Rules concerning what constitutes a personal attack are too vague

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by scott3x, Mar 21, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Of course. You seem to believe you, in particular, are forbidden from discussing it.

    Oh no. I think you cleared up any confusion.

    And I prefer using a mallet to the groin instead of kicking. Getting the blood off the shoes can be a tad annoying to say the least. Keys also work fine.

    It is a public forum. And discussing it with you in public ensures that there is less risk of 'he says she says' scenarios..

    I dislike the subject matter, so much so that it literally makes me sick to the stomach to see what has been written and the length and descriptions given. But I was seeking clarification. I wouldn't want to change your mind because it is obvious you have no desire to see things from a different perspective. In short, I can't change who or what you are. I can only attempt to make sense of what you propose and see the lengths you would go to in saying what would be acceptable for you.

    Some did what they did because they argued it was natural and who can deny what is "natural". I have seen first hand the damage done to children at the hands of people who would like nothing more than to abolish the age of consent laws.. because apparently, if it can fit, then it should fit.

    So you would prefer if the insult were more subtle?

    That in censoring the members in what words they can and can't use on this site, we can twist it a bit so long as any insults are not personal and given in such a manner that is subtle and palatable to you.

    Words that are often used in a non-insulting manner all the time on this forum.

    You mean akin to what it is like now?

    Geez, who'd have thunk it.

    People need instructions on how to not call someone a "fucking son of a bitch", for example?

    Believe me, if I was the aggressor, you would probably be home crying to mama.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    You will never get such a consensus from such a large group of people. What is an insult or a personal attack to you may not be so to another.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. theobserver is a simple guy... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    338
    What you mean by the right thing?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Liebling Doesn't Need to be Spoonfed. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,532
    This is very true. I don't mind being called a cunt, bitch, whore... it's just words and it's done to incite you. I don't let people get to me like that especially on a forum because I can walk away. I don't have to respond to it. Even outside these forums, I've been called things straight to my face and smiled right through it because I know that the person is just trying to get a rise out of me. I don't give them the satisfaction because if I do, they repeat the behavior. It diffuses the situation by depriving them of one of the fuels they need to cause a conflagration.

    People call me names and say nasty things, but it's all based on spite and subjective assumptions about my nature and I really don't care what people like that would say about me. They are inconsequential the minute they descend into nothing but insult. Trolls will always exist, but they live where people make them comfortable and give them life. Even this thread itself will probably cause more people to fling insults because it gives them attention.
     
  8. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    Yet somehow you have a computer. And a slippery shoulder that dodges the issue.
     
  9. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    theobserver, I've decided it best to move the discussion concerning nature and morality over to newly created thread over in the Ethics, Morality & Justice forum as I don't think it's really dealing with the subject of this thread

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ...

    Nature and Morality
     
  10. theobserver is a simple guy... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    338
  11. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    kinda sounds like you hate me scott, and i'm not supposed to be insulted by this?
    if you want to hate me over the fact i pointed out the irony of you asking for civility while advocating pedophilia then so be it.
     
  12. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    smooth move ex-lax, you know full well that morality is not a science issue at all.
    but to counter your point animals have no sense of right and wrong.
    they also murder each other for food, are you going to jump on the "pro murder" bandwagon next?
     
  13. theobserver is a simple guy... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    338

    Why do you think they have no sense of right or wrong?

    I already did on a thread in general philosophy.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    why don't you and scott troll your bullshit somewhere else?
     
  15. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Not quite. I elaborated on what I meant in post 57, and you have responded to my elaboration below:


    I really tried to. However, I wasn't given nearly enough time to do so.


    You sound like a real pain inflicting dominatrix. Anyway, I rest my case as to who's attacking who.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    So beating up on someone who's unable to defend himself is 'ok' as long as you do so in public?


    If we were to engage in a PM discussion, I would allow you to quote anything you wish later on in a public forum, so long as you gave me the right to do the same.


    I -do- want to change -your- mind concerning your perception of me and perhaps concerning your perception of other things as well. This doesn't mean that I know it to be possible and the issue is definitely emotional for me as well, but I'm up for giving it a try.


    And you know this how? I believe you don't even have a very good idea of what I believe, never mind whether or not you can change those beliefs.

    Well, that's a start anyway.


    Some did what they did because they argued it was natural and who can deny what is "natural".[/quote]

    You fail to see that there's a difference between someone arguing that something is natural or potentially beneficial and someone arguing that they shouldn't have to obey the law concerning adult/minor sexual interactions. Yes, a person can argue both. I don't, however, and I find it immensely unfair that you would confuse people who abide by the law and people who don't.


    I don't know the people you've dealt with. But that is not -my- position and the fact that you think it is speaks volumes concerning your misunderstanding of said position.


    Yes!


    Palatable to the powers that be in this place, not necessarily me. I may disagree with the terms chosen, but atleast there would be a list of terms that people considering insulting someone and people considering reporting someone could both look at. It would be a rule book on the matter, something that I think is sorely needed here. The rule book could be added to, but if someone used an insult that an administrator felt should be added to the black list, the person using the insult could be warned, but with the important point that a new word is being added and so, naturally, the person couldn't be expected to know right off the bat that the term was a taboo insult.


    I address that below:

    The difference being that if what was going on was -not- friendly banter, people would know what terms to avoid.


    The f word is one of the few insults that seems to be a fairly easy mark when it comes to the non friendly banter uses (which, I think, is most of the time). As I mentioned, Fraggle Rocker found 'pea brain' to be in such a list and Tiassa felt that 'prick' also belonged there. What of the rest of the words in my list, however? Should they qualify? I think so, at any rate.


    You sound like a kid saying, "you think -that- was rough, you ain't seen nothing." All you're doing is saying you can be even worse, which is hardly making it sound like you weren't the attacker, but rather that this attack of yours was light compared to what you're capable of. So have you reconsidered your stance that I was the one who was being aggressive?


    I'm only speaking of the administration here, not he membership at large. If you believe that consensus couldn't be reached even with -that- group of people, I'd even accept individual lists for individual forums.


    That's exactly my point. And yet people like you, Tiassa and others somehow think that the membership knows what is or isn't classified as a personal attack in any given forum, without even providing a list of the terms that the moderator(s) governing said forum would put in such a category.
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2009
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    And that's how it goes.

    It would be more appropriate to say that we bear the unrealistic expectation that there are some things people should be smart enough to figure out for themselves.

    Gray areas do exist, but few of the examples we're called on to justify actually fall within those boundaries.

    And part of the problem is that some people operate by looking for something to challenge. They actually want more specific rules because a significant part of their identity politic is invested in anti-identification. That is, instead of providing anything affirmative, they prefer to attack and tear down what they don't like.

    The problem we face with enumerating a specific list is that it will grow per our inclination. If there were a hundred words on the list today, there would be a hundred and one tomorrow. This is also an anti-identificaton problem. Some people look at rules and try to walk the line; to some degree they imagine themselves like folk heroes—they can prove their merit to themselves and others if they can take down "the man".

    And, indeed, our response to this has been part of the problem. We made some specific decisions over the last couple years intended to present the appearance of political balance. The result has been the empowerment of trolls, bigots, and the congenitally, dysfunctionally rude. Because some people can't understand the difference between identifying a theory that is rooted in ignorance and calling someone a fucking moron.

    Really. Seriously. Someone gets insulted because their insupportable, oft-discredited theory is derided as insupportable, discredited, irrational, and founded in ignorance—e.g., constructed according to knowledge one lacks, instead of knowledge one has—and they can't understand why the evil atheist is allowed to insult, but they can't call the evil atheist a moron, douchebag, fucking idiot, &c.

    We have tried over the years to accommodate people's need to be cruel to one another. Indeed, we could have avoided all of this by actually playing the fascist role. But, then again, we're apparently fascist because we allow people to say that a theory is not scientific because it cannot be tested while forbidding the other to respond, "Fuck you!"

    We recognize that no matter what we do, there will always be someone to complain. Apparently it's your turn now, and your time in the spotlight is running out.
     
  17. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Beating you up? It's a forum for goodness sake. How am I beating you up by reminding you of your own words posted on this forum?

    You appear to have this need to conduct conversations regarding that particular topic in PM, even when advised that I do not wish to.

    Why?

    I am a mere faceless individual on a forum who you think is beating you up. Why do you think I need to have my mind changed about what you want in regards to the age of consent laws? My perception of you is based off what you have written. So if that perception is a negative one, you'll need to go back over what you have written on this forum and have a look to see why it might be so. It shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

    Oh no. You gave a very good indication for what you believe and want. Even after countless of queries were made about what you believed..

    I'm sorry, but I fail to see how it is beneficial for an adult to have sex with a minor. I know it is not beneficial from evidence and studies done on the issue. You may abide by the law, but it is only because you don't want your backside roasting in jail.. hence why you think the laws should be changed so that you can do what feels natural to you and know that you aren't breaking the law.

    Your position is that you won't do something that is illegal. But it still does not take away the desire to do it, does it? You can attempt to debate that it is beneficial for a parent or trusted adult to test to gauge their child's sexual maturity and act as sex educators and teaching their children sexual acts as much as you please. It still does not take away from the simple fact that what you advocate would involve adults preying on children for sex. Making it sound pretty by saying it is beneficial because the child would enjoy the sexual encounters with their educators and testers as much as you so please. At the end of the day, it still involves adults having sex with minors. The people I have dealt with believed much as you do. The only difference between you and them is that they ignored the law and did what they felt was right and natural, regardless of the child's feelings on the matter, while you respect the laws as they are now, being such a good, law abiding citizen and all, but you would prefer the laws be changed so that you can do what feels natural to you without any repercussions to you. After all, we'll ignore the mountains of evidence and cases of irreparable damage done to children who have suffered at the hands of adults who felt it was natural to have sex with them... If people want to have sex with children, then by God they should be allowed to and we'll teach the children and tell them it's good for them.. right?



    People know what is insulting to them and they report accordingly. And when they report, the insulter is warned accordingly.

    People already do have a fair idea of what would be deemed insulting. That's what you aren't getting. If they pushed too far, then they are warned and/or banned about it. You want us to have a list and arbitrarily address that list each time certain words are used and then say well if it's banter, we can ignore it.

    So if I said I thought a leader of a country was a "pea brain" or a "prick", would I be insulting a member here? No. But under your proposal, I would not even be allowed to use such words because they are so insulting in their very nature. And if I added a "fuck" in there, then whoa, big shit would hit the fan.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    No. I was saying that if I was attacking, you would know about it.

    I doubt it could even be reached with that. But again, you seem to be failing to grasp the simple fact that the words you are saying should be banned from individual forums are not always used in an insulting manner.

    Yes. How terrible of us to believe that the posters on this forum are adults and do not need to be lectured to and have forbidden lists of words as though they were in kindergarten.
     
  18. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    If it were truly so simple, you would have no trouble writing down the terms deemed to be personal attacks. I think your second sentence is more truthful. I'm not asking that the personal attacks list be complete; unlike you, I have no illusion that defining what constitutes a valid personal attack is easy. But I think that atleast a partial list should be made. I have already provided one such possible list; here it is once more:
    here it is again:
    ****
    moron, stupid, idiot, bitch, whore or their derivatives (moronic, stupid argument, idiotic, etc.)...

    Fraggle Rocker felt that 'pea brain' constituted a legitimate attack and you felt that 'prick' used as an insult should qualify; I concur on both counts.
    ****

    All you have to do is nod that this list could constitute a starting point and in your forum, atleast, posters would have a basis as to what terms can definitely be used for a personal attack. I'm fine with the idea that if it's banter it should be discounted. I'm not asking you to go into detail as to what is and isn't banter. I simply want a list of terms.

    They'll do that regardless. If the rules are vague, they'll say they should be less so; clearly, I think that this is a valid concern. Certainly, people could then argue with a list of terms; they could say that x or y term shouldn't be on the list. But I think that -that- concern is far less valid then vague rules. I think that anyone who isn't obssessed with using a particular insult can easily find another that will fit his purposes. My approach is only to eliminate the most flagrant insults, leaving people to continue with more subtle ones.


    Indeed.


    I believe that such people will always exist, regardless of what rules you put up. Given this, I think you just put up the best rules you can.


    I believe you are adding 'douchebag' to the list, fine with me

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .


    Perhaps, as you say, my time is running out. For me, however, this is far less relevant then that the right thing is done. I've given you a blueprint that I believe will work; a blacklist of terms. Whatever happens to me, I hope you take this blueprint and put it to good use.
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2009
  19. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
  20. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    You pick out sound bites without putting the words in their proper context, then add words of your own to slant it further. You didn't beat me up physically, ofcourse, but you pounded on my views and I really can't defend myself properly because this thread -isn't about- my views concerning that subject, but on what constitutes personal attacks. On a positive note, my efforts limit the discussion on the issue you and leopold insisted on bringing here, have made it so that I'm still relatively on topic; what you did, I believe, -was- a form of personal attack, but it was -not- one that I felt merited being reported; you didn't use any of the words on my blacklist (you used the f word in terms of an action that is not necessarily insulting, although I do believe that the way you used it was meant to insult). Normally, I would simply branch out to another thread, but the the last thread I opened up on that subject was closed; you know, the one you quote from. Given this, as well as the fact that you have refused to take this discussion to PMs, I'm fairly leery of opening up another thread on this subject.


    Bells, haven't you figured out -why- I want to do it via PM yet? It's not because I think that PMing is generally the greatest medium. I simply feel that the PM environment is about the only one here where such a subject could go unhindered by James or Stryder. Since you don't want to do it via PM and you also don't want to let it go, I found myself faced with some difficult decisions:
    1- Ignore your posts on the subject. I nixed this because I felt the subject matter was too important to ignore.

    2- Continue with this subject in this thread. But it's clearly off topic here, so I nixed that too.

    This left me with:
    3- Open a new thread with the off topic material. Yep, it may get closed again, but then this thread might have been closed if I'd continued with it here. It may get closed anyway, as Tiassa seems to be implying, so I suppose I have little to lose, in that respect anyway.

    So, without further ado, the part of your post that really had nothing to do with this subject I have now moved over to the ethics forum:

    The complexity of sexuality

    I hope to respond to the rest of your post a bit later...
     
  21. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I don't think that's always the case. I've reported a few times and found nothing at all to happen. You may believe that things such as favouritism don't exist, but I have my doubts. If there were a simple way to know when a post would probably fit into the 'personal attacks' slot, however, then this would help a lot to knowing when to report a post; if a potential reporter saw a word on the blacklist being used in what he or she deemed to be a hostile manner, they could report it with more confidence that something would actually be done. Conversely, it would save an admin the time from checking out posts that he or she wouldn't consider to be a personal attack.


    People already do have a fair idea of what would be deemed insulting. That's what you aren't getting.[/quote]

    Or atleast that's what you believe. I have repeatedly mentioned a list of terms that I believe should constitute personal attacks if those terms were used in a hostile manner. Here they are again, in case you missed them:
    ****
    moron, stupid, idiot, bitch, whore or their derivatives (moronic, stupid argument, idiotic, etc.)...

    Fraggle Rocker felt that 'pea brain' constituted a legitimate attack and you felt that 'prick' used as an insult should qualify; I concur on both counts.
    ****

    All you have to do is nod that this list could constitute a starting point and in your forum, atleast, posters would have a basis as to what terms can definitely be used for a personal attack. I'm fine with the idea that if it's banter it should be discounted. I'm not asking you to go into detail as to what is and isn't banter. I simply want a list of terms.


    Yes, if you deem that the blacklist term is banter and the recipient of the alleged banter makes no comment, I'm fine with you ignoring it. However, if someone believes that the blacklist term is -not- banter, then you must make a decision on whether it is or not, and perhaps comment regarding your decisions afterwards.


    Tiassa has already gone over this; he has said that if one is referring to somenoe who is not in the forum, one is allowed to use black list terms. I don't go for this, but so long as the black list terms hold up when used against members, atleast there would be recognized protection for members from said terms.


    Bells, perhaps -you- think that having only one barrel firing isn't an attack, but I beg to differ

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .


    Why? First, you and Tiassa say that it's so easy that any 'smart' person should be able to figure it out. -Now- you say that it may not be attainable? How about a compromise; just include the -obvious- personal attacks. Such as the list I made up; feel free to add or discard terms; it's your forums after all.


    No, I'm not. I've already said that an exception can be made if the terms are being used as banter.


    A list which you believe might be impossible to come up with

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I decided to look at the SF Open Government forum rules. I chuckled a bit when I found this part:
    [emphasis on the insult terms mine]

    So there you have it. SF Open Government actually -does- have a blacklist. Ithink it could use a bit of expansion, but it does have 2 terms that are on my proposed blacklist:
    idiot and moron. It also adds 4:
    twit, amerikans, sheeple and mooslums

    Add to that Fraggle Rocker's "pea brain" and Tiassa's "prick" terms and perhaps the other terms on my blacklist (stupid, bitch, whore or their derivatives) and I think we'd be going places

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. theobserver is a simple guy... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    338
    Well... there is a slight problem when dealing with such believe systems. It could be either one of these...
    a. pure bullshit - they haven't even cared to think or on drugs.
    b. partial bullshit - not done enough research so part of their understanding is a belief system and other part is fact. Anyone might see the bs part and deduce that rest is also bs and begin to attack the poster.
    c. There is some fact but explanations not convincing enough for skeptics.
    d. Few members are subscribed to social ideas due to years of social conditioning and stubbornly defending their view and cannot imagine anything outside the box. So they start attacking the poster.

    Lack of knowledge in few particular fields makes people discredit certain theory and resort to personal attacks to cover up their ignorance. How do you propose to tackle such situations?

    So anyone who might appear like proposing a theory which is already discredited could be about to make a lot more sense to an existing discredited theory. So instead of examining it further, attacking the poster is purely immature and non scientific. Do we have any law's to protect such posters from being attacked?
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2009
  23. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    You mean like some of ancientregime's or my views, or views of people who believe that 9/11 was an inside job? Those views frequently aren't protected; the threads are closed down and ancientregime has already been banned. You must understand that some views, due to their controversy, won't be protected, regardless of how civil the people who propose them are. The problem is that many people see certain people's views, or atleast their perception of their views, as offensive, and they'd rather just close them down and/or ban the person mentioning them.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page