in Arizona as he's apparently at home in Russia.


Yeah ok , so you haven't actually been following the issue. Good work. Now go be angry about something you actually understand instead of being angry at people who don't like racists.
Vampy bat
Prussia Group
#43 - 2013-03-29 01:14:57 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
duckmonster wrote:
Considering the fact that Russian Neo-***** have been responsible for countless murders, beatings , stabbings, and so on, then definately the safety of other CSS reps it is a genuine concern.
Show me where Fons is guilty of any of these things?

We've labelled him a Neo-****. I don't believe he's applied the label to himself. I'd call him an ultraconservative nationalist. He'd be as at home in Arizona as he's apparently at home in Russia. He's definitely a racist though. Repugnant, yes, criminal, no.


I've never been in Arizona or the US for that matter. But I am a Russian citizen and I have lived in Russia for many years and I still visit very often. If I were to fall into his category of inferior being (and I'm not sure if I would or not because I don't understand most of what those groups really stand for) I would absolutely not want to have him know how I look like, or be able to glance at my plane ticket where he could see which Russian city I am from. It's one thing if all he knew was my real name, but things can get very real when they have access to more information.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2013-03-29 01:18:14 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
]Wrong.

Our freedom of speech does not extend to hate speech. Not much to be done about it, since our Supreme Court has upheld the notion that hate speech is not protected.
I'm asking your personal opinion, what with you defending Fon Revedhort's hate speech and all.
My thought is that it was WRONG.
Amarrius Ibn Pontificus
Legion Air
#45 - 2013-03-29 01:18:41 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Amarrius Ibn Pontificus wrote:
Vampy bat wrote:
duckmonster wrote:
Do you actually think Asian, black , jewish, Q ueer (yes, that word is censored on this forum for some blatantly offensive reason), and other minorities will feel safe going to the CSM knowing that some creep will be there spouting an ideology that would see them and their families slaughtered IRL? Do you think players will be happy knowing that CCP will be spending our subscription money flying about a known neo-naz i , who might not even be allowed to enter the country on account of his public pronouncements (He would be arrested at the airport where I live). is this the message we want to send?


That's actually a good point that had not yet occurred to me. What is this Fon is elected and some other Russian also gets in the final 14. Only the other Russian is only Russian in legal terms but an ethnic Kazakh, or Tajik or from any other of over 100 different ethnic groups that are equally recognized as Russian nationals but have their own history, culture and traditions and would fall into Fon's group of inferior beings. Or even some ethnic Russian who happens to be overtly gay.

Is CCP willing to deal with the wide range of consequences that could result out of Fon getting to know not only that other Russian's name, but his face, where he lives and so on should they ever be in the same room during one of the summits?
Talk about emergent gameplay. Welcome to emergent life endagerment 2013, brought to you by Crowd Control Productions. Spot the irony?
So, now you're assuming Fons is a murderous criminal?


Could be. I'll tell you what I'm not assuming. I'm not assuming he's a vegetarian painter, a tree hugger or a lover of puppies and bunnies.
Frying Doom
#46 - 2013-03-29 01:18:48 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
duckmonster wrote:
Considering the fact that Russian Neo-***** have been responsible for countless murders, beatings , stabbings, and so on, then definately the safety of other CSS reps it is a genuine concern.
Show me where Fons is guilty of any of these things?

We've labelled him a Neo-****. I don't believe he's applied the label to himself. I'd call him an ultraconservative nationalist. He'd be as at home in Arizona as he's apparently at home in Russia.



Yes he has applied the label to himself. Listen to that podcast. And he does not deny it when confronted by the interviewer.


edit: one thing is for sure, we will remember your stance on this.

Was it really worth it going down in EVE history in this manner ??

I do find it rather strange that people are arguing that this person should not be allowed basic human rights because he believes differently to others. While one of his beliefs is the removal of those rights from others.

Maybe some of you should take a step back as frankly I am not seeing much difference between the neo-nazi who would abolish peoples human rights and the neo-nazi haters that would abolish peoples human rights.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#47 - 2013-03-29 01:20:56 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Maybe some of you should take a step back as frankly I am not seeing much difference between the neo-**** who would abolish peoples human rights and the neo-**** haters that would abolish peoples human rights.
Fascism can take root in any quarter.
Hustomte
Veritex Industrial Inc.
#48 - 2013-03-29 01:23:06 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:

I do find it rather strange that people are arguing that this person should not be allowed basic human rights because he believes differently to others. While one of his beliefs is the removal of those rights from others.

Sounds like you need to re-read what the Human Rights actually ARE
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Please pay specific attention to article 30 and get back to us.
Thanks.

...Signature...
Vampy bat
Prussia Group
#49 - 2013-03-29 01:23:19 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
duckmonster wrote:
Considering the fact that Russian Neo-***** have been responsible for countless murders, beatings , stabbings, and so on, then definately the safety of other CSS reps it is a genuine concern.
Show me where Fons is guilty of any of these things?

We've labelled him a Neo-****. I don't believe he's applied the label to himself. I'd call him an ultraconservative nationalist. He'd be as at home in Arizona as he's apparently at home in Russia.



Yes he has applied the label to himself. Listen to that podcast. And he does not deny it when confronted by the interviewer.


edit: one thing is for sure, we will remember your stance on this.

Was it really worth it going down in EVE history in this manner ??

I do find it rather strange that people are arguing that this person should not be allowed basic human rights because he believes differently to others. While one of his beliefs is the removal of those rights from others.

Maybe some of you should take a step back as frankly I am not seeing much difference between the neo-**** who would abolish peoples human rights and the neo-**** haters that would abolish peoples human rights.


When was it that running for CSM became a basic human right?
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#50 - 2013-03-29 01:24:33 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
My thought is that it was WRONG.


That what was wrong? Please be specific, this is going to be one of those enlightening moments I think.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
duckmonster
Perkone
Caldari State
#51 - 2013-03-29 01:29:09 UTC
Hustomte wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

I do find it rather strange that people are arguing that this person should not be allowed basic human rights because he believes differently to others. While one of his beliefs is the removal of those rights from others.

Sounds like you need to re-read what the Human Rights actually ARE
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Please pay specific attention to article 30 and get back to us.
Thanks.


Also please ignore all the other bits. The only important part apparently is making sure angry red necks get to go about ruining folks lifes.

The whole bit about racism and right to not be killed by angry fascists etc, well those arent REAL rights.

Also let me tell you about banjos
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#52 - 2013-03-29 01:30:04 UTC
Vampy bat wrote:


When was it that running for CSM became a basic human right?



It is a rather strange thing, especially in the gaming industry.

And falls under corporate privilege, not governmental protection as a right.

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882
duckmonster
Perkone
Caldari State
#53 - 2013-03-29 01:31:16 UTC  |  Edited by: duckmonster
Frying Doom wrote:

Maybe some of you should take a step back as frankly I am not seeing much difference between the neo-**** who would abolish peoples human rights and the neo-**** haters that would abolish peoples human rights.


After all, people who murder ethnic minorities and people who dont are just as bad as each other, am I right.

I'm sort of imagining here Martin Luther King, standing on a podium, angrilly denouncing the assembled crowd for not being friends with klan members. I think that's what your getting at here yeah?
Frying Doom
#54 - 2013-03-29 01:31:34 UTC
Hustomte wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

I do find it rather strange that people are arguing that this person should not be allowed basic human rights because he believes differently to others. While one of his beliefs is the removal of those rights from others.

Sounds like you need to re-read what the Human Rights actually ARE
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Please pay specific attention to article 30 and get back to us.
Thanks.

Article 30.

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Exactly, he nor you have the right to perform any act or activity at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

If you cannot see that removing his rights because of what he says is against article 30 you need to read that again also you are also stepping on

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

and

Article 11.

(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.


He is entitled to his freedom of expression and he is entitled to be presumed innocent of any crime until he is found guilty of one.

It is more your stance that is in breach of article 30 than his.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#55 - 2013-03-29 01:32:22 UTC
duckmonster wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

Maybe some of you should take a step back as frankly I am not seeing much difference between the neo-**** who would abolish peoples human rights and the neo-**** haters that would abolish peoples human rights.


After all, people who murder ethnic minorities and people who dont are just as bad as each other, am I right/

I am sorry I was not aware that he had committed such horrible acts and been found guilty of them.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
duckmonster
Perkone
Caldari State
#56 - 2013-03-29 01:33:56 UTC
I sure am glad that people want us to not presume that the guy who claims to be a neo nazi is a neo nazi until he's had a proper trial in SPACE COURT
Frying Doom
#57 - 2013-03-29 01:36:55 UTC
duckmonster wrote:
I sure am glad that people want us to not presume that the guy who claims to be a neo **** is a neo **** until he's had a proper trial in SPACE COURT

No you accused him of committing horrible crimes, not that he is not a neo-nazi.

If you cannot see that that is exactly guilt by political association, you will never see that your opinion is not much different to his.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#58 - 2013-03-29 01:41:49 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
My thought is that it was WRONG.
That what was wrong? Please be specific, this is going to be one of those enlightening moments I think.
You need to be specific. The trials of Ernst Zundel happened in the 1980s. All I recall is that he wrote a bunch of anti-Jewish, anti-Holocaust literature. I do not recall him engaging in any violent behaviour.
duckmonster
Perkone
Caldari State
#59 - 2013-03-29 01:43:01 UTC  |  Edited by: duckmonster
Frying Doom wrote:
duckmonster wrote:
I sure am glad that people want us to not presume that the guy who claims to be a neo **** is a neo **** until he's had a proper trial in SPACE COURT

No you accused him of committing horrible crimes, not that he is not a neo-****.

If you cannot see that that is exactly guilt by political association, you will never see that your opinion is not much different to his.


I'm not calling him a neo-nazi by association. I'm taking his word for it.

But your right. Back in the 1930s people shouldnt have just assumed adolf hitler was a fascist just because he said so and was associated with mussolini. They where taking his rights away and thats why he had to act!
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#60 - 2013-03-29 01:47:19 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
You need to be specific. The trials of Ernst Zundel happened in the 1980s. All I recall is that he wrote a bunch of anti-Jewish, anti-Holocaust literature. I do not recall him engaging in any violent behaviour.


Funny, you didn't need specificity when you said "My thought is that it was WRONG.". Why now?

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["