Suggestions for Improvement

Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe what nsymon was getting at was making fun of someone for their hobbies, which I think is fine
For example: "you like hunting, who are you some redneck jackass?"
That's a rhetorical tool used to spice up an argument against hunting

Making fun of someone for something they can't control, however should not be ok.

I'm sorry if I was ambiguous on how I feel on the matter
 
Clay Mario said:
I believe what nsymon was getting at was making fun of someone for their hobbies, which I think is fine
For example: "you like hunting, who are you some redneck jackass?"
That's a rhetorical tool used to spice up an argument against hunting

Making fun of someone for something they can't control, however should not be ok.
Click to expand...

I hope you are aware that "redneck" is a slur often used to demean white farmers from the south. So your example that seeks to validate insulting others as long as it is not targeting something they have no control over, actually contains a derogatory term used to ridicule something people have no control over.

Furthermore, a truly skilled debater can rebut their opposition without having to resort to directly and personally attacking their opponent. It usually indicates that you have not enough confidence in your point to stand alone. So in a debate meant to be taken seriously, insults have no place unless they are used for reference purposes or the other guy is really, really asking for it.

Or if he's an elf. Then all bets are off.
 
Well I would disagree and I would say that the vast majority of political advertising is negative and ad hominem, precisely because ad hominem is an effective rhetorical device.

Edit: on redneck, the term has evolved considerably since it's orginal meaning and has now been expanded to:
[quote author=wikipedia]bigoted, loutish reactionaries who are opposed to modern ways[/quote]
 
Clay Mario said:
Well I would disagree and I would say that the vast majority of political advertising is negative and ad hominem, precisely because ad hominem is an effective rhetorical device.
Click to expand...

Political advertising is not a debate in its purest sense, i.e. two or more opposing mindsets colliding and seeking to broaden their individual horizons through rhetorical exchange. The sole goal of a political debate is to manipulate the crowd into believing your opponent is an idiot so they throw their votes at you instead of at that guy. If your goal is to make someone seem like an idiot, calling them an idiot might help you achieve that goal.

This forum however does not operate on such a principle. These are not political debates. People do not vote on which opinion is the "right" one, and there is no overarching goal to reach, like a "King of Opinions" title or whatever. Furthermore, the outcome of the debates here will most likely not have much of an impact on anything (excluding on individual people), and most certainly not on the scale their political equivalents do. The people here just talk for the sake of talking, to kill time, or maybe even to see things from different views. The fact that politicial debates are uncivilized and can be won by using cheap shots and underhanded techniques has no bearing on this community.

Edit: on redneck, the term has evolved considerably since it's orginal meaning and has now been expanded to:
[quote author=wikipedia]bigoted, loutish reactionaries who are opposed to modern ways
Click to expand...
[/quote]

"Expanded" does not mean its original derogative meaning has ceased to exist, Yoshario.
 
Let me put it this way: if someone said "gay people are evil", you would call him a bigot right? In many ways this is an ad hominem attack on his character (an attack that may very well be true), but an insult nonetheless.

And an insult based on something that is his choice "to be prejudiced against gays".

Similar to how Americans call Hamas a terrorist organization.
 
Shokora said:
Though the help board is where you go to get help, we're not a counseling clinic or a legal aid center. A line should be drawn.
Click to expand...
hey man don't take this away from me, I need the practice for medical diagnosis
 
What you're ignoring here is that "gay people are evil" is in itself already an attack. In this case a reactional attack to counter it diminishes its negative impact because it can be seen as a manner of defense, rather than an unprovoked insult.

I thought I already covered these sort of situations with the "or the other guy is really, really asking for it" clause. Because if you make provocative statements like that, you're asking for it.

Also, this situation is radically different from your first example. I thought this was about the right of hurling slurs at people for disagreeing with their choice of hobbies? Are you sure you still want to advocate for that?
 
Well, what is provocative is itself very subjective. Hunting to some is provocative because it's the senseless killing of animals for sport. To other people hunting is inoffensive because it's a part of their culture. So I'd rather take out the subjectivity and let hobby flaming go.
 
It was going off on a tangent on the exact semantics of flaming and whether or not flaming is a good thing for various reasons. Quite frankly, I consider that to be an unnecessary tangent, and so do other members of the moderation staff.
 
Drift said:
I don't know if this is a glitch or not, but if someone puts a disallowed word in their custom title the swear filter doesn't censor it, but it does if it's in the personal text. I'm not the type of person who is extremly bothered by this kind of thing, but just to point it out.
Click to expand...
 
MCS said:
Baby Luigi said:
btw, for your information, it's not really OCD, it's more like paranoia or anxiety (though OCD is a type of anxiety, it's not the same you're having). But yes, nothing terribly awful occurred yet there, and I'm hoping it stays this way.
Click to expand...

From what I've seen, when some people use the term "OCD" or "obsessive-compulsive", it doesn't always mean they necessarily have OCD. It's a term that's sometimes used to describe someone being especially meticulous and nitpicky. From Wikipedia, from the OCD article itself:

The phrase obsessive–compulsive has become part of the English lexicon, and is often used in an informal or caricatured manner to describe someone who is excessively meticulous, perfectionistic, absorbed, or otherwise fixated.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The phrase obsessive–compulsive has become part of the English lexicon, and is often used in an informal or caricatured manner to describe someone who is excessively meticulous, perfectionistic, absorbed, or otherwise fixated.
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean it's right

On-topic I prefer if we have a swear filter problem, we fix the errors immediately

Also I don't get it. How come you censor swearing in text, but allow swearing in profile images or sig images?
 
Baby Luigi said:
Also I don't get it. How come you censor swearing in text, but allow swearing in profile images or sig images?
Click to expand...
Swearing in moderation is allowed on the forum (it's censored because there are some people who don't want to see it at all) but the reason it always shows up in images is because there's really no way to censor those.
 
I'm asking this: if some people don't want to see swear words, then having the images that clearly avoid the censoring kinda makes the censoring moot.
 
personally I feel censorship isn't really necessary at all

the option's just there I think for those who'd prefer to avoid most curses
 
there should be a specific rule banning threads about murders and tragedies in the mindless junk subforum

like the other day in mindless junk "...someone was murdered in my town........ this is serious" [1]

and today there's a 9/11 thread there. [2] not cool.
 
Puddin said:
there should be a specific rule banning threads about murders and tragedies in the mindless junk subforum

like the other day in mindless junk "...someone was murdered in my town........ this is serious" [1]

and today there's a 9/11 thread there. [2] not cool.
Click to expand...

I second this. Topics like this should stay in off topic discussion or boards where the general rules of conduct apply. There is no reason to put them in mindless junk other than to troll.
 
It's a good idea but I'm personally not a fan of having to make specific rules to counter specific problems. I've always been a fan of having a rule that basically states "use your common sense and good judgment; if you don't, the mods will." as a way to cover things that are just obviously not a great idea without having to spend 4 weeks to figure out which rule could be used to give a warning, and so people can't skate by giggling about how they technically didn't break a rule even though they caused a ruckus anyways.
 
Death is really serious matter and upsets a lot of people. No real life death incident should be mentioned in the mindless junk board because it can really upset them.
 
Show respect towards ALL members, no matter who they are. Do not insult, belittle, flame, or harass people, and don't bait them into flaming you. Don't be a troll. No racial slurs or any type of prejudicial comments.
Click to expand...

I know NSM put that thread there so guests wouldn't see, it doesn't really matter, if there ends up being a problem on a thread in MJ about these topics, then it would probably fall under this rule. Not taking death seriously would be extremely disrespectful and would probably result in this rule being broken.
 
i think some people may put their topics in mindless junk just because they're not really sure where else to put it and MJ is a catch-all
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back