Respect - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

bobdobbs · 06-19-2003, 02:14 PM

From the charter:

"Respect is our next value. While your neighbor on TFP may hold different views and opinions than you, it's possible in every way to hold a discussion with him or her without degrading them for their personal way of thinking. This value is enforced by our dedicated staff of moderators and administrators who have the tools necessary to make things proper and respectful for all."

There are people with beliefs and positions I simply cannot, and will not respect.

To take the extreme example, I do not, will not, and cannot respect Nazi's. People who hold that set of political, social, and economic beliefs are completely and totally immiscible with me and my cherished beliefs. I find people who hold such beliefs to be reprehensible and not deserving of mine, or other free-thinking peoples respect in any sense of the word. Such people can, and should be degraded for holding such beliefs, and should be shunned by other members of the civic.

However, it is completely reasonable to demand that any and all users of the system act in a civil manner toward one another. Civility towards others (even those you do not respect) is the least one can do in a public forum, and is a prerequsite for any meaningful exchange of any and all ideas (even such remarkably reprehensible ones).

I suggest the charter be amended with this change.

meanSpleen · 06-19-2003, 03:30 PM

Was there an incident that brought this on? PM one of the mods, and we'll see what we can do.

But what is the problem with the charter? We enjoy all people, with all types of views and concerns. It is something that they have internalized, and we are not anyone to force them to change. We cannot force people to leave our community because their views are horrid in some peoples mind.

TFP expects a certain level of maturity on the board, and a higher level is required in our discussion, philosophy, and politics boards.

Quote:

However, it is completely reasonable to demand that any and all users of the system act in a civil manner toward one another.

Is this not what we have asked in the charter?

Quote:

From the Charter
While your neighbor on TFP may hold different views and opinions than you, it's possible in every way to hold a discussion with him or her without degrading them for their personal way of thinking.

bobdobbs · 06-19-2003, 04:11 PM

There was no incident. I joined the board and read the charter as I was asked to do, and I disagree with that clause.

It is important to note that you have not *asked* for users to be civil towards one another. You *require* me to respect them.

To wit:
<SNIP>
re·spect
n

1) A feeling of appreciative, often deferential regard; esteem.

2) The state of being regarded with honor or esteem.

3) Willingness to show consideration or appreciation.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
</SNIP>

The charter goes further and states that you will "enforce" my respect of others. Is this what you mean? Or do you mean to ask me to be civil during discussions I participate in? There is a great deal of difference.

This is important to me, as I took your request to read and abide by the charter seriously - something many people do not bother to do. Since I have done so, I need to know if I must discontinue my registration due to a serious conflict in values with the moderator staff of this system.

If this is not what you meant, then I suggest that the paragraph and associated references be changed to require civility - not respect - toward others.

Thank you for your consideration.

spectre · 06-19-2003, 04:32 PM

You're getting into a semantic arguement here. We're not asking you to send a bouquet of roses to those you disagree with. Just don't come out and insult them. That's all. Have enough respect for the board and its members not to be insulting towards others. That's all that we want.

bobdobbs · 06-19-2003, 05:12 PM

The reason I quoted the dictionary is that I wanted to ensure there was no confusion. I do not feel the argument is purely semantic.

Not insulting someone (engaging in an ad hominem attacks) has NOTHING to do with respecting someone. It is being civil towards others.

The reason I making this an issue is that the charter *requires* this of me.

Listen, I understand what you are trying to communicate. I'm not stupid. But what you have written is not the same as what you are getting at.

The larger issue for me is that I've personally had it with people telling me to not be judgemental, not to reject certain people based not what they may or may not believe (religious, political, whatever), and to make certain to "respect" everyone. I feel this is a terrible idea for people on a individual basis as well as for society as a whole.

To again take the extreme example, I judge Nazi's to be bad. I reject them as individuals and their ideas out of hand. I have no respect for them at all. Now you want me to not insult them personally - perfectly OK, quite reasonable and proper even. But in your attempt to make this simple request you bend over backwards with this P.C. all-inclusive "let's respect everybody" rhetoric. I find that to be simply awful. It is intellectually dishonest to use such language if you don't mean it.

Say what you mean, especially when you *require* it of users of the system. That's a straightforward request, isn't it?

spectre · 06-19-2003, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bobdobbs
To again take the extreme example, I judge Nazi's to be bad. I reject them as individuals and their ideas out of hand. I have no respect for them at all. Now you want me to not insult them personally - perfectly OK, quite reasonable and proper even. But in your attempt to make this simple request you bend over backwards with this P.C. all-inclusive "let's respect everybody" rhetoric. I find that to be simply awful. It is intellectually dishonest to use such language if you don't mean it.

Fuck being P.C. and fuck any Nazis (how's that for straight forward?).

All we're saying is that this board works very different than many of the other boards out there. We don't want people flaming each other. Plain and simple. I honestly don't give a shit where people's political ideals lie. If someone says that GWB is an alien, I can think they're an idiot (and believe me, I would) but I'm not going to call that member an idiot. Why? P.C. bullshit? No. It's because I don't want members leaving because they are pissed at a stupid comment that I would make. That's all. This place exists for fun and enjoyment of all of this board's members. All that we ask is that members don't pick fights in our house.

bobdobbs · 06-20-2003, 08:07 AM

It is straightforward, thanks.

I agree, flaming can be very bad, and it is completely acceptable to prohibit individuals engaging in that sort of conduct on your system. No fights in your house.

But I will try one more time to try and communicate what I am trying to get across.

You are *not* asking for this in the charter. At all. You ask for respect, not civility. You expect everyone to understand what you mean and not what you say. I remember fights with my Mom over the problems with that sort of behavior. I don't like the feeling of having my "Mom" prescribing certain behavior, proscribing other behavior, and me being responsible for figuring out which is which.

Now, if you don't want to even consider changing the charter, that's fine by me. I know what you mean by it, so does everybody else (I assume). Others don't seem to have an issue. But in a forum that relies on the written word without any of the other useful nuances of personal communication (body language, intonation, etc.), having the moderator not be clear in the use of language sets a bad example, and a precedent that the moderator gets to pick what they mean after they see what happens with what they wrote.

Since it is your board (the moderators as a collective, that is), that's your right, of course. I'd just like to see an explaination (or defense) of that position before my concerns are disregarded.

I mean all of this in the best possible way. I know this sounds like pointless nitpicking (quoting the dictionary is sure to enrage, sorry about that - calculated risk vs. reward) but I think it is good mental excercise to revisit from a new perspective some things that we take for granted from time to time. I hope the moderators agree.

Peetster · 06-20-2003, 08:55 AM

Perhaps this should be moved to the Philosophy section.

bobdobbs, I get where you are going with this. Let me try to explain where we are coming from. Let's look at your third definition of respect:

3) Willingness to show consideration or appreciation.

You must be willing to show consideration or appreciation of the board, the content and its members. More specifically, you must be willing to NOT be inconsiderate or unappreciative.

If it is your intent to be inconsiderate or unappreciative, then you have no reason to be here. If you can appreciate the board, the content and the members then, by your posted definition, you are being respectful.

The preceeding two statements are both mutually exclusive and comprehensive. It's either the former or the latter. Pick one.

MSD · 06-26-2003, 11:01 PM

I doubt that this issue would arise, because no Nazi that I know of would be willing to show respect for those who they consider inferior. If they act like that, they won't be around for long, and you probably won't have a chance to see them and consider whether or not they are deserving of you rrespect.

Sparhawk · 07-08-2003, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrSelfDestruct
I doubt that this issue would arise, because no Nazi that I know of would be willing to show respect for those who they consider inferior. If they act like that, they won't be around for long, and you probably won't have a chance to see them and consider whether or not they are deserving of you rrespect.

Who have you been hanging out with lately?

06-19-2003, 02:14 PM	#1 (permalink)
bobdobbs Upright	Respect From the charter: "Respect is our next value. While your neighbor on TFP may hold different views and opinions than you, it's possible in every way to hold a discussion with him or her without degrading them for their personal way of thinking. This value is enforced by our dedicated staff of moderators and administrators who have the tools necessary to make things proper and respectful for all." There are people with beliefs and positions I simply cannot, and will not respect. To take the extreme example, I do not, will not, and cannot respect Nazi's. People who hold that set of political, social, and economic beliefs are completely and totally immiscible with me and my cherished beliefs. I find people who hold such beliefs to be reprehensible and not deserving of mine, or other free-thinking peoples respect in any sense of the word. Such people can, and should be degraded for holding such beliefs, and should be shunned by other members of the civic. However, it is completely reasonable to demand that any and all users of the system act in a civil manner toward one another. Civility towards others (even those you do not respect) is the least one can do in a public forum, and is a prerequsite for any meaningful exchange of any and all ideas (even such remarkably reprehensible ones). I suggest the charter be amended with this change.

06-19-2003, 04:32 PM	#4 (permalink)
spectre Junkie	You're getting into a semantic arguement here. We're not asking you to send a bouquet of roses to those you disagree with. Just don't come out and insult them. That's all. Have enough respect for the board and its members not to be insulting towards others. That's all that we want. __________________ "Fuck these chains No goddamn slave I will be different" ~ Machine Head

06-19-2003, 04:11 PM	#3 (permalink)
bobdobbs Upright	There was no incident. I joined the board and read the charter as I was asked to do, and I disagree with that clause. It is important to note that you have not asked for users to be civil towards one another. You require me to respect them. To wit: <SNIP> re·spect n 1) A feeling of appreciative, often deferential regard; esteem. 2) The state of being regarded with honor or esteem. 3) Willingness to show consideration or appreciation. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition </SNIP> The charter goes further and states that you will "enforce" my respect of others. Is this what you mean? Or do you mean to ask me to be civil during discussions I participate in? There is a great deal of difference. This is important to me, as I took your request to read and abide by the charter seriously - something many people do not bother to do. Since I have done so, I need to know if I must discontinue my registration due to a serious conflict in values with the moderator staff of this system. If this is not what you meant, then I suggest that the paragraph and associated references be changed to require civility - not respect - toward others. Thank you for your consideration.

06-19-2003, 05:12 PM	#5 (permalink)
bobdobbs Upright	The reason I quoted the dictionary is that I wanted to ensure there was no confusion. I do not feel the argument is purely semantic. Not insulting someone (engaging in an ad hominem attacks) has NOTHING to do with respecting someone. It is being civil towards others. The reason I making this an issue is that the charter requires this of me. Listen, I understand what you are trying to communicate. I'm not stupid. But what you have written is not the same as what you are getting at. The larger issue for me is that I've personally had it with people telling me to not be judgemental, not to reject certain people based not what they may or may not believe (religious, political, whatever), and to make certain to "respect" everyone. I feel this is a terrible idea for people on a individual basis as well as for society as a whole. To again take the extreme example, I judge Nazi's to be bad. I reject them as individuals and their ideas out of hand. I have no respect for them at all. Now you want me to not insult them personally - perfectly OK, quite reasonable and proper even. But in your attempt to make this simple request you bend over backwards with this P.C. all-inclusive "let's respect everybody" rhetoric. I find that to be simply awful. It is intellectually dishonest to use such language if you don't mean it. Say what you mean, especially when you require it of users of the system. That's a straightforward request, isn't it?

06-20-2003, 08:07 AM	#7 (permalink)
bobdobbs Upright	It is straightforward, thanks. I agree, flaming can be very bad, and it is completely acceptable to prohibit individuals engaging in that sort of conduct on your system. No fights in your house. But I will try one more time to try and communicate what I am trying to get across. You are not asking for this in the charter. At all. You ask for respect, not civility. You expect everyone to understand what you mean and not what you say. I remember fights with my Mom over the problems with that sort of behavior. I don't like the feeling of having my "Mom" prescribing certain behavior, proscribing other behavior, and me being responsible for figuring out which is which. Now, if you don't want to even consider changing the charter, that's fine by me. I know what you mean by it, so does everybody else (I assume). Others don't seem to have an issue. But in a forum that relies on the written word without any of the other useful nuances of personal communication (body language, intonation, etc.), having the moderator not be clear in the use of language sets a bad example, and a precedent that the moderator gets to pick what they mean after they see what happens with what they wrote. Since it is your board (the moderators as a collective, that is), that's your right, of course. I'd just like to see an explaination (or defense) of that position before my concerns are disregarded. I mean all of this in the best possible way. I know this sounds like pointless nitpicking (quoting the dictionary is sure to enrage, sorry about that - calculated risk vs. reward) but I think it is good mental excercise to revisit from a new perspective some things that we take for granted from time to time. I hope the moderators agree.

06-20-2003, 08:55 AM	#8 (permalink)
Peetster Right Now Location: Home	Perhaps this should be moved to the Philosophy section. bobdobbs, I get where you are going with this. Let me try to explain where we are coming from. Let's look at your third definition of respect: 3) Willingness to show consideration or appreciation. You must be willing to show consideration or appreciation of the board, the content and its members. More specifically, you must be willing to NOT be inconsiderate or unappreciative. If it is your intent to be inconsiderate or unappreciative, then you have no reason to be here. If you can appreciate the board, the content and the members then, by your posted definition, you are being respectful. The preceeding two statements are both mutually exclusive and comprehensive. It's either the former or the latter. Pick one.

06-26-2003, 11:01 PM	#9 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	I doubt that this issue would arise, because no Nazi that I know of would be willing to show respect for those who they consider inferior. If they act like that, they won't be around for long, and you probably won't have a chance to see them and consider whether or not they are deserving of you rrespect.