Subject:
|
Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 23 Jan 2000 06:34:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
493 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> See below. I see your points and follow your line of reasoning with which I
> agree for certain topics, but not this one. For example, I believe that your
> argument defends ignorant speech but not necessarily profanity. Bad taste is
> bad taste,freedom or no.
Terms like "bad taste" are extremely subjective, and to my mind have no real
meaning although I understand the gist of what you are saying -- really its
more of a simple put down than anything else. And by "ignorance" I thought the
original poster was referring to poorly informed views...which is something
worth correcting. Like if I said X element was red in color, and you knew it
to be blue instead. If its just putting down the speech of others, then it
has no meaning to me.
> I would argue that we are *also* losing meaning--extremely important coded
> meaning--by allowing 'disallowed speech' to enter the accepted vernacular.
> [snipped a lot here]
I found your argument very interesting reading although I have to disagree
with the amount of weight you attach to cursing to exhaust or defuse the sort
of passions that would otherwise move a person to violence. That read like
comparing canteloupes to apples to me.
One thing I did think was that all these quiet and circumspect people are
likely to be more like timebombs than models of reserve -- but I suppose it
depends upon one's experience with such things. Me, I like to vent the steam
as I go rather then let it just build up over time.
Or is this logic too reliant on ideas borrowed from physics?
> "Freedom of Speech" implies the freedom to dissent, not the right to be foul-
> mouthed and crass around children.
Actually I am pretty sure it implies any bloody thing I want it to. From an
entirely political perspective, Amendment Nine of the U.S. Constitution
preserves rights not already enumerated. Not that there is a Federal Common
Law that we may rely upon, but most state constitutions reflect this idea
somewhere as well.
And I have no interest in protecting children from realities like foul
language, violence, sexual content, or what have you. Again, from my view,
this does central damage to children raised with unrealistic expectations of
what is indeed out there in the world. Here on the internet they at least
have the option to turn away, or scroll down, or whatever...
And thats my main point, not so much here on Lugnet but for RTL -- if you
don't like it, then skip over it until you find something to suit your
interests and use of language better.
What's the big deal? You ARE in charge of what you choose to read -- or do I
have some fundamental misunderstanding of the reality I am living in?
> You're using political-theory reasoning on basic human psychological and
> sociological phenomena, which is like going after a canteloupe with an apple
> slicer.
Perhaps. And exactly what are these "basic human psychological and
sociological phenomena" that you are referring to? Intolerance towards and
need to dominate or control the activities of others? Looks fairly political
to me.
But for example, if y'all decided that this guy Richard was just a foul-
mouthed idiot (not entirely unlikely) -- y'all would just skip over my posts,
right? I mean, I do this very thing for reasons having nothing to do with
language, and more often to do with deciding that said poster is what is
sometimes called a "troll."
I do it, I recommend you do it too!
Just like the remote control for television, I shift over to something else by
just scrolling down and jumping to the next post in line. One last example:
let's say there was a cable channel that was 24/7 hardcore porn. Would I
watch it? No, most porn is so poorly made as to be unwatchable, but I have no
objection to the content. So, if such a channel existed I would spend most of
its on air time surfing past it with the remote. Thanks, not interested. I
would never object to the existence and dissemination of pornography on this
channel just as I wouldn't object to all the violence we DO in fact allow on
television all the time. If I didn't care for the content, I would just skip
over it -- which is actually why I don't have cable, preferring instead to
read things like lugnet and ACTUAL books over mindlessly watching TV. No
glass teat for me, thanks. I have indeed turned off the nightly news before
for being too graphic -- but did I call the station and ask to speak to the
producers and so on? Absolutely not. Some viewers might very well need that
content for some purpose that they don't have to justify to me. Did I watch
the nightly news again the next night? Sure I did. And I am probably
referring to the PBS program "The Newshour," BTW.
Todd Lehman writes:
> The reason is simple: The excessive gutter language and flamewars in RTL is
> what drove many good people away (in frustration, horror, disbelief, etc.)
> during 1994-1998. I could name at least ten who specifically left at various
> times as a result of uncivilities amplified by unnecessary obsceneties.
So, you essentially allowed these people to become the de facto arbiters of
what kind of speech was and was not allowed on Lugnet...is this right? So all
of us monitor our speech for the sake of a known minority, and not you
yourself? A minority that always had the ability to just not read a certain
poster's offerings? A minority that still has this same ability?
Man, that's bad...calling it "silly" was the least offensive word choice that
came to mind. But I'll spare you the indignity of having to read all these
words you already know anyway.
And it IS your sandbox, Todd. No complaints from me about your stated
policies, not since our first email exchange on the subject.
I am just complaining about the complaints of others.
-- Richard (Strange the things that take me away from my Technic/Throwbot
project...)
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
|
| (...) I disagree with the assertion that human psychology is a such a linear process. One person may read a post and think "this writer is deluded, and clearly wrong on points A, C, and D", someone else may read the same post and think "what a (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
|
| Richard Marchetti wrote in message ... (...) all (...) certain (...) When a bunch of people are leaving some venue (and as I understand it, some of the people leaving RTL were major contributors), one should look at what is going on. The purpose of (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
|
| (...) No. These people and many others were visible indicators of a serious problem facing the community of AFOLs. Frank and others aready explained this quite well elsewhere in this thread, so there's not much I can add, and I don't want to get (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
|
| Wow, hasn't taken long for this hot potato to bounce out of the oven again. No sense in missing out on all the fun of the discussion, so here's my two minifigs worth (Star Wars, ofcourse!) (...) I'm with you there. Far too many arguments have got (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
50 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
