Subject:
|
Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 Jan 2000 03:40:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
608 times
|
| |
|
|
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!)
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> 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?
I'm with you there. Far too many arguments have got waaaaaay out of control
due to this built up steam. Nothing destroys a relationship faster than "but
what about what you did five years ago!!". Personal experience there.
I don't think these people are "timebombs", rather they have the ability to
vent their steam in a less visible way, or more simply, without the need to
resort to bad language. This has many positive effects, one of which is to
gain respect as a level headed person, so if they ever slip up and use a bad
word (like when my mother says "bugger" every decade or so), it indicates to
those around that something has *really* ticked this person off. It's gone
beyond their ability to deal with it calmly, so it must be serious.
> 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...
I raise my right eyebrow with interest and concern over this statement. We are
constantly bombarded with statements from "experts" saying that children today
are more mature than even we were when we were their age. The basis of this is
the abundance of information available, covering all the issues you mention
above and a whole bunch more. Does this make them more mature? No. Maturity in
this context is more a persons ability to deal with the information presented
to them, rather than having the information itself.
Lets take an example. The "experts" say kids are more mature because they know
how to swear at a younger age. Do they use this "maturity" wisely? No. Kids
more and more are swearing at their friends, parents, school teachers and
other people in positions of authority, showing less and less respect for
these people regardless of whether they deserve the respect or not. As a
school teacher my wife comes across this every day. You try controlling a
class when a kid is screaming at you to <....> off, just because he can.
Or another one. The "experts" say that kids are more mature because they are
exposed to more violence at a younger age. Do they use this "maturity" wisely?
No. The incidents of schoolyard violence is on the increase, with some schools
using metal detectors at the gates to confiscate knives and guns. Teachers
have been knived or shot, some killed. Kids are bashed and robbed in the
playground for their lunch money, or just because they're wearing the wrong
shirt. And that's just around Sydney. The USA sounds worse.
The above examples, whilst true, are generalisations. Not every child is a
pint-sized tornado.
I guess my point is this. Everyone runs around yelling about rights. It's my
right to do this, my right to carry a gun, my right to free speach. The
flipside to rights is responsibilities, a fact which is conveniently forgotton
in far to many cases. To give a kid all this information as his/her right is
not always in their best interest, as they lack the maturity to deal
responsibly with this information. We do have the ability to scroll down or
swith off, but we have the maturity to recognise offensive material and the
responsibility to know how to deal with it. Kids don't always have the same
ability. That's when it becomes our responsibility to shield them from it
until such time as they can be responsible. It's not raising them with
unrealistic expectations, like whether or not Santa or the Easter Bunny exist.
The point at which a kid becomes mature enough to handle certain information
is entirely subjective and is different for every child. Unfortunately there
is no easy answer. All we can do is set guidelines. A person will handle
drinking a beer no diferently the day before or after their 18th birthday (21
in some countries), but the guideline, or law in this case, has been set.
As a society, we set the laws and guidelines, and they have to be made in
everyone's best interest. The comment "grow up, get with the nineties" is not
only outdated itself (we're in the naughties - how appropriate to this
discussion), but invokes change for changes sake, not necessarily for good.
Just because a kid can access porn on the internet doesn't mean we have to
change our attitudes towards moral censorship, and certainly doesn't make them
more mature.
> 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.
Nothing so sinister. As it's been said over and over and over again, it's Todd
and Suz's "house". They set the rules by which we can visit, be whatever they
feel is appropriate, and if we don't like them, we don't come over. On the
same note, no-one's saying we can't disagree with the rules, and everyone
respects a person's right to object to something (not just the swearing issue,
but things with TLC too), but the objections also must meet with the initial
T&C's, until such time as they are changed.
I think it's been established that most, if not all of us, resort to various
amounts of bad language from time to time. Whether we think it's appropriate
or not, it's not appropriate here. Until Todd see's the need to alter that
stance that's the way it is. Nothing inane or intolerant about it.
> 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?
No, we all monitor our speach because (a) Todd says so, and (b) we all agreed
to do so when we joined. Personally I find it good practice as I think I swear
too much. The language I'm exposed to and use on construction sites would
rival Mike Stanley's time in the army, but it's not a competition. I actually
feel a weakness of character when I resort to swearing, as I consider myself
intelligent enough to be able to construct a clear and concise sentence of
rebuttal which has the same, if not stronger by it's lack of profanity, effect.
That'll do for starters.
Pete Callaway
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
|
| (...) Just one major point here: I don't agree with what Todd is doing or why he is doing it for reasons stated previously. It should also be kept in mind that this thread began with the use of certain language on RTL and NOT on Lugnet -- I think (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Peter Callaway writes: <snip> (...) I think this is the heart of the "profanity in newsgroups" debate. I can fully understand profanity in the heat of the moment, in a spoken conversation. It is extremely easy to let a (...) (25 years ago, 24-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Who oversees the rec.toys.LEGO newsgroup?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 23-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
