Trolling and Off-topic disruptions

[gendao]

This is not a left right issue but one of how a society treats others who are different.

Now, we're getting warmer, actually...

 

How does society treat others who are "different?" Better, worse, the same or just differently (on a case-by-case basis)?

Edited February 9, 2013 by vortex

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

Do you have something intelligent to add? I rather doubt it!

 

In contrast to this whole shebang and what was contributed in the two or three posts before mine. Yeah. I think that was the sum total of it all.

 

 

Edit:

 

I do apologize that I had nothing more directly related to the topic at hand, however, the responses and the gravity of it struck me very deeply in a most comical manner...

 

describing

quote/unquote "other"

people, blaming them, but never knowing the individuals that "they" are. Knowingly or not lying about some and being accurate about others, yet ignoring this matter never the less to "make a point", for what? "the betterment" of... self, others, all of the above?

 

 

Outside-working in is the bass ackwards thinking of politics, and evident in your posts, from my perspective. I am sorry I laughed so deliberately and condescendingly, however...

 

 

HAW! it was and still is funny. no offense intended.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 9, 2013 by Northern Avid Judo Ant

[Aaron]

Edit:

 

The above is for the entire board. It is NOT meant at Ralis. It's to demonstrate.

 

**********

 

The above is exactly what I was talking about earlier that is difficult to moderate. Is 'ungodly liberal' or 'Luciferian' showing condescension or is it an outright hostile ad hominem? The general sentiment is that it would be seen as possible condescension but not outright ad hominem. Not like "you're an a-hole" or "shit-for-brains" etc. And so we'd let it slide.

 

Even in the latter case - in order to preserve the light-on-moderation atmosphere the default is to ask the person who called someone an a-hole or shit-for-brains to edit out the post. Failing that then discussion moves to whether this or that person deserves a suspension. The more that person has a post history of doing the above with a correspondingly low "helpful contribution ratio" the higher the likelyhood of everyone agreeing it's time to hand out a suspension. The idea being we want people to contribute meaningfully. Not to suppress speech. Or try to always make the board all happy-happy-joy-joy circle of regulars massaging each others egos.

 

The above procedure - evidence plus debate plus timezone differences - is why mod response is often painfully slow.

 

This is also a big reason why it was finally decided TTB might not be a place to have a separate "Teacher's Section". They'd have to be able to take criticism (Even possibly unjustifiable criticism had the posts been presented in a law court) and just let it roll off their back.

 

Because there is NO WAY to NOT make a judgement call of when condescension crosses the line to become 'outright disrespect' and ad hominem. That last one is critical to why the mod team mods as we do.

 

You think we show bias now?

 

I promise you you haven't begun to see what bias is if we will be required to start stepping in to adjudicate as to what crosses the line.

 

You can not even decide amongst yourselves if there was hate speech in that thread or whether it was unpleasant fact.

 

TTB is not a law court and we do not have a long list of thou-shalt-not rules in place. We have to make judgement calls all the while knowing somebody is always going to see us as biased, having agendas, playing favorites and unfair. The majority of members have consistently and loudly told us over and over to 'butt-out' of their threads and not turn into hovering nannies or thought-police.

 

The board gets what it has consistently told us it wants.

 

 

I'm not sure of any incident where "Luciferian" isn't considered an insult, unless perhaps you worship Lucifer.

 

Aaron

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

if everyone constantly took offense of anything and everything that wasn't true about them, there could be no beneficial progression of any kind taking place amongst us.


What does it matter what/if you worship? Let alone what/if anyone accuses you of worship(ing).

[gendao]

I'm not sure of any incident where "Luciferian" isn't considered an insult, unless perhaps you worship Lucifer.

 

Aaron

Depends who you ask. Luciferians would beg to differ:

There is no single set of beliefs, rules or dogmas for either group. However, some generalities can be made. In general, both Satanists and Luciferians:

• Talk about human beings as gods, having mastery of the planet. If they believe in a literal Lucifer, they pay him respect rather than worship, acknowledging he has many things to teach rather than finding themselves subservient to him.
• Have sets of ethics, which include showing respect to those who deserve and leaving people alone who have caused no grief.
• Support creativity, excellence, success, freedom, individuality and enjoyment.
• Reject dogmatic religion
• Are particularly antagonistic toward Christianity, although not to Christians. Christians are often viewed as victims of their own religion and being too dependent to escape it.

Neither Satanists nor Luciferians view Satan or Lucifer as Christians do. They accept that worshiping a being of true evil is the action of a psychopath.

This actually sounds like it could fit a number of people in here, lol!

[ralis]

 

 

I'm not sure of any incident where "Luciferian" isn't considered an insult, unless perhaps you worship Lucifer.

 

Aaron

SB is really splitting straws on that one. I do consider it ad hominem.

[ralis]

if everyone constantly took offense of anything and everything that wasn't true about them, there could be no beneficial progression of any kind taking place amongst us.

What does it matter what/if you worship? Let alone what/if anyone accuses you of worship(ing).

The principal of the matter is what is being discussed. Some show absolutely no respect for others here. What that indicates is the general immaturity of some here.

[Aaron]

Depends who you ask. Luciferians would beg to differ:

This actually sounds like it could fit a number of people in here, lol!

 

That's a very pretty definition. I'm sure we could find a nice one for pedophile priests too, if we looked hard enough.

 

Aaron

[JustARandomPanda]

SB is really splitting straws on that one. I do consider it ad hominem.

 

 

You just made a judgement call - same as everyone else here - mod team or not.

 

Ralis if you can convince Cat and Taomeow or even Sean (good luck with catching him..he usually disappears several months at a time) that Luciferian is actually ad hominem - well I'll be outvoted - then it moves to the next step.

 

Go for it. Convince them. You have that right.

 

You'll be waiting for their judgements but hey...that's democracy for you...or in this case - modding via committee - which is what vote-modding on this board is since there's no "head mod" that acts with veto President or Prime Minister powers to overturn this board's "legislative body" votes.

[gendao]

That's a very pretty definition. I'm sure we could find a nice one for pedophile priests too, if we looked hard enough.

 

Aaron

Well, from a Christian POV - Lucifer rebelled against Yahweh.

That would make him an "enemy" to Christians, but perhaps a "heroic freedom-fighter" to others.

 

IOW, it's quite relative.

 

Whereas if you claim Luciferianism is absolutely an insult, then aren't you insulting Luciferians? How would this then be different than:

This is not a left right issue but one of how a society treats others who are different.

Or maybe we should put a sign at the door saying No Luciferians!

 

 

Regardless, rebelling against Christianity is a pretty apt description of...the anti-Christians in the thread, so that general characterization seems to be arguably suitable, no?

[Vmarco]

I didn't intend to specifically address the thread you are debating about. I was speaking in general. Sometimes issues of sex, gender, or race can be issues relevant to a religious or spiritual context.

 

IMO, religious or spiritual content is always relevant with gender identity,...even more so, on a Taoist forum with Buddhist undertones.

 

When Avalokitesvara (a male) realized the embodiment of great compassion through seeing as a bodhisattva, he became Kuan Yin (a female). Bodhi is a female noun meaning wisdom. A bodhisattva is always feminine. Real compassion, as the Heart sutra implies, only arises through an understanding of the feminine.

 

According to prediction and metaphor, the future Buddha, Maitreya, will be a male born into a Red Hat family, and in one day, become a realized Buddha as a female; like the monk Avalokiteshvara became Kuan Yin. Doesn't matter how this transformation of Avalokiteshvara took place; and although many still view him as male, the natural qualities of a Bodhisattva are feminine. Some suggest that Maitreya will be the final incarnation of Kuan Yin.

 

Kuan Yin is the the Dhyani Bodhisattva who emanates from the Buddha Amitabha, or "infinite light;" and vibrates during the present Kalpa spanning the period between the Mahaparinirvana of Sakyamuni Buddha and the birth of Manusi (mortal) Maitreya Buddha,...the Future Buddha.

 

Is it any wonder, from a spiritual point of view, that the topic of transgender has become popular today?

 

"The difference between the wise Buddhist and the sectarian Buddhist is like that between the vastness of space and the narrowness of a vase." Kongtrul Rinpoche

[Vmarco]

In general, there is no atmosphere of respect on this forum. Recently I was called a 'ungodly liberal' and Luciferian by WWROA. That is not respect. Further, I have been disrespectfully shouted down by Joeblast on numerous occasions.

 

In a way, I'm likely guilty of that myself. Not as in out-right disrespect, which is often prevalent, but I do respond in a reflective way,...mirroring back in tone, that tone which was given. One could say, re-giving for what is given. My personal motive for doing so is largely my study of verbal communication without the non-verbal nuances. In social life, I tend to respond to people's non-verbal vibrations, which usually is reciprotated to in an empathetic way.

 

On forums such as this, I respond to the tone of the poster I'm addressing,...and as you mentioned, since many here post in a dissing, one-up-man-ship, or gotch ya sort of way, I suppose my responses, taken out of chronicle order, appear rather arrogant,...which is not my intention.

 

I was pondering on getting a course on argumentation,...like:

http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=2158

to see how that approach works.

[Vmarco]

You just made a judgement call - same as everyone else here - mod team or not.

 

Ralis if you can convince Cat and Taomeow or even Sean (good luck with catching him..he usually disappears several months at a time) that Luciferian is actually ad hominem - well I'll be outvoted - then it moves to the next step.

 

ad hominem is quite simple,....attacking an opponents character, rather than answering or discussing their argument.

 

ad hominem occurs very frequently on TTB.

 

My personal view is that those who use ad hominem are closed-minded, hollow-hearted, bully-types who are so deeply indoctrinated by fear, that they lash out against everything that shines light on that fear.

 

Trent Reznor has a song that is sort of a test as to whether you're a person who uses ad hominem:

 

right where it belongs

See the animal in his cage that you built

Are you sure what side you're on?

Better not look him too closely in the eye

Are you sure what side of the glass you are on?

 

See the safety of the life you have built

Everything where it belongs

Feel the hollowness inside of your heart

And it's all right where it belongs

 

What if everything around you

Isn't quite as it seems

What if all the world you think know

Is an elaborate dream?

 

And if you look at your reflection

Is that all you want it to be?

What if you could look right through the cracks

would you find yourself - find yourself afraid to see?

 

What if all the world's inside of your head

Just creations of your own?

Your devils and your gods all the living and the dead

And you're really all alone?

 

You can live in this illusion

You can choose to believe

You keep looking but you can't find the woods

While you're hiding in the trees

 

What if everything around you

Isn't quite as it seems

What if all the world you used to know

Is an elaborate dream?

 

And if you look at your reflection

Is that all you want to be?

What if you could look right through the cracks

Would you find yourself - find yourself afraid to see?

[ralis]

 

 

You just made a judgement call - same as everyone else here - mod team or not.

 

Ralis if you can convince Cat and Taomeow or even Sean (good luck with catching him..he usually disappears several months at a time) that Luciferian is actually ad hominem - well I'll be outvoted - then it moves to the next step.

 

Go for it. Convince them. You have that right.

 

You'll be waiting for their judgements but hey...that's democracy for you...or in this case - modding via committee - which is what vote-modding on this board is since there's no "head mod" that acts with veto President or Prime Minister powers to overturn this board's "legislative body" votes.

I took the term Luciferian to mean devil worshipper. Which I am not.

[Seth Ananda]

I personally think that it is totally ok to challenge the negatives In a persons culture, religion or belief system, as these are all 'add ons' to the person, and can be challenged or changed as they exist in the persons mind.

 

On the other hand, pointing out what you believe are 'negatives' in a persons Race is totally not ok. Ever.

It destroys that persons dignity and self esteem, and leaves them marginalised and angry.

 

The reason for this is, It is not something they have any power or choice over. One can not change ones Race,

 

The same goes for {most} Homosexuals. They have no ability to not be Gay. Most have been Gay since they were born.

 

Attacking something that people can not help, and that is totally natural, {found amply in nature} is plain rotten!

 

Like Racism, homophobia needs to be legislated against everywhere, and here at the TTB's.

[Seth Ananda]

I should mention that the 'perceived' negatives a bigot may see in a race or sexual orientation are probably in their brainwashed little heads.

 

The other option is that they are mistaking behavioural elements of a subculture within a race or sexual orientation for the actual behavioural characteristics of people, of the race or sexual orientation itself.

 

 

One needs to be very clear about this.

 

An example is someone who grows up near Ghetto's and decides that African Americans are all pimp ass thugs.

 

Or someone works in a std center that is has a large Gay clientele, and decides that all gay men are std soaked beat hopping perverts. {sorry scotty, I know thats not what you were implying - I hope}

 

 

But lets continue to be clear. Despite what certain demographics of the Homosexual population may get up to, nothing can be Inferred from that, that apply's to the natural condition of Homosexuality itself.

[Birch]

"ad hominem" as far as I understand it is a side argument based on something to refer to the 'messenger' and not 'the message'. I figured there was not much of that on here (given the work many are engaged in re lessening the 'messenger'). And if there is a bit of it left, tends be easily called upon, well, I saw as much. For quite a while. (Aren't TTB's practicing *something*?)

 

I don't really know what to add, except maybe if you're happy with your ad hominem and anti-gay and all that, then what the fuck are you doing on a forum like this? I (me personally) don't consider it helpful to anything much. Maybe to my own practice of telling you to fuck off. Maybe.

[eye_of_the_storm]

Seth,

I would like to get your opinion on this comment... on page 1 of the LGTB thread

konchog uma, on 05 Apr 2012 - 04:40, said:

I think the right wing is basically at war with anyone who isn't a white christian american male, or the women who subserviantly gestate and birth their babies (godpleaseletitbeaboy)

cept for the closeted ones! hahaaha

it is a shame.

the problem with the right wing is that people actually associate them with god and jesus and spiritual truth. HAHAHHAHAHA

[JustARandomPanda]

ad hominem is quite simple,....attacking an opponents character, rather than answering or discussing their argument.

 

ad hominem occurs very frequently on TTB.

 

 

Yes...attacking another person's character *directly* as I said earlier in the examples I gave. Impugning, insinuating, condescending statements may also be attacking...but are not done *directly*. These tactics fly under the ToS radar as it's currently stated. Which is why I mused with the other mods maybe we should add condescension to the ToS to try to address it. And Cat equally pointed out that would be opening a whole can of worms...do we really want to go down that road when quite a few here dislike any decisions we make even now?

 

It's curious you state that ad hominem happens frequently here. Had this board included "no impugning, insinuating or condescending posts" in it's list of ToS "thou-shalt-nots" you yourself would have been suspended quite often given how many reports we've received on your posted replies to others here....because...those posts of yours typically fly under the radar. And the mod team is often accused of showing you favoritism for not taking any action. But we also take into account does this person have a post history of making useful contributions to board discussions. Which you have. And so we've leaned in the direction of little to no action.

 

In fact...nearly every person in this thread accusing mods of being consistently biased and showing favoritism has had other TTBs reporting them - and yet we did not act because their posts - while condescending and typically not addressing the actual argument did not fall under the ToS as it's currently stated. (Besides...how many forums have you all been on lately where all the members stick to logic rules and converse with others like members of debate teams?)

 

 

The majority have over and over said they don't want mods coming in being the board judges and executioners. They want us to intervene as little as possible. We try to respect those wishes as best we can. Hence the vote system and no mod having any greater power than any others. Hence the 'if we can't get a quorum vote' the default is no action will be taken.

 

We are not perfect. There is no mod on the team who 'sees like a Bodhisattva' or Celestial Taoist sage (alas). We just try to stay out of the way as much as we can.

[Seth Ananda]

Yes...attacking another person's character *directly* as I said earlier in the examples I gave. Impugning, insinuating, condescending statements may also be attacking...but are not done *directly*.

So is attacking a persons race considered not attacking them directly?

 

I posit that it is, as it is attacking what they are on a physical level!

 

If you agree with this logic then you must also concede that any Homophobic remarks/threads/links are also in direct violation of the forum rules, due to the fact they are directly and personally attacking every gay person on the planet.

 

Like race, being Gay is usually not a choice. It is what they are.

 

Roll up your sleeves and start banning the Homophobes.

 

[JustARandomPanda]

So is attacking a persons race considered not attacking them directly?

 

I posit that it is, as it is attacking what they are on a physical level!

 

If you agree with this logic then you must also concede that any Homophobic remarks/threads/links are also in direct violation of the forum rules, due to the fact they are directly and personally attacking every gay person on the planet.

 

Like race, being Gay is usually not a choice. It is what they are.

 

Roll up your sleeves and start banning the Homophobes.

 

I do not have all the answers Seth. Speaking only for myself I do not like any posts attacking others whether it be due to religion, sex, sexual orientation, politics or who-knows-what else.

 

But I am not a dictator. I am not the owner of this board.

 

We actually did consult others before I unhid the thread and based on what we were told - that the statements were of a reasoning nature (presenting their position via reason and logic) - not actual hate-speech - we would not have grounds for taking action.

[eye_of_the_storm]

It seems that most of accusers are in fact the perpetrators.

[eye_of_the_storm]

 

Seth,

 

I would like to get your opinion on this comment... on page 1 of the LGTB thread

 

konchog uma, on 05 Apr 2012 - 04:40, said:

I think the right wing is basically at war with anyone who isn't a white christian american male, or the women who subserviantly gestate and birth their babies (godpleaseletitbeaboy)

 

cept for the closeted ones! hahaaha

 

it is a shame.

 

the problem with the right wing is that people actually associate them with god and jesus and spiritual truth. HAHAHHAHAHA

 

No comment?

[Seth Ananda]

there was no 'reason' or logic involved in the posts. It was nothing but a deliberate attempt to defame a minority for being different.

 

for instance, logic would insist on looking up the source of the posts. {right wing anti gay activists}

 

Or in the case of the 'homosexuals' WWROA quoted, one would consider that there must be many types of personalities each with their own views, within the Gay community, and not one of them in any way defines the whole Gay community itself.

 

Instead, unreasonably and illogically, WWROA presented it as being indicative of Gay culture as a whole.

 

He also presented it as if being Gay was actually a choice that 'education' could correct.

 

 

He and his friends stand guilty of Personally attacking every Gay person in the world, by attacking who they actually are.

 

There must be repercussions.

 

This is exactly the same kind of Bigotry as Race Bigotry and can not be allowed to slide.

 

Hating and attacking someone for who they are.

[eye_of_the_storm]

unsubstantiated