Subject:
|
Re: My Stance
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 23 Oct 2000 14:26:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4156 times
|
| |
|
|
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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: My Stance
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
