starcraft said:
You have over 5000 posts and I have never heard of you. I'd say you're doing ok |
Just believe in the power of love and it is ez!
starcraft said:
You have over 5000 posts and I have never heard of you. I'd say you're doing ok |
Just believe in the power of love and it is ez!
padib said:
@overt. Welp, there goes our freedom to express ourselves on fundamental topics. I say this assuming "discrimination" will be used for anyone who disagrees with the political status quo. Hopefully I'm wrong. What solidifies my fear is that terms like homophobia are completely inadequate. A person is free to feel the way they feel, be it feeling uncomfortable with certain sexual practices. It doesn't make them a hater. I'd like to point out that "Overt" and "disrespectful" are two very different things. One can be overt about a fundamental disagreement towards certain practices, it doesn't make one a hater. Also, religion was not included in the big list (bold) so that's up to interpretation.
I'm glad someone else noticed. It's pretty glaring that a grossly hated/berated group (religious people) was ignored from the big list.
Yup, bravo in helping to make vgchartz a place where people can't disagree with the political status quo, even if they are being open (overt) and honest and respectful about it. @Mods. I think you guys totally dropped the ball on this one. So you consult Seece (who has shown time and time again difficulty to cope with opinions that differ from his, and who had a few divisive clashes with important members in the past) but don't consult other people who have shown to be reasonable about what constitutes and what does not constitute hate. I could describe the subtle differences for a day. I'm really dissappointed. The rule will be completely misused and abused, it's obvious. Why did you guys not ask some of us for who this was obviously an important issue? We may not be mods but some of us have some years behind us and can help clear things up. ... If you want, I can help point out the flaws in the rule and show you how to make it an excellent rule or at least a noble one. Here are the flaws in the rule:
How to clarify what is BAD.
What is hate?
How to manage hate?
When can having a politically-incorrect opinion not constitute hate?
What are the signs of not having an intent to hate? The user is:
So I would reword the rule as follows:
Other examples could be:
Sure it's verbose, but it's unambiguous and leaves little room for abuse. I'm sure the version I'm proposing can be made more concise while maintaining its integrity.
|
I love this. Stop lumping religion in with sexuality and race as if they deserve the same sort of protection. There is nothing to argue or disagree with it comes to the latter, those opinions are not tolerated in the modern world, you're either for or against. Religion however is vastly different.
If you disagree with homosexuality (or black people) in any way or stance, you're homophobic/racist. There is no "bu ... but I just have a different opinion than you!" It is what it is and there is NO in between.
However it's perfectly acceptable to be angry or use defensive speech against certain religious topics (such as outdated practices).
If you don't want quote trees then have it like how Facebook, and youtube does it. Get with the times otherwise you'll be modding people for using a forum feature.
Seece said:
I love this. Stop lumping religion in with sexuality and race as if they deserve the same sort of protection. There is nothing to argue or disagree with it comes to the latter, those opinions are not tolerated in the modern world, you're either for or against. Religion however is vastly different. |
I bolded the important part. Religion would fall in here. Also, the only reason I can see anyone complaining against this rule is that they are wanting to say, "You're a f**," or something equally insulting. Discriminating isn't saying, "I don't agree with your life choice." Discriminating is saying, "I don't agree with your life choice, and now I am going to insult you, or treat you differently (e.g. poorly)." That isn't acceptable.
Cirio said:
I agree with this. Often times I see blantantly ignorant or offensive posts about the above mentioned group, and I routinely mark them for moderation. Unfortunately, I have yet to see any action taken against those posts. It's either because of the mods own ignorance about the topic (in which case we need a more diverse group of moderators) or their own preexisting bias. Either way I hope the mod team finds a way to stay fair to all kinds of groups. |
Please don't assume that the mod team is ignorant or prejudiced when it comes to any ethnic, religious, or cultural community. This is a very well-educated, wordly, empathetic group of moderators which takes discrimination very seriously. I promise you that.
On a personal note, I studied Middle Eastern history for four years on an undergraduate level and two years on a graduate level. I also spent a year living and working in Baghdad.
Seece said:
I love this. Stop lumping religion in with sexuality and race as if they deserve the same sort of protection. There is nothing to argue or disagree with it comes to the latter, those opinions are not tolerated in the modern world, you're either for or against. Religion however is vastly different. |
I'm gonna play the devil's advocate on this. So if someone criticizes homosexuality or blacks then they are homophobic or racist? If I say that I don't like gay parades (too loud) or how blacks are openly racist to whites then I'm a homephobe or a racist?
Aeolus451 said:
I'm gonna play the devil's adovocate on this. So if someone critisizes homosexuality or blacks then they are homophobic or racist? If I say that I don't like gay parades (too loud) or how blacks are openly racist to whites then I'm a homephobe or a racist? |
That's not disagreeing with homosexuality tho (and for the record I agree about parades, but for different reasons). I don't see that as being against gays. It's people saying stuff liek "I don't like gay marriage" there is no instance here where that isn't homophobic.
Seece said:
That's not disagreeing with homosexuality tho (and for the record I agree about parades, but for different reasons). I don't see that as being against gays. It's people saying stuff liek "I don't like gay marriage" there is no instance here where that isn't homophobic. |
What about the other part? :D
Seece said:
That's not disagreeing with homosexuality tho (and for the record I agree about parades, but for different reasons). I don't see that as being against gays. It's people saying stuff liek "I don't like gay marriage" there is no instance here where that isn't homophobic. |
Saying, "I don't agree with gay marriage," isn't discriminating. Discriminating is treating someone different based on their race/religion/etc. You aren't treating them different with that thought. You are merely expressing an opinion. Now if you say, "I think gays should have less rights," or, "I think we should get rid of gays," or, "I hate gays," etc, that would be discrimination/hate speech.
IFireflyl said:
|
Who said anything about discriminating? I said homophobia, saying I don't like gay marriage is homophobic.
My opinion is to silence the enemy, I obviously have no sympathy or such for those that disagree with homosexuality or any aspect of it, so I want them gagged.