I can speak for myself and at best make an educated guess about others. At times the desire to avoid something trumps everything else.
Errrrrmmmm. I seem to be the one arguing against clones, for inclusiveness and variety, for allowing people to speak despite their differences in thought and expression, notwithstanding (temporarily) hurt feelings. For me, it's not necessarily a problem with the mods. They do a good job catering to the clientele. I'm simply against unremitting faux outrage of the "my culture is not your prom dress" kind. I do realize that this fragility is a broader cultural issue, a sign of the times. Taking umbrage is OK, but routine requests for banning ought not be encouraged with actual bans**. Modest edits of attacks ad hominem should suffice. **Not saying that that actually happened in the cases under discussion. I do not know.
Not quite. Inclusivity is a good goal but that can only happen when people are respectful of individual boundaries and adhere to the guidelines of a community. People react to abrasiveness and insensitivity in various ways. There r folks who can brush it all off and move on ,there are those that come back on the offensive and then there are those who withdraw into a complete shell. As many ways as there are people - this is what makes the world and IL an interesting place. If brushing off works for u I am genuinely happy for it but don't expect that it should for all of us. We may not want to turn into someone like that. U could say ..oh this is an educational experience ..learn to deal with difficult people and I would say ....I deal with enough of this nonsense day in and day out in the real world. I come here for a few min of respite and I have a forum which respects that...let it be the way it is. Let IL not be a clone of every other website out there where you are expected to grow a thick skin or leave. Lets break this statement down into Its ok for mods to do what they are currently doing- Ok. U as a member shouldn't be taking offense for every little thing - this needs to be quantified since what is huge deal to u might be insignificant to me and vice versa. Either we agree that no one should be allowed to complain regardless of what they feel about an issue or folks can raise a flag /report on whatever they think is inappropriate and admins will review and take action on a case by case basis . I believe this is currently the state of affairs at IL and I see no reason why this needs to change. U as a member should not ask folks to be banned. I do not know if that has ever happened. To the best of my knowledge members reports posts not posters. If u know something that I don't please share details. Banning in itself happens very very rarely and when that does happen my understanding is that mods have done all in their power to make the member adhere to community guidelines and yes after a point no one is indispensable. Even at work we have had to let go of some of the brightest minds because they just couldn't work cohesively in a team.
Too many adjectives. Where those boundaries ought to lie is what we are discussing. I do see what you are saying. The model is this: Those with peanut allergies will never eat peanuts. However, those without it will cheerfully eat substitutes. Supporters of GMO-products will eat non-GMO foods. The reverse is not true. Non-jews will eat kosher foods. Orthodox Jews will not eat non-kosher foods. So, make all food kosher. Therefore, inclusiveness ought to favor the minority. Virtue lies with the most sensitive. The above works in many scenarios, not least with pretzels on airplanes. In matters of intellect, or even quotidian debate, I wish it were different. It turns out that priests and nuns affiliated with Georgetown University owned slaves until as late as 1862 (full report soon to be released) - I imagine partly because they could not entertain contrarian views or did not allow them to be voiced. For me, it is not about thick-skin/thin-skin. It is about how everyone can co-exist, occasionally peeping over a fence or two. And how one can dip one's toes, no matter how gingerly, into hitherto alien ideas. Otherwise, for that one person who might be carrying a (verbal) bomb, we all have to take off our shoes.
Distraction. Moving on. Where I choose them to be for myself and when I think u are stepping on it I am within my rights to raise an alert . No . The model is this. I am a vegetarian . X loves seafood . X is free to go to an "All u can eat seafood buffet" and have a blast with her pescatarian friends. I wont preach vegetarianism to X and please don't drop a piece of fish on my plate and tell me that I need to learn to ignore/ accept and move on so we can all get more inclusive. I have no interest in changing u or myself. This is where we differ. What might be gingerly stepping on someones toes could be "stomping on my already sore foot" for others. I cannot define what is the right amount of pain u should experience for a given infliction. Ur approach can only work when things are reciprocated exactly - as in A steps on Bs foot B does it on A with the same pressure and both experience equal amounts of annoyance. Not realistic. Its best like my childs kindergarten teacher used to say "hands and feet to urself at all times in the playground".
Precisely! "Yours", eh? I have heard tell that those kindergarten teachers occasionally mention "sharing".
OK, back from my meeting. I think we successfully beat this to death for the benefit of all concerned. I am really sad that they are going to ban you JAG and that you'll be the first person to have hefty IL-fine levied, but hey, it's all for the greater good, right? What a wonderful role-playing exercise that was! Next time, I'll let you be the good cop!!!
@kaniths enga doodles kaanum? (why no doodles?) Was a lurker there too..used to enjoy it quite a bit.
