Appropriate innuendo and crass sexual content?

ebrown_p wrote:



What did I say that was unfair? Please be specific and be clear.




That's precisely what I said, only my interpretation is different, meaning you contradict yourself when you talk about "freedom of speech" that is dictated by private owners.

Aside: my use of "soap box" is unfair. Celi wasn't on a soap box. I should have clarified that as I am conflating her argument with the wealth of "you Nazi bastard stealing my free speech" arguments I hear.

So Celi, please note that the above is largely about the issue of whether free speech is appropriate here and whether it's a fair burden to try to pin to me. Not really about you but about my deep "unNazi" feelings about my role and my deep discomfort with it due to the term "free speech".

p s- I like A2K a great deal and for the most part think CDK and company do a most excellent job, and they(he) should be respected and honored a great deal for what has been done here.

Husker- Remember the old saying about empty barrels making the most noise? I think that what happens is that some people get very emotional on certain topics, and let their emotions run away with them.

Instead of responding, in a mature fashion, to what is being said, there is a tendency to attack a person who has a different "take" on things. It is a matter of setting boundries for oneself, and knowing what is appropriate in any given situation.

In other words, let's say a person writes something that angers another member. It is a lot easier to let loose with a few curse words, or ad hominems, than to take the time and effort to respond. It is an immature response, and not at all appropriate in an internet forum.

That is not to say, that people cannot THINK these thoughts. The trick is to keep ourselves under control, so that we don't just lash out. Between you and me, if I wrote down on A2K everything that I thought, Craven would have banned me long ago!

Phoenix - that's gunna make me laugh - when I think about that who, they the barrels.......

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peacably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of greivances.

Please note that the foregoing does not read: "Craven shall make no law . . . "

It is all too typical of Americans that they take a notion of their rights, without much specificity, and run with it. It is sometimes an endearing quality; more often, is simply a needless aggravation. Freedom of speech, touted ad nauseum by strident self-promoters, is a right enshrined in our nation's constitution only to the extent that Congress may not interfer with that right. No one with an ounce of authority anywhere, anywhen, has ever proclaimed that anyone can say anything anywhere. What probably irks me most in this thread, is that CdK did not start the thread, but he's getting lambasted for it as though he suddenly took a wild hair and decided to rub our collective nose in his censorial power. In fact, if you get edited, it will either be the result of an automatic system, or of a moderator other than Craven. Do you folks really believe he has time read all of our ravings?

Some one pass out vowells, quick ! ! !

I've been doubly unfair. I didn't note one of Celi's points in my desire to contextualize "free speech".

Ceili,

The point about member's self policing on the threads is one with which I agree and have advocated many times (as long as said self-policing.. nemind this is complicated enough).

The flip side of this coin is that as often as someone decides I have taken away their God-given freedoms others clamour for the site to be stricter.

As I am aware that I can't please everyone and that some things will inevitably displease my suggestion has repeatedly been that the members who object about things that are allowed here should say so directly.

Self-policing by the members is something I consider way cool. Means I get to avoid the dama and they don't even get called Nazis when they do it, worst case scenario is a "shut up" or some such.

So with that I agree, even though I got caught up on "free speech".

Setanta- Ya mean that ya didn't know? I am chairman in charge of the dirty words brigade. (Maybe that's VICE chairman) Craven has me chained to my desk, and all I do all day is scout for dirty words.

If I don't meet my quota, Craven gets very, very angry, and I have to go to bed without my dinner! :wink:

A weightloss program that costs you nothing! amazing

Husker- You are a genius!

Craven darlin' No offence taken and I do understand your feelings completely. I sometimes say things less cleary than I should.
I'm very aware this site is censored and all the reasons for it. It's just, I feel better to face a problem head on than always deal with consesus.
I did not, for the record mean to state anyone on this site wishes to stiffle free speech or that the pre-existing sites rules have dampered by ability to say what I like.
You are as far from a Nazi as I could imagine.
Ceili

There have always been Terms of Service (use) here. We all agreed to them. Using vulgar ad hominems against another poster is against the TOS. The filtered words are primarily used, Craven has said, as gratuitous insults. Apparently they are multiplying on the board and this is not good for several reasons. The site has the right to delete them. Some benign - for lack of a better word this minute - usage, as Frank gave an example of, gets caught in the deletion device.

With the exception of matters that must by law be censored on websites, as Craven has attested, I haven't seen anyone even talk about censoring discussion pros and cons, and I read a lot of the threads out of interest even though I don't participate by posting in many of the politics threads, and am fairly quiet in the philosophy debate threads.

I understand that Husker in this topic itself may be asking about controlling vulgar hijackings of threads, or simply questioning how we all feel about them. That is a reasonable question, and may not necessarily be related to vulgar adhominems, just about vulgarity. This is covered in TOS too. There seems to be a community leeway - which I share - for vulgarity but Husker's example may violate the TOS. I don't know. Generally though, it seems to me that a2k participants can help to have serious threads about relationships/sex taken seriously for the most part.

If posters violate the terms of service and are cautioned, that isn't censorship. In the case of spammers, I don't think they are even cautioned, out the door.

I think all this has nothing to do with opinions on subject matter, with the exception noted above re the law.

These are my observations over a long time here.

I'll be back to share my thoughts on this.

There's lots of ways to display the Kerry quote without having it displayed here on the message board forum.

One very easy workaround would be to include a url to an article that includes the censored word in your post.


I think the best way for handing issues like this is for people to speak up about them like Husker did. It gives everyone a heads up and a nudge to think about the A2K community as a whole and not just their little corner of pleasure.

I didn't mind or wouldn't mind the Kerry quote quoted, or many of several uses of the word in question, many within the last few weeks in reasonable, to me, contexts. The only use I mind is when people call other people names by it.

If I saw a use that spued it about repetitively just to use it, I'd probably want to delete it. But in the context of story, quote, emphasis, I have lots of room for people using it.

But in any case, I gather it will be fanned by the filter because of the usage in the site by the gratuitous users.

Craven






A lot of folks probably don't know that Craven,




Well it was directed more to your post then the OP.

Does OP stand for "Original Premise"? My 'twyvel' is a bit rusty so that's just a guess (based only on that you frequent the philosophy threads).

Opening Post

Damn, my other guess was "Original Post" but I thought I was being so damn clever with the premise pick.

I'll become fluent yet.

NODDY WROTE: What does bother me is that frequently the ribaldry, the sexual innuendoes, the TRASH TALK create an impression that A2K is a site of old cronyism and that newcomers--or diffident second comers--might feel excluded and unwelcome.

I SAY:
I have enjoyed this site, much better than the cheap meat market that we call a chat room. Its enlightening and loaded with very intelligent people. But at times, I think some of them need to put down the dictionary and address post with thier own words and need to stop trying to out-vocabulary the other posters. I have been made to feel unwelcome by some of the TRASH TALK and blantant opions of others and have tried to hang in there.And yes, I do realize that opinions are like...... we all have one.

So yes.....I think on some post a line needs to be drawn. But I'm just as guilty as the next on the Sexual innuendoes statement.....