DescentBB

I don't have a problem with moderation when something gets out of control, personal attacks are involved, or derailing is taking place, but I feel we've crossed into policing opinions or policing perceived insensitivity with this latest Orlando tragedy, and that's not something I'm willing to continue on with. Used to be that when someone was perceived as being insensitive everyone involved in a conversation would let them know and it could be worked out one way or the other in the interest of understanding. My views on homosexuality, and a man's role, are not subject to anyone's private review. End of story.

Best wishes to all.

Context: he was moderated for implying that the victims of the Orlando shooting were cowards on the basis that they were gay.

It’s a plot….it’s a plot….

To get rid of all of the righties.

Jeff250 wrote:Context: he was moderated for implying that the victims of the Orlando shooting were cowards on the basis that they were gay.

What a sad misinterpretation. All I said was that it was too bad that a couple of the gays didn't have guns...and you in your infinite wisdom thought I was calling them cowards. What is cowardly is you acting like god because you have the mod power and use it when you don't like what someone says. No where did I impugn any board member nor call out gays as being cowards. If it is because you personally dislike me and use your power to moderate my statements...then it is time you hang up your position and let someone more qualified do the job. Doubly so as you are now at the point where you are driving long term members from the board.

ST I really hate to see you go and hope you can change your mind.

More E&C crap I see.

If someone wants to show me the original version of the post in question I could make a quasi-neutral ruling on it as a form of mediation.

It was the kind of thing that if you said it in public, it would get you charged with hate speech and land you in a cell.

woodchip wrote:What a sad misinterpretation. All I said was that it was too bad that a couple of the gays didn't have guns...and you in your infinite wisdom thought I was calling them cowards. What is cowardly is you acting like god because you have the mod power and use it when you don't like what someone says. No where did I impugn any board member nor call out gays as being cowards. If it is because you personally dislike me and use your power to moderate my statements...then it is time you hang up your position and let someone more qualified do the job. Doubly so as you are now at the point where you are driving long term members from the board.

I moderated Sergeant Thorne 1) for saying that the victims of the Orlando shooting were cowards and 2) for justifying his position by appealing to them being gay. I know that my interpretation of his post is correct because I asked him about it and he confirmed his stance over PM.

And still, E&C remains open. *sigh*

It's like something is making the entire human race infantile. I blame the plastic chemicals that have been slowly seeping into our bodies at a greater rate for the past decade or two.

Welcome to the new edition of the 21st century. Do you have an opposing opinion, or disagree with someone? Prepare to press the downvote button, ask for their resignation and spit the dummies out of the pram. Should that be insufficient, you may press the 'That person does not exist in my world' button and move along.

Hunter wrote:Do you have an opposing opinion, or disagree with someone? Prepare to press the downvote button, ask for their resignation and spit the dummies out of the pram.

When those "opinions" are factually incorrect and/or lead to violence I think the least we can do is censor them.

So long as personal attacks and/or excessive insults, incitement to commit crime or actual violence aren't involved, I don't see how censoring someone and/or something is really progress. I didn't see Sarge's censored post so I can't really say what he said was worthy of being removed. Maybe it was. But being 'insensitive' or being factually incorrect is highly inconsistent depending on what you're talking about. That's like saying coffee is bad for you, here is my sources and research. Then comes along another scientist. 'Coffee is good for you in small doses' - Here is my sources and research. Both appear to be factually correct and well researched, citing highly qualified professionals. But you disagree with one of them. So you pick a side and censor the other one, which is pretty much what all debate has become in the modern era.

Sarge, feel free to PM me over at D:U with the juicy bits.

Hunter wrote:Then comes along another scientist. 'Coffee is good for you in small doses'

And if we were talking about coffee you would have a point, but we were not. Homosexuality isn't a choice and it isn't cowardly. It's probably the opposite of cowardly since you expose yourself to a world of violence and hate by coming out of the closet. That's not something cowards do.

ST was censored for calling gays cowards? That sounds more like protecting people from insults rather than something that has merit based on “facts and ★■◆●”.

Now sure…shielding people from insults has a certain merit, but not in any profound way.

You can discuss why we have rules about flamebait, but regardless, we do have rules against that. That more than includes calling the victims of a shooting cowards just days after the tragedy.

Agreed, but some are trying to make things sound much worse than simply breaking board guidelines.

Avder wrote:If someone wants to show me the original version of the post in question I could make a quasi-neutral ruling on it as a form of mediation.