Litsters' moral standards

[Aella_]

Is it ok to have a go at and try to censure those who express unpleasant R-wing views?

while aiding and abetting (aka jumping to their defense, whenever they're criticized) those who engage in long-term, relentless patterns of bullying particular posters, about their life-threatening illnesses?

Am I the only one who sees a double standard in all that, folks?

 

[Sean Renaud]

What censorship is going on here? I can never find the specific incidents that get people put on time out by Laurel but five minutes of glossing tells you the RWCJ is just more vile and are more likely to cross the line. And they seem to mostly get let back in anyway.

 

[Aella_]

What censorship is going on here? I can never find the specific incidents that get people put on time out by Laurel but five minutes of glossing tells you the RWCJ is just more vile and are more likely to cross the line. And they seem to mostly get let back in anyway.

My thread alludes to what happened in the last 3 pages of the "Cunt of the year" thread. (if you, being one of the normal GBers, have the patience to read all that crap, of course).

 

[Sean Renaud]

oh I'll gloss it. I actually stick primarily to entertainment and political threads and that's just stupid but I can check that.

 

[ToPleaseHim]

Is it ok to have a go at and try to censure those who express unpleasant R-wing views?

while aiding and abetting (aka jumping to their defense, whenever they're criticized) those who engage in long-term, relentless patterns of bullying particular posters, about their life-threatening illnesses?

Am I the only one who sees a double standard in all that, folks?

It seems you are the only person seeing all that you see. May wish to have that checked by a physician, dear.

 

[Wings]

Is it ok to have a go at and try to censure those who express unpleasant R-wing views?

while aiding and abetting (aka jumping to their defense, whenever they're criticized) those who engage in long-term, relentless patterns of bullying particular posters, about their life-threatening illnesses?

Am I the only one who sees a double standard in all that, folks?

Why do you care? You've been quite vocal about being and posting exactly who and how you want to and expect the rest of us to let you be and yet you get all holier than thou when you read something you don't like? Hypocrite much?

Some people enjoy being complete assholes, others enjoy being kind, and yet others can't decide who they want to be. This board has no moderators and that's exactly the way we like it.

You're welcome to squawk about whatever you want to but then again I'm entitled to call you an idiot for it.

 

[Aella_]

Why do you care? You've been quite vocal about being and posting exactly who and how you want to and expect the rest of us to let you be and yet you get all holier than thou when you read something you don't like? Hypocrite much?

Some people enjoy being complete assholes, others enjoy being kind, and yet others can't decide who they want to be. This board has no moderators and that's exactly the way we like it.

You're welcome to squawk about whatever you want to but then again I'm entitled to call you an idiot for it.

Why do You care? I've seen you getting upset, being very vocal about it and jumping to the defense of those assholes (your buddies) whenever they were criticized, even mildly.

EDIT.
So am I to understand that you approve of it? aka bullying posters about their personal misfortunes or info?

 

[Sean Renaud]

Oh yes, we are capable of being terrible cunts and some shit is worse than others. I tend to zone it out but yeah.

 

[Aella_]

Oh yes, we are capable of being terrible cunts and some shit is worse than others. I tend to zone it out but yeah.

I'm not trying to pick on you, btw.
Your comments or criticisms have always been fair and appropriate, as I see it.

 

[Emerson40]

Is it ok to have a go at and try to censure those who express unpleasant R-wing views?

while aiding and abetting (aka jumping to their defense, whenever they're criticized) those who engage in long-term, relentless patterns of bullying particular posters, about their life-threatening illnesses?

Am I the only one who sees a double standard in all that, folks?

You should totally apply for the position of Lit's Compliance Officer.

Forward your copy of 'Hashtag's Code of Conduct and Ethics' (Busybody, JBJ, and Ms Andy can assist you with editing the finer points) along with your CV / résumé to http://www.literotica.com/newchat/

Bon Chance!

 

[ToPleaseHim]

Aella, for someone so passionate about this, you choose interesting persons to defend with faux righteousness.

You appear to have glossed over some Lit-history.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=73290236&postcount=364

 

[badbabysitter]

Is it ok to have a go at and try to censure those who express unpleasant R-wing views?

while aiding and abetting (aka jumping to their defense, whenever they're criticized) those who engage in long-term, relentless patterns of bullying particular posters, about their life-threatening illnesses?

Am I the only one who sees a double standard in all that, folks?

I'm attracted to black men mainly because my husband is a black man.. I am subject to constant racism for that

where is your moral outrage there

or is this just for your pals

 

[Aella_]

Aella, for someone so passionate about this, you choose interesting persons to defend with faux righteousness.

You appear to have glossed over some Lit-history.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=73290236&postcount=364

I don't care about the Lit history, or about the posters' "character", whatever the interpretation of that might be. That's irrelevant to me, and it seems to be more of Your guys' concern.

The only thing that I know is that the poster suffered (s) from a nasty life-threatening illness, which was confirmed by an "oncology doctor" (senior registrar) that I talked with.
And that the poster has been, and continues to be bullied -severely-. Despite the fact that I (and several others) made it clear that the illness was genuine, and not fabricated.

Or am I to understand that, if you guys disapprove of a poster (his/her morals, etc.) anything goes? Including the severe bullying that I keep referring to?

 

[bronzeage]

Is it ok to have a go at and try to censure those who express unpleasant R-wing views?

while aiding and abetting (aka jumping to their defense, whenever they're criticized) those who engage in long-term, relentless patterns of bullying particular posters, about their life-threatening illnesses?

Am I the only one who sees a double standard in all that, folks?

What power does anyone have to censure someone else's views?

All we have to judge others by is the words they post. Has someone been harshly judged because of what something said about them, and not by them?

If a poster seems to misrepresent themselves in fundamental ways, why should anyone believe anything they say about other matters?

 

[ToPleaseHim]

I don't care about the Lit history, or about the posters' "character", whatever the interpretation of that might be. That's irrelevant to me, and it seems to be more of Your guys' concern.

The only thing that I know is that the poster suffered (s) from a nasty life-threatening illness, which was confirmed by an "oncology doctor" (senior registrar) that I talked with.
And that the poster has been, and continues to be bullied -severely-. Despite the fact that I (and several others) made it clear that the illness was genuine, and not fabricated.

Or am I to understand that, if you guys disapprove of a poster (his/her morals, etc.) anything goes? Including the severe bullying that I keep referring to?

Your expert testimony is worthless, you see. There's not a reputable physician who would confirm a diagnosis via Internet message board posts. You are committing an atrocious logical fallacy and defending a rather vile poster with your actions. Stop this. You sound like a fool.

Do you realize that individuals fake illnesses all the time and that all the knowledge one needs to accomplish this is available online. You are easily manipulated on this forum, and it happens to you often. Sit back, relax, and think. Think. THINK.

 

[Aella_]

Your expert testimony is worthless, you see. There's not a reputable physician who would confirm a diagnosis via Internet message board posts. You are committing an atrocious logical fallacy and defending a rather vile poster with your actions. Stop this. You sound like a fool.

Do you realize that individuals fake illnesses all the time and that all the knowledge one needs to accomplish this is available online. You are easily manipulated on this forum, and it happens to you often. Sit back, relax, and think. Think. THINK.

Are you or any of you doctors? Or did you earn your MD degree via the Lit. erotica or google online study program? Why would I trust your "expert opinion" that she is faking it, as opposed to the medical specialist who went over those in detail?

Any dumbass can google stuff, but it takes someone with knowledge and training to put all those comments in context, and to come up with an informed opinion.

Or, putting it in layterms, do you watch Dr. Phil? Heard about that app. where doctors engage with patients via the internet? Or RateMD, where reputable doctors do th same thing?

Oy vey…

 

[Disgustipated]

Oh. #### is now playing the role of pseudo antagonist. How cute.

 

[ToPleaseHim]

Are you or any of you doctors? Or did you earn your MD degree via the Lit. erotica or google online study program? Why would I trust your "expert opinion" that she is faking it, as opposed to the medical specialist who went over those in detail?

Any dumbass can google stuff, but it takes someone with knowledge and training to put all those comments in context, and to come up with an informed opinion.

Or, putting it in layterms, do you watch Dr. Phil? Heard about that app. where doctors engage with patients via the internet? Or RateMD, where reputable doctors do th same thing?

Oy vey…

I have personal experience with this type of medical care. The physicians interact with the patient, rather than read a stranger's online comments as provided by an individual who is not the patient. You are the most misguided person I've had the displeasure of reading.

Please tell me you are an internet troll getting great satisfaction from all this. Surely you aren't actually this stupid.

If you are genuine, and you have found a specialist who would actually confirm a diagnosis with the information available on this forum by the poster in question, please, I beg of you, do not trust this person with your medical care.

 

[warrior queen]

You're trying to apply morals and ethics from real life to an anonymous, essentially unregulated internet forum?
Never gonna work.

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]

 

[Aella_]

You're trying to apply morals and ethics from real life to an anonymous, essentially unregulated internet forum?
Never gonna work.

Theoretically, you're absolutely right.

But in practice, my opinion differs a bit from yours. One of my reasoning being:
- those 2-3 posters went happily along with doing those things because most GBers don't read those threads where they do it. So most GBers didn't know.
- But the public exposure Might curtail, even a tiny bit, their impulses to do so.
Not a major gain, but one drop at a time, perhaps - which counts for something, in my books.

 

[Aella_]

Me too. Interacting with patient and on basis of test results etc. so etimes photos, conversations. A senior doctor saying this anonymous person I have never seen or examined or seen scans/tests for definitely has this situation would be entering difficult territory to defend themselves should the situation turn out not to be as represented to them yet the advice acted on in the basis of their definitive response.

Also...the thread entitled 'high school teachers on lit' or some such...but no way could doctors post here .


One day can some one start a thread saying which jobs/training etc are allowed to be here. I want to check G and I are ok.

Translation:
What you're basically saying is: we should take for granted the 'informed opinions' of the dumbasses who "diagnosed" that poster as having Munchausen or faking illness, and we should happily agree with the bullying.
Gotcha.

 

[warrior queen]

Theoretically, you're absolutely right.

But in practice, my opinion differs a bit from yours. One of my reasoning being:
- those 2-3 posters went happily along with doing those things because most GBers don't read those threads where they do it. So most GBers didn't know.
- But the public exposure Might curtail, even a tiny bit, their impulses to do so.
Not a major gain, but one drop at a time, perhaps - which counts for something, in my books.

Nope. Your way won't work either.
Some people come here and once they realise just how anonymous they are on this unregulated site, jump up and down with glee and proceed to bypass any and all filters they may have had.
They hold on to the freedom of speech thing with such fierce intensity that your little voice will never pry it from their grasp.
Never.

 

[Aphro]

Here. Get schooled.

People who want to speak as if they have cancer go here, not to WebMD

Anyone with a bit of smarts can use forums just like this to learn how to fake cancer.

It sounds right because it is...for other people with real cancer.

There are scores of cancer support forums. Just. Like. This.

https://csn.cancer.org/forum/142

 

[La damnee elle la licorne]