Offensiveness and Censorship

[Sir Kenyth]

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: Segregation..hmmmm..why do I think bad things when I hear anyone say it's the best way to 'protect' some other group? I appreciate a good discussion, I do not care for 'barbs' and nastiness for the sake of arguing a point. When I left IW, I fully intended to stay away because it is that very attitude "If you don't like being beaten on then stay away from the bullies" that irritated the hell out of me! In my book, the bullies should be taught the proper way to deal with aggression, not the rest of us being forced to avoid a street we might want to shop on! I've just seen no fewer than three people post that they are essentially intimidated by the flaming and baiting in this forum even though they would like to participate in meaningful discourse. That is a disgusting situation in my NOT so very humble opinion. Oh and Dio? I am INCREDIBLY passionate on that topic so does that mean I'm not 'oversensitive' ?

It's not segregation cloudy. Folks are not being forbidden to see the new forum. They just now have the choice of whether they want to be there or not.

------------------
Member of ORT
Master Barbsman and weilder of the razor wit!
Official royal toad! Ribbit! Ribbet I say!

The true secret to happiness is not having what you want, it's wanting what you have!

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: If people keep insisting it's ok to hurt one another just because there's a war on, yes.. I will think twice about participating in that atmosphere.

Cloudy, that is not at all what I meant in the post that started this thread and it is most definately not what I am saying.

[Ryanamur]

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: Thank you and yes, you may be right. If people keep insisting it's ok to hurt one another just because there's a war on, yes.. I will think twice about participating in that atmosphere. I appreciate a 'spirited' debate/discussion. I do NOT think one has to be excessively or unnaturally 'sweet' to do that and remain civil. I DO think that telling person they are wrong once is sufficient, hammering at them over and over with the same moot argument is hardly intelligent, it's pride and arrogance. Unwilling to let go, they inflict damage on anyone who disagrees. Well I had best stop or my own lengthy commentary will never be posted in one place.. and I have a feeling all my short comments here will be blipped over by the crew of bulldozers who seem oblivious to the simple concept of common decency in public forums. NO, not 'fake' agreements and pats on the back, just courtesy and acceptance of other views as valid for the one who holds them. Cloudy

I see you're point Cloudy. When I eluded to temporary, I meant that you felt a urge to comment without really wanting to re-establish yourself. Hense, a temporary visit.

I hope that we can all live and exchange ideas in peace and respect. Unfortunately, this forum has been hurt and it will take time before things really return to a normal state. Hopefully not too long. I'm glad to see that Z put his foot down. Hopefully it will help the healing process. Though it probably won't bring all our lost members back .

My hopes are that you're here to stay. I feel that your views are just a valuable as anyone else's.

------------------
I'm the Wanderer without a clan... I bring justice without favorism. Though you may not agree with it, my judgement is final... and inconsequential

[Yorick]

Speaking with consideration and respect are forms of self censorship. When people ignore these communicational necessities then external censorship is warranted.

In this instance the 'censorship' issue is not about the debate of ideas, but the way and appropriateness that those ideas are debated. It is innappropriate to rock up to a funeral and start mouthing off how the old sod deserved all he got because he was a rat fink, and that his family are disgusting for showing unity and love for each other. However true, respect for peoples grief is ignored.

Apart from being punched in the head, the interjector would be removed. Censored.

------------------


[This message has been edited by Yorick (edited 10-23-2001).]

[Fljotsdale]

Cloudy, i hope you don't mind but I qupte below some points from Dio's post. It was such a long post that this may have been missed:

.. I am NOT saying we should go out of our way to jump down each other's throats or be rude or insulting to one another. ....... we CAN disagree without being disagreeable. Clearly, a forum where all we did was shout and scream insults and obscenities at each other would achieve nothing useful whatsoever.

.....resorting to mere mud slinging is not going to help your cause at all. It will only turn off the "other side" and prove counterproductive to what you are trying to achieve.

But for heaven sakes don't take the position that such topics should be banned because they can get heated from time to time, or don't think that passion about important topics is somehow abnormal or evil.

As for "personal" attacks, I agree with what others have said regarding this -- yes, try not to make attacks personal, but equally important on the other side is to try not to read the criticisms or points of others as a personal attack.

Hope you find it reassuring.

------------------


Dubbed Queen of the Illuminati by Diogenes.

[Ryanamur]

Originally posted by Yorick: Apart from being punched in the head, the interjector would be removed. Censored.

Ouch, why do I feel that this targetted me (and a few others)?

------------------
I'm the Wanderer without a clan... I bring justice without favorism. Though you may not agree with it, my judgement is final... and inconsequential

[Yorick]

Ryanamur, I was presenting an analogy. I wouldn't punch you in the head
However, we tend to be quicker being critical and opinionated from the comfort of our keyboard than in person.

Sort of like the aggressor behind the wheel of a car syndrome.

------------------


[This message has been edited by Yorick (edited 10-23-2001).]

[Ryanamur]

Originally posted by Yorick: Ryanamur, I was presenting an analogy. I wouldn't punch you in the head However, we tend to be quicker to be critical and opinionated from the comfort of our keyboard than in person. Sort of like the aggressor behind the wheel of a car syndrome.

I know you were presenting an analogy. What I'm saying is that I felt targetted by the analogy. Nothing more my friend


EDIT: thrust me, I'm just as opinionated in person... If I put it on this board, I would have told you in person. That's the very question I ask myself before I press submit. Should the answer be "no, I wouldn't say that to your face", I don't post.
------------------
I'm the Wanderer without a clan... I bring justice without favorism. Though you may not agree with it, my judgement is final... and inconsequential



[This message has been edited by Ryanamur (edited 10-23-2001).]

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

Originally posted by Yorick: Speaking with consideration and respect are forms of self censorship. When people ignore these communicational necessities then external censorship is warranted. In this instance the 'censorship' issue is not about the debate of ideas, but the way and appropriateness that those ideas are debated. It is innappropriate to rock up to a funeral and start mouthing off how the old sod deserved all he got because he was a rat fink, and that his family are disgusting for showing unity and love for each other. However true, respect for peoples grief is ignored. Apart from being punched in the head, the interjector would be removed. Censored.

With all due respect, Yorick, you preaching about consideration and respect in communication made me laugh out loud. Does the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black" mean anything to you?

Along with myself, you can be one of the most stubbornly blunt people on this forum. I have seen you time and time again respond to others in blunt and accusatory terms, so don't try to claim any moral high ground on this issue, my friend.

That said, and admitting my own similar guilt at times, I want to stress that I agree that we should strive to argue with consideration and respect.

As for your analogy, it doesn't hold. No one here is saying that the people who died in the WTC attack were bad people who deserved what they got.

Criticizing the past actions of the US government, and arguing that there are historical reasons behind the terrorist attack, is not the same thing at all, even though you stubbornly refuse to accept the distinction.

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by Yorick: Speaking with consideration and respect are forms of self censorship. When people ignore these communicational necessities then external censorship is warranted. In this instance the 'censorship' issue is not about the debate of ideas, but the way and appropriateness that those ideas are debated. It is innappropriate to rock up to a funeral and start mouthing off how the old sod deserved all he got because he was a rat fink, and that his family are disgusting for showing unity and love for each other. However true, respect for peoples grief is ignored. Apart from being punched in the head, the interjector would be removed. Censored.

I agree with every word of that, lol!

------------------


Dubbed Queen of the Illuminati by Diogenes.