 | | | | | | |
| |
|
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?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> 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.
So would I. No one ever said you couldn't choose who to like and who not to
like.
> 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 -
Actually, if I felt that way, yeah, I would be ashamed of myself.
> or do so many of you choose to associate with people you don't like
> or who have opinions that offend you?
Just because he may have been here on Lugnet doesn't mean you *must* associate
with him. Just because his opinions offended you, you shouldn't want to see
him gone. Lugnet is a big place, and there's plenty of room for all types of
opinions.
Which is not to say that, in the final analysis, I don't think he should have
been ToSsed. I just still don't think his opinions should have any bearing
whatsoever on the question, only his actions.
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> So would I. No one ever said you couldn't choose who to like and who not to
> like.
People seem to be suggesting, though, that one should not choose to voice that
opinion. If person A can voice an opinion that persons B, C, and D find
offensive (and to be honest - persons E, F, and G couldn't care less about)
I'd say B, C, or D have just as much right to discuss it. Yay, even to even
argue about it.
> > 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 -
>
> Actually, if I felt that way, yeah, I would be ashamed of myself.
Really? You're able to divest yourself so fully from your personal beliefs or
opinions that someone who held one that offended you - pick one - here's an
easy one. If Randolf the Racist believed that only purple people truly
belonged in this country and that all other races should be forcibly tossed
from it, and that belief offended you, made you sick to your stomach even. If
Randolf were then tossed from LUGNET because he broke the rules, you wouldn't
feel a teensy bit of satisfaction that someone who turned your stomach was no
longer around to turn it? If so, I think we need to put your dossier on the
fast track for Sainthood. :)
> > or do so many of you choose to associate with people you don't like
> > or who have opinions that offend you?
>
> Just because he may have been here on Lugnet doesn't mean you *must* associate
> with him. Just because his opinions offended you, you shouldn't want to see
> him gone. Lugnet is a big place, and there's plenty of room for all types of
> opinions.
Yes, there are. And there's room for discussion, possibly even arguments,
about those opinions, especially if they are conducted with the respect of
both parties in mind. I'd say Matthew and I fell a little short of that mark
more than once, although I'd probably try to point out that "he started it",
realizing that two wrongs don't make a right.
> Which is not to say that, in the final analysis, I don't think he should have
> been ToSsed. I just still don't think his opinions should have any bearing
> whatsoever on the question, only his actions.
On the question of ToSing him, I agree. Well, maybe. I'm not prepared to
tell LUGNET's owner what criteria he may use to make his decision, especially
since he has a blanket "I can toss you if I think you need to" clause. But
yes, in the abstract sense, were we to have any real say in who gets ToSed and
who doesn't, I'd say personal opinions shouldn't come into play.
I think I'd just be more willing to notice correlations between opinions and
actions. And what I mean by that is that while you say you're not concerned
about James Jessiman one way or the other, you don't seem to feel a desire to
run around making fun of people who do respect and yes, perhaps revere him.
Matthew seemed to take a petty sort of glee in trying to humiliate people for
respecting James and his contribution to the LCAD community. You may feel it
is just as silly, but you stop short of trying to rudely and arrogantly rub
someone else's nose in it. You have an opinion that differs from mine (that I
can respect) and you respect my right to hold it. He had an opinion that is
different from mine (the right to hold the opinion I can respect) and he
thought it fun to turn that into a weapon of sorts, obviously having no
respect for others' rights to their opinions.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> > So would I. No one ever said you couldn't choose who to like and who not to
> > like.
>
> People seem to be suggesting, though, that one should not choose to voice that
> opinion. If person A can voice an opinion that persons B, C, and D find
> offensive (and to be honest - persons E, F, and G couldn't care less about)
> I'd say B, C, or D have just as much right to discuss it. Yay, even to even
> argue about it.
So would I. Of course, discussing it would imply the person with the negative
opinion was around to discuss it. :D
I'm really not saying that you should be forced to agree in any way with
anything anyone says, or that you should not have the right to argue it with
them (in lugnet.off-topic.debate, or where ever it might be on-topic).
Everyone ha a right to their opinions, and to express themselves (IMHO).
> > > 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 -
> >
> > Actually, if I felt that way, yeah, I would be ashamed of myself.
>
> Really? You're able to divest yourself so fully from your personal beliefs or
> opinions that someone who held one that offended you - pick one - here's an
> easy one. If Randolf the Racist believed that only purple people truly
> belonged in this country and that all other races should be forcibly tossed
> from it, and that belief offended you, made you sick to your stomach even. If
> Randolf were then tossed from LUGNET because he broke the rules, you wouldn't
> feel a teensy bit of satisfaction that someone who turned your stomach was no
> longer around to turn it? If so, I think we need to put your dossier on the
> fast track for Sainthood. :)
If Randolph broke the rules, or was disruptive (ie, constatly espoused his
beliefs in an off-topic way), I would be glad he was gone because he was
disruptive. I wouldn't be glad he was gone because he was a racist. I
personally like it when people who hold ignorant beliefs are allowed to express
them, because 9 times out of 10 it shows just how ignorant the beliefs are more
than anything else.
But I don't think that qualifies me for Sainthood. Believe me, anyone who
knows me well could give you about 800 reasons why that dossier would get
stopped in it's tracks. :D
> > > or do so many of you choose to associate with people you don't like
> > > or who have opinions that offend you?
> >
> > Just because he may have been here on Lugnet doesn't mean you *must*
> > associate
> > with him. Just because his opinions offended you, you shouldn't want to see
> > him gone. Lugnet is a big place, and there's plenty of room for all types of
> > opinions.
>
> Yes, there are. And there's room for discussion, possibly even arguments,
> about those opinions, especially if they are conducted with the respect of
> both parties in mind. I'd say Matthew and I fell a little short of that mark
> more than once, although I'd probably try to point out that "he started it",
> realizing that two wrongs don't make a right.
I agree with you, except for the respect part. If conversations are carried
out in accordance with the T&C, respect for the other person isn't necessary.
Respect for the T&C (in spirit as well as letter) is, though.
> > Which is not to say that, in the final analysis, I don't think he should have
> > been ToSsed. I just still don't think his opinions should have any bearing
> > whatsoever on the question, only his actions.
>
> On the question of ToSing him, I agree. Well, maybe. I'm not prepared to
> tell LUGNET's owner what criteria he may use to make his decision, especially
> since he has a blanket "I can toss you if I think you need to" clause.
That kind of clause is always needed in T&C as a butt-covering device. I don't
really think that Todd *would* ToSs someone just for their beliefs. If I did
think that, I wouldn't want to be part of the community, to be honest.
> I think I'd just be more willing to notice correlations between opinions and
> actions. And what I mean by that is that while you say you're not concerned
> about James Jessiman one way or the other, you don't seem to feel a desire to
> run around making fun of people who do respect and yes, perhaps revere him.
There's always room to question that kind of loyalty. I really don't think
Jessiman should be "revered". I'm not as passionate about making people
question it as Matt seemed to be, though.
> Matthew seemed to take a petty sort of glee in trying to humiliate people for
> respecting James and his contribution to the LCAD community. You may feel it
> is just as silly,
Probably for entirely different reasons. For example, as great as LDraw was in
it's time, it's pretty outdated now, and I think that if people didn't "revere"
James so much (ie, if he were still alive) there would probably be a much more
updated version of LDraw, or something even better. But because to make
something better would be to question James, the majority of the community is
still using LDraw.
But frankly, I couldn't care either way. I think LDraw is too much of a pain
to use, but I can't program up anything better, so it's really not my place to
say that.
> but you stop short of trying to rudely and arrogantly rub
> someone else's nose in it. You have an opinion that differs from mine (that I
> can respect) and you respect my right to hold it. He had an opinion that is
> different from mine (the right to hold the opinion I can respect) and he
> thought it fun to turn that into a weapon of sorts, obviously having no
> respect for others' rights to their opinions.
The only difference as I see it s that Matt cared enough about his opinion to
do something about it, and I don't. Which doesn't make Matt a martyr or
anything, I'm not suggesting that... I think he went overboard in other ways.
I think he could have argued about Jessiman all day long in a different way
and I would actually be upset that he's gone.
As it stands, I don't really think that Matt cared about Jessiman either, it
was just a convenient way to jab at the community.
eric
eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> As it stands, I don't really think that Matt cared about Jessiman either, it
> was just a convenient way to jab at the community.
Which is a succinct way of saying that he was basically a jerk. :)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> 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.
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 between disliking someone for their opinions
and between using those opinions as the basis for a ToSs>
The snipped part demonstrates that you're not one...
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> 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.
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 myself online.
--Todd
| | | | | | |
