So... What *are* the Rules Around Here?

[Typhon]

Where I come from, the word "sucker" in the context with which I used it, simply means someone getting fooled without realizing it.  Nothing more.  Are all of you now thin-skinned due to the J & D effect?

[Zzzptm]

Good question. This is a thread where we, as a community, can discuss what should and should not be a rule here. Whatever we have a consensus on - as determined by a general agreement of posters in this thread without unresolved dissension posted here - will be a rule. Since we're making the rules, we're also more likely to live by them.

Simple as that.

As we add rules, we'll edit this post for a handy list. We'll also add explanations for rules as needed so that we can better interpret them.

Some rules are going to be (hopefully) obvious.

1. No pornography, links to copied software, pirated media, and other things that are illegal in most places. Reason: there are people reading these forums that have to maintain a security clearance. That means they have to stay clear of criminal activity. There are other reasons, potentially, but this is one that keeps the spirit of The Community: respect for others. (Posts to albums on YouTube... well, if it's on YouTube, the world seems to tolerate it. That's fine.)

2. No personal attacks. Definitely, we do not want anyone to become so heated in a discussion that harsh words are said to another member of the forums. But at what point do we draw the line? That is a matter of our current discussion...

[Zzzptm]

Where I come from, the word "sucker" in the context with which I used it, simply means someone getting fooled without realizing it.  Nothing more.  Are all of you now thin-skinned due to the J & D effect?

Actually, no. As moderators, we were discussing where there should be lines and where we don't need them... I took the word in the context you describe. I think, to non-native English speakers, it's a little more difficult to parse the meaning.

I will take this discussion to another thread, where we can help each other to understand what we mean when we say things and what we hear when we say things, with the ultimate goal not of clamping down a rule, but learning how to not take offense at small things, as well as when we think something is small, but it is actually quite big.

Link here: https://www.komunumo.net/forumo/read-this-first/so-what-*are*-the-rules-around-here

[Zzzptm]

Re. #2, above... in one thread, Typhon commented that persons agreeing with a particular view were "suckers", as in they were duped or otherwise misled by the proponents of that view.

On the one hand, it is a mild criticism. I've heard much, much worse. In parts of the USA, mild criticism such as that is taken not as a personal affront, but part of normal conversation. In such areas, a response to being called "a bunch of suckers" would be to ignore it or to respond with a mild criticism of a similar nature, such as, "well I'd rather be a liberal sucker than a conservative dope." It is the responsibility of the persons engaging in such mild criticism to police their communications so that they do not escalate beyond that banter.

On the other hand, it is a label of a negative connotation, being applied broadly. To persons not familiar with conversations in which that term could be used without anger or harsh feelings, it can sound like it was intended to be interpreted with anger and/or harsh feelings.

Personally, I do not believe that Typhon meant his comment in a harsh way. It was a slang term being used in a regional fashion, and I was able to understand it as such. We have a line for no personal attacks, and I don't think he crossed the line. He didn't call myself or anyone in particular by a highly derogatory term and we were able to continue the discussion in the topic without need to refer back to the "suckers" comment.

It was later edited, true. That led to this discussion and, hopefully, a better understanding among everyone here.

[Zzzptm]

This is also pertinent here: https://www.komunumo.net/forumo/read-this-first/how-to-talk-about-music/

Specifically:

WRONG WAY: "You don't like Deep Purple? You, sir, are life unworthy of life."

RIGHT WAY: "You don't like Deep Purple? The hell you say... they're my favorite band!"

The WRONG way is to condemn the other person or otherwise put him/her down. The RIGHT way is to live and let live.

As for the bands themselves, they all go through phases and changes. People are going to have opinions about how different people behaved and they're going to perhaps favor one side of a feuding faction over another. Again, we have to live and let live.

WRONG WAY: "You think Glenn Hughes was kicked off the tour for voice problems? Obviously, you know nothing about the REAL story."

RIGHT WAY: "You think Glenn Hughes was kicked off the tour for voice problems? Well, I read in Kerrang that it was something else."

The WRONG way is to dismiss the other view while insisting that your sources are 100% right, no chance of them being wrong. The RIGHT way is to bring up another piece of evidence and let others discuss it.

[Charger]

Where I come from, the word "sucker" in the context with which I used it, simply means someone getting fooled without realizing it.  Nothing more.  Are all of you now thin-skinned due to the J & D effect?

That is exactly the way I took it...there was a bit of a misunderstanding with one member...but that has been (hopefully) corrected now. The problem is that there is a bit of a language barrier here with people not 100% fluent in English. I never saw anything negative about your comment and tried my best to explain it forward as well...I hope things have now been fully cleared up.

[Sabbabbath]

Where I come from, the word "sucker" in the context with which I used it, simply means someone getting fooled without realizing it.  Nothing more.  Are all of you now thin-skinned due to the J & D effect?

No need to generalise it: I am the one who reported your comment, because yes, I do find it insulting to be called a "sucker". (Same goes for "thin-skinned", by the way.) I know what it means, for me that doesn't make it better. My English is definitely not perfect, but in this case I don't think the problem has to do with translation. My guess it's more about different standards of politeness.

Anyway, if you start calling me things like that, chances are that I will I get angry and thus also start to insult you - so maybe we better don't even start? And even if certain experiences with JoDa, or rather DROID, have contributed to make me more sensitive for disrespectful behavior, maybe that's not even a bad thing.

Here's a suggestion: if you had just written: "Looks like this thread is full of a people falling for leftwing main stream media bullshit", (you would still be dead wrong about the facts, but) the statement would be significantly less insulting.

More generally speaking, in my understanding, it is much more polite (or rather less impolite) to say "what you just said is stupid" than "you are a moron". That's because in the first case, the statement refers to a specific action or utterance, in the second case, it is about the person as a whole.

Just my two cents of course.

Another thing is that I would actually totally be willing to talk about what media each of us uses as sources of information, or hear what you believe to be the truth about Trump's golf practice and his behavior. However, your post didn't sound like you were really interested in a serious discussion. I am just saying that to make sure I got that right. There have been about a Billion points in my life where I changed an opinion e.g. when someone came up with new evicence or a good argument. It will happen again, at least for some of the opinions I have. But I will surely not be impressed, let alone re-consider my opinion, just because someone calls me names or makes bold, unfounded claims about my media behavior.

[Typhon]

^^^^^^ 
Look, you've been dogging me on many of my posts ever since I got here.  Ranting in the gun thread that we had "moved on" from that topic, as though it was inappropriate to say what I wanted to say.  And now you have a problem with the term thin-skinned?  Well, I'll have you know that I was a member at the other place for many years before you showed up and nobody ever had any such problems with my comments like this, so maybe I'm not the one with the issues.

[Vyn]

Here's some color commentary:

Typhon's post didn't register with me as being out of line when I read it, but I can see how it could come across as disrespectful. Obviously at least one person took issue with it, and she made a reasoned post discussing her position.

Communication is a two-way street. Intention is important when sending and receiving a message. It is incumbent upon everyone participating to both articulate their message in a way that is reasonably respectful and read into others's messages as if they are coming from a position of respect and humility.

Familiarity comes into play as well. I'll say things to folks I am familiar with that I wouldn't to strangers, because I'm cognizant that the stranger doesn't know me or my sensibilities. And I don't want to appear disrespectful (unless I'm trying to be!)

No one here should feel that they're walking on eggshells, and they should absolutely feel free to voice their opinion. And it works both ways.

[Zzzptm]

Dammit, I screwed up the thread because I merged in the stuff from the other thread that was relevant to this.

I may fix it up later, but I'm winding down, now.

But... we've got a heart of an issue here, in that Typhon is who he is and Sabbabath is who she is... neither one is right or wrong for being who they are.

It's also clear that both do NOT share the same political views.

Ideally, that should not lead to personal conflicts.

If Typhon doesn't want to continue discussing a point or topic, that is his choice. Same for anyone. If we don't want to carry on with a topic, other members don't have any ability to demand that someone respond. Just drop it, it's over, the person wants to talk about something else.

So about the "sucker" comment... I don't think it's bullying. It *is* disparaging, but we have to be able to say what we like and what we don't like. If Typhon does not like ideas that go against his politics, he can provide light disparagement and then move on.

If Sabbabath is angry or experiences some other unpleasant emotion because of someone else's comment, she should be free to say that she's upset. If the other person wants to apologize, the other person can make that choice. If not, then not. If she wants to provide light disparagement for the opposite view, that should be fine, as well.

And if anyone gets to a point where a moderator steps in and asks people to calm down, that's a good time for everyone to take a step back and cool off. Maybe even apologize to the forums in general for getting too hot, if you feel like that's the thing to do. But we cannot demand actions of others except to refrain from taking words and aiming the strongest ones possible directly at another person.

[Sabbabbath]

If Typhon does not like ideas that go against his politics, he can provide light disparagement and then move on.

I fully agree with that, and I would totally have accepted that. My point was that, by choosing the noun "sucker",  it wasn't just a comment on ideas, but on the (supposed) personality and abilities of the people who voiced them. Which is a very different thing.

[Sabbabbath]

First of all, thanks to everybody for their comments, and of course to Zzzptm for creating this thread etc. I didn't notice you "messed up" anything, seems to look fine to me.

^^^^^^ 
Look, you've been dogging me on many of my posts ever since I got here.  Ranting in the gun thread that we had "moved on" from that topic, as though it was inappropriate to say what I wanted to say.  And now you have a problem with the term thin-skinned?  Well, I'll have you know that I was a member at the other place for many years before you showed up and nobody ever had any such problems with my comments like this, so maybe I'm not the one with the issues.

OK, here's my account of what happened in the gun thread:
My comment on the gun thread was intended to point you to the fact that you had apparently missed the point of much of the argument - because you kept questioning a claim that played, if any, a totally marginal role in the discussion, and seemed to assume it was my and other people's point. (Of course, as always, there's a chance that my interpretation was totally beside the point - I am just trying to explain where I'm coming from.) I didn't intend to "dog" you; as for "inappropriate", I never felt your comment was "inapproprate" in a moral sense, but in a factual sense, yes - I basically like to point it out when I believe that people are talking at cross-purposes, and that was what happened there (IMO).

Yes, I dislike the use of terms like "thin-skinned" or "suckers" in discussions because they are disparaging claims about the other person as a person, rather than criticisms of specific behaviors or statements. More specifically, the use of "thin-skinned" is premised on the idea that the other person's disagreement with what you said were based on a flaw in their personality.

Since freedom is, as you pointed out in the gun thread, important to you, let's try to put it in terms of freedom: If you want to be free to utter your opinion about other people's ideas or what you assume to be their media behavior, I am fine with that. What I am asking for is just that you address behaviors rather than a person (or several persons) as a whole when you make such comments. That's because I consider it to be part of my freedom to be on this forum without being addressed with pejorative nouns or adjectives.

You and Vyn both pointed out hat we haven't been knowing each other for a long time. That's true, and I think it's yet one more reason to be a little careful regarding what we're calling each other.

[Charger]

Okay so looks like things got off track right away.

First off all Sabbabbath this thread is NOT about defending your actions or accusing the actions of others in other threads. Let's stop that right away.

Second of all if you think the term thin-skinned is insulting...well then I would advice you to thicken your skin a little bit. <- And yes that was HUMOROUS in case if you missed it.

Third you really don't need to attack on every post YOU find insulting...that only creates more confrontations and that is NOT what we want here...so please I urge you (and EVERYONE for that matter) to think once or even twice before hitting that "post" button.

Thank you.


It is quite often the case when opinions clash that things get heated. I know that better than anyone. But the point here is to NOT get overly serious and have bit more light hearted converstations sometimes about serious matters too. But the main thing will always be that everyone...and I mean EVERYONE should also respect the other person's opinion even if it differs completely from your own.

[Zzzptm]

Let's go back to things like thin-skinned and suckers... I would add dupes, dopes, puppets to that list.

I definitely prefer those terms to cucks and worse terms. Wherever the line is, "cuck" and worse are definitely on the side of the line that goes too far and warrants moderation action.

Words like the 5 in the list above are abbreviated ways of saying things like, "I think you and those that share a common belief are misled and I recommend you analyze your position carefully for what I perceive to be critical flaws." Thin-skinned is the exception: "Surveying your response to my previous comment, I find that perhaps it is an overreaction. While I am not a trained psychological professional, I would put forward the suggestion that, perhaps, such an overreaction originates from an unnaturally hightened sensitivity to comments such as I have made."

We humans are not creatures possessed with endless time, which is why we abbreviate in our conversations. We type SBS and EI and NSD and know exactly which albums those are. So it is with words that carry connotations. And, while some may find longer expositions to be more polite, I do not. They just obscure an idea behind more words.

Sabbabath does bring out a point that thin-skinned is certainly more targeted to a person than is a term like the other 4 in my first list. But is it a term that attacks or is it a term that questions? Is it a term that invites others to weigh in if they think that a response to a comment wasn't overreacting? Ah, that's moderation!

And what about terms like Nazi, fascist, communist, fellow-traveler, racist? Those are stronger terms - dare we apply them to one another? I'm sure that someone who feels strongly that another person is one of those things will use that term. I'm just as sure that a person getting that term applied, no matter how accurately, would be insulted. And telling someone to not be thin-skinned after calling him a Nazi would not be a question but an attack with a passive-aggressive approach.

[Zzzptm]

Charger's comment about thickening one's skin is valid advice, I think. We are dealing with humans here, and it's possible that even the best of friends can have frayed nerves and sharp words. If we have increased capacity to forgive and to let minor things slide, we don't allow things to become issues - they fall to the side of the road and decay into forgotten dust.

At the same time, calling out someone else as thin-skinned should not be an excuse for one to persist in behavior that leads to that supposed thin-skinned reaction. Maybe the first time it's OK to ask about the thin skin, but maybe the second time you should check yourself and perhaps offer an apology instead.

All this begs the question - are these forums or any part of them a safe space? I would say, no. Part of the reason we formed these boards was to have a free exchange of ideas, even if it meant being critical of a person as a person. We do not want it to be where any group of members is able to carve out a section or even a thread where they do their own thing without question or criticism.

As such, I will welcome the next time I'm called a dupe, sucker, dope, or puppet. I will deny such a label vigorously and then I shall be called thin-skinned. I'll let others who stand with me say no, it's not just me. And then others will join with my accuser and say no, it's not just him. And then we carry on with the discussion knowing full well that while we have strong feelings about Never Say Die, at least we all agree on how to handle gun permits for LGBT neo-Nazis seeking an abortion from a doctor of traditional medicine that might possibly be connected to Palestinian charities with links to pro-Brexit politicians.

So help me, if anyone starts a thread about the latter item, I'll lock that thread as soon as possible.

But for this thread, that's the biggest question we have to consider. Are we going to toughen our skins or are we going to create safe space echo chambers?