PPR Rules 2.0: Hate Speech & Offensive Content

Page 10 of 10 [ 153 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

14 Oct 2010, 9:11 am

hyperlexian wrote:
since it is those who are numerically in the minority on WP who are the targets of hate speech on here,


You mean Christians? There have not been very many of them here, and anything pertaining to religion on WP is relegated to PPR in order to be mocked and abused. It was much worse a couple years ago, but I think Christians are still the minority on Wrong Planet.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

14 Oct 2010, 9:12 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
As for your claim that I don't understand verbal bullying, you're blatantly wrong. I understand it fine. I also understand that those who perform verbal abuse are often more fragile than appearances let on, and as such they can dish more verbal venom than they can take. They only tolerate verbal abuse when it comes out of their own mouths and cannot stand to receive it back. Verbal abusers tend to be extremely fragile people, constantly on the verge of going postal for any minor offense done against them. I have been a victim of verbal abuse for all of my childhood, whether it was from pastor's kids or kids in my neighborhood. After my birthfather died of lung cancer, my stepdad arrived on the scene a few months later and I was a victim of both verbal and physical abuse until the age of 16 when I could fight back and overcome my stepdad physically, however after that I was still a victim of verbal abuse until I was able to move out just a couple years ago.

if i were quick to judge, my judgement would not be about whether or not you had ever been verbally abused.

i was stating that people who have been bullied verbally understand the impact of words, which is true. at the time that you were abused, the words had the potential to hurt you, or else the words would not have met the criteria for bullying. just because you overcame the bullying does not mean that others should not be protected.

restated in a way that makes no assumptions about you personally: words have impact, and victims of bullying could not by definition be called victims unless the words impacted them.


At the time the words did have impact upon me, intensely so. But I matured and realized what a load of hot air such verbal bullying is, which perhaps is due to nearly 90% of my life being filled with verbal abuse and threats directed specifically at me. But let's pass laws to protect those people who are still picked upon so that they'll never know what actual verbal abuse is but instead attach the meaning of "abuse" to any offense or slight against them whatsoever: Summary execution for all bullies. I certainly wouldn't have minded having my stepdad executed during the first three years of Hell.

errrr i'm confused which part of this is intended to be serious. there ARE laws against abuse and slander in place already, so what you are saying doesn't really make any sense. there are also rules on WP already. we are discussion the application of those rules, not whther or not they should exist; the rules are already in place...


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

14 Oct 2010, 9:13 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
since it is those who are numerically in the minority on WP who are the targets of hate speech on here,


You mean Christians? There have not been very many of them here, and anything pertaining to religion on WP is relegated to PPR in order to be mocked and abused. It was much worse a couple years ago, but I think Christians are still the minority on Wrong Planet.

so.... christians should also be protected. you are failing to realize that the rules should be applied to equally protect everyone...


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

14 Oct 2010, 9:15 am

hyperlexian wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
As for your claim that I don't understand verbal bullying, you're blatantly wrong. I understand it fine. I also understand that those who perform verbal abuse are often more fragile than appearances let on, and as such they can dish more verbal venom than they can take. They only tolerate verbal abuse when it comes out of their own mouths and cannot stand to receive it back. Verbal abusers tend to be extremely fragile people, constantly on the verge of going postal for any minor offense done against them. I have been a victim of verbal abuse for all of my childhood, whether it was from pastor's kids or kids in my neighborhood. After my birthfather died of lung cancer, my stepdad arrived on the scene a few months later and I was a victim of both verbal and physical abuse until the age of 16 when I could fight back and overcome my stepdad physically, however after that I was still a victim of verbal abuse until I was able to move out just a couple years ago.

if i were quick to judge, my judgement would not be about whether or not you had ever been verbally abused.

i was stating that people who have been bullied verbally understand the impact of words, which is true. at the time that you were abused, the words had the potential to hurt you, or else the words would not have met the criteria for bullying. just because you overcame the bullying does not mean that others should not be protected.

restated in a way that makes no assumptions about you personally: words have impact, and victims of bullying could not by definition be called victims unless the words impacted them.


At the time the words did have impact upon me, intensely so. But I matured and realized what a load of hot air such verbal bullying is, which perhaps is due to nearly 90% of my life being filled with verbal abuse and threats directed specifically at me. But let's pass laws to protect those people who are still picked upon so that they'll never know what actual verbal abuse is but instead attach the meaning of "abuse" to any offense or slight against them whatsoever: Summary execution for all bullies. I certainly wouldn't have minded having my stepdad executed during the first three years of Hell.

errrr i'm confused which part of this is intended to be serious. there ARE laws against abuse and slander in place already, so what you are saying doesn't really make any sense. there are also rules on WP already. we are discussion the application of those rules, not whther or not they should exist; the rules are already in place...


Let's up the punishment and decrease the criteria for obtaining punishment! Death to freedom of speech! Life to omnipresent inoffensiveness! Kill all offenders!



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

14 Oct 2010, 9:19 am

hyperlexian wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
since it is those who are numerically in the minority on WP who are the targets of hate speech on here,


You mean Christians? There have not been very many of them here, and anything pertaining to religion on WP is relegated to PPR in order to be mocked and abused. It was much worse a couple years ago, but I think Christians are still the minority on Wrong Planet.

so.... christians should also be protected. you are failing to realize that the rules should be applied to equally protect everyone...


Really, am I now? I think that you may be sincerely altruistic, but limiting the freedoms of others in order to secure temporary freedom from being offended is not going to work in the long run. All rules will eventually be abused and used as tools by members who know how to whine properly to the right moderators or just by moderators who like going on power trips, which was the case less than a year ago even. Any type of rule which places more limitations upon others with punishments attached will eventually be interpreted by immoral people as a weapon to use against those they do not like.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

14 Oct 2010, 9:25 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
since it is those who are numerically in the minority on WP who are the targets of hate speech on here,


You mean Christians? There have not been very many of them here, and anything pertaining to religion on WP is relegated to PPR in order to be mocked and abused. It was much worse a couple years ago, but I think Christians are still the minority on Wrong Planet.

so.... christians should also be protected. you are failing to realize that the rules should be applied to equally protect everyone...


Really, am I now? I think that you make be sincerely altruistic, but limiting the freedoms of others in order to secure temporary freedom from being offended is not going to work in the long run. All rules will eventually be abused and used as tools by members who know how to whine properly to the right moderators or just by moderators who like going on power trips, which was the case less than a year ago even. Any type of rule which places more limitations upon others with punishments will eventually be interpreted by immoral people as a weapon to use against those they do not like.

then... you could complain to alex or to other moderators. past moderation problems are not a reason to avoid the application of rules in the present. every government has had problems with corruption at one point or another, but that is not a good reason to eliminate all governments.

if a total lack of moderation is what you are seeking, you might want to seek out a forum with no rules. WP exists with ToS, which will not likely change.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

14 Oct 2010, 9:27 am

hyperlexian wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
since it is those who are numerically in the minority on WP who are the targets of hate speech on here,


You mean Christians? There have not been very many of them here, and anything pertaining to religion on WP is relegated to PPR in order to be mocked and abused. It was much worse a couple years ago, but I think Christians are still the minority on Wrong Planet.

so.... christians should also be protected. you are failing to realize that the rules should be applied to equally protect everyone...


Really, am I now? I think that you make be sincerely altruistic, but limiting the freedoms of others in order to secure temporary freedom from being offended is not going to work in the long run. All rules will eventually be abused and used as tools by members who know how to whine properly to the right moderators or just by moderators who like going on power trips, which was the case less than a year ago even. Any type of rule which places more limitations upon others with punishments will eventually be interpreted by immoral people as a weapon to use against those they do not like.

then... you could complain to alex or to other moderators. past moderation problems are not a reason to avoid the application of rules in the present. every government has had problems with corruption at one point or another, but that is not a good reason to eliminate all governments.

if a total lack of moderation is what you are seeking, you might want to seek out a forum with no rules. WP exists with ToS, which will not likely change.


Those particular situations have been resolved, but to ignore history is to seek its repetition. I am not seeking a lack of moderation, but rather freedom of speech should not be hindered upon the grounds of people being offended. Also, you seem to think that members can oppress other members, which is incorrect. Only moderators and administrators can oppress powerless members. Members may not like what other members say, but that is so far removed from oppression that I think you haven't a clue what actual oppression is. Oppression can only be done by those who possess authority or ability to harm another, such as by banning, killing, or otherwise silencing them. Reading the opinions of another with the mere possibility of being offended is not oppression.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

14 Oct 2010, 9:49 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
since it is those who are numerically in the minority on WP who are the targets of hate speech on here,


You mean Christians? There have not been very many of them here, and anything pertaining to religion on WP is relegated to PPR in order to be mocked and abused. It was much worse a couple years ago, but I think Christians are still the minority on Wrong Planet.

so.... christians should also be protected. you are failing to realize that the rules should be applied to equally protect everyone...


Really, am I now? I think that you make be sincerely altruistic, but limiting the freedoms of others in order to secure temporary freedom from being offended is not going to work in the long run. All rules will eventually be abused and used as tools by members who know how to whine properly to the right moderators or just by moderators who like going on power trips, which was the case less than a year ago even. Any type of rule which places more limitations upon others with punishments will eventually be interpreted by immoral people as a weapon to use against those they do not like.

then... you could complain to alex or to other moderators. past moderation problems are not a reason to avoid the application of rules in the present. every government has had problems with corruption at one point or another, but that is not a good reason to eliminate all governments.

if a total lack of moderation is what you are seeking, you might want to seek out a forum with no rules. WP exists with ToS, which will not likely change.


Those particular situations have been resolved, but to ignore history is to seek its repetition. I am not seeking a lack of moderation, but rather freedom of speech should not be hindered upon the grounds of people being offended. Also, you seem to think that members can oppress other members, which is incorrect. Only moderators and administrators can oppress powerless members. Members may not like what other members say, but that is so far removed from oppression that I think you haven't a clue what actual oppression is. Oppression can only be done by those who possess authority or ability to harm another, such as by banning, killing, or otherwise silencing them. Reading the opinions of another with the mere possibility of being offended is not oppression.

please see my prior post about why hate speech and offensive speech can be two distinct issues. i do not consider them to be the same thing, so your argument has no basis against what i am talking about.

i didn't ever talk about oppression, so i don't know where you are going with that - you introduced that word yourself.

why is it that you feel it is necessary to degenerate into making statements against me? most of the time i wouldn't call it an attack or anything, and it doesn't bother me in any real way, but it distracts from the issues at hand. could you try to refrain from that, so that the debate can stay clean?


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

14 Oct 2010, 1:21 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
since it is those who are numerically in the minority on WP who are the targets of hate speech on here,


You mean Christians? There have not been very many of them here, and anything pertaining to religion on WP is relegated to PPR in order to be mocked and abused. It was much worse a couple years ago, but I think Christians are still the minority on Wrong Planet.

so.... christians should also be protected. you are failing to realize that the rules should be applied to equally protect everyone...


Really, am I now? I think that you make be sincerely altruistic, but limiting the freedoms of others in order to secure temporary freedom from being offended is not going to work in the long run. All rules will eventually be abused and used as tools by members who know how to whine properly to the right moderators or just by moderators who like going on power trips, which was the case less than a year ago even. Any type of rule which places more limitations upon others with punishments will eventually be interpreted by immoral people as a weapon to use against those they do not like.

then... you could complain to alex or to other moderators. past moderation problems are not a reason to avoid the application of rules in the present. every government has had problems with corruption at one point or another, but that is not a good reason to eliminate all governments.

if a total lack of moderation is what you are seeking, you might want to seek out a forum with no rules. WP exists with ToS, which will not likely change.


Those particular situations have been resolved, but to ignore history is to seek its repetition. I am not seeking a lack of moderation, but rather freedom of speech should not be hindered upon the grounds of people being offended. Also, you seem to think that members can oppress other members, which is incorrect. Only moderators and administrators can oppress powerless members. Members may not like what other members say, but that is so far removed from oppression that I think you haven't a clue what actual oppression is. Oppression can only be done by those who possess authority or ability to harm another, such as by banning, killing, or otherwise silencing them. Reading the opinions of another with the mere possibility of being offended is not oppression.

please see my prior post about why hate speech and offensive speech can be two distinct issues. i do not consider them to be the same thing, so your argument has no basis against what i am talking about.

i didn't ever talk about oppression, so i don't know where you are going with that - you introduced that word yourself.

why is it that you feel it is necessary to degenerate into making statements against me? most of the time i wouldn't call it an attack or anything, and it doesn't bother me in any real way, but it distracts from the issues at hand. could you try to refrain from that, so that the debate can stay clean?


You didn't talk about oppression? Huh, got you mixed up then. When I argue with multiple people at once I find it hard to distinguish between any single voice.