Subject:
|
Re: My Stance
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:17:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3972 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
>
> > The only thing that got me really riled in the whole situation is people's
> > obsession with making his *viewpoints* a reason to ToSs him, which I strongly
> > disagree about.
>
> I agree. However...
>
> I think that there were people who felt that way initially, but that many, if
> not all, have come around to reject that view. And that's a good thing. For
> the few remaining, can you identify yourselves and post reasons why we need to
> judge opinions and not behaviour?
Wow, what a loaded question, especially given what seems(ed) like a reverse-
witch-hunt.
I'd like to state first that I realized Friday that I got WAY too worked up
about this and posted some things that were, in some cases, petty and
childish, and in almost every case, detrimental to maintaining calm and
civility during this discussion. That's why I sent Todd a request to remove
every single post I had made on this subject.
Now I'm fairly calm about it, well, that's not true, some of the stuff still
angers me, but I can BE calm about it. So I'll respond to this.
I'll not identify myself as someone who thinks we (by we I assume you mean
LUGNET) need to judge opinions and not behaviour, at least not in the way that
I think you mean it. If you mean that WE ought to go around banishing people
from LUGNET for holding unpopular opinions then no, I'm not one of those
people.
If, however, you (or anyone else) are suggesting (and I doubt you are) that
*I* ought not to judge people based on opinions they publicly espouse, then
I'd have to disagree with that. I have as much right to pick and choose who I
like, respond to, etc, based on whatever reason, as any person has to hold any
opinion. Maybe this is a subject for off-topic.debate, but with respect to
opinions, it might be politically incorrect to say so, but they're not created
equal. People who hold unpopular opinions and choose to make an issue of them
(especially in the way these were - sarcastically, arrogantly, and in a mean-
spirited manner) SHOULD expect to be held accountable for them, not
necessarily (as in this specific case) in the sense of the ToS, but by other
people who have as much "right" (not suggesting LUGNET is obligated to provide
anyone a forum) to espouse their opinions as the person with the unpopular
opinion.
I did not then nor am I now saying that Matthew should have been ousted solely
for his opinions. For me, internally, it was the final straw with respect to
how *I* would deal with him, and I'm not ashamed of that. But as many have
pointed out, Todd (and Suz - I suppose) is the only person involved in this
discussion who ultimately got to decide what to do about Matthew, so the fact
that I personally would have chosen to disassociate myself with him had he
stayed here (including pushing for some sort of filtering capability - I think
it has other uses as well) wouldn't have mattered much.
So do I think people ought to be banished because of their opinions? Nope,
not directly. Do I forsee scenarios (like this one) where their opinions and
their actions will be fairly well intertwined, possibly to the point where it
may APPEAR as if they are being ousted because of their opinions? Yup. Do I
think that it just might be possible that someone with the gaul to willfully
spout disrespectful crap about a popular dead guy might just also tend to do
things that ARE ToS-able? Seems to have happened here. Does that suggest a
causal relationship? Dunno - I'm no psychologist.
Now given all that, am I personally glad that Matthew is gone? You bet. Does
at least a decent portion of that personal satisfaction have to do with the
fact that he offended the heck out of me for his opinions? Sure does. Am I
sorry or ashamed for feeling that way? Nope. And nobody else here would be
either - or do so many of you choose to associate with people you don't like
or who have opinions that offend you?
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: My Stance
|
| (...) So would I. No one ever said you couldn't choose who to like and who not to like. (...) Actually, if I felt that way, yeah, I would be ashamed of myself. (...) Just because he may have been here on Lugnet doesn't mean you *must* associate with (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: My Stance
|
| (...) strongly (...) to (...) Well it wasn't *intended* as a witch hunt. More of a rhetorical question, because i'm not sure there *are* any people who still feel that someone should be tossed soley for opinions. <snip Mike's eloquent distinction (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: My Stance
|
| (...) As did I...I think a day or two earlier. I didn't remove all my posts but two or three that were particularly sour. It's interesting how quickly we (humans) can blow up, even when we don't want to. That's probably what I dislike most about (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: My Stance
|
| (...) I agree. However... I think that there were people who felt that way initially, but that many, if not all, have come around to reject that view. And that's a good thing. For the few remaining, can you identify yourselves and post reasons why (...) (24 years ago, 23-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
122 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
