Gallstones wrote:Imagination Theory wrote:Robert_S wrote:rEvolutionist wrote:LaMont Cranston wrote:rEvolutionist, I don't recall anybody portraying the mods at ratskep (other than you, of course) as an "evil bunch of anti-free speech dictators." However, you can put me down for uptight, close-minded, rigid, irrational and rather cowardly.
Cowardly?!? FFS.
I think that many of us think that strong people do not need to cower from controversial viewpoints and differing opinions. In fact, I think that strong people welcome the opportunities to substantiate, as best as they can, their ideas, and welcome chances to justify what they believe and how they came to believe what they do.
You're right. We're all so weak over there. Thanks for setting us straight.
As was pointed out earlier in this thread, the rule against group attacks came about because the users demanded it.
Isn't it known as "GS rule"?
What? Did you just leak some gossip?
No, I think it is common knowledge that the rule that you cannot disparage a group of people was instituted by you when you were a Mod. Hence the nickname "GS rule". It isn't gossip.
Also, I thought I saw Seth write about it in a feedback thread that "GS rule" is about attacking the 'isms' but not the 'ists'.
Ah, here it is:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... le#p176582
seth wrote:This is in fact a rule that Gallstones (bless her heart) imposed on the politics forum, which said roughly that one may attack ideas, ideologies and political theories, or in other words "isms" (communism, socialism, libetarianism, anarchism, etc.) but one could not attack "ists" or "ans" (communists, socialists, libertarians, etc.)
The principle behind the rule was that members of the forum self-identify with particular groups, and that allowing attacks on "ists" was merely a way of circumventing the FUA proscription on personally attacking members by obliquely referring to them by group affiliation.
She wisely determined that free and uninhibited debate on politics and current events could take place in the absence of references to groups in the broad sense. She modified this rule to allow negative reference to specific identifiable groups that no member claimed affiliation with, and to individuals in such groups who are not members.
This rule worked quite well, and I'd like to see it expanded to cover the entire forum, to reduce the oblique sniping, and therefore the workload on the Mods to resolve such bickering.
My experiences at RDF in this specific regard are instructive for this forum, I think, and since the Mods are largely the same group, I think it's worth pointing out that as a result of that particular debacle, my behavior has changed here, and for the better I'm happy to say. The rule forces me to examine MY OWN objectivity in a post and determine whether I'm making a valid argument directed at the issue, or whether I'm attempting to pass a deliberate, but within the letter of the rule personal insult.
This may be fodder for another thread as well, but I'd like to open it up here since it's come up.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... le#p221699
seth wrote:
No, they do not. They identify as "members of the Tea Party." As you well know, "teabagger" is a derogatory reference concocted as an insult based on the usage of the term in reference to a British homosexual oral sex activity involving the scrotum. Tea Party members have NEVER referred to themselves as "teabaggers."
That's why I asked Gallstones if the entire thread should be binned as a group-reference personal attack thread, since I happen to be a member of the Tea Party.I'm going to ask her again and begin insisting on sanctions for the use of the deliberately insulting and derogatory term....
Thanks for bringing this aspect of the debate up.
This post was based on simply enforcing the rules that were in effect under Gallstone's management. I think that the "group reference" rule was a good one, and it would apply to both racism and sexism. One would not therefore be allowed to say "all women are cunts," whereas one would be allowed to say "Andrea Dworkin is a cunt."
But the important thing here is that the "group reference" rule is aimed at reducing the instance of indirect personal attack, not inhibiting speech by making an entire line of discussion or inquiry off limits.
(And then he went and broke that rule! Some people think he isn't to be blamed though.
)
Is my information wrong? If so I'm sorry.
Charlou, oh, but if you delete my account there will be more room and someone else can have my user name (if they want), If you don't do that it's alright.
May I please request to have my account to be suspended.
This is a nice place and with great people, I just don't think it is right for me and I'm starting to be uncomfortable here.
Um, so this is the first time I've done this, am I suppose to anything else? I've seen people post their wishes about what they want to be done with their account on threads.
I PM'd Pappa too though. Should I PM someone else or...
What should I do? If there is anything else I have to do. Thank you!
)
If there's something the rest of us can learn from how we meet/greet people, please let us know. It feels odd to have someone arrive, feel uncomfortable, and leave in the space of a short while.