And if someone wants to avoid this scrutiny, they can quite easily do so by not making homophobic posts.
Again, the only reason the credibility of the poster’s claimed identity came under scrutiny was the issue of whether it gave him a “pass” to engage in homophobic commentary that would not otherwise be tolerated.
A troll showing up pretending to be LGBT so that they could promote the worst right-wing stereotypes about LGBT people is the most obvious and easy example. There was also a case years ago on the SDMB, where a poster claimed to be a trans woman, and posted regular updates about their process of transition, interactions with family, struggles at work, etc. Turned out the entire thing was a complete fabrication. They’d made it up for attention.
Yeah, as a point of social etiquette, it’s rude to question someone’s claim about their sexuality. Enforcing codes of conduct often means ignoring common points of etiquette. It’s also not polite to call someone a liar, or tell them they’re not welcome, but we do that all the time.
In this post, @Aspenglow asks a poster to focus on the actual debate in a witnessing thread. I’m not really sure how to that could be done. I think it’s more evidence that this thread, and witnessing threads in general, should be in IMHO or MPSIMS.
Religious posts that look for debate are fine in GD, but just blog-style witnessing? There’s no debate to be had.
There ya go.
I was so close to asking you what’s the debate in that thread, but that’s questioning the moderation! I could have had my first warning! Ack!
I wouldn’t have given you a warning for that. It’s an understandable question, under the circumstances.
But so long as witnessing remains in GD – and I don’t make the rules, I just agreed to enforce them best I can – I think the instructions I gave to @bobot are the best we can do. If there is no reasonable debate to be had, the most reasonable option is to simply ignore the thread.
Others may have additional witnessing to share, but that’s about all I can think would be of use in such a thread. Hope this clarifies.
Yep, that is going backwards.
You don’t think there are gays who don’t like some of the aspects and politicizing? There are Jews who are ardent anti-Zionists, Catholics who hate some of the Churches edicts, and so forth.
Yes, they are witnessing, one of the other functions of GD.
That’s a complete non sequitur to what we’re discussing. The point is that, online where cannot be sure that people are being honest about their own identity, we cannot just accept “I’m X myself so it’s okay” as a free pass to spout bigotry against group X.
So give us a clearly homophobic quote then?
Or is it just stuff that you do not like?
We have a Vice Chairman of a Republican Town Committee in a nearby town who is gay, is in a same sex marriage, and is totally opposed to legalization of gay marriage.
When asked how he squared this, he said I bet you take every tax deduction you are entitled to, even if you believe those are bad public policy. I was scratching my head. He also goes off on the “Gay Agenda” and “Grooming of Children” too.
I question his sanity but not that he’s gay.
That
almost made me choke. Wow.
But yeah, I have known gays in SF that were opposed to Gay Marriage for… reasons…and dope smokers against legalizing it.
It was already linked upthread, but here is the warning and topic ban.
Should someone who is gay get a pass to post stuff like this? I don’t know, but in an online forum for reasons that should surely be obvious we cannot let people post homophobic crap based on unsubstantiated claims that they are gay themselves.
Not a warning and I have heard gay men also express their horror at the prevalence of HIV among gay men. Including, about one “party dude” - “It is amazing he isn’t HIV positive.” That quote you give is by no means evidence the poster wasn’t gay. By no means do I condone the post, of course.
Try again. There is a note, upgraded to a warning, with a topic ban linking to numerous other dubious threads.
Which has no relevance to the issue at hand. If you want to re-litigate the consensus that JimB’s posts were homophobic, take it up with the mods.
I didn’t claim it was. The point is that we don’t know if he’s gay, and using this as a “pass” to post bigotry is one circumstance where you cannot take someone’s word for it.
Let’s try it in again capital letters.
IN AN ANONYMOUS ONLINE COMMUNITY, WE CANNOT LET PEOPLE POST BIGOTRY USING THE UNSUBSTANTIATED EXCUSE THAT THEY THEMSELVES ARE PART OF THE MARGINALIZED GROUP.
If you cannot understand why that’s obvious, I really cannot help you.
To bring this thread somewhat back on track, I don’t quite understand the basis of the idea that “witnessing” threads are better in MPSIMS or IMHO than in GD. Sure, the standards of discourse are higher in GD, but the point I was making in the example I offered in post #52 is that most of the threads that are excused as witnessing are mostly just nonsense threads that belong nowhere at all. That is, these are the sorts of incoherent threads that are currently shut down or, at best, may at the poster’s option be moved to the Pit.
I have no problem with threads debating or discussing religion or the existence of God or any other such topic, if done from a considered, rational standpoint. Like everything else, such threads belong in the forum to which the specific discussion is a best fit. I’m simply saying that threads touching on religious issues should be subject to the same rules as threads on any other subject, and that the rather peculiar “witnessing” rule that often grants abject nonsense a free pass should be rescinded. Almost all such nonsense threads eventually end up getting closed anyway, to no surprise to anyone.
I never said it was. What I was getting at is that if a poster identifies themselves as Gay, or black, or whatever, we should not doubt them. Sure members of a group get a small pass- if someone here said they were gay, and later also “queer” that is okay, but not out and out bigotry.
If you cannot understand why that’s obvious, I really cannot help you.
Someone seemingly changing their religious views depending on the time of the month should call into question what else they’re inconsistent about.
@Skywatcher I’m still curious what exactly I am inconsistent of in your opinions. As I already made clear, I still believe in God in one sense or another. I just think that he/she/it is found in every religion, every holy book, every location on earth. I still consider myself a Catholic, because all the people I loved were Catholic. And I do still find some comfort in Catholic rituals (as I recently even had to point out with an old schoolmate on Facebook).
BTW some people express surprise that I don’t try to respond to my Pit thread. I actually did try to once, to defend myself ironically. But I was immediately told that I was violating a general ban I was under. That, coupled with the general (I’ll just say 
) insulting nature of the Pit, has me avoiding it (to answer that particular question ).
That doesn’t sound right. People were allowed to Pit you, but the mods said you couldn’t respond?
That’s not cool.