And I love it when people can’t read.:rolleyes:
Wrong.
I can read. I just so happens that on this board, we have several things we call “forums”. ATMB is one forum, GD is one forum, the BBQ Pit is a forum. So when you said you saw things in other forums, it sounds like you mean on this board.
If you meant other message boards and blogs and such, then your statement is trivial.
One of the marks of a good message board is that it should make your blood boil once in a while. If there were no opposing viewpoints, even extreme ones, we may as well debate with our reflections in the mirror.
I think tomndebb does a difficult job well and very rarely makes a wrong call. He got this one right IMHO.
Once in a while is fine. Lately it just seems like there’s a constant stream of racist, misogynist bile and nothing’s being done about it because at least they’re polite about their hate.
And as has already happened, they’re attracting their fellow travellers - check out the join dates on some of the pro-misogyny and pro-racism posters in those GD & Pit threads. It’s a trickle now, soon it will be a flood. And when that happens, I’ll never leave CS again.
The idea that we owe all viewpoints a hearing is insane.
Some shit is just axiomatically wrong, we already did the legwork in Nuremburg, Selma, Rivonia, Cable Street…we don’t need to debate these issues again. We need to just be able to call it what it is and move on.
I disagree (and tom’s one of my fave mods. Top 5, definitely. Not that I keep a list or anything 
)
I understood the rules a lot better before I read this thread.
Did you mean “It” instead of “I”? Because if we’re going to quibble over being clear in our communication in our posts then one might ought to be clear in their own communication.
This is my real problem. For me, the issue here isn’t Construct or his post. It’s that mods are apparently allowed to declare certain portions of the rules unenforceable.
Mods are supposed to interpret the rules as objectively as possible, and of course we can all agree that it’s a difficult job. But it’s not an unreasonable stance to expect that a mod will in fact enforce the rules.
Tom is not only “on record” as saying that he categorically refuses to moderate hate speech because he thinks it’s impossible to define, but he’s also intimated that he feels the same way about the “don’t be a jerk” rule.
I don’t think this sort of thing is healthy for the boards. Mods should enforce all the rules. Full stop.
If there’s any quibbling, it should be in the way a given mod interprets those rules: not in the way they dismiss them entirely.
I think the point is that he doesn’t make calls when it comes to hate speech or being a jerk. He doesn’t enforce those rules.
The GD sticky ought to be updated to read “These are the rules, but individual mods reserve the right to ignore them.”
[QUOTE=Gyrate]
I understood the rules a lot better before I read this thread.
[/QUOTE]
That’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
Regards,
Shodan
Clearly not, or we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
…he said, ambiguously.
Don’t be so hard on yourself, VT.
The Very Proper Gander – By James Thurber
Grab your pikes! Rally your neighbors! Let’s get all the haters out! Anyone who thinks sex with 9-year-olds is pedophilia should be CHASED! FROM! DOPERLAND!!!
Not a whole lot of reading comprehension being taught back at ol’ Groton, eh?
I dunno; I think I read good. Maybe you can help me:
- This thread originated as a complaint about moderating hate speech.
- Examples of hate speech were cited.
- Posters chimed in about all the harms from hate speech.
- Mod said he doesn’t do hate because it’s too subjective.
- I examined one of the “hate” examples and asked how it was “hate.” No one would bite because their response would have illustrated the subjectivity cited.
- Arguments then focused on “willingness to enforce rules,” and why mod should quit.
- Mod has left implicit, I think (maybe you can help me here) that enforcing “hate speech” rules is redundant as anything that slips past the other rules and can only be modded on hate speech is probably more debatable than overtly offensive.
- I then posted an awesome Thurber fable mocking people who scream that others should be ostracized for their speech.
Have I about got it, Vinyl Turnip, or did I miss something? I understand the distinction between “hate speech” and “moderating hate speech.” I just don’t think it’s an important distinction, when complaining.
No you didn’t. That fable is mocking people for raging against garbled gossip.
People shouldn’t be ostracized for their speech? That is crazy.
Yep. That was a nice list, though.
Stupid Gaudere’s law strikes again. But my sentence is an obvious typo, and easily intelligible, whereas asahi’s statement was a differing use of terminology, and therefore prone to misunderstanding.
I made a legitimate misreading of asahi’s comment based on differing use of words. Tell me now you don’t wonder about newbies coming in and making pronouncements about the moderators and other board goings on. It was clarified that I misunderstood, but asahi snarked at me, so I clarified the source of the confusion.
How does one go about ostriching people? I’ve never heard of that.
because apparently there’s confusion this could be a joke.
By saying that a particular issue is settled, done, over, and that anyone having a different viewpoint is not fit to participate in reasoned debate, then those people go underground, to their own chatrooms with like-minded people. Those ideas grow and come back again.
If we have truly settled the ideas promoted in Selma, for example, then we can easily shoot down arguments against civil rights for blacks. And we should keep doing that. We don’t want a new generation of pro-segregationists.
Plus, and as a counter-example, take gay rights. Assume the year is 1993 and the internet is active and this board is here. Should we shut down threads about gay marriage because it is an absurd topic as the Supreme Court clearly ruled in Bowers v. Hardwick that states can ban sodomy? And marriage?!? Whew, boy, that’s ridiculous stuff. That is hate speech against traditional marriage which is the bedrock of society.
IOW, labels like “hate speech” only serve to stifle the free exchange of ideas. If some idiot wants to propose segregated lunch counters, then go ahead. We can debate the merits of that. Where is the harm in allowing free and open debate on that topic?
Well put; many people want to shut down free speech as long as it’s their opponents’ free speech.