pointless
¿por qué no?
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2002
- Posts
- 58,994
I Still want a Moderated GB
- Thread starter Never
- Start date
evesdream
perfect fifth
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2002
- Posts
- 5,716
The reason is pedokikeniggeruglybitchdykefaggot(idon'tbelievetheliberalmedia)FREEEDDOOOOMMMMMM!!!!!!!!
In all seriousness, your proposal is appealing because it's probably the only chance we'll have to get Medjay back. (As far as I know, he left when the racists started using the GB for their dumps after the American people chose president Obama.). But why doesn't the Author's Hangout pass muster? It's a moderated and civilized (or so I've been told) general discussion board.
evesdream
perfect fifth
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2002
- Posts
- 5,716
anchoredinocean
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2013
- Posts
- 1,554
So that's where NickFury gets his bad manners from.
neci
flagged
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2008
- Posts
- 38,120
Never
Come What May
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2000
- Posts
- 23,234
Do you think there's something wrong with working at Starbucks?
I mean, coffee is nasty and I'd never touch it, but I think it would be fine to work in a coffee shop.
Can I convince you to post an AV showing just the top half of your face?
Never
Come What May
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2000
- Posts
- 23,234
Another fantasy crushed.
U
unregistered
Guest
And there's the you don't have a vagina thing too.
Hadn't thought of that one.
Equinoxe
Not a pod person
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2005
- Posts
- 13,356
The Playground is the GB's favourite thought-terminating cliché. There ought to be a GB specific version of Godwin's law, but with the Playground instead of Nazis.
I am neutral on the proposal of a moderated GB.
I wrote out a lengthy response with a series of potential counterpoints to Laurel's post (see here) last night, but due to computer issues it was lost. I don't really feel like writing out again, so highlights:
Free speech means you don't go to prison, you're not fined, you're not assaulted by police, and you don't 'disappear' because of something you said. And nothing more than that.
The GB is already slightly moderated—there are rightly and necessarily forbidden topics of conversation—and further moderation would no more impact people's freedom of speech than the existing restrictions already do.
If Lit were to forbid conversation about anything other than owls and only allow them to be discussed in affected Victorian prose, this would do no harm to people's right of free speech.
Because: everything at Lit is a matter of relationships between individuals; freedom of speech is about the relationship between individuals and the state.
There is 'no better disinfectant than sunlight', not because people exposed to horrible ideas will decide that horrible ideas are horrible and stop having them but because there are social consequences to having horrible ideas. Social, but not legal consequences.
Nothing done by Lit at Lit can further the cause of free speech nor do any harm to it—though one might express opinions either way—for reasons stated above. Anything done by Lit is nothing more than social consequences.
Ergo, it could be argued, and has many times at various places on Lit (albeit mostly by people would imagine Laurel capable of any and all malice), that allowing hate speech amounts to giving it the site's imprimatur; by not formally opposing it, Lit is refusing to be party to hate speech having consequences, and by extension, supporting, by fact if not intent, its continued existence—that by playing at neutrality, Lit is ignoring the issue, and allowing bigotry to fester.
A possible counter-argument to that is that such speech is still open to consequences here—even from the site owners—in that people may be opposed, ridiculed, or even reviled for their opinions. (And they are!)
Playing less the Devil's advocate, allow me to ask this:
Does anyone honestly think the cause of fighting bigotry and hatred has been served by open conversation here?
No, seriously, that's the short version. It's sad, I know.
I am neutral on the proposal of a moderated GB.
I wrote out a lengthy response with a series of potential counterpoints to Laurel's post (see here) last night, but due to computer issues it was lost. I don't really feel like writing out again, so highlights:
Free speech means you don't go to prison, you're not fined, you're not assaulted by police, and you don't 'disappear' because of something you said. And nothing more than that.
The GB is already slightly moderated—there are rightly and necessarily forbidden topics of conversation—and further moderation would no more impact people's freedom of speech than the existing restrictions already do.
If Lit were to forbid conversation about anything other than owls and only allow them to be discussed in affected Victorian prose, this would do no harm to people's right of free speech.
Because: everything at Lit is a matter of relationships between individuals; freedom of speech is about the relationship between individuals and the state.
There is 'no better disinfectant than sunlight', not because people exposed to horrible ideas will decide that horrible ideas are horrible and stop having them but because there are social consequences to having horrible ideas. Social, but not legal consequences.
Nothing done by Lit at Lit can further the cause of free speech nor do any harm to it—though one might express opinions either way—for reasons stated above. Anything done by Lit is nothing more than social consequences.
Ergo, it could be argued, and has many times at various places on Lit (albeit mostly by people would imagine Laurel capable of any and all malice), that allowing hate speech amounts to giving it the site's imprimatur; by not formally opposing it, Lit is refusing to be party to hate speech having consequences, and by extension, supporting, by fact if not intent, its continued existence—that by playing at neutrality, Lit is ignoring the issue, and allowing bigotry to fester.
A possible counter-argument to that is that such speech is still open to consequences here—even from the site owners—in that people may be opposed, ridiculed, or even reviled for their opinions. (And they are!)
Playing less the Devil's advocate, allow me to ask this:
Does anyone honestly think the cause of fighting bigotry and hatred has been served by open conversation here?
No, seriously, that's the short version. It's sad, I know.
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
The AH has some world-class hypocrites who believe in free speech—
but not for you.
trysail
Catch Me Who Can
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2005
- Posts
- 25,593
NO, NO, NO and NO.
I hate the thought of moderation in any shape or form. The lack of moderation is exactly, precisely what makes the GeeBee unique and all but irreplaceable.
I will tolerate anything in exchange for the right to post without fear that it will be deleted for violating someone else's subjective idea of what is politically correct/true/beautiful/ugly/uplifting/false. Our benevolent dictators have earned my trust and eternal gratitude for their demonstrably immense tolerance and their gentle, near-invisible moderation.
If you want to destroy this place, introduce moderation.
When I was a child I was taught this:
Sticks and stones will break my bones
But words will never harm me
Equinoxe
Not a pod person
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2005
- Posts
- 13,356
Words are why people hit you with the stick and stones in the first place.
Not true.
Garnate
Died Tragically
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2008
- Posts
- 21,473
So they just do it because they like hitting people with sticks and stones?
Words are not a good reason to hit people with sticks and stones. That was part of the lesson.
U
unregistered
Guest
Garnate
Died Tragically
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2008
- Posts
- 21,473
Of course words aren't a good reason to get into a fight. Does that stop people? Not often. She said that's why people can get into fights and you said that wasn't true. Yet it is.
I've archived this thread to report it and all in it to the future moderator.
http://imgur.com/vLUbNZy.jpg
U
unregistered
Guest
Similar threads
