Forums with varying levels of insults allowed...

I believe there was, for some of his assertions at any rate.

phlog says, as he continues to do just that...

I believe he did show data that supported his claims and you can certainly find a fair in a book edited by a psychiatrist called "Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sometimes, you make a choice on how to allow people to exist. There is history behind allowing Gendy to be a little more liberal than others with her insults, and that is simple to explain. Her contributions to this site, were incredibly intelligent and insightful. She got people to see things in a different way, by using the same TNT you are talking about. She was a wake up call for a lot of folks, and she was brilliantly eccentric. A beautiful outlaw in a room full of glass eyed dolls. A blue fairy to awaken Pinocchio's, one by one. Including me. When she got moderated, it took the wind out of her sails and quieted her... but that wasn't good either. So warts and all, she is a welcome bit of explosive genius and one of many that made up the lifeblood of this site when it's heart was still actively beating. I always said that making her a moderator would lead to her own disenfranchised demise... and it still makes me sad.

Gendanken was a work of art, but not all people appreciate all types of art. But take one piece out of the gallery and it's always missed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I can go for what you're saying Liebling, but I think that perhaps some people don't realize the -negative- aspects of allowing people to use certain toxic insults. It can lead to worse, for starters. However, if the ban cycle were to -begin- with toxic insults, then perhaps that's about as far as things would get. If a person is truly brilliant, I don't see why they can't find less noxious insults. I myself use very few insults but I can certainly get people riled up anyway. I believe, however, that -because- I use few insults and always consider my opponents fellow human beings even if there are times when I like to cast myself as above their toxic insulting ways, I've been able to keep certain difficult conversations to keep going for quite some time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Show me one double blind statistically sound experiment was performed, and you'll have a point.

But none have ever been, because it's unethical. Any interviews of victims post facto merely show how good they are at fitting in, not that they have not been harmed.

 

I don't know about 'double blind' (we're not talking about drugs here), but I certainly believe that some statistically sound experiments have been performed.

You're wrong on the first and I believe you're wrong on the second as well. Again, I ask you to take a look at the book Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions. You may find that there's a copy in a library near you, as I did.

Your believing this doesn't make it so. I suggest you talk to someone like Vili Fualaau, or read the book he published with his wife Mary Kay Letourneau, if you can read french, before coming up with such blanket statements.

 

I can see what you mean, but calling someone a cunt is still calling someone a cunt.. no matter who does it.
You can't blame people for retaliating.
I imagine Gendy is not the only one quieted down by moderation. I'd say deal with it, like the rest does.

 

Well, maybe people need to be more tolerant of people's posting styles.

People need to grow a thicker skin, if you will, and not be so quick to be offended at each and every word. This isn't high school, and the moderators aren't the deans or principals to monitor the halls. S.A.M. should have never had to apologize for percieved intent by other posters, as her posts are passionate and insightful even when people disagree with her. It's a system of balance, and sometimes you have to read between the lines of what people are trying to say. It's good for the brain to not always take everything people say at face value and actually try to understand the person.

 

I'm all for that, but it'll have to go for everyone. No special cases.

 

Well, she did deal with it. She dealt with it by going away. People don't like to feel oppressed, and people do communicate in different ways. Perhaps cunt to Gendy was like dude to you? Perhaps she was just trying to get people to think by kicking them in the face. Sometimes people need a kick in the face.

 

No one likes to feel oppressed. But I would hardly call not being allowed to curse and insult being oppressed.

Oh please.. lol
I don't think you are giving poor old Gendy enough credit. Of course she knows how others perceive it if she calls them a cunt.

Were you around when she was a mod ? From your post I'd say that you were not.

 

Well, here's the thing. People are fallible. Moderators are people. No two moderators think the same, or have the same opinion of certain things. Sciforms has never been a rules based place, and most of it's moderators are pretty libertarian in nature. There are a few that aren't, and there are a few that have differing opinions. Unless you have one moderator for all forums (a lot of work, considering) you will have a perceived double standard that is unavoidable.

You can't really force two people to be completely objective, can you?

If you can or know of a perfect way, I'd vote for you for any office you ever ran for.

 

I was not here when she was a mod, but I have it on record that I repeatedly and fervently argued against her being one for her own sanity. I tried to talk her out of it and succeeded in two instances. Not her cuppa tea.

I have no doubt it was a warzone.

 

You are missing the point. The same moderators banned one person while not banning Gendy for the exact same insults.
In my mind there is no way to justify this.
It's akin to letting the prime minister get away with shoplifting while arresting common people for the same offense, and then expecting the public to understand why.

 

Well, perhaps Gendy was not being the Gendy as you know her.
Don't get me wrong, I've had pleasant conversations with her as well. But some of the stuff she pulled was just not ok. At least not if others get banned for it.

 

You are saying various children were subjected to various types of physical abuse, and then later along with a control group, underwent psychometric evaluation, and there was no way to discern members of one group from another?

Who performed those experiments?

I have little interest in reading such a book, and certainly no wish having it on any record with my name against it.

 

In reality, this happens all the time.

The city mayor of the U.S. national capital got re-elected to office after a crack conviction.

 

Liebling, that may have not been a felony arrest.

 

Well, how do you feel about that ?
Or are you using this example to justify a double standard here ?

 

Still John99, I am sure that some of his constituants had family/friends who were incarcerated for the same offense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Barry

Despite the original felony charges, he was finally convicted of a misdemenor offense in which he served 6 months, and was re-elected. Then he went on to be tried for tax evasion, traffic violations, etc. He was a convicted criminal, but they elected him.

 

All I am saying is that in reality, people will never see eye to eye on everything. One mans gold, is another mans pile of dung.