Group Coerced Censorship

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Sorry, not sure what you're asking exactly.

I was asking if you think "Hate" is Falwell's message, or is he such a religious zealot that his interpretation of the bible does not fit with today's PC world, thus makes many people uncomfortable.

Don't you love the word, thus?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Hog1

I was asking if you think "Hate" is Falwell's message, or is he such a religious zealot that his interpretation of the bible does not fit with today's PC world, thus makes many people uncomfortable.

Don't you love the word, thus?

Yeah I think hate was his message, whether it was overtly or not.

[ArtMonkDrillz]

Originally Posted by Hog1

Do you say that because (Falwell) , hate is his message, or because he promoted, and championed views that make people feel uncomfortable?

I don't want to try to speak for Matty, but I think he might be saying that
Falwell used religion and his 'moral authority' to hide his messages of hate.
The guy said that homosexuals and feminists were, at least partially, responsible for 9/11. He said that the Antichrist was "obviously a Jewish male." And he pushed for racial segregation during the Civil Rights Movement.
These are just a few examples of what he did in life that lead me to believe he wasn't as great of a Christan as he wanted to be.

That doesn't sound like a very moral person to me.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by ArtMonkDrillz

I don't want to try to speak for Matty, but I think he might be saying that
Falwell used religion and his 'moral authority' to hide his messages of hate.
The guy said that homosexuals and feminists were, at least partially, responsible for 9/11. He said that the Antichrist was "obviously a Jewish male." And he pushed for racial segregation during the Civil Rights Movement.
These are just a few examples of what he did in life that lead me to believe he wasn't as great of a Christan as he wanted to be.

That doesn't sound like a very moral person to me.

I really have not paid much attention to him, over the years, but I have to say OUCH to that. It does not sound to moral to me either.
I KNEW Howard Stern was the anti-christ!

[dmek25]

i agree, but I'm not sure with the comparison

[MTK]

Forget about the individuals being compared. The simple point is some think that we shouldn't have any thing negative to say about the dead. I think that's wrong, there are plenty of people who are very controversial in life and in death. Falwell was not a very likable person to put it lightly, so it's not a big surprise that his death isn't exactly bringing about kind words from some people.

[MTK]

And I do support the closing of the previous thread. It was clearly going to spiral out of control very quickly. Good call by SGG.

I'm all for open debate even on touchy subjects, but there are times when some people just can't handle a debate like that in a civil manner. Perhaps we can do it in this thread instead, but the other thread was turning ugly really quick.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

And I do support the closing of the previous thread. It was clearly going to spiral out of control very quickly. Good call by SGG.

I'm all for open debate even on touchy subjects, but there are times when some people just can't handle a debate like that in a civil manner. Perhaps we can do it in this thread instead, but the other thread was turning ugly really quick.

Question. Why does everything have to remain civil? I'm not trying to be an ass, but I think sometimes people just want to fight it out. It's just a message board, and the thread was in the parking lot. Why not let them go at it?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Question. Why does everything have to remain civil? I'm not trying to be an ass, but I think sometimes people just want to fight it out. It's just a message board, and the thread was in the parking lot. Why not let them go at it?

Because I don't feel like wasting our bandwidth on idiots and it doesn't make for an inviting environment for potential new members.

If people want to duke it out on the internet they can do it by email or IM, just don't waste my time with your stupidity basically.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Because I don't feel like wasting our bandwidth on idiots and it doesn't make for an inviting environment for potential new members.

If people want to duke it out on the internet they can do it by email or IM, just don't waste my time with your stupidity basically.

You could create a "No holds barred" forum as a test site?
But it IS your site

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Hog1

You could create a "No holds barred" forum as a test site?
But it IS your site

Again, why should we waste our server on idiots who want to have flame wars?? This is a forum for discussion, not flame wars.

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

And I do support the closing of the previous thread. It was clearly going to spiral out of control very quickly. Good call by SGG.

I'm all for open debate even on touchy subjects, but there are times when some people just can't handle a debate like that in a civil manner. Perhaps we can do it in this thread instead, but the other thread was turning ugly really quick.

Don't you think that when you start preemptively closing threads that can get you into trouble?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

Don't you think that when you start preemptively closing threads that can get you into trouble?

I think it's rare that we close down threads quickly. Generally, the only threads we'll put the clamps on quickly are duplicate threads or spam.

In this case I think it was a good call. Of course it's always a judgement call, but generally speaking I don't think we make a habit of closing threads down quickly.

[FRPLG]

Because civility doesn't drive people away. Because civility is something that forums so often lose right before respect. Because we are all humans and it should be incumbent upon us to treat each other with respect and dignity whether face to face or over the internet. Sitting behind a keyboard tends to help people feel a little bigger and it can lead to even more rancorous discussions. Civility should be held to a higher premium in places like this because of that alone. It is the right way to act.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Because civility doesn't drive people away. Because civility is something that forums so often lose right before respect. Because we are all humans and it should be incumbent upon us to treat each other with respect and dignity whether face to face or over the internet. Sitting behind a keyboard tends to help people feel a little bigger and it can lead to even more rancorous discussions. Civility should be held to a higher premium in places like this because of that alone. It is the right way to act.

But FRPLG, if the thread is off to the side in the parking lot, and 3 or 4 people want to scream and curse and call each other morons over the internet, what's wrong with that? Can't you, as a bystander to the madness, simply skip over the thread just as you suggested should be done when someone creates a dumb thread such as the one suggesting we trade Taylor for Briggs?

I'm of the school of thought that says men can get in a fistfight, and when it's over, pick each other up and go have a beer together. If someone wants to call me an idiot or whatever, I'll call them a moron in return or whatever, but when it's all over there's no harm done in my eyes. Shutting down threads because of "what might become" of the thread implies that the site members are incapable of handling conflict maturely. I'd think the members of this site are capable of getting into a verbal war and not allowing it to carry over into other threads. If you get into a fistfight, you handle it maturely by not trying to beat the other guy's ass every time you see him. You fight, and when it's over, you let it go. If people can do the equivalent here, meaning they don't let the fight spill over into other threads, then I see no problem.

I dunno, maybe it makes sense to draw the line at cursing or whatever. But I think it's really lame when people start locking threads because the opinions expressed look like they're going to be very strong ones. We just end up with mild conversation as a result.

The only thing that forum etiquette should be designed to prevent is preventing conflict from spreading to other threads. I say if people want to fight, let them do it in that thread, but if they start carrying the conflict over to other threads, that's where you have a problem.