A Possible Change In The Rules - RatSkep tangent

[pErvinalia]

I think I remember seeing a thread over at RatSkep where they were discussing the merits of banning the term "teabagger" when referring to right wing cranks under the leadership of Glenn Beck.

Anyone care to share how that worked out?

You're kidding? That's crazy.

That was crazy. I don't know how it ended up, but virtually all of us on mass just ignored that rule, and as far as I know, no one else got pinged for it.

[Tangerine Dream]

That said, the way RatSkep is run doesn't bother me in the least, as I rarely post there. The founders have the right to design the place to match the sort of forum they wanted in the first place, eh?

Which is moulded according to the standards set by our mentors, Richard, Josh and Andrew

[Robert_S]

I think I remember seeing a thread over at RatSkep where they were discussing the merits of banning the term "teabagger" when referring to right wing cranks under the leadership of Glenn Beck.

Anyone care to share how that worked out?

You're kidding? That's crazy.

That was crazy. I don't know how it ended up, but virtually all of us on mass just ignored that rule, and as far as I know, no one else got pinged for it.

But there was still a rule against attacking a group that one can freely join or leave. I understand that it came from a more general rule against group attacks, which probably seemed like a good idea at the time.

[FBM]

So I wouldn't be allowed to make a post saying 'Fat people are awful' without getting a warning?

I guess the question is, why would you want to generalise and denigrate a group of people?

Even if he were wrong in thinking so, shouldn't he be able to say what he thinks? It's only than that opposing views can be presented. In the exchange, he may very well discover a better way to think. That would be using the forum to help its members learn and progress in their reasoning abilities. I'm not suggesting that hate speech be allowed, but differing and minority opinions are potentially valuable.

Sure, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere (well, there doesn't have to be, but most people agree that a line does need to be drawn). I think it's just too ignorant and too irrational, as well as being hateful, to be given any airtime on a site devoted to rationality. And let's be honest here, most people who hold racist and/or sexist and/or other discriminatory views like that aren't likely to be swayed by a good argument. They get off on trolling. There's plenty of other places on the net were they can be a troll. Why should we suffer them?

That said, the way RatSkep is run doesn't bother me in the least, as I rarely post there. The founders have the right to design the place to match the sort of forum they wanted in the first place, eh?

I don't really see a problem or understand why people are arguing in this thread. Variety is the spice of life, eh? If every forum was a carbon copy of every other forum, the whole shooting match would be boring. As it is, if you in the mood for more tightly regulated, on-topic discussions of serious issues, go to RatSkep. If you're in the mood for a little more relaxed, permissive joking around with like-minded atheists (more or less), come here. If you're in the mood for a wild shit-slinging, dick-waving contest, go to TR. I've settled in here, but that doesn't mean that I have any animosity or disregard for the other places. It just means that this is what I'm in the mood for most of the time.

And the titties. We can post titties.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think I remember seeing a thread over at RatSkep where they were discussing the merits of banning the term "teabagger" when referring to right wing cranks under the leadership of Glenn Beck.

Anyone care to share how that worked out?

You're kidding? That's crazy.

"There are members here who characterize themselves as members of the Tea Bag Movement and the term "teabaggers" is disparaging to them."

Okay, that was either Ratskep or JREF.

[Tangerine Dream]

So I wouldn't be allowed to make a post saying 'Fat people are awful' without getting a warning?

I guess the question is, why would you want to generalise and denigrate a group of people?

Even if he were wrong in thinking so, shouldn't he be able to say what he thinks? It's only than that opposing views can be presented. In the exchange, he may very well discover a better way to think. That would be using the forum to help its members learn and progress in their reasoning abilities. I'm not suggesting that hate speech be allowed, but differing and minority opinions are potentially valuable.

Sure, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere (well, there doesn't have to be, but most people agree that a line does need to be drawn). I think it's just too ignorant and too irrational, as well as being hateful, to be given any airtime on a site devoted to rationality. And let's be honest here, most people who hold racist and/or sexist and/or other discriminatory views like that aren't likely to be swayed by a good argument. They get off on trolling. There's plenty of other places on the net were they can be a troll. Why should we suffer them?

That said, the way RatSkep is run doesn't bother me in the least, as I rarely post there. The founders have the right to design the place to match the sort of forum they wanted in the first place, eh?

I don't really see a problem or understand why people are arguing in this thread. Variety is the spice of life, eh? If every forum was a carbon copy of every other forum, the whole shooting match would be boring. As it is, if you in the mood for more tightly regulated, on-topic discussions of serious issues, go to RatSkep. If you're in the mood for a little more relaxed, permissive joking around with like-minded atheists (more or less), come here. If you're in the mood for a wild shit-slinging, dick-waving contest, go to TR. I've settled in here, but that doesn't mean that I have any animosity or disregard for the other places. It just means that this is what I'm in the mood for most of the time.

And the titties. We can post titties.

bacon_tits.jpg

[pErvinalia]

I think I remember seeing a thread over at RatSkep where they were discussing the merits of banning the term "teabagger" when referring to right wing cranks under the leadership of Glenn Beck.

Anyone care to share how that worked out?

You're kidding? That's crazy.

That was crazy. I don't know how it ended up, but virtually all of us on mass just ignored that rule, and as far as I know, no one else got pinged for it.

But there was still a rule against attacking a group that one can freely join or leave. I understand that it came from a more general rule against group attacks, which probably seemed like a good idea at the time.

The rule, as far as I understand it, is that you can pretty much attack anything outside of the forum membership. But as soon as someone in the thread identifies as a member of a particular group, when you attack the group, you are now attacking the forum member as well. Basically everyone is free to demolish arguments, abuse the shit out of ideologies, but not attack forum members personally. And example that one notorious member found out the hard way is the difference between saying that socialism is evil and socialist are evil. The first is acceptable even if there are self-identified socialists in the thread, and the latter isn't.

On the specific case of the "teabagger" thing, it was ruled that "teabagger" was a derogatory term because in the UK (and elsewhere) it's got a sexual connotation attached to it. So, one could attack the ideology of the tea-party, but not the people themselves because teabagger was derogatory (and of course, this was only ruled as a problem because we had self-identified tea party members in the thread). The problem everyone had with this is that the tea-party members gave themselves the name of "teabaggers". It wasn't until later that the tea-party idiots discovered that they had made a great faux pas. Any way, I'm not sure what the final standing on the issue has been, as most of the tea-party tools have managed to get themselves suspended or banned.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Any way, I'm not sure what the final standing on the issue has been, as most of the tea-party tools have managed to get themselves suspended or banned.

Is there anybody left over there?

[FBM]

And the titties. We can post titties.

The attachment bacon_tits.jpg is no longer available

[/quote]

Couldn't see your pic, so I looked it up...

protesting-bad-stuff.jpg (44.37 KiB) Viewed 1746 times

[Gallstones]

I got banned permanently from one board. Not everybody is at Gallstones' level of maturity, but we should expect members to get there.

[Tangerine Dream]

I got banned permanently from one board. Not everybody is at Gallstones' level of maturity, but we should expect members to get there.

[Gallstones]

So I wouldn't be allowed to make a post saying 'Fat people are awful' without getting a warning?

I guess the question is, why would you want to generalise and denigrate a group of people?

Denigrate implies you actually mean it. You'll find a lot of ironic, satirical humor over here. We even have a pet Jew now.

He and our token fat person are

I want to be a token......something.

[Gallstones]

I have a feeling I am about to be fast tracked to suspension if not banning.

Really ? Those bastards...

And just how many formal warnings and/or suspensions have you received so far ?

I has been done before, that's why I used the term fast track. The thing is I don't feel that I am welcome to be an "active" member. See, it is how I feel.

[Tangerine Dream]

Sorry but you are not !
Passive

[Gallstones]

I think I remember seeing a thread over at RatSkep where they were discussing the merits of banning the term "teabagger" when referring to right wing cranks under the leadership of Glenn Beck.

Anyone care to share how that worked out?

You're kidding? That's crazy.

That was crazy. I don't know how it ended up, but virtually all of us on mass just ignored that rule, and as far as I know, no one else got pinged for it.

But there was still a rule against attacking a group that one can freely join or leave. I understand that it came from a more general rule against group attacks, which probably seemed like a good idea at the time.

This is how that came about.

The socialists and liberals were getting bent out of shape over Seth's comments about socialists and liberals. He was not attacking RDF persons, just those political groups because they are the bane of his existence. To keep everything copacetic and fair that meant that no political groups for which a member knowingly identified could be subject to negative comments as that would be considered an attack on said known members--as the socialists and liberals wanted it to be.

Therefore, I enforced that standard as requested and as discussed and decided on by a quorum of the staff.

Imagine my surprise when there were cries of "foul" when some were advised they could no longer post negative comments about libertarians or tea baggers.