LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksHeheheh, better ideas, good one. You keep believing that.Originally Posted by Southpaw
Just because Libertarians obviously have much better ideas that the other two combined doesn't mean you can pick on us.
Guru
Heheheh, better ideas, good one. You keep believing that.Just because Libertarians obviously have much better ideas that the other two combined doesn't mean you can pick on us.
(In case you don't realise, this is sarcasm)I make too much money to be eligible for government handouts. I feel I'll be taxed into poverty. (In case you didn't realise, this is sarcasm)
...AND SINCE THAT FATEFUL DAY, I'VE BEEN AT WAR AGAINST EVERY TRAFFIC LIGHT IN EXISTENCE!
I don't really know what Libertarians are but I think they should be allowed, as long as they don't bite or bother people.
Guru
Isn't teasing beneath the regal office of advisor???
Im a Tarte, what! you want some of this!
The essence of any utopianism is: Conjure an ideal that makes an impossible demand on reality, then announce that, until the demand is met in full, your ideal can't be fairly evaluated. Attribute any incidental successes to the halfway meeting of the demand, any failure to the halfway still to go.
Oh hold on!
NOBODY TOLD ME ABOUT THIS!
I sure hope not!
How---how will I post?
The will of God will never take me, where the grace of God cannot keep me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Food for thought: If you find yourself repelled by the thought of gay sex, ask yourself..."how much time do I spend thinking about my straight friends sex life?" IOW, if it bothers you, quit thinking about it.
Contributor
They don't bite, but Tigers do.
Just kidding. I don't bite.
*Misty from PoFo.*
A subject for a great poet would be God's boredom after the seventh day of creation. - Friedrich Nietzsche
Guru
If an advisor is supposed to be regal, intelligent, classy, informed, or anything else positive, they chose the wrong person for the job!
/clearlyI'mreferringtoTresha!
My basic political philosophy: "But yes, in short, people are idiots."- ThinkForMyself
Commentator
Aww you poor ol' thing - now I'm feeling sorry for you. Maybe this will cheer you up
Guru
Hmm, I think I'll print this out and give it to my wife.Aww you poor ol' thing - now I'm feeling sorry for you. Maybe this will cheer you up
She'd say "who the heck is Southpaw and why should I care?"
Pshh, women.
My basic political philosophy: "But yes, in short, people are idiots."- ThinkForMyself
Banned
Hate speech guideline
I would like to see politicalforums' stance on hate speech be elevated from a sentance in the flamebaiting guideline into it's own guideline.
I am not in favor of prohibiting open discussion of any issue, even emotionally charged issues like race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. I think that discussion of these issues is important, and even that having a somewhat anonymous format like an online forum where people can discuss them openly and honestly is an invaluable public service.
However, as is hinted at in the flamebaiting guideline, there is a difference between posting "I think people with green eyes need a stronger work ethic" and posting "I think all people with green eyes are maggots". Either one could be considered offensive to people with green eyes of course, and either one would likely be based on mistaken assumptions about people based on their eye color, but the former at least contains an idea which can be debated and discussed, whereas the later contains only emotional content. The later is designed only to hurt people with green eyes without progressing the debate in any way.
When somebody posts the former type of comment, a person with green eyes can speak up in the thread and counter the intellectual content of the post by arguing that people with green eyes already have strong work ethics, that people with green eyes need something else more than they need a stronger work ethic, he could agree that people with green eyes need stronger work ethics, or he could post ideas on what might help green eyed people improve their work ethics. When a person with green eyes encounters the later type of post, the only response he can really make is "I think you're the maggot". At best, it makes the thread degenerate into something less than it could have been, at worst, it creates an environment that would make people with green eyes uncomfortable participating in the forum at all.
The flamebaiting guideline only deals with this issue in a circumspect way. The focus of that guideline is to prevent posts that are designed solely to stir up an emotional back and forth, then a sentance about hate speech is tacked on. I would argue that hate speech which is devoid of any intellectual content, but which is intended only to hurt or offend should be discouraged even if that post is not also intended to start a flame war.
Likewise the personal attacks guideline doesn't really tackle this type of post head on, since it only deals with attacks directed against individuals, not groups.
So, although I think actual post deletion or account banning on the basis of hate speech should be left up to the discretion of the moderators, and used only in extreme cases, I would like to see the hate speech sentance removed from the flame-baiting guideline and established as it's own guidline. I would suggest something like this:
Avoid hate speech. Posts which are intended solely as an emotional attack against members of a particular race, religion, or sexual orientation, and which contain no substantive content do nothing to progress debate. Try to stay away from slurs or insults towards broad groups of people, posts which are intended only to offend or hurt groups of people, and posts that lack specific ideas relevant to the topic of that thread.
Maybe with some description of potential consequences for repeat offenders or something added at the end?
Thoughts?
Guru
We've currently been in discussion over the flamebait thing, so yeah...we're working on that one.
Barack Obama: Putting the "Rx" in "MaRXism."
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks