posted
Tom is against most abortions and fiscally conservative (I think). He's not in the far left.
quote:that certain political orientations will be censored or restricted, while others will not.
Well yeah, if your purpose here is to twist quotes to compare condidates to Hitler, you won't probably won't feel welcome any more. Besides that, and you're fine.
posted
He's not demanding. The guy is asking a straightforward question that I havn't seen answered yet by the mods in a straightforward manner. - All I see is that they are not focusing on what is being asked and focusing more on the topic of the thread in question. - If they have an opinion, then I don't see why they couldn't have posted what they are trying to say now in the thread that was locked itself. I respect the Card's very much. But I thought we could discuss anything in a mature manner on this site. I dunno. I don't think it should've been locked. If people had a problem with it, they didn't have to reply to it y'know? let it die naturally, but if people want to discuss it, why not? Rag on the topic in the thread, not here. He's just asking a straight forward question. I don't see where any line was crossed in this thread.
*shrugs*
-Jack Montague
-edit- a heck of alot of posts racked up while I was writing this.. so it may not be as relevant as it was.. 10 minutes ago..
posted
m_p_h, do you consider yourself to be moderate?
Because my impression of you is that you are actually far more conservative than OSC himself.
(Well there's an interesting question, do we all consider ourselve moderates, even though some of us can't possibly be given our diverse opinions?)
I used to think I was conservative. Until I moved and realized that a conservative in California is more liberal than 80% of the rest of the country, especiall on environmental issues. Thus, Arnold is not a paradox in his own state, even though he appears to be compared to Republicans everywhere else.
quote: Wasn't "We will always disapprove of conversations that are abusive, dishonest or unfair" a good enough answer for you Tom? I apply that reasoning across the board. Fairness is a big deal with me. I think that's why this one got my dander up so high
I think this answered it, but the question keeps on getting asked. It seems certain members just want to keep on setting bait even when they got the response they were looking for
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
"Wasn't 'We will always disapprove of conversations that are abusive, dishonest or unfair' a good enough answer for you Tom?"
Kristine, I don't for a moment believe that you would tolerate conversations you think are abusive, dishonest, or unfair, regardless of politics. However, this is the first time I've seen you lock a political thread based on your assessment of what constitutes dishonesty -- and given that "dishonesty" in this case isn't even outright lying as much as it's a reliance on secondhand quotes from Christian religious leaders, I worry how you decide to draw the line.
In other words, it's not that I think you'd EVER be consciously biased; it's that I don't know what standards you apply when making the original determination of "dishonest" or "unfair."
I think it's human nature for people to be a little more lenient of questionable stories and tactics that support their own assumptions. This isn't even necessarily "bias;" it just means that their own experiences make it easier for them to believe things that someone else might consider vicious slander. (Consider all those "faith-building stories," for example, or the different reactions on this board to the Swift Vets ads.) To be honest, I question whether anyone who's both informed and passionate about things can be completely unbiased in this regard; I don't think I could, and I'm skeptical of anyone who thinks they can.
This is why I, somewhat unsubtly, am suggesting that locking political threads due to untruths, even unfair untruths, is probably a poor precedent to establish, if only because it will create demand for this kind of policing where no demand previously existed. If you want to debate the accuracy of a post and complain about the unfairness of its authors, that's great -- but I think doing so in your official capacity as a moderator (which you exercise when locking a thread) will only make things harder for you down the line.
-------
"You (Tom, Paul, and now Ela) are asserting a pattern."
Nope. I was asking if this will CREATE a pattern, or if this thread was in some way special in its inaccuracy.
posted
I think it is because the more liberal leaning often do feel disenfranchised on hatrack, and in several cases, I know of just feel increasingly uneasy at posting anything on Hatrack because they aren't sure if it would be looked on unfavorably by our hosts. They wish to be courteous guests, but at the same time are feeling more and more awkard about saying anything, that says what they truly believe in order to avoid offense.
posted
I think they keep asking the question because they don't believe the answer and they are trying to wrestle an admission of bias. I don't think they are going to get what they are looking for and should be satisfied with what was given.
They should also utilize that little whistle if they feel their side needs more effective policing. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Well yeah, if your purpose here is to twist quotes to compare condidates to Hitler, you won't probably won't feel welcome any more. Besides that, and you're fine."
Again, not the point.
The point is, will people who twist kerry's words or actions to compare him to, for example, stalin, feel more welcome or just as welcome as those who twist bush's words?
Even if I'm not in the group feeling unwelcome, its a very important question. And I think Kristine responded fairly well to it, but Orson did not, which is why my post utilizes quotes from him, and not his wife.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're in someone's living room, someone starts shouting about Hitler and political leaders and filled with lies, the host says knock it off and have some dip...
Can't argue with that...
It's hard to have a place like this with such high standards for debate and community on the Internet. When does debate become trolling? We regulate ourselves because Hatrack attracts polite intelligent people. The Cards help filter out the other ones. Sometimes something like this happens that worries those who know this is a true forum for debate. But hey! We are talking about it and working it out.
*peers at the delicate balance between polite society and restrictive society*
For me I'm willing to give up total freedom (aka: anarchy) for this place. If threads like that get locked or deleated...while a shame for debating heated topics, provides peace.
*goes off to think some more* [edit for spelling]
[ September 09, 2004, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No I don't, they aren't mutually exclusive.
I believe that she means what she says, but don't yet believe that she will actually be able to carry what she says out in a manner that looks "fair and balanced" to those of a political opinion she doesn't hold.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a theory that the thread wouldn't have been locked had someone else posted the line-by-line refutation. The thread would have devolved into talking about whether it was taken out of context and the proper role of invocation of God in political rhetoric. In other words, had the discussion turned productive, she might have let it continue.
I'm also assuming someone jumped on Kristine for calling the 9/20 address a "State of the Union" address, which is a fairly minor error with no substantive effect on her post.
Being rude doesn't make me wrong. Nor does it make my concerns less valid. Nor, in fact, would it have come out that I don't believe she will be capable, if you hadn't misunderstood what I was asking for 5 posts, because I didn't feel the need to SAY that, and didn't say it... until you dragged it out of me with misunderstanding what I was driving at. We ALL think rude things. I was trying not to have to say something rude.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, he might be questioning the ability of people with political opinions she doesn't hold to perceive her enforcement accurately. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, it does. If you're rude in someone's house to the host, to point of pointedly disbelieving their ability to deliver on what they say, then you're wrong. You aren't owed anything.
I didn't make you rude. I just dragged out of you in explicit terms what you were not hiding particularly well.
posted
"I didn't make you rude. I just dragged out of you in explicit terms what you were not hiding particularly well."
No, Kat, I'll continue to blame you for forcing me to have to say something I believe, but didn't want to say for fear of being rude.
Because that is, in fact, what you did. You made me act in a rude manner. Rudeness and politeness have to do with not saying what we really feel. You made me say what I really feel in an explicit manner... which is, by my best understanding of social graces, itself rude.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh.. at the same time I agree with you Paul.. I do think you let yourself get a bit out of hand sometimes. A response like that to katharina isn't proving the point you seem to be making in a very good way and isn't asking for a very mature or nice response in return from her.
Reasonable doubt given her own political opinions, past acts on this forum, and statements on this thread, exists. Benefit of the doubt need not be given where evidence exists to cause doubt.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, maybe we can turn the point of the thread.
---
Is it the rude thoughts that are wrong, the inept hiding of rude thoughts, or the explicit expression of them?
I live in the South, and there's a grand tradition of saying something that looks perfectly polite but the real meaning is terribly rude. If the person you're addressing feels the intent, it's the same as saying it flat-out.
posted
Of course, my statement wasn't DIRECTED at Kristine, was it, Pepek?
No, no it wasn't.
It was directed at OSC, a man who, from all evidence, deals with people in exactly the manner I addressed him (well, ok, he's actually harsher then I was).
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread cannot die before I invent some Frivel and Schleck for it.
Seriously.
That would make me leave Hatrack. I am not making this up.
I mean, what's an angsty, overly dramatic, thread to do without some good Frivel and Schleck? If this thread is deleted, without the introduction of my Frivel and Schleck, it's a sure sign that the mod's brains have been devoured by zombie Nazis. Or Nazi zombies. I get them so confused sometimes, but they would definitely be goose-stepping, brain-eating, undead persons.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you subscribe to the "if you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything," school of thought...
I don't. I tried to say it in a manner that wasn't offensive to Kristine (if it was offensive to OSC, thats fine... I found his post to be HIGHLY offensive, and I Suspect others did as well, and his COLUMNS are usually full of hate filled venom). But what I wanted to say, needed to be said.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You made me act in a rude manner. Rudeness and politeness have to do with not saying what we really feel. You made me say what I really feel in an explicit manner...
No one can make you do anything you don't want to do. Don't try to blame someone else for your rudeness.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm wondering if there actually is any way to ask an offensive question in a non-offensive way.
"Asking as a friend, has that pattern of you getting mad and your wife needing to go to the hospital changed at all?"
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's really kacard's rules we have to worry about, OSC is not here to lock down threads. Why demand satisfaction from him?
Posts: 5422 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag: "I have a theory that the thread wouldn't have been locked had someone else posted the line-by-line refutation. The thread would have devolved into talking about whether it was taken out of context and the proper role of invocation of God in political rhetoric. In other words, had the discussion turned productive, she might have let it continue."
Very good point Dag. Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
1 a : being in a rough or unfinished state : CRUDE <rude line illustrations> b : NATURAL, RAW <rude cotton> c : PRIMITIVE, UNDEVELOPED <peasants use rude wooden plows -- Jack Raymond> d : SIMPLE, ELEMENTAL <landscape done in rude whites, blacks, deep browns -- Richard Harris> 2 : lacking refinement or delicacy: a : IGNORANT, UNLEARNED b : INELEGANT, UNCOUTH c : offensive in manner or action : DISCOURTEOUS d : UNCIVILIZED, SAVAGE e : COARSE, VULGAR 3 : marked by or suggestive of lack of training or skill : INEXPERIENCED <rude workmanship> 4 : ROBUST, STURDY <in rude health> 5 : occurring abruptly and disconcertingly <a rude awakening> - rude·ly adverb synonyms RUDE, ROUGH, CRUDE, RAW mean lacking in social refinement. RUDE implies ignorance of or indifference to good form; it may suggest intentional discourtesy <rude behavior>. ROUGH is likely to stress lack of polish and gentleness <rough manners>. CRUDE may apply to thought or behavior limited to the gross, the obvious, or the primitive and ignorant of civilized amenities <a crude joke>. RAW suggests being untested, inexperienced, or unfinished <turning raw youths into polished performers
quote: his COLUMNS are usually full of hate filled venom
I just want to point out that people often perceive something as hate-filled if it goes against their beliefs. When it is in line with them, they don't see it that way. What is so often referred to as "hate" is more accurately described as "passion". Which is what bugs me about this. Hate exists, it is real, and it is ugly--but so much of what is called hate is NOT.
Is that what worries you, Paul? That our mods might take action against offensive posts that don't go directly against something they believe in, but there won't be the same level of "righteous anger"? Of course you are more likely to see something as offensive if it goes against what you believe. That's why we have the power on this forum to report posts. I believe the mods would be fair regarding reported posts no matter the view expressed. But I wouldn't expect them to have the same level of passion about ones that don't cross their beliefs. Does this bother you?
posted
People very often have rude thoughts, Katharina. That isn't what is wrong.
Why don't they want to say the rude thing? Because they value the feelings of the person they are having rude thoughts toward more than they value their desire to 'stick it to them'. They feel like the issue is not important enough to comment on. If they are poor at hiding their thoughts, then that is their problem. And sometimes, sometimes they may feel that their rude thoughts might not even be accurate, but be an emotional reaction, so then they really don't feel like spouting off.
But it is not up to you to force it out of the person they choose not to say their thoughts outright. Even if they are poor at hiding them, that is no reason to force them to say something they fear would offend someone whom they respect.
That is equally, if not more, rude.
I prefer to assume the best intentions in people than to assume that something they say is a veiled attempt to insult. And if I'm wrong, so what. I'm still the happier for it, and it is they who must suffer with their negative thoughts.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"As long as this new rule is applyed evenly in the future..."
I just want to know whether this IS a new rule. Has it BEEN a rule, and we just never noticed -- or the mods never thought anything before this thread offensively inaccurate enough to lock? For that matter, is it even a rule NOW, in the sense that "we will delete posts containing inaccurate information attempting to draw parallels between political leaders and historical despots" would be a rule?
Frankly, I don't think it is. I think the mods reacted instinctively to something they personally found offensive. My point in creating this thread, insofar as I had one, was to point out that such reactions can create more problems than they solve when you apply them to perceptions of "accuracy" -- because now Kristine might be called upon to decide whether, for example, she believes that the Swift Vets are telling the truth, or that Clinton had Vince Foster killed and raped a campaign aide, or Nixon really sent people into Cambodia, or whether Reagan promised weapons to Iran during his presidential campaign.
I don't think it's possible for any mod to make this kind of determination in a regular and dependable way. Ergo, I'd submit that, rather than LOCKING a thread which contains something Kristine believes to be outrageously inaccurate, she simply make a post of the caliber of the one that ended the previous thread. In that way, she avoids having to decide in her official capacity as moderator whether or not some political claim is "accurate," but can still make her own powerful arguments.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Yes, it does bother me... but only because, now, for the first time, precedent has been established that locking threads and expressing official condemnation in the manner Kristine did. If she does not come down in the same way on posts that are equally offensive to Kerry supporters as that one probably was to Bush supporters, then open political discourse will no longer truly be possible here.
Hatrack is a great place in part BECAUSE open, honest, discourse occurs. But if one side suddenly has to word watch much more closely then the other side, open honest discourse dissapears. It becomes circumscribed honest discourse, which is something else entirely.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Completely open discussion is already not allowed here on several different levels. And I side with Telperion and Dagonee that I am willing to pay that small price for the beauty that is Hatrack. I totally understand if others are not willing.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Completely open discourse isn't allowed, true... but this is a different sort of thing entirely.
Katharina, I'm glad we have different understandings of what is rude or not rude... I don't like your rules. They aren't conducive to communication.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
*thinks* I think it's the difference between aggressive and passive-aggressive. I don't think there is virtue in the second, and it doesn't encourage conversation more. The shutdown after a passive-aggressive insult is usually less dramatic but no less thorough.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
