Policing the Internet : Are there any ethics left?

Other than certain aspects, this thread is full of win.


/"Chlamydia-free since '93!" should be someone's campaign slogan

 

I can agree that verbal attacks can be brutal, if you are unprepared for them. There is also a slippery slope known as free speech. Freedom is not for the weak. Having said that, you can be trained to be stronger, especially when being confronted by words. I think we do ourselves a disservice when we say we can't be expected to be prepared for idiocy and verbal bullies, ie the Fred Phelps idiots. Internet trolls, and the tea party, count on people being so upset with what they say, that they will distract you from thinking correctly and being effective people. It, unfortunately, works. Should these activities be legislated against? My answer is no.

To me, an attack has to go beyond mere insensitive, or inflammatory words to go into the realm of legal action. Threats go beyond this point, insensitive, trolling comments do not.

 

Let me know when you want us to post the part where you threatened to use /b/ as your personal army to "get" us.

 

I actually had some other things to do today, still have more. I'm not content with anyone being a bully which is why I decided to begin a topic on the subject with the possibility of some group action, like there are illegal flash mobs, why not legal ones that do good rather than harm.

What rule are you enforcing when you slander one of the members of your forum?

 

I can't know for certain on the truth of the matter, but if you're the same person as the one Jazz linked to, I doubt your mindset will fit into TFP, as you write a hell-of-a-lot of garbage.

My 1 dollar on this.

 

You mean "libel", not "slander". Slander is spoken; libel is written.

I simply restated what you had already previously posted and was in your signature. I read your body of work at TFP and stated my opinion about it. I also did so without engaging in any personal attacks or breaking any TFP rules - not that you did either, just making a point about my actions. You're the one who posted elsewhere that I'm a cyber-bully, which actually does constitute defamation. If I'm not warm and welcoming to you - oh well, welcome to real life. No one here is under any obligation to do so, so long as they don't cross the line into personal attacks.

And if you really were going to make the suggestion of group action in the face of cyber bullies, that really goes a long way to proving my point about your failure to properly write an effective OP. You're not special. The rules apply to you the same as they do anyone else.

 

This is a good point. But imo the worst trolls are those, who will focus on gathering information about another, based on what they've told about themselves, and on purpose try to hit their weak points. It's not only what they say, but the intent behind the words, that counts as an attack.

 

Fine statement for some sort of Jeffersonian writer of the Declaration of Independence where the inciting to rebellion is cloaked in such speech, oral and/or written.

"My strength is made perfect in weakness."

"The Son of Man came not to call the just, but the sinner."

You don't get a bill for the Salvation wrought for you by Christ because you are too weak to accomplish it on your own, yet the freedom is given to you just the same, and it is intended that you keep it forever.

And the writers of that Declaration also had prejudice against whom they called "papists", as if we, as men, should be without a Father (even all the while dickin' everybody else) - what foolish presumption.

"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." says Christ, and "The truth shall set you free."

Christ put an end to His followers committing open acts of violence with such teachings as when Peter smote the soldier's ear and Christ said "Enough".

Any lack of such esteem for Christ will eventually end in an act of cyberbullying.

 

Assuming that both parties have access to the internet. And that there's any actual bullying. Which isn't a foregone conclusion.

 

I have come across at least one forum engine which has included the words "X said :" (where 'X' is the quotee) as a default with each reply - but I understood your elucidation, too.

If I tell you that you are not who you say you are, I hold you have a valid argument against me so long as I have no proof.

If you do the same to me, my tenet remains unchanged.

I would prefer to come to better terms with you - I even would rather take your name off my blacklist - further still, you can be the first example to the others that it is possible to communicate with me without cyberbullying.

There are many other saints with the name John - my signature definitively dispells any confusion with other saints named "John" - that is the first point of clarity in our (not just you and I) favor which you have apparently nipped in the butt.
--- merged: Sep 17, 2011 2:16 PM ---

One can actively and/or passively support cyberbullying with/without internet access.

 

Edward Palamar, I don't care if I'm on or off your "black list". That you keep such a list simply goes to show that you're yet another Christian that behaves in a very unchristianlike way. I haven't insulted you, just pointed out that you're making outrageous claims with no proof. The burden of proof is on you to substantiate your claims. I've simply noted what you've said and expressed doubt. For that, you've declared me a cyber-bully and "black-listed" me. Honestly, I think it's sad and predictable that I'm there - it certainly says more about you than me. That said, I'll note again that you've defamed me on your site and that I see where you've stolen other folks' intellectual property and posted it with without permission. Furthermore, I'll just state for the record that I find your "minimum penance" requirement on your site moronic. I can't imagine that anyone on your "black list" is ever going to satisfy you and that over there you're currently guilty of the very behavior you profess to abhor over here. I'm sure you'll try to use that expression of opinion against me, but expressing an opinion you don't care for does not make me a bully.

That doesn't change the fact that you used the word "slander" incorrectly. All speach here is written. By definition, slander is impossible in this portion of TFP. Libel is possible, but you didn't claim that. And, again, I did neither. Which, interestingly enough, makes you the cyber-bully in that particular exchange.

And Edward, cyber-bullying, by definition, didn't exist 20 years ago. So again, both parties have to have access to the internet.

 

*blink* So, wait a minute. If I'm not a cyberbully, it isn't because I'm a nice person, it's because someone is policing me spiritually? I actually find that kind of insulting.

 

Sorry, buddy. Not agreeing with you is not bullying. Not accepting your every premise as gospel is not bullying. Formulating and expressing opinions opposed to yours is not bullying.

Using the accusation of bullying as a debate tactic... can't respect that. I don't recall any scripture about The Baptist coming back to pass judgement on all men. I do recall, however, one line: "Judge not, lest you be judged."

 

Edward, please can you see the above two posts as containing information which supports your goals; and which, spiritually, would enable you to become a better representative for what you believe? A better channel for the Divinity you worship? A better Prophet. At the moment, the output of your work on this planet consists of a list of people whom you urge to apologize. Work more on the positive aspects of the Message, and demonstrate them in your behaviours as well as in your words. It's all very well being resurrected; that's a great first step - however the human vehicle must be trained or it cannot usefully contain or express the Message. One might BE the channel, but being a CLEAR channel takes a heck'v'a lot of work, and more than a little trial and error. People like Borla and grumpyolddude can be your safety net, if you choose to regard them in that way. They can be quality-controllers who won't let you get away with anything but the best presentation of your Truth. Similarly The_Jazz and Cynthetic. And others here.

The question is : Is your Truth worth the effort of learning to express it effectively? Is your Jesus important enough to you, really important enough to you to do the work needed to become one whom people might Actively seek for guidance? Or are you willing to live a life of seeing your attempts at expressing the Sacred fall and fail again and again into contention until you have nothing but a very, very long list of people, none of whom are interested in apologizing for what you say they've done wrong?

Worse still, continuing your present trend, do you want you and your list to become a famous joke, with millions of LOLZ? I'm not laughing, Edward, for this is your life's work. It is who you are. The problem with the internet is that resurrected Prophets-in-Training risk publicizing the early part of their ministry, their baby-steps, warts and all. Splat. Yes, I know, the sense of 'I ... I ... I KNOW STUFF' or 'I ... I ... I AM the voice on Earth of The Word' makes any red-blooded acolyte want to burst out. However, easily accessible 'world coverage' outlets like Facebook and Forums etc make it all too easy to go off at half cock, and to potentially Damage the very message you want to get across.

You don't need to go there. Instead, go ahead and listen to people like Borla and Grumpyolddude etc; learn from them and people like them, and avoid a sad future where what you want to say gets lost, and you are left with your ever-growing list, and the knowledge that you lowered the credibility of the principles you espouse. Yes, there ARE people who will just fling mud, and I bet you've come across some of them; I bet some people have said really cruel things to you. When you're a prophet, and when you tell people you're a resurrected one, then, especially in this day and age, getting some ridicule goes with the job; it's to be expected but it sure does suck donkey; because when you are learning to be a functional ambassador of a Higher Power, it takes a lot of effort, and like the young Old Testament God, it's easy to feel cranky when people don't make the same sense of your points as you do. However, please separate the Wheat from the Tares, and recognize that some challenges, like the ones inthis thread, might feel uncomfortable, yet are benevolent and, when you just go ahead and learn from them, can genuinely support your higher aims.

Best wishes.

 

Is it true that 'you know you have arrived' when you are put on a black list? Why am I thinking of David Ike? He spoke out about his being a special messenger and got laughed at as I recall. Can you turn your list around Edward? Have you come across no good or positive examples during your life so far?