Mod Sponsored Community Poll - Your Input is Requested

[monovillage]

this thread is like every p&n argument all in one place.

It's a little short in the humor department for that.

 

[Abwx]

If we go by the real definition you ABWX are being a racist!!


Everyone can be considered racist in some sense......

But sad to say the peoples of the world will never gather and hold hands and sing Kumbaya or We Are the World!

Whenever i talk with far right people , zionists , christians or muslims
integrists , i always was at odd and branded extremist..
Funny , isnt it....

As to hold hand together , well , people are still too stupid
and entrenched in mental slaveries called religion , nationalism,
patriotism and all the propaganda that the ruling elite use
successfully to the point that people goes to war like sheeps
risking their life to defend the privilege of the predators.

France , the country where i live , did send millions mens
dying in 1914/18.
These people at the time had no healthcare , no social security,
yet they were sent to fight and they did it and when the war
was over , they had no more rights.

Poor fools that went fighting wars and that didnt even had
the decency of fighting for social rights.
It tells you a lot about people s foolishness and currently
this is exactly the same song.

 

[JSt0rm]

It's a little short in the humor department for that.

when you are putting all of p&n in one thread you need to edit something out. :awe:

 

[Infohawk]

Whenever i talk with far right people , zionists , christians or muslims
integrists , i always was at odd and branded extremist..
Funny , isnt it....

As to hold hand together , well , people are still too stupid
and entrenched in mental slaveries called religion , nationalism,
patriotism and all the propaganda that the ruling elite use
successfully to the point that people goes to war like sheeps
risking their life to defend the privilege of the predators.

France , the country where i live , did send millions mens
dying in 1914/18.
These people at the time had no healthcare , no social security,
yet they were sent to fight and they did it and when the war
was over , they had no more rights.

Poor fools that went fighting wars and that didnt even had
the decency of fighting for social rights.
It tells you a lot about people s foolishness and currently
this is exactly the same song.

I think it's pretty safe to say you're way off topic.

 

[Abwx]

I think it's pretty safe to say you're way off topic.

Since i was answering to some OT post , you also have the safety
of being yourself OT in respect of my post...

 

[cybrsage]

Whenever i talk with far right people , zionists , christians or muslims
integrists , i always was at odd and branded extremist..
Funny , isnt it....

As to hold hand together , well , people are still too stupid
and entrenched in mental slaveries called religion...

This is why you are branded extremists...you have an extremely closed mind.

 

[Abwx]

This is why you are branded extremists...you have an extremely closed mind.

You seemed to not have catched what i said.

How one can be branded extremists by differents extremists who are
themselves at odds???....

Anyway , there s quite a lot of closed mind by there..

They are easily recognizable by their usual stance, wich is granting
to themselves rights that they deny eagerly to others..

Always they are mediocre people , that s a general rule.

 

[cybrsage]

You seemed to not have catched what i said.

How one can be branded extremists by differents extremists who are
themselves at odds???....

The same way different runners can call others who run, runners.

 

[EagleKeeper]

No, under the current rules that would not be OK.

If I were to post an article about teens who savagely beat an old man and used the term "savages beat old man" I would be banned in a second.

Using your example, from my viewpoint the first phrase would not raise a concern. The second phrase would trigger research into the story. Had the use of savages been used as a substitute fr race in the article, you may have been requested to alter the wording or ensure that a proper quote was attributed. Had it been used as a substitute to sneak under the intentions radar, the would be public repercussions.

One has to look at the intent and make subjective calls.
Those are the same types of calls any person who wants to be honest with themselves can make.

 

[Idontcare]

I'm not sure if the moderation staff knows that it's one of the most offensive racial slurs in much of the world. I've noticed many other slurs for many ethnic groups flourish here.

Offensive racial slurs will NOT find safe harbor in P&N.

If you see them then please report them.

The community gets the subforum it deserves, if you want a cleaned up subforum devoid of racial slurs then it will require member's of that community to do their part in getting those posts to the attention of the moderators and that requires reporting the post in question.

We can talk about this more if there are any questions.

Administrator Idontcare

 

[Idontcare]

On the basis of the results of this community poll it is clear that the majority of the active membership desires for there to be some level of elevated moderator presence and rule enforcement in P&N, nearly a 2:1 ratio in favor of those who desire the status quo to change.

Further, given that the majority of votes requested a level of moderation that falls somewhere short of a full-court press of the existing posting guidelines (40% voted for Option #3), a follow-up community poll will be posted to determine the specifics on the rules that will be enforced.

For now, please continue to post in this thread on the topic of the specific rules the community would like to have enforced so that we ensure we capture the appropriate one's in the forthcoming poll.

^ these were the preliminary requests for rule enforcement from the Open Mic thread.

Administrator Idontcare

 

[RabidMongoose]

I like what I'm seeing so far. Already an acknowledgement that racism will not be tolerated and I earlier saw a moderation edit where sexual orientation denigration will not be tolerated. This is amazing.

 

[shortylickens]

I think teabagger and libtard are also political memes so all that could be wrapped up in one category.

 

[Idontcare]

I think teabagger and libtard are also political memes so all that could be wrapped up in one category.

I would categorize "teabagger", "libtard", "republipuke", etc as violating the existing posting guidelines general statement for being abusive and hateful.

Do not use our Forums to post any material, or links to any material, which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. Special exception to the restrictions on vulgarity and profanity are granted ONLY in the social forums. Additionally, special exception to the restriction on sexually oriented material is granted ONLY in the Love & Relationships forum.

Those words are intended to be derogatory while at the same are discriminatory against communities outside the P&N theater as well (those with learning disabilities, those who are members of the gay and lesbian communities, etc).

There really is no need to make light of those individuals who have mental handicaps by using the term "libtard".

Likewise there is no need to perpetuate a slang term referencing a sexual act as a means to bully and discriminate against members affiliated with the Tea Party movement.

I am confident Anand had no intentions of his name adorning a website that gives safe harbor to intentionally derogatory terms the likes of "teabaggers" and "libtards"; the existing posting guidelines (quoted above) would have not have been codified as they were if this weren't the case IMO.

Thoughts?

 

[cybrsage]

I agree.

I do want some clarification on obscene and/or offensive language. The way I look at it, if you would not say it in front of your Grandma / school principal / a judge in court / a priest in church then you obviously already consider it to be obscene or offensive and it should also not be used here.

This would curtail any use of cursing. Cursing adds nothing constructive to a conversation, but it certainly does reduce the value of the conversation. Anything which can be said using cursing can be said just as well without it unless the intent is to invoke negative emotions.

 

[Bowfinger]

...
I do want some clarification on obscene and/or offensive language. The way I look at it, if you would not say it in front of your Grandma / school principal / a judge in court / a priest in church then you obviously already consider it to be obscene or offensive and it should also not be used here.

This would curtail any use of cursing. Cursing adds nothing constructive to a conversation, but it certainly does reduce the value of the conversation. Anything which can be said using cursing can be said just as well without it unless the intent is to invoke negative emotions.

I disagree. Grandma doesn't read P&N, and this isn't church or middle school. Profanity is often used to add emphasis. While I agree there is a lot of gratuitous profanity here -- profanity I personally find excessive -- I also recognize that different people, and in particular different generations, use profanity differently and often much more casually than grandma. I think it would be destructive to open discussion to impose child-friendly language moderation. IMO, P&N is for mature adults. Do we really want to turn it into, "Golly gee, those gosh-darned terrorists just killed 500 people"?

 

[cybrsage]

I disagree. Grandma doesn't read P&N, and this isn't church or middle school. Profanity is often used to add emphasis. While I agree there is a lot of gratuitous profanity here -- profanity I personally find excessive -- I also recognize that different people, and in particular different generations, use profanity differently and often much more casually than grandma. I think it would be destructive to open discussion to impose child-friendly language moderation. IMO, P&N is for mature adults. Do we really want to turn it into, "Golly gee, those gosh-darned terrorists just killed 500 people"?

Well yes, if you go stupid with it, it turns silly. Here is an example:

Fucking asshole terrorists killed 500 people.
Morally bankrupt Terrorists killed 500 people.
Terrorists killed 500 people.

The first only inflames the reader to anger, hate, etc. Its primary purpose is not to inform about the 500 people killed, but rather entice the reader to hate the terrorists. Unless someone supports terrorists killing 500 people, everyone will already know it was a terrible thing to have happen.

The second one adds some negative connotations to the line, invokes a slight emotional response, and gets across that the poster does not support terrorism.

The only purpose of the added cursing is to invoke negative emotions in the reader. It adds nothing to the actual conversation.


EDIT: I think the main issue comes to do what level of cursing is acceptable. If I curse AT someone , is that acceptable? Why or why not? If I curse ABOUT someone, is that accpetable? Why or why not? If I just curse to have more words in the sentence, is that acceptable...

 

[Idontcare]

EDIT: I think the main issue comes to do what level of cursing is acceptable. If I curse AT someone , is that acceptable? Why or why not? If I curse ABOUT someone, is that accpetable? Why or why not? If I just curse to have more words in the sentence, is that acceptable...

Cursing at or about someone is actionable not for reasons of the profanity; rather, it is actionable for the reason that it is an insult and a personal attack.

Verbal Abuse

Verbal abuse (also known as reviling or bullying) is best described as a negative defining statement told to you or about you; or by withholding any response thus defining the target as non-existent. If the abuser doesn't immediately apologize and rarely indulge in a defining statement, the relationship may be a verbally abusive one. cite: "The Verbally Abusive Relationship" 1992, 1996, 2010 by Patricia Evans
In schools a young person may indulge in verbal abuse - bullying (bullying often has a physical component) to gain status as superior to the person targeted and to bond with others against the target.

Profanity has its place in matters of personal expression, but verbal abuse has no place in mature discussion. Profanity alone is not verbal abuse, but the use of profanity as a means to enhance the mental effect of verbal abuse is well understood.

Example of acceptable profanity in P&N (by current global ATF posting guidelines):

I can't fucking believe that just happened.

Example of unacceptable profanity in P&N (gratuitous profanity):

I can't believe that damned fucking bitch horseshit just happened.

Acceptable profanity in P&N (by current global ATF posting guidelines) but unacceptable personal attack (verbal abuse):

You are a fucking piece of horseshit.

Verbal abuse, bullying, has no place in a mature audience or discussion. It is a hallmark of immaturity in and of itself.

Administrator Idontcare

 

[EagleKeeper]

I disagree. Grandma doesn't read P&N, and this isn't church or middle school. Profanity is often used to add emphasis. While I agree there is a lot of gratuitous profanity here -- profanity I personally find excessive -- I also recognize that different people, and in particular different generations, use profanity differently and often much more casually than grandma. I think it would be destructive to open discussion to impose child-friendly language moderation. IMO, P&N is for mature adults. Do we really want to turn it into, "Golly gee, those gosh-darned terrorists just killed 500 people"?

Something I was told way back when.

If one has to use profanity to get ones point across; they have a poor command of the language.

 

[dank69]

Something I was told way back when.

If one has to use profanity to get ones point across; they have a poor command of the language.

Can you convey anger without using profanity? Can you do it without sounding ridiculous?

 

[Bowfinger]

Something I was told way back when.

If one has to use profanity to get ones point across; they have a poor command of the language.

Me too, I was brought up with that same value, as well as, "Profanity is the product of a lazy mind". I personally rarely use profanity, especially in writing. I recognize, however, for better or worse, that's a bit of an old-fashioned ideal. The English language is continually evolving. Many people, and especially younger people, do not view profanity nearly so negatively. It is much more a part of everyday discussion, adding flavor but not shock. I fear taking a heavy-handed approach to moderation would suppress natural discussion and add a lot of moderator workload that could IMO be more productively focused on cleaning up noise.

 

[JEDIYoda]

The English language is continually evolving. Many people, and especially younger people, do not view profanity nearly so negatively. It is much more a part of everyday discussion, adding flavor but not shock. I fear taking a heavy-handed approach to moderation would suppress natural discussion and add a lot of moderator workload that could IMO be more productively focused on cleaning up noise.

The truth is I don`t find that to be the case. Profanity is not 100% acceptable in today`s society.Sure younger kids may use it but there are quite a few reasons including the need to sound cool or more grown up. Among grown ups who might have used profanity in excess growing up do not use profanity that much in everyday life. You never heqr profanity used in televised debates. Idontcare posted examples of what is appropriate and what is not.

shalom!

 

[JSt0rm]

fuck this place

 

[EagleKeeper]

Can you convey anger without using profanity? Can you do it without sounding ridiculous?

Ask one of the resident trolls - Sand Eagle

We also have the emo icons

 

[EagleKeeper]

Me too, I was brought up with that same value, as well as, "Profanity is the product of a lazy mind". I personally rarely use profanity, especially in writing. I recognize, however, for better or worse, that's a bit of an old-fashioned ideal. The English language is continually evolving. Many people, and especially younger people, do not view profanity nearly so negatively. It is much more a part of everyday discussion, adding flavor but not shock. I fear taking a heavy-handed approach to moderation would suppress natural discussion and add a lot of moderator workload that could IMO be more productively focused on cleaning up noise.

Houston, we have a serious problem.

Bowfinger and myself are on the same side of the fence for another time.
Please advise