Important notice: Understanding attacks on homosexuality

Post Reply New Topic

Breaking things down even a bit more here ...

Be nice.

We must each think before we speak ...

... and even then we must each also consider the effects of our own words upon others ...

... and be willing to be held accountable for any offense ...

... and even if said offense is only a mis-perception.

I think that all of those examples are perfectly reasonable, and provide a good picture of what lies in the clearly acceptable and clearly unacceptable forms.

But I fell compelled to ask what is to be done on the margins. What of:



I don't see that the move from the third person to the second person radically changes the tone. (Assuming, of course, that the second person in question has actually expressed the opinion on the issue at hand to which the first person takes exception.)

But let's move from the indicative mood to the conditional mood. Is the previous statement distinguishable from



Suddenly the statement contains the form of words, "you must be [a bigot/an idiot/etc.]" Have we moved into the world of the personal attack? For my part, I think that we probably haven't, but I think that it is entirely reasonable for another person to believe that we have.

I think there are at least two contexts that have to be considered, and this expression of the rules fails to mention them: the location and the audience.

I think that we can all agree that the conduct expected from members in The Haven is vastly different from that expected in PPR. There are some types of discussion that are welcome in the Adult Forum that have no place in other fora. Yet we expect that we can formulate a single code of conduct that will govern members' behaviour in all forums. That might be misplaced--or at least it might need an acknowledgement of the space.

Second, there are things that one might say to some that one dare not say to others. And unfortunately on a board with 40,000 members, drawn from hundreds of cultures, we cannot always be certain who those might be. Generally speaking, the "thin jawed plaintiff" rule applies. It doesn't matter if you thought your statement was harmless, if it caused harm you are, nonetheless, responsible. Take the issue of harassment. In most contexts, harassment is in the eye of the harassee. If we are coworkers, for example, and I tell you that your conduct is making me uncomfortable, then the onus is upon you to change your conduct, not upon me to become comfortable with it.

My concern, at its root, is that WP may be trying to do something that it is ill equipped to do.

Indeed. The moderators are only human and will do their best to try and ensure nobody is being bullied. Obviously there is a spectrum of people as there is a spectrum across these forums. Very little will be allowed in the Haven and very little prohibited in PPR. These guidelines above are only that - guidelines. Our best effort to try and explain where we are coming from and what is expected.



I agree with this and believe it is at the heart of what we are trying to do



That is very likely true, but doesn't mean we won't try. We would be very appreciative of further advice on how to state the rules so that they fit all the needs described above, as we are also very fond of membership self-regulation. Nine times out of ten the other members bring an individual back into line - I hope the moderators only have to intervene when this doesn't work.

@visagrunt:

The simplest thing here might be for everyone to just first give simple notice of anything that might offend them, and then everyone else will have had his or her opportunity to foreknow what to not say. For example:

Because Scripture seems to say homosexuality is a sin and an abomination, and since I happen to occasionally quote Scripture ...

... it is then very possible someone here might either hear or "feel" even the above here posted only for illustrative purpose as an actual personal attack upon him or her ... or possibly even upon all homosexuals as a group.

Nothing such would ever be my intent, of course, yet I do see how such mis-perception or misunderstanding might take place.

Should that ever happen, I would then very gladly and as quickly as possible next explain or elaborate upon -- my personal preference, of course -- my alleged-offensive posting and thereafter immediately and sincerely apologize for any such alleged "offense" even having ever been first committed, of course, and then even if said alleged "offense" were actually nothing but the result of mis-perception or misunderstanding ...

... and further, I would not then in any manner continue on in any way that might in any way or manner next be deemed in any way challenging as to the actual-or-even-merely-perceived substantial rightness or wrongness of said even-if-but-possibly-or-even-more-likely-bogus accusation at that time made against me.

And now from my own side of the table:

In the past, I have always felt very offended whenever any has ever for any reason called me "homophobic".

Therefore, and no matter what I might ever in any way post anywhere for any even-off-handed reason or purpose whatsoever,
I ask to never ever be called "homophobic" in any way that might in any way cause me to in any way feel in any way offended ...

... and I thank everyone here who has done so for taking these few moments it has taken to hear and to record that personal request of mine.

We cannot stop members from openly inviting mockery, but do ask everyone to understand that AS usually involves communication difficulties and ask everyone to be kind even when faced with such.

Ah yes ... and that is that!

Those last two sentences form an eminently sensible position, and might serve well as a preamble to the rules.



Again, very sensible.

Here are two minor things needing attention:


That should read "... try to explain ..." and "what is expected" needs to either be edited heavily or removed altogether since members here are not under contract to perform or provide anything of substance. Rather, WP members actually are and only "self-regulated" (via member-mods, and there is no rank or hierarchy here). We have each and all voluntarily agreed to voluntarily abide by the TOS and Alex can take/designate (mod) action when we do not ... but none of us have entered into any kind of contract to perform anything "expected". Rather, there is nothing beyond this:

We all (including mods) voluntarily offer voluntary compliance with TOS rules;
Expecting/demanding nothing, members (as mods) voluntarily remind fellow
members and/or take remedial action when TOS rules are broken (even by mods);
Nobody here owes anything beyond civility being shown to all others here.
(Note: Neither is WP under contract to provide anything to WP members.)

Last edited by leejosepho on 25 Feb 2011, 8:33 pm, edited 17 times in total.

Is there considered a difference within the rules between the sayings

&

Yes, there is. If we allow value judging opinion, the former can be umnder stood using commonly accepted definitions of the words.

But in the latter, you will be hard pressed to find a commonly used definition by which Christioan and rational are antonyms.

So then, the second (Christians) statement falls dead on its own lack of clarity/merit, and the first (Christianity is BS) might just as well also be ignored since all BS is squishy where all of Christianity might not be.

Point: Who needs to give a flip over what anybody might say there?

Because people have already given enough flips over my response to baiting, as well as these are actual quotations from the initialization of this string of events.

Assuming that softly and silently vanishing away is not an option [some prefer it, not me - else why am I here?],

There are a few options.

There is dignified silence - you ignore the childish prattle and go on with what you are saying. Some theorize if you pay no attention to them they go away.

There is the response in kind: Well, YOU are a double $%@! !& and I spit me of you. Not great argument, but can be satisfying. And surely you can find something derogatory to say about them. I could.

My own favorite, of course, is where I rear up, get out the double-barrelled words, and show how ridiculous of their use of language and how baseless their third-hand opinions. This takes a bit of practice - Awesomely Glorious dand 91 do competent jobs, though often wasting it on one another, and in his sphere of competence Master Pedant is excellent. My sense is you would not want to try it on any of them - but they are not going to diss you that way anyhow, You SHOULD be able to out snoot fior example MCalavera.

But then there is the other great technique, you do not shut up, you keep stating views and discussing wit the worthy, but NEVER pay attention to what the lowlifes say.

Main thing - keep cool, keep dignified. If you lose itr, whether you are right or wrong, the bums score a point.

Response in kind would be out of the question. Do you know what that would involve? Aside from the trolling of threads and the baiting of members, after said members have responded to the baiting with words that are sufficient to be used by rabblerousers when abstracted from context, twisted, and spun-doctored sufficiently, do so. Direct all the people you've riled up to further attack, and encourage them further when they go about doing things such as making impostor profiles of the person you're bullying. Perhaps later, when it's no longer too fun to you, you have a bit more spin-doctoring done publicly - like having some guy act like Hamilton Burger, the prosecuting attorney from Perry Mason - going about making polemic diatribes in a further attempt at rabblerousing among their friends. Yeah, I don't consider that to be such a great route either. But, yes, you're right, there are many potential derogatory statements - none of which need have anything to do with their stated sexualities whatsoever either.

I think I agree for the most part with both MidlifeAspie and with Visagrunt.
Hey any change is disrupting and scary people. I know this as much as anyone.
That said is it a good thing? Will there be gray areas?
I would say Yes
Now as to you continually trying to reposition your stance and justify it Iamnotaparakeet, I think you were just plain wrong and (if not according to the rules of the time) I feel that from a moral reading you were, and I think it was not because you are a Christian, nor do I think that it is attacking you as a Christian to question the morality of your behaviour.
Even were we to accept this as such and say move on, I think it important that you accept that whether it suits your want to say the things you were previously able to and to hide it under free speech or religious speech, it will no doubt require great restraint from you, not to say things that are deemed offensive by the new ruling but I think it will be far easier on you and all in the long run.
That has to be a good thing.
But think further. No offensive things said = no people "attacking you for deemed offence = no legal threats by you! That has to be better...yes?

There is my point in your own words: Do not rile them in the first place! For example:

Me: "Hi everyone! Does anyone here ever read stuff in Scripture?"
You: "I sure do, and it says homosexuality is an abomination!"
Me: "Shhh! Nobody had even asked that kind of thing ... and you have just "closed the door" against discussing anything from Scripture ... and by the way, my fellow, that is also called 'leading with the chin'."