Should able2know ban people for having untoward opinions?

Quote:

Then you should probably apologize to her. As you clearly agree the comments have a very different context depending on who you are talking to. I personally think that in the context of the person you were talking to your comments were incredibly insensitive and that it wouldn't hurt you to apologize for.

As I said I was not aware that this story had any direct connection to her and would not had made that comment if I had been aware of that fact.

I am sorry if it cause her any pain as a result.

The answer to the original question is so blatantly obvious, I consider it rhetorical...

What do you think of this campaign?

Do you think that video clip (of the TV ad) gets the message across?

Would it be useful to run TV ads of this nature in other countries?

How effective can a campaign like this be in actually changing attitudes and behavior?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

(S)he who gets his or her ox gored in a politics forum is not as vulnerable as (s)he who gets his or her feelings hurt in an abuse/help thread. For that matter, how about a depression-contemplating suicide thread? Surely the membership can appreciate that certain deviations from decency can be more harmful in some areas than others, and all I’m suggesting is that this be factored in to the system… and that some consequences eventually come to fruition to curb the behavior of the worst of the worst.

But what we have here is a case of a member sharing a personal story on a debate thread. The thread in question is titled, "Hey, Can A Woman "Ask To Get Raped"?" I agree that Bill's response to BBB was uncalled for. I agree that he's a dolt. I also see that he isn't the one who kept that portion of the thread going and that, once it was reposted by AM in all her dungeon, he did a mea culpa and said he didn't realize it was a personal story. Yes, I think he's doltish enough to have missed that fine point the first time through. You and your pals then took it into overdrive. She's STILL going on about what folks said to BBB! And, when asked for a link to the offending posts by Hawkeye she responded with a "if you don't know then I'm not going to tell you" type response. WTF?

BBB's ax was gored on a debate thread after sharing a personal story. That's unfortunate, surely. But, probably something to be expected here.

Were they to start a thread of their own, and present their grotesque proposals with some class and in a straight forward manner to forewarn the passersby, I don't think I'd have any room to object whatsoever. If, on the other hand, they spam seemingly every remotely related thread with that opinion, I think that's entirely out of line. I do not think a free flow of ideas requires the freedom to put any particular opinion in everyone's face at every opportunity.

The ignore function works; cjhsa doesn't come around anymore.

One way to handle this situation, that's worked on other sites, is for the moderator to lock the thread thereby proventing a continuation of the discussion.
This will force a cooling off period to begin and thus allow a new thread on the same subject to be opened down the road. If the interference continues, the disruptive posts should be deleted.

DrewDad wrote:

The ignore function works; cjhsa doesn't come around anymore.

You genuinely believe that's why he's gone? I don't know . . . it is possible that he's got a life and is now living it.

One way to handle this situation, that's worked on other sites, is for the moderator to lock the thread thereby proventing a continuation of the discussion.
This will force a cooling off period to begin and thus allow a new thread on the same subject to be opened down the road. If the interference continues, the disruptive posts should be deleted.

So far you have been willing to tolerate me saying that in the interest of collective health the definition of rape should be changed, that we should change our whole approach to dealing with sexual transgression. I however have never said that currently laws should not be followed until such time as we can get them changed.

I can see why a person would want to rape or be raped.I have both raped and been raped, and so far as I recall I have tended to enjoy the experience immensely. I recommend the experience, no matter what the law says.
http://able2know.org/topic/162398-2#post-4378052

1. The rape thread had been driven off the tracks long before BBB posted the story of her childhood rapes. There were 130+ pages of drama, rudeness and statistical pissing matches in that thread long before she entered it.

2. She made less than a dozen posts, most of which were answers to questions asked about the book in which her story was recorded. She left the thread and never went back. The thread has continued on in the same manner for another 100 pages.

3. She never asked people to defend her, nor did she ask people to shut the hell up. She just said she was getting on with her life and left the thread. More than a few people have been exploiting the telling of her story and reactions to it for their own agendas and have done so for 150 pages on that thread and continue to do so on this thread. Please stop, it isn't helpful and it is dishonest.

4. The problems in that thread, and this one, are not about BBB and never were.

There is a big contradiction with the internet.
The free flow of opinions lets place to a growing number of assinine opinions and, increasingly, these opinions block true discussion and information exchange.
If you use moderation (or censorship) in excess, the result will be a lack of spine in the forums.
If you use none at all, the result will be either a takeover by a group, usually some kind of zealots, or the growing presence of unwanted, overheated discussions. Both things tend to lead people away from the site. Only the guys with the thickest skin remain. This is what happened to Abuzz, and helped kill it.
Robert has tried to keep the forum as free as it can get (with the ignore option as a good proxy to a personal banning) and at the same time has tried to keep it plural (for him, this meant attracting conservative voices). I think he has reasonably succeeded in both elements with the present rules.
But this has not been enough to preserve a2k from the general dumbing down of discussion forums in the web. Some intelligent voices and some funny ones from different sides of the ideological and political spectrum are sorely missed (due to trolling, name-calling and belligerant extremism, I believe). Others have taken refuge in non-confrontational, strictly community threads.
The fact is that A2K has lost momentum and needs an overhaul. And it is telling that when Robert asked for some opinions about it, he got rants.
I don't think able2know should ban people "for having untoward opinions" that do not constitute crimes, but for trolling and personal attacks.
I think it needs to change some rules, creating cloister forums, in order to attract people who really want to discuss (and not just to confront paralell prejudices and throw venom). I want to think that people who want to freely exchange knowledge and opinions still exist and can make a site flourish.