Before I continue the friendly debate with Bella, I just want to say that while I find censorship in general loathsome, reading Myriads' post makes me understand why it's done here. Myriads, your communication skills are unsurpassed, save by your patience and character. I hope that I've made it clear that the distaste I'm expressing is conceptual and not personal.
The other thing I wanted to say is that I dig Notepad! It is for me the best tool for manipulating these text comments. You can highlight exactly what you want without the computer second guessing you.
On with the debate!
Originally posted by bella
My favorite comedian can't use the majority of his material on Letterman. To hear all of his humor I have to see him a live club. Since I have that option, I don't consider it true ultimate censorship. Similarly, one needs to go to another forum to read the types of posts that aren't allowed here, but you have the choice of going there. Don't misunderstand, I can grok why others would see it as true censoring, but I don't.
All that means is that your favorite comedian is censored on Letterman but not in the clubs. Too different environments. One censored. One not. I'm going by the the definition of censor as posted twice in this thread. If you don't see it as true censoring, perhaps you are operating under a different definition of the word than is in the dictionary.
With equal respect, I see no contradiction. More than enough words exist in our language to make yourself heard and totally understood without being coarse and deletion-worthy. The fact that you have to focus on the discussion rather than simply the character of the other poster results in a thread about the topic, rather than who has the more heinous knack for insults. Intelligent folk can form devastating rebuttals and feel completely free without calling names.
I don't advocate name calling, or the two-word gutteral cursing. If that were the only thing censored here, I would agree it's a good thing. That kind of stuff only takes up space. But clever insults without profanity or name-calling actually do exist, Bella. One needn't resort to name calling to violate the Golden Rule. Devastating rebuttals? My experience is that the most devastating rebuttals are those which not only disprove the opponent's point, but actually destroy the foundation by casting doubt on his/her character, thereby bringing the opponent's credibility into question. Of course, such devastating rebuttals are reserved for special occasions...and special people. But again, clever or not, nicely worded or not, such tactics are not permitted here, seemingly by nearly mutual consent. Oh well.
Why post the insults elsewhere? To get it out of your system, which many must need to do. Email or post and tell the person where they can find your insults, and continue the actual debate where it was started. Perhaps that doesn't make sense, but hey-neither does two adults typing bile at one another.
Bile is one thing. Well thought out derogatory commentary is another. If I want to insult Joe Blow at the TMF, posting that insult on another forum and asking if he please wouldn't mind going to that forum to read his insult...well...let's just say I think you're right. It doesn't make sense, at least not to me. I'm afraid the only way to get it out of one's system is to direct the insult to the person and place where it was earned, but do it with thought and class, not bile.
That depends on your definition of destruction. When there's a perfectly good debate going on that I'm learning from and it gets ruined by nastiness and derogatory comments, I consider that destruction.
I don't. To me, that's when a debate gets interesting, as long as it doesn't degrade into name-calling and mindless cursing. It might be ruined for you, but I don't think that could be considered destruction if others find merit in it.
Or when a newbie female posts about herself and gets chased away by a bunch of random strangers saying horrible things to her.
You have a point. I really hate seeing that happen. I wouldn't call it destruction, but it is no less tragic.
When someone finally has the courage to talk about their needs and desires only to have someone else call them names and belittle them, that is indeed destruction in my eyes.
That is indeed a cowardly act, and it's these types of people that are most likely to get flamed by me...er, in a forum that permits such things, of course.
😀 But as for the courage to talk about needs and desires, I have to wonder. Just how much courage does it take to anonymously post to a forum, where nobody knows your real name or where you work, what you look like or where to find you? How much courage does it take to post in a forum where the worst thing that can happen are mindless spewings from social miscreants that can be easily ignored, even without filtering? I can understand children having such fear and sensitivity, but this forum is for adults.
Yes, it's 'only' the internet, but the fact that it could be worse makes it no less hurtful to that person. It's said that words cannot harm, but I disagree-the pen or keyboard can indeed be mightier than the sword.
I agree somewhat. But words can only hurt those who allow it. We all have a choice as to whether we allow ourselves to be hurt by words. If I were given a choice to either be skewered by a sword or by words on a screen, I'll take the words.
freedom must not be confused with anarchy.
Nor must it be confused with a moderated environment, where what one says is subject to the approval of those in charge.
On this we'll have to agree to disagree, as we're coming from different places. As I've read from others here and in other threads, those with a desire for a real discussion actually find this place the opposite of censorship.
That's not true. I have a desire for real discussion, and I obviously don't share that point of view. I have friends at AMT who desire real discussion, but won't set foot here because of the censorship. On what or whom are you basing this blanket statement?
Here there is a sense of liberation-we can start a conversation and know that people will actually contribute, rather than just minimizing our thoughts, or flat out calling us stupid for asking, as on so many other forums.
People can contribute in ANY forum, moderated or not. I do it all the time. So do others. There's MORE liberation where there is LESS moderation. It's not that difficult to just read the relevant postings and keep the discussion going. Your thoughts are not minimized, nor are they any less valuable or relevant when somebody attacks them, unless there is substance to the attack.
In those places it can feel highly censored by the trolls and mean folk, because you'd rather not even try-what's the point if it's just going to be lost in the mean comments and thread-hijacking?
Trolls can't censor unless they hack into whatever server houses the forum and go deleting stuff. If it "feels" like the trolls are censoring you, in that you hold back because you fear their bark, then you are giving them exactly what they want, which is credibility. If on the other hand you ignore them completely, you take away that credibility, and nothing of value will be lost.
sometimes "flamelike wording" helps to make a point, expose hypocrisy, or even to defend oneself from personal attack. It's not as bad as you all make it out to be, and can be quite amusing if it's done cleverly.
On this I disagree. I have never ever seen flames help with making a point. Instead, the real point gets lost in the spewing.
Bella, isn't it possible to flame somebody while still keeping to the subject at hand. I can assure you I've done this many times at AMT. Think of it as multitasking.
Really, how strong can your argument be if it can't stand on it's own without offensive language?
Who said anything about offensive language? Is that your definition of "flame"? I would rather define it as 'an attack on the person and/or character of an individual.' That includes the mindless troll-like flames as well as the cerebral, more tasteful flames.
Flaming can be a great tool in making a point, as I've demonstrated earlier in this post. It's not the only tool of course, and in a censored environment such as the TMF, one is not permitted to resort to this particular tool. But even in an unmoderated forum such as AMT, flaming shouldn't be the norm, and dispite the general consensus here, I don't believe it is the norm at AMT. I see plenty of flame-free discussions there regularly.
One can expose hypocrites and defend oneself without going down to the flamer's level-at least most adults can. I'm really not sure who finds flaming 'amusing', but those who do have other forums on which to hurt people.
"down to the flamer's level." As a long time user of flames at AMT, I'll try not to take that personally.
😛 I find flames can be quite amusing but only if they are cleverly launched. A good example would be the banterings between toyou444 and RadioJeremyHead at AMT a couple of years ago. Those guys were both intelligent and clever, and evenly matched. They tore each other up, and get this, Bella....
without any offensive language! Unfortunately, such quality flamefests are few and far between these days.
Apples and oranges, Bella. A poor analogy at best. Yelling "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater not only presents a potential danger but prevents you from seeing and hearing what you came there to see and hear. You can't filter something like that out. At AMT (or here if it were permitted) you could easily ignore the yell. It wouldn't stop you from enjoying what you came to enjoy. You'd have a choice as to whether you let it bother you or not.
Apples and more apples, my dear, though perhaps Washington and Golden Delicious. The potential danger posed by flamers and the like isn't physical, but it's still there-the danger of a good thread turning to junk because everyone is too busy fighting, and ultimately of the thread being closed. I'm aware that filtering is a useful tool, but to my knowledge it's not available here-currently irrelevant. On other forums, if the thread comes to a screeching halt because the posters are all hurling insults instead-and you *know* that happens-the thread becomes useless unless you're a fan of the muck. You end up filtering everyone until there's nothing left to filter. And here, if the thread closes those who actually wanted to discuss something lose out. That does indeed stop people from enjoying what they came to enjoy, and I see no choice in that situation. Darn fine analogy, thank you.
Hardly. Let's examine it a little closer. As I understand it, you are likening nasty comments on an internet forum to somebody yelling "FIRE!!!" in a theatre. To simplify things, I'll refer to the first concept as FLAME and the other as FIRE.
FLAME = poses no physical danger, nor any other that isn't easily avoidable
FIRE = poses physical, unavoidable life threatening danger.
FLAME = Can be ignored
FIRE = Can't be ignored
FLAME = Can be filtered
FIRE = Can't be filtered
FLAME = Can be done with cleverness and ingenuity.
FIRE = Can't be done with either
FLAME = Can be directed to an individual or small group
FIRE = Can only be directed to everybody
Bella, it's not the flames that bring a thread to a "screeching halt." It's the people who decide to heed the flames and hold back their discussion. Let's put the blame where it belongs. If people could just ignore that stuff and continue on as if the trolls didn't exist, there would be no hindrance to the discussion. At AMT, a discussion can spin off into a flamefest, but it's layed out in such a way, that anybody could start at that point of departure, and continue the original topic of the thread. So the flames spin out in their own leg of the thread while the discussion spins out on another leg of the thread. I've never seen a discussion at AMT where this wasn't possible.
I am still unbiased. I admit freely that I find the TMF personally preferable, but NOT superior at all-I read and post to such unmoderated groups myself; though as I said, rarely. As much as I love Dan, and he knows it, I was not pleased with his post or any post that insults. In my response I called no one a name, and if my words did seem intense, so are the forums I'm describing (you should read some of the spanking and bondage NG's sometime if you truly enjoy flames and insults). I stand by what I said: if you honestly prefer an uncivilized environment for the sake of complete freedom, and you're willing to risk the occasional rat-bite, (as I call those random flames that have nothing to do with the thread) that's your choice and I fully support you. I have friends who freak when I mix beer with Sunkist Orange soda, and think I'm depraved-but they love me and sit with me at the bar. That's all I ask.
Okay, perhaps I need a little clarification here. You likened prefering the TMF over AMT as prefering
a clean restaurant to a place where a rat can come sit in your bowl and no one will care. If you're the type to gripe because you need to wear shoes and a shirt in the clean place, perhaps the Rats-R-Us joint is more suited to your tastes-and that's what I find astounding. Now it seemed clear to me that you were referring to AMT when you talk about the "Rats-R-Us joint," because we were comparing the two forums. Later in this post you say you aren't referring to them. So clarify for me please, to whom are you refering when you say the "Rats-R-Us joint"? Exactly who are the rats?
Um, 'nice-nice?'
Yes, nice nice. That's indeed what I said.
If I really think Joe is an asshole, I'm going to gripe to my husband and demand chocolate-then type a rational and mature response to whatever Joe said that annoyed me.
Might I suggest that if you'd direct your hostilities toward Joe, you'd save your husband and your digestive system considerable grief.
As a 30 yr old adult, I don't find the notion of civil conversation to be ridiculous at all. Myabe it's because I'm a teacher, but I have a hard time with adults hurting each other like infants. Of *course* we don't all like each other, but we don't have to throw bile-ridden tantrums either. You don't have to hurt and ridicule to express opinions unless you can't otherwise support your argument.
I agree you don't have to hurt and ridicule to make most points. But it does help sometimes. I've never said that's all we should do, I just think we should at least have the option to do it from time to time.
Are you honestly telling me that, as a fellow grown person, you can't make yourself understood without insult?
That depends on the point I'm trying to make. If I'm trying to make a point that Joe's an asshole, stupid, or manefests any other character flaw, yes it's difficult if not impossible to make such points without insult. If the point is f/m tickling vs m/f tickling, then yes, I can certainly make my points with or without insult.
If some faceless person online insults you, or what he knows of you since he can't know who you really are inside, you simply must retaliate in a like fashion? Or else what, he 'wins'?
No, I retaliate because I can and will stick up for myself. I retaliate because somebody needs to teach these guys that if you take pot shots at somebody, expect it back. An eye for an eye. Does that offend you? I find it much more dignified than a hasty retreat to a moderated forum to seek protection from others because I can't protect myself.
You're kiddin', right?
Nope.
How do you get along with people at work, the grocery store, the bank...? There are all kinds of obnoxious people in the world, especially online.
I treat them with the same principle. If they get nasty with me, they get it right back at them. If they're courteous to me, they get courtesy in return. What goes around, comes around.
Tell me the truth: did calling someone an asshole or a bitch ever change their ways?
I've seen it have the desired effect, yes. The effect I'm referring to would be them shutting the hell up. By flaming them efficiently and thoroughly, I've managed to silence many potential students of obnoxia at AMT. I apologize if I'm bragging here.
Of *course* it depends upon the language used: the line between "I disagree" and " I disagree you dumbass" is quite clear to me, along with "I really like M/F" vs "F/F is for perverts". Freedom of speech doen't mean freedom to judge and call names like a 5th grader, and if the censorship here makes even one person THINK to make himself understood without foulness and pettiness, hallelujah.
Oh really? Would refering to the inhabitants of AMT as "Rats-R-Us" fall into this 5th grader foulness and pettiness category? Face it, Bella. You are just as negative as they are when it suits your purpose and so am I. Welcome to the human race.
I've already addressed to whom I was referring, it was certainly not just one group in particular no matter how badly some would like that to be so.
Then please refresh my memory, because if it isn't the folks at AMT, I have no idea to whom you were referring.
Having said that, I've made posts in the past on other forums, innocuous posts asking about different topics, and been called all kinds of names, had my product lied about, and what have you. I consider that rat droppings in my nice clean soup-hence the analogy. And if you prefer not to see the difference between the comments I made and the personal, horrid insults and random negative bile for which others are known, that's your perogative.
Aren't rat droppings dropped by rats? If you are referring to words of any kind as rat droppings, wouldn't that at least infer that the initiators of such words are rats? Pardon me if I've read too much into this.
🙄
No one in this thread called anyone 'vermin', I'm not sure why that keeps coming up.
Because it still seems that you regard the inhabitants of AMT and/or other unmoderated forums as "Rats-R-Us." I don't see how that can mean anything else except that you regard the people there as rats, creatures known in some circles as 'vermin'
Ah well. Glad to see that we're on the same page for the most part.
Yeah. Me too.
🙂
Drew70
