|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 14.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
So rather than deal with the original insults - which you yourself have acknowledged here; therefore you've managed to recognize them - it'd be better to just punish everybody? Why is it that the person who made the original insults is so sacrosanct as to be above even the mildest admonishment as an individual?
The only reason that "threads on gay issues have a long history here of careening out of control" is because certain idiots are allowed to hurl unsubstatiated insults against gays, while the admin tag-team concentrates all its efforts on defending those making the unsubstantiated, unjustified insults against any reproach by those who justifiably consider themselves insulted. If these people want to say they consider gays immoral then fine, let them say it flat out. But stop with the insulting comparisons to rapists and pedophiles. Why are they necessary? And why the hell is it that those responding to the insults are always considered to be the trouble-makers by the admin tag-team here? The only thing that clearly wasn't working here is the old rule that allows this situation to exist: the one that says individual members cannot be insulted but that groups of members can be. Changing that rule to forbid insults against both individual members and groups of members has never been tried here, and apparently never will be. It would probably work, but it would clearly be so out of character for this forum that I can see why it has never occurred to you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Admin writes: My own inclination is to disallow the topic at this site. It's divisive, it's far too consuming for our limited moderator resources, and it's a Coffee House topic. The problem with sensoring out this national hot topic issue is that it is the demands for unprecedented status and respect favoring a lifestyle having long been deemed devious in our culture which becomes relevant in some social topics. They emerged out of the closet a few decades ago. Now they want to dominate the parlor. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5520 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Buz writes:
Yeah, and they also want to use the bathroom. Better put a bar of anti-kootie soap in there. They emerged out of the closet a few decades ago. Now they want to dominate the parlor. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
berberry writes: Why is it that the person who made the original insults is so sacrosanct as to be above even the mildest admonishment as an individual? Because there's a close correlation between bigotry and creationism and we have a shortage of creationists. If we get rid of the bigots, there won't be any creationists left and we might as well call the site E. It's complicated by the fact that one of the most outspoken and vilest bigots is also one of the most articulate creationists and an admin (and we need creationist admins, so the mantra goes). The double standard is there by design. “If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here) “The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
It seems to be your position that creationists will not participate on this forum unless they are allowed to compare gay people to rapists and pedophiles. I'm not sure I understand why that would be. Can you explain it a little more?
And for the record, I never said anything about "getting rid" of anyone.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
berberry writes: It seems to be your position that creationists will not participate on this forum unless they are allowed to compare gay people to rapists and pedophiles. No, that's the position of the management (though they won't put it quite that bluntly).
And for the record, I never said anything about "getting rid" of anyone. Understood. And if Nemesis_Juggernaut - to pick a random example - was admonished for his bigotry, I don't think it would chase him away from the rest of the board. But that seems to be the official fear. “If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT (see context here) “The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
We do have free speech. And IMHO it is far better to let the bigots have their say so that those reading the forum can see that they are bigots.
Are you saying that something like those people can actually offend you? Do you really give them that much credit? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Then why does NJ keep bringing it up? The thought never appears in any post until NJ decides to tell us what he thinks and apparently when he thinks of having sex with someone of the same sex, he immediately starts to think about raping his infant son. see, there you go again.
But since there is no connection to sexual orientation and rape, incest, pedophilia, drug use, murder, etc., why is it that NJ keeps equating being gay with all of the above. What is it about the thought of having sex with someone of the same sex that makes him immediately envision raping his infant son? and again.
If it's unacceptable when I do it, how is it of no concern when he does it? NJ, nearest i can tell, is arguing that allowing homosexuality opens the door for other forms of sexual deviations that he feels are wrong. his logic may be flawed and his connotation insulting... but you're directly calling him a rapist and a pedophile. do you honestly not understand the difference?
Surely you're not saying that the problem is that I'm being graphic while he maintains the use of clinical terms...that this is just a question of semantics, are you? yes, actually, it is about how you're phrasing your argument. when you phrase it as an attack on your opponent, it is an ad hominem.
That when he equivocates gay people to rapists, we shouldn't be thinking of an actual act of rape? That when he equivocates gay people to pedophiles, we shouldn't think of an actual child being molested? That when he equates gay people to those who commit incest, we shouldn't think of people actually being exploited? and he has said repeatedly that this is not what he's trying to do. perhaps you feel he is, but you are rather basically misrepresenting his argument... and then attacking him for it.
If it is inappropriate to apply the actual acts to him that he accuses gay people of promoting, then surely it is inappropriate to apply them to gay people. yes, but one of them is against the forum rules, and the other is a bigotted position you should argue against as opposed to flinging poo.
Or are you also arguing that gay people are incestuous rapers of children? yes, rrhain, everyone who expects you to behave yourself like an adult is a baby-raper.
I never said it did. But here's a hint: Three wrongs don't make a right, either. you know, it's rather hard to claim to have the moral high ground when you're content to sling mud down in the gutter with the worst of them. i don't care if you think your mud is cleaner, or that it's justified. just try to behave yourself and not attack other forum members.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I agree that characterizing NJ as actually fantasizing about this stuff is too far, that's really all i'm saying. rrhain doesn't seem to understand that this behaviour is totally inappropriate, and comes whining here when an admin tells both him and NJ to cut it out.
in every thread about homosexuality, has done this. He equates homosexuality to pedophilia, rape, and bestiality in every thread he participates in where the morality or legality of homosexuality or gay marriage are discussed. christianity has a very small definition of what is morally accepted sex. they tend to feel that if the state opens the door for one of the things they consider unacceptable, the rest will come through with it. perhaps the thread could argue against that position instead of merely attacking the person who feels that way.
Personally, since NJ seems to like to use such threads as an outlet for his hate speech and doesnt like to debate honestly about such topics, I think he should be barred from discussions on homosexuality. He has the right to his beliefs and opinions, but he's not bringing any form of debate to the table, just offensive hate speech. if that's the case, that's for the moderators to say. but hate-speech in return is not the answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
stop acting like a troll, yelling at other people (even in lowercase), and infusing your posts with profanity to demonstrate your frustration. you insist that you take this place seriously, but sometimes you get into pissing matches. seriously, you know i love you and all, but you also know that sometimes you just gotta chill the fuck out. Hey, come on now... Look, as an outside observer, I would agree that brenna gets cranky. Hey, we're all prone to it at times. But I know you two are friends outside of this place, and I'd hate to see you two getting mad at each other over something that could be spoken about quietly outside of this place. I don't wanna see you two in a tiff. “There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the 'wisdom' of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to objective reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious" -C.S. Lewis
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1364 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
But I know you two are friends outside of this place, and I'd hate to see you two getting mad at each other over something that could be spoken about quietly outside of this place. I don't wanna see you two in a tiff. nah. we're cool. like that was supposed to say, she doesn't take this place too seriously, and sometimes she just needs to be reminded of that and not get so worked up over stuff. besides, we're kinda strange people who communicate jokingly through insults. strange sense of humor, but it fully allows for her to tell me when i'm being a fucktard and vice versa.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
AdminPD responds to me:
quote: And declaring that gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists is "civil"? Once again, I ask you directly: Do you think gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists? If not, if you truly are concerned with maintaining the guidelines and keeping threads on track and civil, then you would stop the person who is being uncivil and throwing things off. Since you don't in the case of NJ equated gays to incestuous, pedophilic rapists, one has to wonder if you don't agree. Therefore, I ask you directly for the third time: Do you think gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists? That would explain why you don't blink when someone makes that claim.
quote: The originator hasn't spoken and you haven't enforced any guideline at all. The last time this was brought up, you did the same thing directly against the wishes of the originator. So once again, I ask directly: Do you think gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists? That would explain why you don't act when someone makes such a claim. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
jar writes:
quote: So why are we not allowed to call them out on their bigotry and turn it around back on them? Can what we say actually offend them? Do they really give us that much credit? It's the double-standard, jar, that is the problem. NJ can call people incestuous, pedophilic rapists without comment but somehow to reflect that back upon him is unacceptable? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
Therefore, I ask you directly for the third time:
This is not a debate thread. Your question is off-topic for this thread. Do you think gays are incestuous, pedophilic rapists? That would explain why you don't blink when someone makes that claim. To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yawn.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024