Should able2know ban people for having untoward opinions?

@Thomas,

I think that's a kind of naive estimation of the ability of Manson to do real harm if let loose on the net.

@dlowan,

dlowan wrote:

I think that's a kind of naive estimation of the ability of Manson to do real harm if let loose on the net.

I didn't say Manson can't do real harm if let loose on the net. I only said he can do much less of it than in real life. He most definitely can do serious damage by talking people into doing very bad real-life things that they wouldn't otherwise do. But then again, so can Bill---and as you said yourself, it's not unlikely that he does.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Olga's view is especially tough when she follows it up by announcing that she won't discuss it. Exactly how do we establish norms of civility and reason without talking about what we mean by them? And how do we break them down into simple-enough rules that a computer can detect breaches, lest the hunt for uncivil people overwhelm A2K's all-volunteer workforce?

Actually, Thomas, I would really like to participate in a big forum discussion on the subject of civil online behaviours, what we individually & collectively think about the subject. What we indivually & collectively think is reasonable & what we consider unreasonable. I wasn't (for my own reasons) keen to discuss the subject in a one-to-one situation yesterday. (But, as Beth said) this is a subject I've definitely had a ongoing interest in here.
I haven't much time this morning, as I have to go out soon, but I would definitely add my two bob's worth to such a discussion, if there was a thread created to address that subject. I think it would be a useful & valuable discussion for the community. Not with the intention of creating a set of unenforceable, inflexible "rules" which we must all follow ( it would, of course, be totally unreasonable to expect such a set of "rules" to be "policed" by moderators), but to share our different perspectives on the subject, to air some of the ongoing issues of concern & too see if we can collectively arrive at some broad areas of agreement amongst ourselves. So if there's sufficient interest, why don't we do it? And if there isn't, not to worry, we'll just carry on as before.

1 Reply

@msolga,

I don't understand the point of having such a discussion. Surely one can imagine all the responses that can be made. What effect do you think such an exchange will have, other than hashing out the obvious, people either agreeing or disagreeing with one another? Most people aren't going to change their style, which is why I think this would be a pointless exercise.

Edit: We all know what is civil or uncivil behaviour, yet both occur with predictable frequency.

1 Reply

@Mame,

OK, no problem, Mame.

1 Reply

@msolga,

Well, you didn't answer my questions.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Quote:

.....depressed teenagers......hanging offense.......

I'm a depressed teenager who is offensively well hung.....sort of.....sort of not......actually probably not...OK, definitely not...but I wish I was ! Just trying to contribute here.....

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Aw, shuddup, I know you - no teenager has 1,800 hours of flight time as PIC. Some folks really take stuff they read online seriously Smile

1 Reply

@Mame,

Well, my post offers only my perspective, Mame.
These are the questions (below) you'd like me to address? OK. Just my own perspective again, OK?:

Quote:

Surely one can imagine all the responses that can be made. What effect do you think such an exchange will have, other than hashing out the obvious, people either agreeing or disagreeing with one another? Most people aren't going to change their style, which is why I think this would be a pointless exercise.

Actually, I'm not sure that I could necessarily predict all the responses. (I wouldn't have predicted all the responses of this particular discussion.) A lot would depend on how the discussion developed, what direction it might take, what "issues" (if any) emerge as important .... If you & others think it's a pointless exercise, of no benefit to the community, well that's not a problem. I have no desire to push for a discussion that others believe in advance is a pointless exercise.

My suggestion was a response to Beth & Thomas's posts, in which (I think) they felt I should have said more than I did (yesterday) on the subject of civil behaviours. I've responded, indicating that I'm willing to do that.

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

My suggestion was a response to Beth & Thomas's posts, in which (I think) they felt I should have said more than I did (yesterday) on the subject of civil behaviours.

errr no, I didn't/don't think you should post any more on the subject of civil behaviour as I think it would just lead to misery for you - I think we all should accept that we have different standards and that one of the joys of a board like A2K is that it reflects (for the most part) acceptance of that range

there are other, more tightly controlled, boards. I don't find much pleasure there.

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

OK.
I must be a bit out of it this morning, Beth.
(Not properly awake & also in a bit of a rush, at the same time.)
I am not pushing for such a discussion, certainly not if others don't want it, as I said.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

dlowan wrote:
I think that's a kind of naive estimation of the ability of Manson to do real harm if let loose on the net.

I didn't say Manson can't do real harm if let loose on the net. I only said he can do much less of it than in real life. He most definitely can do serious damage by talking people into doing very bad real-life things that they wouldn't otherwise do. But then again, so can Bill---and as you said yourself, it's not unlikely that he does.

I think they're in different categories, though, except if you are only speaking as though life were a logical theorem.

Manson has a track record of PROVEN harm.

It

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

msolga wrote:
My suggestion was a response to Beth & Thomas's posts, in which (I think) they felt I should have said more than I did (yesterday) on the subject of civil behaviours.

errr no, I didn't/don't think you should post any more on the subject of civil behaviour as I think it would just lead to misery for you

I plead guilty of tempting Olga, because I said: "Olga's view is especially tough when she follows it up by announcing that she won't discuss it." You can resolve that particular problem by discussing it, or you can resolve it by accepting that there is no universal standard--only as many individual standards as there are posters. I agree with you, Beth, that acceptance is the better way to go.

PS: This doesn't mean there's nothing one can do to nudge the site's tone in a direction one finds desirable. Neither Beth nor I are shy to let people know when we disapprove of what someone is saying. We just don't care to have our disapproval enforced by moderators.

0 Replies

@dlowan,

I take your point.

1 Reply

msolga, don't let my opinions sway you from starting a discussion you obviously care so much about. I won't be involved in it; likely won't even enter the thread. But if you do care, then you should go for it.

1 Reply

@Mame,

No, you haven't dissuaded me, Mame.
I do care, I just figure out what the answers are, that's all. Wink

Guess I'll just keep doing what I've been doing.

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

Guess I'll just keep doing what I've been doing.

Nothing wrong with that. Smile

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Charles Manson has his dreams of being powerful and killing people...the ultimate control over their lives.
I dream of being a depressed well hung teenager getting sympathy sex from girls with an IQ smaller than my waist size. This would mean more control over my sex life which seems to be in my hands and not in the hands of others. An interesting reversal of what usually constitutes control.
Banning people is a way of not addressing any issues contrary to your opinion. Supporters of banning want to spread more control over the behaviour and opinions of others.
I regard even stupid posts by others to be a learning experience. Violent posts are interesting too, as I have spent no small amount of my life in involved in violence.

Quote:

Some folks really take stuff they read online seriously

Some folks (20% estimate) have serious mental health issues...the idea of therapy is to not move the goal posts...reality has to stay what it is and people have to get with the program.

0 Replies

@dlowan,

Quote:

I think that's a kind of naive estimation of the ability of Manson to do real harm if let loose on the net.

I think that you might be overestimating the ability of Charles Manson, Dlowan. I think it would be fascinating to have a discussion with him.

0 Replies

@dlowan,

dlowan wrote:

That doesn't mean I can prove the possible harmfulness of people like O'Bill etc., because it's a different issue, but I do know the net can be very influential.

So can the Saturday morning cartoons.

1 Reply

Should able2know ban people for having untoward opinions?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know