leatherback
The Treedeemer
OK, then you're truly a racist.
Not sure why trying to express the gramatical meaning of racism makes me a racist?
Please Participate in an Important Community Discussion.
- Thread starter sorce
- Start date
Not sure why trying to express the gramatical meaning of racism makes me a racist?
Lazylightningny
Masterpiece
I'm not sure of the specific thread that Darlene @Cadillactaste referred to, but there is a little section here on Bonsai Nut called The Tea Room, where we can discuss anything we like, including religion, how to brew bathtub gin, or the easiest way up Mount Everest. Having a difference of opinion over religion is one thing, but being personally attacked because of her generous missionary work is totally uncalled for. Even if you disagree with her religious viewpoint, she should be admired for what she does. Same goes for missionaries of other religions doing good works. It's called humanity. These kinds of attacks are what prompted @sorce to start this discussion. Read over what you have typed before sending. One poorly used word can hurt. We're not here to hurt each other. At least most of us aren't.
leatherback
The Treedeemer
This is a very personal viewpoint from you. Unless I misunderstand, missionaries are out to spread religion, which I personally find something fundamentally wrong.
You call my post attacking. Sorry, but I disagree.
To be honest, your post is more attacking; You are telling me what I should do, how I should think and what I should feel, effectively taking away my freedom to be who I want to be. Whereas I was only stating that I disagree with a specific type of work and making all the other comments about me, instead of about the other person.
Who should read what they type?
Guess I should take myself out of this thread. It is about to derail.
leatherback
The Treedeemer
Last post, then I am out. These last posts illustrate very well why I disagree with removing offending posts.
What is considered offending is very subjective.
Just because people do not adhere to your set of believes and world vision, does not mean their opinion is less valid. And people who feel they can judge which posts are supposed to be here and which are not get on a dangerously thin line of censorship leading to the risk of tunnel vision where personal convictions determine how wide the allowed tunnel becomes.
What is considered offending is very subjective.
Just because people do not adhere to your set of believes and world vision, does not mean their opinion is less valid. And people who feel they can judge which posts are supposed to be here and which are not get on a dangerously thin line of censorship leading to the risk of tunnel vision where personal convictions determine how wide the allowed tunnel becomes.
sorce
Nonsense Rascal
It shouldn't.
Please don't leave because of differing definitions of "missionary work".
I understand that is all that is going on now.
Morce.
Lazylightningny
Masterpiece
I wasn't saying you were attacking her. Someone else attacked her and that's what I was referring to. What I disagreed on with you was you telling her that she should not be discussing religion in a bonsai forum, which is incorrect. Anyone can discuss anything they want here. You can disagree with her or me as much as you want, but when it crosses the line into personal attacks (not you- you haven't done that) then I stand in defense. and there's always the option to not participate in a particular discussion if you find it that distasteful. Sometimes it's better to just back away and withdraw. That's something that many find hard to do on the internet because they can say anything they want and get away with it... except that it tarnishes their reputation. Once they've tarnished themselves it's hard to come back from. That's why I'm advising folks read their thread before they send so they do not say something they'll regret.
Rivka
Shohin
I have spent extended time on maybe 15-20 very different forums over the decades, and short times on many multitudes more. It’s very interesting to see the different policies and tones each has chooses to take.
Sometimes it is informed by forum topic. ie. forums on more rough and tumble topics or topics that attract a feisty type of person, allowing more aggressive unmoderated content and expecting folks to deal with it. While calmer forums focused on more sensitive topics, being stricter on rules and erring on the side of protecting its members feelings.
This seems like a natural extension for topic type to inform moderation type.
So where does this leave the more common forum where you have a topic that crosses social and demographic sub types. Where folks have little to nothing in common besides a share intrest in a nieche topic, and vary as wildly as the general population on nearly everything else?
As an Admin and moderator on many groups and forums myself, I usally see those decisions come down to how active the mod team wants to be, and would they rather spend time avoiding strife or dealing with it when it comes up.
Strict moderation undoubtedly leads to more informative helpful forums, good internal search results and a less intimidating onboarding for new members. It also often slows over all growth (both a good and bad thing) and can overwork moderators depending on how strict it is (super strict is actually easier than moderately strict) Moderation is way more time consuming and emotionally infuriating than nearly anyone would assume.
A loose moderation style can be fun for many, less work for moderators, and help a group grow rapidly in its early years. In the long term it either makes or breaks based on the tone the members encourage and tolerate. If they feed the trolls because they are fun to watch them, they will take over the place, and before you know it, the trolls are the dominate voice and the group is rarely salvageable because any needed treatment will now seem like an intolerant lock down.
I myself have only ever seen one large group ever recover from a full troll take over and it was only because they say the opportunity they had when the worse offender went to jail and jumped on it unapologetically.
So outside of whatever details started this conversation, there are some overarching thoughts. Free insight worth exactly as much as you paid for it. I’ll write another reply on some logistical options like the actual question from the OP
Sometimes it is informed by forum topic. ie. forums on more rough and tumble topics or topics that attract a feisty type of person, allowing more aggressive unmoderated content and expecting folks to deal with it. While calmer forums focused on more sensitive topics, being stricter on rules and erring on the side of protecting its members feelings.
This seems like a natural extension for topic type to inform moderation type.
So where does this leave the more common forum where you have a topic that crosses social and demographic sub types. Where folks have little to nothing in common besides a share intrest in a nieche topic, and vary as wildly as the general population on nearly everything else?
As an Admin and moderator on many groups and forums myself, I usally see those decisions come down to how active the mod team wants to be, and would they rather spend time avoiding strife or dealing with it when it comes up.
Strict moderation undoubtedly leads to more informative helpful forums, good internal search results and a less intimidating onboarding for new members. It also often slows over all growth (both a good and bad thing) and can overwork moderators depending on how strict it is (super strict is actually easier than moderately strict) Moderation is way more time consuming and emotionally infuriating than nearly anyone would assume.
A loose moderation style can be fun for many, less work for moderators, and help a group grow rapidly in its early years. In the long term it either makes or breaks based on the tone the members encourage and tolerate. If they feed the trolls because they are fun to watch them, they will take over the place, and before you know it, the trolls are the dominate voice and the group is rarely salvageable because any needed treatment will now seem like an intolerant lock down.
I myself have only ever seen one large group ever recover from a full troll take over and it was only because they say the opportunity they had when the worse offender went to jail and jumped on it unapologetically.
So outside of whatever details started this conversation, there are some overarching thoughts. Free insight worth exactly as much as you paid for it. I’ll write another reply on some logistical options like the actual question from the OP
sorce
Nonsense Rascal
Deep Truth, if the Christian Spanish didn't take over South America and have this effect it's had on Honduras due to the drug trade, current Christians wouldn't have to be there fixing broke shit.
The only thing we can't escape from is the cycles that life operates on.
Including that of what we like to think is the intelligent human.
Religion was initially a form of control, it succeeded and now, under it's evil guise and beginning, is actually good.
But it's fixing the problems it caused.
Sorce
The only thing we can't escape from is the cycles that life operates on.
Including that of what we like to think is the intelligent human.
Religion was initially a form of control, it succeeded and now, under it's evil guise and beginning, is actually good.
But it's fixing the problems it caused.
Sorce
AlainK
Imperial Masterpiece
I don't have "mixed feelings" about the US citizens : I met many, and most of them were great people, whatever their political or religious inclinations.
Labeling a whole group of people as "nice" or "not nice" really blows my mind.
How about your appreciation of African-americans, or Italian-Americans, or Japanese-Americans ?
"Mixed feelings" about any "group" of people is a sign of... racism.
But it can be cured : travelling, meeting people (not only the slaves laboring for the tourists), opening your eyes and your ears and your heart.
Woocash
Omono
For me, I don’t think it’s grammatical, but specifically about superiority, to be honest.
sorce
Nonsense Rascal
coh
Imperial Masterpiece
Well...in the very first thread in the tea house bonsainut writes:
"A new forum for people to post off-topic content that is relatively benign. No politics or religion, please. " (emphasis mine)
So what were you saying?
sorce
Nonsense Rascal
Having mixed feelings about a group of people means you understand they are different individuals.
Sorce
Sorce
sorce
Nonsense Rascal
Woocash
Omono
No reason why any conversation amongst intelligent individuals able to discern the difference between an opinion and an insult should ever have to derail.
I hate religion in all its forms. It only seems to divide the larger community. That said I respect people’s faith. Therein lies the difference for me.
Lazylightningny
Masterpiece
sorce
Nonsense Rascal
There should be a class in international forum communication.
Without, bullshit will continue to tear is apart.
Sorce
Without, bullshit will continue to tear is apart.
Sorce
coh
Imperial Masterpiece
I respect people's faith as long as they don't start throwing it in my face. Then I have the right to speak up and express my opinion. Many religious people seem to take that as an attack. That's their problem.
AlainK
Imperial Masterpiece
And still is.
Woocash
Omono
Agreed, but that’s when faith turns into religion. I don't personally know a single atheist who doesn’t respect someone’s right to believe in whichever entity they choose to or not to, but religion is when that faith manifests itself into a set of beliefs that means everyone else is wrong by definition, whether malicious or not. There is no such thing as a right or wrong opinion, It's what we choose to do with that opinion that determines whether it is right or wrong.
