Making it Better: The future of WP

Post Reply New Topic

the moderators

Have you considered that addressing a comment in regard to what a person posted is different to addressing it to the person themself:

"you are racist" is quite different to "That's racist" (which ideally would instead be phrased along the lines of "That was a racist statement because <insert reasoning>?") In the former, you are attacking the person, not their actions/belief/words, through directing the comment at them as a person rather than at what they posted.

Why do some members seem to look for any excuse to defend racism anyway?  I mean, it's one thing to criticize the opinion that "Only white people are racist", but to deny that racism exists among any people, culture, or environment, or to try to justify racist practices on any grounds whatsoever is simply wrong.

Keep calling out racism, and let the racists complain all they want; they're just digging themselves deeper.

Say what???

I have never seen anyone defend racism on this website.

Some people may see racism where none exists.
*THAT* I have seen plenty of.

I've seen it done in an outrageously inappropriate and off topic way

(as well as many on topic in PPR which IsabellaLinton had actually PMed me about to report as she had been)

but they were 'drunk' and posting so it was okay..

.to write what is probably in many people's secret hearts behind closed doors..which is why they got away with it. (And received misplaced sympathy moreover !)

Well the good thing about saying such here is you are forced to acknowledge you harbour such ideas whether you want to or not because other people untangle it for you and it helps on the way to improvement. Rather than letting something fester. (Positive spin)

Due to the envirozentinel's edit job I have used quotation boxes regarding statements originally written by blooiejagwa:


Here in the first sentence it is written that no one was accused ~ then in the next sentence came the first accusation that they accused other people on another thread, and then also in the following sentence came the second accusation that they feigned victim status on this thread.


How one feels about people as individuals here is a divergence as all most of us know about them is what they post on the forum pages, and as such it is only relevant to have whatever feelings and thoughts that we do in relation to what people write in words, depict in images and play in media form here ~ therefore it is appropriate to comment upon that content because it is evident, whilst it is inappropriate to comment upon someone's individual identity, being that it is not evident. Hence:

The following activities are unacceptable on Wrong-Planet:

1. Posting offensive language, comments, video, or images.
Unacceptable content includes swearing; racist, sexist, homophobic language; behavior intended to provoke or belittle other members; violent or sexually demeaning content; sexual fetish; and discussion of excretory function. Posting graphic images or videos of people or animals being harmed is prohibited.

2. Personal attacks.
This includes insinuation, ridicule and personal insults, regardless of whether direct or indirect. Attacking an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable, but attacking the person making the comments is not.

3. Other inappropriate content and behavior prohibited on Wrong Planet:
This includes copyrighted material, serial codes, and posts made to promote a website, group or product, particularly if made repeatedly and without other participation in the WP community (spamming). This also includes discussion of locked topics, discussion of banned members and why they were banned and anything else that purposely causes conflict with other members.


So along with having been accused of bullying and making out they are the victim instead ~ we have another accusation involving false statements on somebody else’s behalf now.


When someone talks or writes about people in particular ~ without using their names; those unnamed people in particular are being referred to in an ‘indirect’ way.


I stated that we have the freedom of expression like as if a driving license that entitles us to use the highway code ~ as in terms of respecting everyone’s sense and sensibilities when we come to put our feelings and thoughts into words here. By which I meant follow the rules.

If you wish to challenge bullies with forthrightness and it gets construed as being rude and you end up having broken the rules ~ who is the more likely one to become the mod-fodder? Remember we need the membership to grow not shrink in order to improve the character of the Wrong Planet website of forums. Your strength and compassion is required.

Your compliance is as much appreciated as it is universally required. Thankyou everyone.

Each subject matter involves three dimensions of consideration ~ yet your argument is as if like arguing that a cuboid block only has a square or a rectangle for it's entire surface area, and my discussion as involves the cuboid block as having two squares and four rectangles for it's sides is written off as lacking complexity.

In order to overcome the constraints of 'all-or-nothing' / 'black and white' thinking ~ here follows something I wrote for someone recently so excuse me as I was too tired to edit it up to fit this post:

It seems perhaps that negative thought framing may be playing a role in minimising the interpretation of your achievements and intended outcomes, so rather than using negative or positive thought framing ~ try perhaps framing things neutrally and balance both more appropriately.

You could perhaps learn a thinking process called the Tetralemma by some, or four-way thinking, where one learns to view each state of affairs on balance point for point as equally being:


1,) Good.​

2.) Bad.​

3.) Both good and bad.​

&

4.) Neither good or bad.​


So for example:


1.) Guns are good in terms of being practically easy to operate.​

2.) Guns are bad in terms of being dangerous to their users when they malfunction.​

3.) Guns are both good and bad in terms of being good to provide food by way of hunting, and are bad when they are used to threaten, rob or murder people.​

&

4.) Guns are neither good or bad as it depends who is using them such as a soldier or member of the public and what the situation is ~ such as whether they are out to harm or protect others for instance.​


The basic rationale with this type of thinking; is that all perspectives have an influence on our developmental progression, so settle not upon one when others may be required.

By learning to think in this way naturally as a matter of habit, people can eventually watch over and influence their thinking processes as their thinking processes operate ~ rather than having to struggle so much to operate them themselves, or having so much to struggle with their thinking processes operating them.

It is generally recommended to keep to simple objects when learning to use the Tetralemma or four-way thinking process ~ if of course one is interested in so doing.

I found the initial brain strain well worth the effort, by way of doing one in the morning and one in the evening during the week, and taking the weekends off ~ which lets you know the process is integrating and that your thinking is happening for you

A good subject many find useful it seems to practice with are seasonal weather conditions ~ what with there being quite a variety to choose from and all that.

Have a good one and may it be filled with infinitely more!

DT

Thank you. B Sisko's posts are short and to the point - and explain in a nutshell what the position should be.

Of course racism (or any other prejudice or defence of it) should be called out. But taking it to a personal level is what's not allowed. That's not difficult is it? It's like that old church saying of "hate the sin but not the sinner".

Personal attacks lower the level of debate to mud slinging rather than using logic to bring your point home.

Then it all comes down to "What you posted was racist" versus "What you are is a racist", right?

Or perhaps: I interpreted what you wrote as racist. Did you mean....... ...?

I teach Cross -Cultural Communication in my English lessons among other things, to help my Business English students write effective Emails without antagonizing the recipient with the hope of receiving an optimal result.

I always teach my students to soften their criticism by preceding with a compliment. For example: I appreciate your directness. Did I understand correctly that you said blahhhh are inferior to bluuuuh?

Beginning with a positive statement makes people less defensive or combatant.

Or speaking in the passive tense. "I enjoy your posts. Was such and such condoned in your post or have I misunderstood?"

Soft skills, they make all the difference in communication.

Last edited by Teach51 on 06 Aug 2020, 11:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

For the sake of simplicity to be understood by everyone, I suppose so.

Deplorable or unacceptable beliefs or ideas, but respecting that the person is possibly misguided for some reason and that might be what they were taught. The best way to change their ideas (should this be possible...) is to debate them with reasoning and logic, not descend to name calling etc.

Very useful on WP, I've learned a lot of painful statements I read here turned out to be simple miscommunications.

Right ~ with "What you are is racist" being out of order and "What you posted is racist" being in order here, given that as I stated previously and is contextualised as follows:

Simple, concise explanations are the best.

This is true,^^ some members enjoy making waves, perhaps unintentionally, who knows? Growing up in Britain in the 60's when people went out of their way to present themselves as tolerant and progressive and went about advertizing it profusely, "some of my best friends are"....whatever. I always think if you don't discriminate against race, sexual orientation or religion then you don't need to shout from the rooftops about how tolerant you are, you just see people.