Thanks, Frank. The current rules are sufficient enough for me, given your explanation.
Winwinkel's posts do not offer much explanatory power when it comes to ferreting out the personal motivations of other people. Winwinkel's apparent inability to comprehend the difference between supporting an argument concerning an individual's personal motivations with actual evidence and poking one's rhetorical lip out about how a celebrity chooses to self-identify demonstrates rather precisely the issue that I sought to raise. Perhaps it is my uncanny ability to recall that no one here is privy to the personal thoughts and motivations of people who have not shared them with us in verbal or written form. Perhaps we should, therefore, be less inclined to offer up our opinions about what other people do with less rhetorical certainty on a site that builds its credibility on reasoned opinions offered with evidence? Not exactly a revolutionary thought requiring an examination of the U.S. Constitution or court rulings for confirmation or denial. But, as Frank said, personal credibility is built or destroyed in the minds of site readers, and they can make their own decisions about whether the discussions of the self-identity of people no one knows appear reasonable or petulant.
If a site conceived out a movement to respect the self-identities of individuals cannot deign to offer respect for that and only that in turn, even to public figures who have apparently earned a healthy dose of righteous contempt along with their fame, then I too see no point in its continuance. Since the majority of posters, like people, seem inclined to offer up that respect of the individual, even to celebrities, I see no impending danger there.
The insanity of the ODR and the politics of racial identity are in no way limited in their expression by one group over another, and that is what I intend to bring out in the discussions that I moderate. If we all stood outside of this quagmire, instead of being as mired in it as anyone we are discussing, the site would not exist nor would there be divergent opinions to express.
As Frank said, personal credibility is built or destroyed in the minds of site readers, and they can make their own decisions about whether the discussions of the self-identity of people no one knows appear reasonable or petulant. If a site conceived out a movement to respect the self-identities of individuals cannot deign to offer respect for that and only that in turn, even to public figures who have apparently earned a healthy dose of righteous contempt along with their fame, then I too see no point in its continuance. Since the majority of posters, like people, seem inclined to offer up that respect of the individual, even to celebrities, I see no impending danger there.
That sums up my thinking as well. Forgetting flame-wars, bias, and inaccurate factual allegations for a moment, and just focusing on respect for the self-identity of others, it seems to me that the trick in moderating political advocacy forums, like yours and Deans, is to let members express themselves, even when they self-destruct by repelling everyone else. Where we must draw the line is when disrepect is so egregious that it drives away valuable members, and this is always the case when the disrespect is aimed at another member.
I agree that it is worrisome that some inexperienced readers will think that, because we allow posts that are disrespectful of public figures, we endorse such disrespect. But I really think that the more sensible readers realize that we encourage open debate. And, in order to enable debate of some touchy issues, we have to give members the freedom to make fools of themselves.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
