Responses to "A Message From Dawno"

[Bird of Prey]

I'm fine with that. I think the level of discourse takes a real nose-dive when shock value topics with little else of substance are presented as worthy of discussion.

[Jersey Chick]

I'd have to agree - the thread titles alone were enough to keep me out. I'm not so much into shock value replacing serious debate.

[sandyn]

Thank you, Dawno. I feel it's high time this trend is stopped. You are doing a great job!

[Medievalist]

Dawno for President!

[MichaelDeVere]

Originally Posted by Bird of Prey

I'm fine with that. I think the level of discourse takes a real nose-dive when shock value topics with little else of substance are presented as worthy of discussion.

You mean like mainstream media.

[Joe270]

Dawno said the 's' word.

[Dawno]

Another serious thread down the tubes

[Cathy C]

Hooray for Dawno! I consciously avoid P&CE just for these reasons. I tend to have definite opinions about many things, but keep silent for fear of offending people. It's frustrating, because I don't get offended by opinions of other people---about me or my views, so often I don't realize I've offended others until I get angry/flaming comments in return. I'd love to chat, even if in ignorance, and LEARN something, than avoid an entire room.

[small axe]

People make generalizations all the time.

And the responsibility NOT to make offensive generalizations is one we ALL should bear.

If you see a generalization that you think has lumped you into a particular category, discuss how it's unfair, show a different perspective, don't go attacking the poster for offending/insulting you personally - they didn't.

The response to "X (is/does) Y" shouldn't be "I'm offended by that. I (and my peers in X) don't do Y, so stop insulting me." It should examples of why that statement is untrue. When you respond by being personally offended by a generalization, you are actually the one who has started the personal attack by taking it personally.

I respectfully disagree with the above.

Let's take Bill Maher's recent comments about the Catholic Church being a pedophile cult as an example in the public forum (thus avoiding pointing to another AW as an example)

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_8964733


Talk show host Bill Maher last week accused Pope Benedict XVI of being a "Nazi" in his youth and heading up a "child-abusing religious cult" — or more precisely, "the Bear Stearns of organized pedophilia."

Now, undoubtedly, there is a treasure trove of amusement to be unearthed at the expense of fallen holy men. But Catholic bashing has gotten so obvious, so tedious, it seems only TV writers find it humorous anymore.
But hey, it's a free country, of course, so feel free to ridicule any group you desire. * See disclaimer below.
...
The exaggerated attacks on the pope, in reality, are politically motivated, more about the church's positions on abortion and gay marriage than abused children. Though I disagree with the church's positions on those issues, frankly it's none of my business.

A generalization can still be personally and individually hurtful.

Most racist and bigoted accusations are directed as a generalization, not an individual attack.

But are you now saddling the injured party with this responsibility:

discuss how it's unfair, show a different perspective, don't go attacking the poster for offending/insulting you personally - they didn't.

Someone INSULTS and we're responsible for reasoning with a bigot, or a liar, or a troll?

I'm sorry, I disagree: the MODERATORS should see that the initial bigoted or lying accusation is what starts the problem ... and that controlling or punishing the instigation is the solution here, not blaming the hurt parties like this:

you are actually the one who has started the personal attack by taking it personally.

ONE person's attack can hurt a hundred AW readers who have done nothing wrong .... but now must either swallow their hurt in silence, or pointlessly engage a troll or a bigot in reasoned responses.

Above, you protect the unfair attacker at the expense of the unfairly attacked.

I'm all for "free speech" ...

But when Moderators have the authority to delete and lock, then it's no longer "free" but controlled.

Given that, the MODERATORS should either demand SELF-CONTROL from writers (do not make offensive generalizations, or lies, or troll, or insult groups or individuals) ... or exercise CONTROL to protect the attacked, NOT the attacker.

[Dawno]

Apparently you didn't get my point at all Small axe, and you took it personally as well.

By the way, the phrase "freedom of speech" is about restricting the government from abridging your right to it, not about a privately owned message board determining the guidelines for posting. As a representative of this privately held message board, I am telling you what I see going on and how I'm going to respond to it. You are welcome to stay out of P&CE if you don't like it.

[Joe270]

Given that, the MODERATORS should either demand SELF-CONTROL from writers (do not make offensive generalizations, or lies, or troll, or insult groups or individuals) ... or exercise CONTROL to protect the attacked, NOT the attacker.

Man, I am so glad I'm not a moderator.

In a writers' forum, where we have an understanding of our shared pains and problems with our craft, no matter the differences of method or genre, and we know all writers have creative minds, respect for one another should go without saying.

So why must the mods remind folks so often?

[small axe]

Apparently you didn't get my point at all Small axe, and you took it personally as well.

Perhaps I indeed missed your point. My bad if I did.

I however explained mine, and so that's cool.

By the way, the phrase "freedom of speech" is about restricting the government from abridging your right to it, not about a privately owned message board determining the guidelines for posting.

That, at least, I understood. And by gosh --

I'm all for "free speech" ...

As a representative of this privately held message board, I am telling you what I see going on and how I'm going to respond to it.

I never disputed it, Sir or Madam. It wasn't my point to dictate your actions or inactions.

I was simply sharing my own thoughts, as others already had.

You are welcome to stay out of P&CE if you don't like it.

Thank you. I enjoy P & CE. Even the parts I don't like, I consider a sort of innoculation to build up a richer immunity.

Please accept that I didn't think I was doing anything but respectfully disagreeing in the forum of ideas.

[TwentyFour]

I for one have taken a few remarks personal and actually knew a few were directed at me personally, but I tend to give rep points and ask for the other party to forgive any remarks I might make in haste. If I offend anyone, I apologize.

[MichaelDeVere]

Teh internets is serious business.

[Voyager]

When Dawno's done here, I'm taking her out for an afternoon of hummingbird herding

[Medievalist]

So like, you know, are you saying that it's like, you know, All About Me?

Dude! Who Knew??????

[Dawno]

Good point, Medievalist

Folks, there's no need to post apologies here - I won't stop you, but I think it's the wrong venue for it. I would suggest you think about who you need to PM or send a kindly rep comment to, instead of a blanket public apology. I think private and personal amends mean a lot more than public, non-specific mea culpas.

[TwentyFour]

Lol...normally I do it that day or the day after the insult.

((((I'm too angelic to be mean))))

[brittanimae]

I wanted to pop in and say THANK YOU for having this forum. I don't care for discussing politics and current events with most people, because I find so many are either poorly informed (the "huh--what happened" kind, not the "pfft--how can you think that" kind), or unable to coherently organize their opinions. It's rather lovely to disagree with people who think things for a reason, and I come away from such discussions with interesting thoughts. And hey, who doesn't want interesting thoughts? So kudos to Dawno, Mac, and the P&CE board!

[Devil Ledbetter]

Originally Posted by Dawno

Addendum A to A Message from Dawno
...
Don't take things posted in this forum so personally. This forum *is* controversial. People are going to have positions and opinions you disagree with. So, disagree with the position, but don't behave as if those posts that disagree with your position are personal attacks. ...

I agree with everything you've said, but particularly this. Copping a posture of personal offense/victimhood and using it as an excuse to attack another poster is, IMO, a covert form of bullying. People don't tend to realize it's bullying because it comes from a self-proclaimed "victim," but it is. It forces the accused "offender" on the defensive, effectively derailing the discussion at hand.

And I also agree, it's tedious as all get out. Thanks to your posting this, I realize that from my end I can simply ignore a poster who aggressively claims offense and demands explanations over, for example, a word I've used with no inflammatory intent. I'm guilty as hell of falling into the trap of defending myself in the face of this foolishness.

In fact, I think next time it happens here, I will respond only with a link to this thread.

[cethklein]

Question: What is the status on polygamist topics? I was going to post one in regards to a different sect in Canada but held off as I didn't want it to be deleted. Figure I'd ask before posting anything like that.

[Devil Ledbetter]

Originally Posted by cethklein

Question: What is the status on polygamist topics? I was going to post one in regards to a different sect in Canada but held off as I didn't want it to be deleted. Figure I'd ask before posting anything like that.

Of course you'll want to hold off until Dawno or another mod replies, but I think it isn't a given topic that's the problem so much as the intent behind any thread that's started. If the OP posts something controversial/inflammatory only for the sake of shock value, that's a problem. If the topic itself is worthy of thoughtful discussion, and especially if the OP has something intelligent to say about it (not just OMG! I'm SCANDALIZED!) then it seems to me it should be okay.

[cethklein]

Originally Posted by Devil Ledbetter

Of course you'll want to hold off until Dawno or another mod replies, but I think it isn't a given topic that's the problem so much as the intent behind any thread that's started. If the OP posts something controversial/inflammatory only for the sake of shock value, that's a problem. If the topic itself is worthy of thoughtful discussion, and especially if the OP has something intelligent to say about it (not just OMG! I'm SCANDALIZED!) then it seems to me it should be okay.

Well see, that's what I figured. The ones that were deleted seemed condescending. But yes I'll wait for Dawno's blessing before I post anything. I personally think the polygamist issue is definitely relevant but I admit past topics on the subject have gone astray pretty fast.

[Dawno]

As long as people remember to respect each other, I'll say ok about updates on Texas and any other current event posts on polygamy.

[robeiae]

Will you marry me, Dawno?

'Course, we'll need a bigger house...