Leaving RF for a while.

[Revoltingest]

I personally agree on stating opinions of what one beliefs directly.
But if you see garbage, the whole point that is trying to be made is that you should not sit and take it but report it. :ninja:

Please note that the below quote attributed to me is actually from someone else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Revoltingest
I don't believe in being silent when I have strongly held convictions. Otherwise I'd let the anti-gay bigots spew their garbage without response.

Such language is harsher than I like to use.
My goals:
Try to be civil & either useful or mirthful.
Report posts when appropriate.

 

[9Westy9]

I don't have a whole lot of respect for anyone who would presume to do so, tbh. No more than I would have for someone who's brand new making noises about what should and shouldn't be appropriate behavior for people who've been around this place for years.

I have no problem with this as long as you don't dismiss his/ her opinion just because he/ she hasn't been posting for a very long time.

 

[Alceste]

I'm not trying to start any fights here - I appreciate everyone's feedback, criticism, support and / or well-wishing. I basically just wanted to be completely honest about why I'm taking a break. I come here for fun and relaxation (yes, I am a freak who finds debate relaxing and enjoyable ). The more anti-gay threads I see, the more I just get wound up and outraged.

 

[Me Myself]

Please note that the below quote attributed to me is actually from someone else.

Humm, I wonder how that got mixed up

edit: Actually it is quite weird o.0 I was replying to Drole :ninja:

 

[Quagmire]

As for #1 and #2, most homosexual hate speech comes from people who BELIEVE they are spouting truth instead of slander.

Doesn't matter what they believe. when it comes to applying the rule, they don't get a vote.

Thus their vitriol is protected as fair posting.

If you want to believe that, I won't try to talk you out of it.

Almost #3, except for the words "other beliefs".
Homosexuality is not a belief. It is a sexual orientation.

Doesn't matter: we don't allow anyone to bash, harass, slander, or attack any other group (although we might make an exception for someone bashing, say: nazis, the KKK, Justin Bierber fans, etc). Doesn't matter if that group is defined by a belief or not.

 

[kai]

I'm not trying to start any fights here - I appreciate everyone's feedback, criticism, support and / or well-wishing. I basically just wanted to be completely honest about why I'm taking a break. I come here for fun and relaxation (yes, I am a freak who finds debate relaxing and enjoyable ). The more anti-gay threads I see, the more I just get wound up and outraged.

The more anti-gay threads I see, the more I just get wound up and outraged.

Then hit the report button and i can assure you staff will look at them.

 

[Father Heathen]

I'm not trying to start any fights here - I appreciate everyone's feedback, criticism, support and / or well-wishing. I basically just wanted to be completely honest about why I'm taking a break. I come here for fun and relaxation (yes, I am a freak who finds debate relaxing and enjoyable ). The more anti-gay threads I see, the more I just get wound up and outraged.

Maybe I'm wired wrong, but personally I find heated debate and controversy to be relaxing and enjoyable.

 

[Drolefille]

I personally agree on stating opinions of what one beliefs directly.

But if you see garbage, the whole point that is trying to be made is that you should not sit and take it but report it. :ninja:

idk how you got the wrong name quoted there but,

Technically I don't actually see anything in the forum rules that prohibits it, but I agree with Alceste that the same posts made about a race would be moderated to hell. It's hard to know what to report when someone claims a religious reason to libel a group.

I don't want to remove the debate itself, I'm not a fan of suppresion and it's part of why I hadn't hit the report post button until tonight when i was encouraged to do so, but I guess I just don't feel confident in knowing where that line is that we can expect people not to cross when debating about 'us.'

 

[Revoltingest]

Alceste does have a point, though.
The anti-gay vitriol would be deleted as hate speech if it were aimed at anyone else.

I've seen such abuse aimed at Republicans, conservatives & Xians here.
(On another forum I visit occasionally, liberals & Democrats are the sick chickens who get pecked.)
It's difficult to be even handed when some groups have different circumstances & sensitivities, but try we must.

 

[blackout]

I'm not upset BTW.
At the mods, or anyone.

Just to say.

 

[Revoltingest]

Humm, I wonder how that got mixed up
edit: Actually it is quite weird o.0 I was replying to Drole :ninja:

We be good. I regularly get confused here. Complicated place, eh?

 

[Quagmire]

I have no problem with this as long as you don't dismiss his/ her opinion just because he/ she hasn't been posting for a very long time.

I explained my position and there was obviously more to it than that.

Put it this way, Westy: if this were a bar and I were the bartender and some new person came in and said: "Hi, I'm a new person, here's what I think of this issue and that issue, and etc...." that's all fine. Depending on the topic and the new guys level of knowledge on it, I would listen, debate, discuss, whatever that turned into.

On the other hand, if a new person walks in and goes "OK! Those curtains need to be ripped down! they don't go with the rest of the decor! And you! Bartender!! Stop slouching!! And you guys at the bar! You better watch your language now that I'm here!!! And turn off that darn juke box! I brought my ukelele!!!....""

Different story.


IMO, some of the most interesting members are new people.

Sometimes that's a good thing. Sometimes it's a bad thing.

 

[Storm]

I've seen such abuse aimed at Republicans, conservatives & Xians here.
(On another forum I visit occasionally, liberals & Democrats are the sick chickens who get pecked.)
It's difficult to be even handed when some groups have different circumstances & sensitivities, but try we must.

Really? You've seen conservatives compared routinely to pedophiles? How many threads are active questioning Christians rights to marriage, or calling for an end to black adoption?

 

[Alceste]

Uh huh:

*** Rule 3. Trolling and Bullying
We recognize three areas of unacceptable trolling (Please note that these apply to PMs, signature lines, frubal comments, and visitor messages as well, if they are reported):
1)posts that are deliberately inflammatory in order to provoke a vehement response from other users.
2)posts that Target a person or group by following them around the forums to attack them. This is Bullying. Deliberately altering the words of another member by intentionally changing the meaning when you use the quote feature is considered a form of bullying. The ONLY acceptable alteration of a quotation from another member is to remove portions that are not relevant or to alter formatting for emphasis.
3)posts that are adjudged to fit the following profile: "While questioning and challenging other beliefs is appropriate in the debates forums, repeated blatant misrepresentation or continual harassment of other beliefs will not be tolerated."***

Here's the catch: if you want us to apply the rule, you have to report the post.

again: if you want us to apply the rule, you have to report the post.

Lets all say it together, shall we?: if you want us to apply the rule, you have to report the post.

I have to say that doesn't quite fit the issue at hand. I don't want this to turn into a thread about moderation, because I don't want to break rule 2, but hate speech does not meet these trolling / bullying criteria if it's kept non-personal and couched in "reasonable" sounding rhetoric.

It is usually the case that anti-gay hate speech on RF is embedded in philosophical, non-personal and "reasonable" sounding rhetoric. For example, "if gay people can get married, we might as well let people marry their pets - what's the difference?"

 

[Revoltingest]

Really? You've seen conservatives compared routinely to pedophiles? How many threads are active questioning Christians rights to marriage, or calling for an end to black adoption?

That's an overly-specific description of abuse.
But I was unclear.....I say only that I've seen insults just as severe.

Edit:
Regarding pedophilia, I have seen pretty nasty posts regarding Islam & Catholicism.

 

[beenie]

Really? You've seen conservatives compared routinely to pedophiles? How many threads are active questioning Christians rights to marriage, or calling for an end to black adoption?

I've seen prophets compared to pedophiles...even if it's under the "jokes" section.

Look, we're all adults here, and if we're going to participate in religious/cultural/political debates, we have to expect to be offended sometimes.

 

[Alceste]

Really? You've seen conservatives compared routinely to pedophiles? How many threads are active questioning Christians rights to marriage, or calling for an end to black adoption?

Hear hear.

 

[Quagmire]

I have to say that doesn't quite fit the issue at hand. I don't want this to turn into a thread about moderation, because I don't want to break rule 2, but hate speech does not meet these trolling / bullying criteria if it's kept non-personal and couched in "reasonable" sounding rhetoric.

It is usually the case that anti-gay hate speech on RF is embedded in philosophical, non-personal and "reasonable" sounding rhetoric. For example, "if gay people can get married, we might as well let people marry their pets - what's the difference?"

If someone reported that I would recommend treating it as a rule 3 violation.

 

[beenie]

I have to say that doesn't quite fit the issue at hand. I don't want this to turn into a thread about moderation, because I don't want to break rule 2, but hate speech does not meet these trolling / bullying criteria if it's kept non-personal and couched in "reasonable" sounding rhetoric.

It is usually the case that anti-gay hate speech on RF is embedded in philosophical, non-personal and "reasonable" sounding rhetoric. For example, "if gay people can get married, we might as well let people marry their pets - what's the difference?"

You're right. We need a "stupidity" rule.

 

[Alceste]

I also want to point out that in addition to replying to this post until it dies, I will also be looking at all the funny videos on this one:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...88458-post-funniest-videos-you-have-ever.html