63
   

Should able2know ban people for having untoward opinions?

 
 
squinney
 
  5  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2010 08:15 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

And if you can't think of a solution it may be due to a fundamental conflict of interest that no other mind is going to be able to resolve.


That's sig line worthy.


Robert Gentel wrote:

... we can't have both a free marketplace of ideas and no idiots.


Also sig line worthy.


Robert Gentel wrote:

So depending on just what the perceived problem may be, there may be no solution that does not inexorably compromise other ideals to an unacceptable degree.

I do know at least this: it is impossible to please everyone, and even quite difficult to completely please just one person on a forum. On some level I think a degree of perceived problems is inevitable (i.e. no solution to all problems) so we'll always have problems of some sort, and it's just a matter of balancing the different problems and how acutely they affect the forum because solving a problem for one person will almost always create a problem for someone else at this size.


Other than death threats, child porn, or other things legally prohibited on the internet, and which has to be removed by law, I think the ignore button or voting a thread down IS the solution to all of the problems people are identifying here. We are adults. We make a decision whether to be offended, insulted, or hurt by someone else's posts. The woman for whom others jumped to defend moderated herself and left the thread. She chose, for her own sake, to not read further. Bravo!

If I'm finding myself agitated, (need I say this only happens in politics?) I leave the thread. If it is only by one or two posters, I put them on ignore until I choose to read them again. It isn't the posters fault I'm becoming tense and need to put them on ignore. It's mine. Why would I give them that power? (especially if it's exactly what I perceive they are going for! Why would I give them any hint they succeeded by responding?)

Anyway, I think there is a solution to all of the problems that can please everyone, and we already have it in the form of the thumbs and ignore buttons as well as the ability to scroll. For moderators, I would prefer that they deal with spam removal, copyright violations that may harm the site, or keep an eye out for what is illegal to post based on internet laws.

I don't think we should stop anyone from expressing their views or opinions just because we don't agree with them. It can be a real eye opener to realize some of these views even exist. I'd rather know they are out there.
Izzie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2010 08:23 am
@squinney,
squinney wrote:

I don't think we should stop anyone from expressing their views or opinions just because we don't agree with them. It can be a real eye opener to realize some of these views even exist. I'd rather know they are out there.


yep!
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2010 08:36 am
@djjd62,
High Seas wrote:


Quote:
Aren't you trained in the sciences? If yes, you know that the simplest explanation that fits all the facts is to be preferred to the complex one. If the term "colored" isn't acceptable to you, please provide a single-word, descriptive, understandable, PC-compliant alternative. I will wait.


There isn't one HS. If you were trained in science you would know that the simplest explanation that fits all the facts is to be preferred to the complex one. And a single-word, descriptive, understandable, PC-compliant alternative has so far, despite the ingenuity of mankind in finding so many apt words for things, possibly too many, as some totalitarians say, eluded us as this very subject still engaging our attention proves. That is a simple fact. I trust you agree.

On such a simple fact an even simpler fact rears its being. It is that there isn't one unless the human race is faced with a difficulty it has hitherto, in its long history of weary woe, not found it necessary to cope with before. A sort of mutation. I do, of course, refer to "PC-compliance" which seems to have rendered the matter irreducibly complex and thus outside the range of our wits. It, PC-compliance, might even be the very death of wit.

Or try to be. Fat chance. Wit is a human faculty which we share with no other beast in creation and is as ineradicable as the red blood corpuscles. If PS-compliance is wit's sworn enemy then PC-compliance is a human enemy and will be defeated. If not, our destiny is standardisation.

So the search for such a word, "person", 0r "citizen", or "comrade" for example has proved fruitless. So far.

Perhaps if you gave a list of words not PC-compliant it would help us to eliminate them from our consideration.

0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  2  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2010 08:55 am
@High Seas,
High Seas wrote:

realjohnboy wrote:

"Black." That is what I hear in multi-racial conversations.
"Colored" is a word with baggage from decades ago. "African-American" is too cumbersome. "Nigger"

That leaves out persons of the Indian subcontinent, the continent of South America, and countless others - colored includes them.


Since this thread has gone right off track with what to call people who are not white, I will add my two cents.

Black is the term that I hear most often. I think it is the least offensive as well. Black, White .... you get the picture?

As for the Indian subcontinent.... Um, how about East Indian?

South America?... Um, how about Latino?

Carry on. Hoping to see some posts on the topic soon.
fbaezer
 
  2  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2010 09:43 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:


One of the goals of our moderation policy is for moderators not to be big stick wielders. On many forums moderators are visible authoritarian figures and invariably these generate a lot of personality conflicts. But here we try to do things less abrasively and moderators do their jobs behind the scenes, but that doesn't mean there are no moderators here. There are moderators here and they remove posts and ban members (mostly spammers) daily.

Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there.


Good that they are there. I've seen them work on spam only. And I'd rather not imagine how the site would lo0k like with the other stuff they do ban.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2010 10:03 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Well at least the last few pages provide an iullustration of the endless folly that inexorably follows censorship in any form, as a mere laps in PC speech degenerates into endless grinding of mouse turds into ever smaller......

The PC contingent disagrees with that statement - blindingly obvious as it is. They do provide for comic entertainment, though Smile
Francis
 
  2  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2010 10:16 am
@High Seas,
Especially the mere laps...
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2010 10:22 am
@Francis,
That's an obvious typo - given the indefinite article preceding it; but do you know if "colored" or "non-white" constitutes a PC lapse?
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2010 10:46 am
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:

Since this thread has gone right off track with what to call people who are not white...

On the contrary, PC avoidance is on the thread's main track - and please recall, we're looking for a one-word designation....
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2010 10:49 am
While we're doing the "PC avoidance" let's not forget "family values," "freedom loving" and other such tripe the conservatives peddle.
High Seas
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2010 11:00 am
@Setanta,
Since there's a suffocating amount of PC on this thread, and no examples of the "tripe" you cite, might we stick with A2K content?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  9  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2010 11:05 am
No, we might not. Frankly, i get tired of your brainless right-wing agenda. "PC" is not the special province of people who, for example, deplore racism. If you oppose gun control, you're "freedom loving," as though those who support gun control hate freedom--and we've got a dipshit at this site who specifically describes gun control proponents as "freedom haters." If you support "family values," you are expected to oppose abortion, and accept the notion the homosexuality is a "choice."

So, no, i don't see why i should be restricted, and see no reason not to point out that political rectitude is a tool which people across the political spectrum use to sneer at those with whom they disagree, and in an attempt to flay those who stray from accepted doctrine.
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2010 11:14 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I would say that threats of personal harm are over the line, as would be calls for violence.


Those are illegal acts, and of course cross our lines. But that isn't even in the same city of what is being discussed (which at it's most personally harassing is just insensitive doubt cast on a personal story).


Out of curiosity, where would the following exchange fall? Is it a direct threat of violence or just one of those innocent wishful thinking thoughts that accidentally ooze from the fingertips of someone and onto the forums?

Person A wrote:

Person B wrote:

I catch hell for saying this in the childhood sexual abuse survivor community, but I have come to the conclusion that often abuse is nearly a blessing.


You are such a reprobate. If I were married to you, I'd kill you - for fear you would give our children a "blessing."

B-A-N-G


Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2010 11:27 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I would say that threats of personal harm are over the line, as would be calls for violence.


Those are illegal acts, and of course cross our lines. But that isn't even in the same city of what is being discussed (which at it's most personally harassing is just insensitive doubt cast on a personal story).


The reason I bring that up, is that I have reported instances such as this several times in the past, but the person never seemed to have been banned (or at least, they kept posting after I reported them, I don't know what really happened; the posts weren't removed even though they have clear threats and calls for violence in them) -

http://able2know.org/topic/143339-11#post-4288831

http://able2know.org/topic/153679-4#post-4305274

Et cetera.

Though I agree that our current situation isn't very similar.

Cycloptichorn
High Seas
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2010 11:28 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

So, no, i don't see why i should be restricted, and see no reason not to point out that political rectitude is a tool which people across the political spectrum use to sneer at those with whom they disagree, and in an attempt to flay those who stray from accepted doctrine.

Since you don't name the posters (or non-posters, as your tirade extends beyond A2K), there's no telling if those alternative-PCers can come up with whatever is the correct terminology for their concepts. Simple observation on this thread will show that the PCers here cannot.
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2010 11:29 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Shocked
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2010 11:30 am
First, this thread is not about "PC." Second, i have no reason to believe that there is any such thing as a "PCer." Finally, i habitually don't name members in such contexts, for a variety of reasons, the most obvious of which ought to be that it would be ill-bred and ill-mannered.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  3  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2010 11:31 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Interestingly, those links to specific posts have a remarkably similar style of expression as the example I posted. I wonder if it is yet another sock puppet.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2010 11:32 am
What exactly is a "sock puppet"?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Oct, 2010 11:34 am
It is a person creating an account for an ulterior purpose, to mask the person who is doing it. So, for example, someone might create several accounts in order to come here and vote down the posts of someone they don't like. It has recently been alleged that this was going on in the current rape thread.

Of course, sock puppets could be used to promote something, too. So someone could register here, ask a leading question, and then use a sock puppet account to answer the question by recommending a certain product or service.

As it is used in this thread, it refers to the first tactic i described.
 

Related Topics

Lola at the Coffee House - Question by Lola
JIM NABORS WAS GOY? - Question by farmerman
Adding Tags to Threads - Discussion by Brandon9000
LOST & MISPLACED A2K people. - Discussion by msolga
Merry Andrew - Discussion by edgarblythe
Spot the April Fools gag yet? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Great New Look to A2K- Applause, Robert! - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Head count - Discussion by CalamityJane
New A2K feature requests. - Discussion by DrewDad
The great migration - Discussion by shewolfnm
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/02/2020 at 07:35:21