On Ignoring Others

[Forsher]

If I saw it that way, then I'd have to consider fora to be in opposition of my basic rights. Their very existence is oppression.

People do not have a right to be heard. No if, no but, end of story.

People have a right to express their views. But there is nothing that says we have to listen to them do so. Otherwise we'd be forced to stand in front of those lunatics on soap-boxes who stand on street corners telling us about how they will save our souls, or - gods forbid - the next time a UKIP candidate starts to tell me how he will make the country a better place, I would have to actually listen to him (the mind boggles, and not in a good way).

Exactly.

As I said before, just because someone is talking, doesn't mean you have to pay attention. But participating in a forum means that you are signing up to be talked to. You want to just listen to a select, privileged, few? Go trawl some blogs or use something like Medium.

No ifs, no buts, this is actually the way forums are...

To be honest, I'd go further: this whole "no right to be heard" argument is just some pseudo-rational justification for isolating oneself from responsibility for one's views. Think about it. If Joe is telling me that I don't have a right to be heard, what Joe is saying is that I shouldn't be talking. Hence if what I want to do is hold Joe to account for whatever Joe is saying, Joe's not proclaiming a right to indifference/not respond or acknowledge my points, but actively suggesting that I not be telling anyone Joe is wrong.

We have a right to indifference. It is not the same as saying we don't have a right to be heard... which is just a validation of censorship for no reason whatsoever. And belief in a right to indifference doesn't validate selective trimming in the context of a forum by the nature of the forum.

[Kyrinasaj]

I don't block people, I can't even remember blocking trolls. I just don't reply to them. And no matter how annoying people become in a conversation, they always might have something interesting to say. Would be a waste to block them. That, and I am just lazy.

[Omnonia]

People have a right to express their views. But there is nothing that says we have to listen to them do so. Otherwise we'd be forced to stand in front of those lunatics on soap-boxes who stand on street corners telling us about how they will save our souls, or - gods forbid - the next time a UKIP candidate starts to tell me how he will make the country a better place, I would have to actually listen to him (the mind boggles, and not in a good way).

Exactly.

As I said before, just because someone is talking, doesn't mean you have to pay attention. But participating in a forum means that you are signing up to be talked to. You want to just listen to a select, privileged, few? Go trawl some blogs or use something like Medium.

No ifs, no buts, this is actually the way forums are...

To be honest, I'd go further: this whole "no right to be heard" argument is just some pseudo-rational justification for isolating oneself from responsibility for one's views. Think about it. If Joe is telling me that I don't have a right to be heard, what Joe is saying is that I shouldn't be talking. Hence if what I want to do is hold Joe to account for whatever Joe is saying, Joe's not proclaiming a right to indifference/not respond or acknowledge my points, but actively suggesting that I not be telling anyone Joe is wrong.

We have a right to indifference. It is not the same as saying we don't have a right to be heard... which is just a validation of censorship for no reason whatsoever. And belief in a right to indifference doesn't validate selective trimming in the context of a forum by the nature of the forum.

You answer "exactly" to a post that agrees with me, and then go ahead complaining about what I said...?

The point of a forum isn't to present yourself as the punching bag for every asshole who wants to insult and harass you. If that's your idea of free speech and open discourse, then free speech and open discourse are the dumbests inventions ever, and need to be outlawed to create a more civilized society with more respect for other people's rights.

I have the right to refuse to listen to assholes who annoy me. I have every right to "censor" what, if any, of their statements goes into my personal life. Period. To say otherwise is an incredibly oppressive idea, and I reject such an imposition in the strongest possible terms. Who do you even think you are to think that would be in your place to tell me what I must listen to?

When I sign up for a forum, I do not sign up for mandatory masochism, nor do I waiver my rights to iggnore people whom I deem unworthy of my time.

I repeat: Nobody has a right to be heard. Being heard is a privilege. Revoking that privilege, for any reason you wish, is the natural right of every single person.

[Frank Zipper]

Most of the people I put on ignore are the summer nazis and stalin fans, people who just post memes, they usually seem to end up as DOS within a fairly short amount of time anyway.

[Crylante]

I believe I've blocked one person over TG because they were spamming my inbox, but that's the only time I've blocked someone, I believe.

If I see someone who's overtly just offensive on the forums, I might consider blocking them, but this has not happened yet, as far as I can remember.

[Forsher]

You answer "exactly" to a post that agrees with me, and then go ahead complaining about what I said...?

If Calladan's intent was to agree with you, it was very clumsily expressed. Take:

"People have a right to express their views. But there is nothing that says we have to listen to them do so."

Listening and hearing, despite my initial language, are very much not the same thing. It's the difference between being in a room studying whilst a television is on (you are hearing it) and being distracted by the television (listening). Being exposed to (hearing) stimuli isn't the same as paying attention to (listening) them.

Similarly, that Calladan prefixes this discussion of listening with "a right to express their views" is everything. Here I see the essential crux of the point that you're advocating censorship.

If Calladan is agreeing with you, it is in the same way that Spinoza is a theist.*

*I am thinking of the assessment of Spinoza's point of view made by Rebecca Goldstein in the appenx to 36 Arguments for the Existence of God: a work of fiction... which basically made the point a theistic reading of (it may have been just a Christian) his argument would disregard the words on the page. This may be similar, I scanned it briefly.

The point of a forum isn't to present yourself as the punching bag for every asshole who wants to insult and harass you. If that's your idea of free speech and open discourse, then free speech and open discourse are the dumbests inventions ever, and need to be outlawed to create a more civilized society with more respect for other people's rights.

This isn't what I said, though, is it? What I said was that:

"participating in a forum means that you are signing up to be talked to" and "the whole point is that people come together to exchange ideas, which rather requires listening"

Now, I'm all for the kind of argument that runs to the effect of "what you said was [this] but what that really means is [this instead]" but such arguments are complex when they're true, not nicely reduced rhetorical flourish. And, as I am sure you'll agree, it is a dangerous business to presume why someone thinks something... particularly if what they think something means is contrary to one's own view. I can, though, explain why I think these are superficial statements.*

An exchange of ideas requires three things. One, some medium for ideas to be communicated through. Two, multiple parties to generate ideas. Three, multiple parties to receive ideas. Forums are media of exchange, quite uncontroversially, but they're called forums because of their associations with the public spaces of the Roman world. This public connotation is everything and is why their point is to be a place of exchange.

Now, it is true that people can be complete dicks. Sometimes this is obvious. Sometimes a dickhead is going to call you a wanker, and then everything is obvious. Sometimes dickishness is more subtly conveyed: perhaps an irrepressible smugness or a self-righteous wall of text? Maybe it's simply insincere self-deprecation... I know I hate that. Who knows? I'm sure specific examples aren't required to convey the point but I've been drinking the "give them examples" Kool-aid for so long... and you have to remember that I have no idea what exactly Kool-aid is... that I can't help myself. But, you see, just as how we tend to turn on people who say things but clearly don't know what they're talking about, the public world is a managed one. To suggest saying that going to a place of ideological exchange is equivalent to being signed up to be abused because it happens, is equivalent to suggesting that going outside is consenting to be murdered.

At this point, we should compare and contrast blogs and Medium. On one hand, blogs offer all the things that I have said forums have... except the public status. We know that blogs are out there and people write them to be read, but we also know that blogs have currency as "modern diaries". We also know that blogs privilege ownership rather than existence, whereas forums don't. That is, if I want to have this discussion with you via, say, Wordpress, a third party finding it stumbles on to one of our blogs first and foremost. Then it depends whether or not we have a subsidiary discussion in the comments (subordinating the respondent) or through our different blogs (subordinating the coherency of the conversation by dissipating it). Forums, in contrast, keep things together in a strict hierarchy of subject and time ordered response. Medium occupies a position of extreme dissipation... but while you can turn comments off, what that means is that they don't show up and confront your post. The moral is: forums are different.

*Superficiality is a good thing in Forsherian thought. There's probably a better word for conveying "the nominal sense is the real sense" though.

I have the right to refuse to listen to assholes who annoy me. I have every right to "censor" what, if any, of their statements goes into my personal life. Period. To say otherwise is an incredibly oppressive idea, and I reject such an imposition in the strongest possible terms. Who do you even think you are to think that would be in your place to tell me what I must listen to?

And, again, you have failed to engage with the material put to you. That's your prerogative... as I have been saying. But I have a responsibility to my ideas to point out that your prerogative is being exercised such that you're reducing relatively complex thoughts into "I'm not listening" = "CENSORSHIP". That wasn't the point at all. The point was that "the right not to be heard" can only manifest in the form of "do not respond to me," which is really just censorship being dressed up in the respectable language of, I guess, respecting privacy. It doesn't really matter what kind of wood the sawdust comes from,* though, because you're still peddling a lemon.

*This is somethy they do, right? I'm just remembering, I think, how it is in Matilda. Definitely Roald Dahl. 70% sure.

You don't have to listen to me. But you should, because you're wrong.

When I sign up for a forum, I do not sign up for mandatory masochism, nor do I waiver my rights to iggnore people whom I deem unworthy of my time.

As has been pointed out, no-one is suggesting either of these aren't true. What has been argued is that a "right to ignore" people is not equivalent to "one has no right to be heard" and that it is nonsensical to fight tooth and claw for the right to indifference when you come to a website whose sole purpose* is to bring different perspectives together.

*Selling Max Barry books, yadda yadda yadda... half of NSG doesn't even know there's a gameside, let alone a book.

I repeat: Nobody has a right to be heard. Being heard is a privilege. Revoking that privilege, for any reason you wish, is the natural right of every single person.

To the extent you have made a case, that is not the case you have made.

[Omnonia]

It's simply not true. I neither have to hear, nor to listen. And if I have the means to prevent having to hear and/or listen to other people, without impacting any of their rights (and there are no such rights at stake here), I have every right to make use of said means.

That is in no way counter to the point of making use of a forum.

[Forsher]

It's simply not true. I neither have to hear, nor to listen. And if I have the means to prevent having to hear and/or listen to other people, without impacting any of their rights (and there are no such rights at stake here), I have every right to make use of said means.

That is in no way counter to the point of making use of a forum.

You beg three questions:

1. What do you think the purpose of a forum is?
2. Do you remember that the specific context of this discussion was the compatibility of systematically reducing the pool of fellow conversationalists? And that this was subsequently tied to the purposes of forums? Rather than a discussion of the defensibility of proclaiming people don't have a right to be heard per se?
3. What logic do you use that spans the gulf between listening and hearing?

Edit:

There's also a fourth question, "Do you think being able to stick your fingers in your ears means that you should do so?" (This is tied to the "this is a forum" point... it may be the same question, but with a pop culture reference.)

[Omnonia]

What do you think the purpose of a forum is?

Holding discourse with those people to which a given member of that forum extends the privilege of holding discourse with him.

Do you remember that the specific context of this discussion was the compatibility of systematically reducing the pool of fellow conversationalists? And that this was subsequently tied to the purposes of forums? Rather than a discussion of the defensibility of proclaiming people don't have a right to be heard per se?

Please simplify the wording of sentence 1.

What logic do you use that spans the gulf between listening and hearing?

The logic that spans the gulf...? If you ask what the difference is - hearing is the act of perceiving (waves of sound), listening is allowing those waves to become carrier of information that you mentally engage with.

Neither is the right of any forum user to expect me to respect. It's a privilege I have the right to grant or revoke, at whim. (In electronic forms of conversation, the means of revoking the privilege to be heard are readily available; there is no shame in making use of them.)


Have you never been part of a forum where the official advice given to you by the admods boiled down to "block early, block often"?

[Big Jim P]

I don't block anyone here. Why would I?

If I want to ignore someone, I do it the old fashioned way.

[Chestaan]

I never bothered to block people. I like to hear opposing points of view and challenge them if necessary.

[Trotskylvania]

I have Only Reich of the New World Order on my ignore list because he hates on Kristian Kostov in his signature, i had also Kannadrickenium and Willania Imperium on my ignore list, but since i don't see Kannadrickenium posting anymore, she's not on my ignore list anymore, and i removed Willania Imperium because i think it's unuseful because he then just keeps annoying me, but anyway, I have just only Reich of the New World Order on my ignore list. I also had West Sylvania on my ignore list (i don't remember why )

Have you thought about maybe toning it down a bit?

[Calladan]

I admit, sometimes I've forgotten why I put people on the ignore list. Then I read one of their new posts and it all comes flooding back

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

It's simply not true. I neither have to hear, nor to listen. And if I have the means to prevent having to hear and/or listen to other people, without impacting any of their rights (and there are no such rights at stake here), I have every right to make use of said means.

That is in no way counter to the point of making use of a forum.

You beg three questions:

1. What do you think the purpose of a forum is?
2. Do you remember that the specific context of this discussion was the compatibility of systematically reducing the pool of fellow conversationalists? And that this was subsequently tied to the purposes of forums? Rather than a discussion of the defensibility of proclaiming people don't have a right to be heard per se?
3. What logic do you use that spans the gulf between listening and hearing?

Edit:

There's also a fourth question, "Do you think being able to stick your fingers in your ears means that you should do so?" (This is tied to the "this is a forum" point... it may be the same question, but with a pop culture reference.)

Everyone's experience of a forum is different. For you it entails something, but that doesn't mean everybody sees it your way or experiences it the same way you do. It's absurd to keep on arguing about a correct or a wrong way to experience a forum. Calladan and Omnia go on about it the best way they see fit according to site rules and what they will put up with or not.

[Calladan]

You beg three questions:

1. What do you think the purpose of a forum is?
2. Do you remember that the specific context of this discussion was the compatibility of systematically reducing the pool of fellow conversationalists? And that this was subsequently tied to the purposes of forums? Rather than a discussion of the defensibility of proclaiming people don't have a right to be heard per se?
3. What logic do you use that spans the gulf between listening and hearing?

Edit:

There's also a fourth question, "Do you think being able to stick your fingers in your ears means that you should do so?" (This is tied to the "this is a forum" point... it may be the same question, but with a pop culture reference.)

Everyone's experience of a forum is different. For you it entails something, but that doesn't mean everybody sees it your way or experiences it the same way you do. It's absurd to keep on arguing about a correct or a wrong way to experience a forum. Calladan and Omnia go on about it the best way they see fit according to site rules and what they will put up with or not.

Exactly. There are just some people I found so toxic, so offensive, so.... blargh that I do not want them in my life. And since I am not allowed to stun them, put them in a box, transport them to Liverpool, put them on a ship to Florida, convey them to Cape Kennedy, put them on board a rocket and shoot them in to space, I choose the next best option which is to add them to my foe list so I no longer have to read the offensive crap they spew forth with every word that they type.

[The Sauganash Union]

I did not know you could block people on nationstates.

[AiliailiA]

I did not know you could block people on nationstates.

It's 3 clicks away: click on their name beside their post, click on Add Foe, click Yes
That hides their posts on the forums (not on RMB or off-site), though you will still see what they wrote if someone else (not themselves blocked) quotes it.

There's also Telegram block. I'm not quite sure how to do that unless the poster already telegrammed you.

[Forsher]

What do you think the purpose of a forum is?

Holding discourse with those people to which a given member of that forum extends the privilege of holding discourse with him.

And how exactly does this work? Run me through it. Bullet points would be helpful as I can't see the logic.

Do you remember that the specific context of this discussion was the compatibility of systematically reducing the pool of fellow conversationalists? And that this was subsequently tied to the purposes of forums? Rather than a discussion of the defensibility of proclaiming people don't have a right to be heard per se?

Please simplify the wording of sentence 1.

You started off by saying that you systematically ignore people. The critique was that this is inconsistent with the nature of forums. This train of thought evolved into a more abstract discussion of censorship. Do you remember the original context?

What logic do you use that spans the gulf between listening and hearing?

The logic that spans the gulf...? If you ask what the difference is - hearing is the act of perceiving (waves of sound), listening is allowing those waves to become carrier of information that you mentally engage with.

Neither is the right of any forum user to expect me to respect. It's a privilege I have the right to grant or revoke, at whim. (In electronic forms of conversation, the means of revoking the privilege to be heard are readily available; there is no shame in making use of them.)

I repeat: why, if you believe them to be different things, do you treat them as the same thing?

Have you never been part of a forum where the official advice given to you by the admods boiled down to "block early, block often"?

You'd have to provide context. Are they telling people that they're unable to provide a forum as adequately moderated as NSG? Are they telling people, like NSG's mods, to ignore people they can't help but flamebait/flame?

Everyone's experience of a forum is different. For you it entails something, but that doesn't mean everybody sees it your way or experiences it the same way you do. It's absurd to keep on arguing about a correct or a wrong way to experience a forum. Calladan and Omnia go on about it the best way they see fit according to site rules and what they will put up with or not.

No, it's absurd to intrude in conversations without bothering to appropriately understand them. For example, it is just plain wrong to imagine that I think sub-conversations don't exist within threads... I rather suspect you don't get that.

I am suggesting that forums exist for a purpose and that if one is going to interact with forums as Omnonia does, that one would find some other kind of "internet discourse provider" more rewarding because Omnonia's means of engagement is contrary to the purpose of forums. Calladan has an entirely ambiguous mode of engagement that only very loosely seems compatible with Omnonia's blanket and as-yet-impenetrable logic.

It is entirely logical to perceive a phenomena and to enquire about its purpose, and then two describe its purpose based on available information. Some would say that this is not only logical but a moral imperative. It is similarly logical to consider why someone insists on cooking steaks in a toaster, when a frying pan or an over is better for what they're trying to achieve.* And, again, some would say that one has a moral imperative to help one's fellows out and suggest a better way of achieving what they want to do. If you know a door is locked and keep watching people walking towards said locked door, are you a bad guy if you don't tell them to try a different door? I'm not sure. You're certainly not a good guy.

*Omnonia would be the steak toaster in a literal reading of this but to be fair to Omnonia we're in dispute about whether or not it is a toaster... I say it's a toaster, Omnonia says it's a frying pan. And again, I think you're not going to have to look very hard to find people who will agree that pointing out the difference between toasters and frying pans is a helpful thing to do.

Exactly. There are just some people I found so toxic, so offensive, so.... blargh that I do not want them in my life. And since I am not allowed to stun them, put them in a box, transport them to Liverpool, put them on a ship to Florida, convey them to Cape Kennedy, put them on board a rocket and shoot them in to space, I choose the next best option which is to add them to my foe list so I no longer have to read the offensive crap they spew forth with every word that they type.

Compare and contrast:

Very freely, yes. Being in a discussion with me is a privilege, not a right, and I regularly revoke it from the unworthy.

and

What's the criteria for that?

One major criterion is lack of logic, coupled with trying to compensate for that shortcoming by personal attacks, projection, and strawmen.

and

See, I don't consider that fair. People like me aren't experienced in logic or debate, but we still have things to say

But not a right to be heard.

"Things to say" would rather exclude "offensive crap they spew forth" which means Omnonia's behaviour is clearly not the same as Calladan's. Note that it's possible Internationalist Bastard was not being evocative of "If you have nothing to say, don't say anything" in which case the earlier logic does not apply.

I realise that all points of view are valid, but honestly, as I said previously, if I wouldn't give them the time of day in real life, I don't see why I should give them the time of day here. If someone is a racist, bigoted twat for brains moron, I really don't think they deserve listening to and I feel no guilt whatsoever about ignoring them.

The aforementioned ambiguity (purple) of Calladan's position... but still (red) clearly about a pseudo-moderation behaviour (which, as I have noted, I practice myself)... as well as (blue) Omnonia's discourses. Note the absence of the problematic abstract position, i.e. "no right to be heard" and even the blue is indicative of a right to talk, which we have noted is necessarily precluded by the "no right to be heard heard" line. There's another post by Calladan that is very clear that he's into blocking Hitler rather than Trump.

No-one's saying that you have to respond to everything or even read all posts properly, but if you're systematically culling the number of people you will even give yourself the opportunity to hear (let alone listen to) then a forum probably isn't the place for you... certainly, you're treating forums as being more akin to something like Medium.

Which I include here because Omnonia has not characterised it as a strawman. (On the other hand, it is entirely possible Omnonia didn't actually read this, but that would be another conversation altogether, as they only responded to a previous paragraph.)

I see no issues with Calladan's practices, because I see no reason why they're the same as Omnonia's.

[Kostov]

I have Only Reich of the New World Order on my ignore list because he hates on Kristian Kostov in his signature, i had also Kannadrickenium and Willania Imperium on my ignore list, but since i don't see Kannadrickenium posting anymore, she's not on my ignore list anymore, and i removed Willania Imperium because i think it's unuseful because he then just keeps annoying me, but anyway, I have just only Reich of the New World Order on my ignore list. I also had West Sylvania on my ignore list (i don't remember why )

Have you thought about maybe toning it down a bit?

Why? But Reich of the New World Order will stay on my ignore list until he changes his signature because he insults Kristian Kostov, and i have now Svilajska Republika on my ignore list for calling Kristian Kostov an emo, and he stays on my ignore list until he says "Sorry Kristian Kostov"

[AiliailiA]

Have you thought about maybe toning it down a bit?

Why? But Reich of the New World Order will stay on my ignore list until he changes his signature because he insults Kristian Kostov, and i have now Svilajska Republika on my ignore list for calling Kristian Kostov an emo, and he stays on my ignore list until he says "Sorry Kristian Kostov"

Those sound like ultimatums, using the Ignore as a bargaining chip. You probably shouldn't do that, it might fall under the "other offences dealt with on an ad-hoc basis" below:

Trolling/Baiting/Gloating: Trolling is defined as posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example). Someone disagreeing with you does not equate to trolling. Intent is incredibly important and will be judged by the moderators to the best of their abilities. Honest belief does not excuse trolling. Disagreements are expected and conducting yourself in a civil manner is ideal. Trollbaiting is the action of making posts that attract trolls. A prime example of trollbaiting would be gloating over the results of an election.

Gloating over punishments handed out to other players is not acceptable. Another form of the offense, IGNORE gloating, is typically seen in the roleplay forums, though it can appear elsewhere. Politely informing another nation that you are henceforth using the "ignore" feature is acceptable, but repeating it in different threads or over long periods is considered gloating and will be dealt with appropriately. Other cases will be considered on an ad hoc basis.

(I underlined the bit I think is relevant)

I'm not sure if this is what Trots meant by "tone it down", but it is my own advice. Not with the authority of Mod, of course, though I do like to dream that one day I'll log on and my name will have turned red in portent of all the blood that will flow from my anvil-like hands ...

[Crockerland]

From a jack on the Gay German thread, do you often put people on ignore?

No, I don't need to resort to cowardly blocking of opinions contradictory of mine, not even ones of people such as this fine fellow "Ratsarse". Blocking people is like putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!".

[Omnonia]

And how exactly does this work? Run me through it. Bullet points would be helpful as I can't see the logic.

Whatever do you not understand? It works by simply ignoring/blocking every member of the forum you do not see as worthy of the privilege of talking to you.

You started off by saying that you systematically ignore people. The critique was that this is inconsistent with the nature of forums. This train of thought evolved into a more abstract discussion of censorship. Do you remember the original context?

Yes. I rejected that critique as nonsensical, because that is still 100% fully consistent with the nature of forums.

I repeat: why, if you believe them to be different things, do you treat them as the same thing?

Because, unlike in the "real world", electronic communication gives me the means and the right to do so. I can, and am allowed to, fully shut out people over the net so that I do not even have to hear them. You are somehow arguing that's against the nature of a forum; I disagree with that stance of yours.

You'd have to provide context. Are they telling people that they're unable to provide a forum as adequately moderated as NSG? Are they telling people, like NSG's mods, to ignore people they can't help but flamebait/flame?

"Adequately moderated" is a highly subjective judgement. I have been member of a forum where the same mods were literally accused of fascistoid oppression of free speech by some, and irresponsible laissez-faire in under-moderation by others.

That's why, in order to provide a forum that actually works as a place in which ideas get discussed, instead of devolving into a neverending shitstorm of insults, the ignore function is good, neccessray, and should be encouraged to be freely made use of, regardless of quality (or lack of quality) of moderation.

[AiliailiA]

From a jack on the Gay German thread, do you often put people on ignore?

No, I don't need to resort to cowardly blocking of opinions contradictory of mine, not even ones of people such as this fine fellow "Ratsarse". Blocking people is like putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!".

The example you gave (from 55 days ago on some other forum? kept a copy of that did you?) would probably be warnable for flaming here. Certainly the last line of it. And certainly I see why you'd say it's contrary to yours, it's contrary to mine too. However for all those faults it is actually an opinion.

You say it's cowardly to block contrary opinions, but aren't there other more honorable reasons to block someone, besides their opinions being contrary? How about their posts being 100% spam all the time ... do you put up with that because it would be "cowardly" not to?

Note that 100% spam all the time isn't allowed here, but you do see it elsewhere, and since you used an example from elsewhere, I think it's fair to ask if you'd block 100% spam where you have the option to do so.

[The Batavia]

I only ignore people when they call me Indonesia

[Randsbeik]

It's simply not true. I neither have to hear, nor to listen. And if I have the means to prevent having to hear and/or listen to other people, without impacting any of their rights (and there are no such rights at stake here), I have every right to make use of said means.

That is in no way counter to the point of making use of a forum.

If users are free to block whoever they choose, they can; and they aren't infringing on any made-up "rights" in doing so, but if you block people because you don't consider them intelligent enough or worthy of listening to, all you're doing is shutting down potential discussion.