Moderators are losing credibility

Post Reply New Topic

To address the OP once again.

One good thing that has come of this tense situation is that the Mods and Admins have come together and are now ready to distribute a simple, but hopefully meaningful clarification/modification to the rules regarding personal attacks. It will be posted in several places including the rules sticky at the top of the PPR forum.

An attack against a group shall be construed as an attack against all people who fall within that group. This shall include all attacks against genders, races, nationalities, religions, philosophies and sexual preferences.

Examples of prohibited speech:

Women are whores.
Black people are lazy.
Greeks smell bad.
Catholics are bigots.
Platonists are simple minded.
Homosexuals are perverted.

Acceptable speech:

The Catholic position against homosexuality is bigoted.
The Platonic assumption of distinct reality is idiotic.
The Greek government massively blundered their tax policy.
The Homosexual agenda portrayed on Queer Eye makes me want to set myself on fire.

Scripture presents homosexuality as an abomination ... so will said Scripture be censored from being posted?


What about "Platonic assumptionists are idiots?"


What about "The Greek governmental officials were blunderers?"


Ah! Now that one might best be sent to suicide watch!

The only part of your post that appeared serious was regarding scripture. If someone is quoting another persons words to attack a group it will be deemed the same as using their own.

My second question was actually a serious one also, as that specific word "idiots" in reference to a group of people was a big part of the recent raucous.

As to the matter of quoting Scripture, and if you might be willing to engage me here without having any discussion of any actual rule or rules:

Gay: "I am gay."
Me: "Scripture says homosexuality is an abomination, and I have been told gay people all go to hell."
Gay: "What?!"
(edit) You, as a mod (or possibly anyone else and only hypothetically here): ______________________________

There is no attack there. One is stating their opinion as opinion, and quoting why they have that opinion. Someone else can then come along and argue against that opinion by attacking the source document. All of this would fall within the scope of allowed behavior. No one was attacked or called a name, though it is sidling up close to the line. Debate about religious principles is part of the purpose of the PPR forum and as such one will have to expect a certain amount of that if they choose to participate there.

The same would apply if someone was quoting Richard Dawkins.

No opinion had been expressed -- only a conscientious report -- but that is not a significant matter here.


Where?

Oh my gosh, I can't believe you're both still arguing such tiny points.
Can't everyone just cheer up and enjoy life and talk nicely?!

Ah no, this is not an argument. This is merely an hypothetical exchange in relation to recent rule/s adjustments of whatever kind.

All is well here!

From what I already know about lee I do believe he was just looking for clarifications to his minor points because they are important to him. That being said, I am not going to address every potential scenario. This is why we have Mods on the ground, to interpret and act when the time is appropriate.

The scenario I have presented actually covers the full range of possibility here:

Gay simply introduces himself or herself;
Someone else who may not even be religious gives a factual report related to the initial report (introduction);
As you have essentially noted, no wrong has been spoken and no mod intervention is in any way called for ...

edit: (remainder of post moved further down)

Last edited by leejosepho on 24 Feb 2011, 12:27 pm, edited 3 times in total.

No. I am not engaging hypothetical situations for amusement.

I will respectfully disregard your insulting insinuation there.
============================================
============================================


Having jumped over that little ordeal, here is where we were:

**merely hypothetical scenario for each and all of us to consider, if we wish**

Gay simply introduces himself or herself;
Someone else who may not even be religious gives a factual report related to the initial report (introduction);
No wrong has been committed and no mod intervention is in any way yet called for ...

... and now:

The very next person to speak will in one way or another effect what happens next.

So, what would you post next?

Once again:

__***merely hypothetical scenario***__
Gay: "I am gay."
(simply introducing himself or herself to others)
Me: "Scripture says homosexuality is an abomination, and I have been told gay people all go to hell."
(mere factual report of something I heard on TV yesterday)
Gay: "What?!"
(had never before now ever heard that)
(neither member has done any wrong)
You: ____________________________ ??
******merely hypothetical scenario******

There is no perfect answer here, but neither is there any rule
against misunderstanding something and responding
in some way that might make even someone else angry.

Rules or no rules, mods or no mods,
WP members are the "first line of defense"
when it comes to keeping peace here.
(end of unsolicited editorial comment)

Here is my question to you: what is the purpose in relaying the second half of the sentence (the first may be questionable, but it lets them know where you stand; the second is more hurtful)? To scare them into change? You know that isn't what it will do; more likely the opposite. The only known effect to sharing it is to upset the person you are talking to and get them to want to leave your presence as fast as possible. So ... what is the purpose in ever expressing that half of the sentence unless someone digs for it? That's what I really don't "get" in all the discussion. Why EVER express an opinion, outside of a clear debate context, that has no possible positive purpose? I'm not going to suggest it would be against the TOS, but I am going to suggest that social ettiquette and respect for others require that one simply not speak it.

I once asked a friend of mine why she had turned away from faith. Her simple answer was, "they have no room for me, so I have no room for them." There was no way to respond to that, because she was right, that was the experience she had had with people of faith. It broke my heart, to be honest. That is not how it should be, and it is not what I believe God calls us to do.

I can hear in my head you thinking what my son always says, "but it's the truth, so why not say it? I can't lie." No one is asking anyone to lie, but to hold off on making harmful statements. We teach kids not to comment on someone's ugly nose because it will only hurt their feelings; same goes here. If there is no point to expressing something that can hurt someone else, then I don't understand why it ever gets expressed.

We can't enforce respect and common decency, but we can still hope that people will choose it on their own.

A-bombs topic

Being LGBT is not a disease or an abomination. This is the 21st Century.

To hold such opinions is hateful, despite what some good-for-nothing-book espouses.

As BTO would sing: Let it Ride.

Next.

It is difficult for me to know what to say here without fearing risk of offending, but I know you and I are completely cool ...

Me: "Hey there, DW_a_mom! Uh, you wouldn't happen to be gay, now would you?"
You: "No."
Me: "Oh good!"
You: "Uh, why do you say that?"
Me: "Ah, well because I was at a friend's house yesterday and the TV was on and I found out the Bible says homosexuality is a sin and all gay people are going straight to hell!"
Note to all: This is only a hypothetical conversation -- I did not just make a personal statement there!

Now this, DW_a_mom: Neither thing just said is in any way even slightly questionable in relation to any WP rule. Each and all of the words hypothetically spoken there were for one purpose, and for one purpose alone: To relieve my own concern for you after hearing something on TV yesterday. However, today's global climate makes it virtually impossible for any of but a few to hear anything other than some kind of "hate speech" ... or as we have already heard from our mod team here: "... it is sidling up close to the line."

Where?!

My hypothetical words were only spoken on a some-say-misguided concern I had for you.


Not even close. If I had seen near to you what someone else had told me was a rattlesnake, I would have asked you the same kind of question: "Uh, not sure here ... but if what I heard somewhere yesterday is true, you might be about to die!"


In the hypothetical above, those words were spoken for the singular purpose of trying to make sure someone else would not be "hurt".