The Human Cost of Talking Trump

[Marblehead]

Yeah, I knew you were talking Buddhism in the post above but I still liked it.  Wisdom is wisdom regardless of the source.

 

[liminal_luke]

1 hour ago, dawei said:

 

I mentioned in my previous post about respect... and I think that is what played out... as disrespect.   Folks took something personal and then wanted a retraction or apology, etc.    I think in both cases, they were right in their feeling but the offending person didn't want to offer it...  

 

It's not my intention to blame the mods, or anybody for that matter.

 

I think it comes down to deciding whether or not we as a community are willing to let expressions of contempt stand.  The problem isn't really that we are discussing Trump.  It's that we are attacking each other's character.  There's a world of difference between saying "I disagree with you and here's why" and "you are an idiot." 

 

The rules seem a little murky to me.  Is it OK to make a global assault on the character of another Bum or not?  From the way things have been moderated it`s not clear.  Perhaps it`s OK to call someone a name Off-Grid and not OK elsewhere?  

 

If I call you an Asshat that`s clearly a global expression of contempt.  Yes, it`s kind of a cute one.  Quasi humorous, even.  But still it`s me saying that you, in your essential being, are this bad thing that I feel contempt for.

 

If I call you a "typical liberal" is that also an expression of contempt?  Probably not if I say it.  I might mean that you are someone who upholds values of social justice and concern for the environmment, for example.  But if Jonesboy says it it`s an insult because it`s clear from the context of his posts that he holds people he considers "typical liberals" in contempt. (The adjective "typical," in particular, confirms the contemptuous nature of this slight.)  Taomeow appears to have felt insulted when Jonesboy called her a typical liberal, and she was exactly right: Jonesboy intended to malign her character and did so. There`s no doubt in my mind.  

 

Did I say I didn`t blame the mods?  Maybe I do, a bit.  Right now there`s a lack of clarity around the rules.  I`d prefer if all reported expressions of contempt were met with swift (but not onerous) justice -- asking the offending member to edit the post or suffer (?) a short suspension.  This is not what`s happening.  What is happening (or not) isn`t entirely clear and in my opinion deserves clarification. 

 

Edited March 16, 2018 by liminal_luke

[Kar3n]

18 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

Why not tone it down and stop addressing persons here as if they are children. This site is anything but egalitarian, but has become a refuge for extremists to spout their divisiveness. Your statement from the past that made the claim that if everyone has their say, it will be healing, quite the contrary is what I see. 

As I see it you have your say, often. If it is not healing for you that falls on your shoulders to let things go after you get it out. No one is trying to stifle you, yet you wish others to be censored upon your request based on your perception and interpretation then accuse staff of letting things slide, giving a platform to -its or just flat out not moderating.

 

It is persons who make demands and think their rights and thought process are superior to that of others that make this site less egalitarian than it should be. We do not have to accept or agree with other members, however, we must be civil and not call them names.

 

It is understandable that people want someone to blame when things do not go their way or they can't force another to take on their views in a disagreement and the discussion ends up the latest flaming spitwad in the report center. That blame more often than not is directed towards staff. If there is anyone to blame it is the people involved in the discussions that allow themselves to get emotionally entangled and fall into the rabbit hole. Personally, I'd rather not see it happen as often as it does here in off-grid.

 

As far as toning it down goes, not a chance. It is my duty to enforce and remind members of the rules and principles of this forum and I will do so alongside fellow staff, both pubically and privately whenever the situation warrants. I will not apologize to you or anyone else for my tone in doing so. 

[Kar3n]

7 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

If I call you a "typical liberal" is that also an expression of contempt?  Probably not if I say it.  I might mean that you are someone who upholds values of social justice and concern for the environmment, for example.  But if Jonesboy says it it`s an insult because it`s clear from the context of his posts that he holds people he considers "typical liberals" in contempt. (The adjective "typical," in particular, confirms the contemptuous nature of this slight.)  Taomeow appears to have felt insulted when Jonesboy called her a typical liberal, and she was exactly right: Jonesboy intended to malign her character and did so. There`s no doubt in my mind.  

I can tell you that he was not attacking her character by calling her a typical liberal. Maybe you should message him and discuss it with him instead of besmirching him in the way that you claimed that she was.

 

If you had bothered to read the thread you might have noticed that he apologized twice and she perpetuated the situation saying she felt like it and it is a free counrty, even going so far as to attack his moral character, sexual orientation and upbringing in ways that I have seen people banned permanently from this site for. 

 

Taomeow's rant boiled down to admin and the mod team not jumping high enough or fast enough to her demands and she threw a fit taking matters into her own hands further exacerbating the entire situation.

 

Let me say this, Tom, jonesboy, is my husband and I can tell you with 100% certainty that he would never inflict such a vile tirade, like was directed at him, upon any person on this forum or in his day to day life. He might call someone a typical liberal, but he would never accuse them of sodomy and rape because they used the term butt hurt.

 

You go ahead and tell me how those types of accusations should be handled. Tell me if that type of besmirchment is acceptable, because from where I'm standing it certainly looks like that's all okay, but it is a travesty to malign anyone's character by calling them a liberal.

[ralis]

32 minutes ago, Kar3n said:

As I see it you have your say, often. If it is not healing for you that falls on your shoulders to let things go after you get it out. No one is trying to stifle you, yet you wish others to be censored upon your request based on your perception and interpretation then accuse staff of letting things slide, giving a platform to -its or just flat out not moderating.

 

It is persons who make demands and think their rights and thought process are superior to that of others that make this site less egalitarian than it should be. We do not have to accept or agree with other members, however, we must be civil and not call them names.

 

It is understandable that people want someone to blame when things do not go their way or they can't force another to take on their views in a disagreement and the discussion ends up the latest flaming spitwad in the report center. That blame more often than not is directed towards staff. If there is anyone to blame it is the people involved in the discussions that allow themselves to get emotionally entangled and fall into the rabbit hole. Personally, I'd rather not see it happen as often as it does here in off-grid.

 

As far as toning it down goes, not a chance. It is my duty to enforce and remind members of the rules and principles of this forum and I will do so alongside fellow staff, both pubically and privately whenever the situation warrants. I will not apologize to you or anyone else for my tone in doing so. 

 

3 minutes ago, Kar3n said:

I can tell you that he was not attacking her character by calling her a typical liberal. Maybe you should message him and discuss it with him instead of besmirching him in the way that you claimed that she was.

 

If you had bothered to read the thread you might have noticed that he apologized twice and she perpetuated the situation saying she felt like it and it is a free counrty, even going so far as to attack his moral character, sexual orientation and upbringing in ways that I have seen people banned permanently from this site for. 

 

Taomeow's rant boiled down to admin and the mod team not jumping high enough or fast enough to her demands and she threw a fit taking matters into her own hands further exacerbating the entire situation.

 

Let me say this, Tom, jonesboy, is my husband and I can tell you with 100% certainty that he would never inflict such a vile tirade, like was directed at him, upon any person on this forum or in his day to day life. He might call someone a typical liberal, but he would never accuse them of sodomy and rape because they used the term butt hurt.

 

You go ahead and tell me how those types of accusations should be handled. Tell me if that type of besmirchment is acceptable, because from where I'm standing it certainly looks like that's all okay, but it is a travesty to malign anyone's character by calling them a liberal.

 

Being called a liberal is maligning to ones person? Seems to be a disparaging remark to persons that don’t share your ideology. 

[liminal_luke]

Karen,

 

I`m just relating how the word "typical liberal" strikes me.  It feels contemptuous to me and it`s hard for me to imagine reading it any other way.  Could I be wrong?  Yes.  Is it possible that Taomeow`s counteractions were even more egregiously contemptuous?  I`ve no way of knowing as I was not privy to her communications with staff and did not see her now-hidden post that is the subject of so much controversy. 

 

How should accusations be handled? Evenhandedly.  If we`ve decided as a community that expressions of contempt are not allowed and Taomeow -- or anyone -- is contemptuous anyways, then that incident should be handled exactly like all similar incidents.  

 

I count many typical liberals among my friends and could fairly be considered a typical liberal myself.  So no, I don`t think the phrase is in and of itself insulting.  It starts to feel insulting though when spoken by someone who isn`t a typical liberal.  Perhaps Jonesboy meant in a very light way?  Just as a statement of fact with no emotional force behind it?  I suppose that`s possible.  In print though his words feel contemptuous --  to me, presumably to Taomeow, and I`m betting to a lot of folks.  If I`m wrong, my apologies.  It`s my intention to highlight an issue of moderation, not to attack anyone`s character. 

 

Edited March 16, 2018 by liminal_luke

[Kar3n]

Who decides what is contemptuous from a moderation standpoint?  When moderating, I will usually message the person who created the offending post and ask them their intent, ask them to edit. On most occasions people are happy to edit their posts and to clarify what they are trying to say when they are unemotional about the matter. I take them at their word, because for me to do anything else would  be contentious on my part.

 

When emotions are involved, it appears to me that all sense of rational thinking has gone by the wayside and folks want things their way, right then, or the mod team are falling down on their job and not protecting the community as they should.

 

We put forth great effort to be consistent in our moderating style and am saddened that it is not evident and some members think that we are not doing a good job.

 

In moderating the forum, sadly, we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. Nothing is ever good enough to the emotionally aroused; it just comes with the territory and is a cultivation practice like no other.

 

This too shall pass...

[windwalker]

38 minutes ago, ralis said:

Being called a liberal is maligning to ones person? Seems to be a disparaging remark to persons that don’t share your ideology. 

 

 

Something about a mirror comes to mind. 

 

Interesting how on a site that many claim to practice inner disciplines, some people are still attached to an outer self. One that likes labels  and being seen as one them not of the other. 

 

What is being asked and promoted by some  here, is reflected by the larger whole,  who some might say share the same ideology as those called "liberal"    

 

 

The Trump, thread essentially  voicing reactions to what some see including myself  as a clear and present danger to the freedoms many of us enjoy, respect,  and use.   In this sense its not about "Trump"  IMO never really was or is....

 

 

[Marblehead]

12 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

The rules seem a little murky to me.  Is it OK to make a global assault on the character of another Bum or not?  From the way things have been moderated it`s not clear.  Perhaps it`s OK to call someone a name Off-Grid and not OK elsewhere?  

 

That is always a problem as it is difficult sometimes to state absolute that something said was a personal attack.

 

"You are acting like ..." really isn't a personal attack.  It is simply an observation.

 

"You are an ..." is a personal attack.  But is it worthy of a warning or a suspension?

 

Subjective decisions by Admin or Mods will always be questioned by the general membership.

 

Please keep in mind that Admin/Mods have been trying to allow us to be self-moderating.  As a result Admin/Mods will be damned if they do and damned if they don't.

 

[Marblehead]

11 hours ago, ralis said:

 

 

Being called a liberal is maligning to ones person? Seems to be a disparaging remark to persons that don’t share your ideology. 

Funny.  Ralis is a liberal.  Marblehead is a conservative.  We are still friends.

 

But then, Hillary and Donald are not friends.  The difference?  Ego.

 

 

[dawei]

12 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

 

It's not my intention to blame the mods, or anybody for that matter.

 

I think it comes down to deciding whether or not we as a community are willing to let expressions of contempt stand.  The problem isn't really that we are discussing Trump.  It's that we are attacking each other's character.  There's a world of difference between saying "I disagree with you and here's why" and "you are an idiot." 

 

The rules seem a little murky to me.  Is it OK to make a global assault on the character of another Bum or not? 

 

global assault on the character of another Bum  

 

A great metaphor, just not accurate 

 

The only person we've discussed action on is TM... she reported Jonesboy despite he apologized twice and explained (owned up to) trolling a bit.   She pursued him and pushed the issue till he commented with the phrase 'butt-hurt', which she reported and admitted she has no real understanding of it and then proceeded to claim definitions that don't exist for it:

 

 I've always thought that it's either a homophobic slur employed by a closeted gay male to assert his masculinity by attacking uncloseted gay males, or a reference to anal sex with a woman with even more unappetizing connotations for the user.  I would rather see mod intervention in regard to Jonesboy using it toward me, but if such intervention is not forthcoming, then I will opt for posting this very explanation, possibly with more detailed and thorough analysis of the rather obvious origins of such imagery  in a person resorting to it. 

 

In her reported post, she threaten the staff she would post more of the claim if mods didn't do something.

 

Her response can be seen here:

 

A simple google search will reveal its real history as spanking that then turned to simply meaning more of "overly or unjustifiably offended or resentful."

 

The idea you raise of 'contempt' is rather loose in application.  If you call me a man but I identify as a woman... I might accuse you of contempt for me.  Where does it stop?  I won't get caught up in moralism debates, folks can certainly hold that as they see fit but I'm not sure it is healthy to see the world as labeling us with contempt when that may just be our own view of it.  

 

So your arguments to me so far seem to mean that we should take action on TM...  would the rules be less murky then ?

 

So far, I've simply let folks blow off steam...  Having children is a great lesson in allowing this murky idea. 

 

[Bindi]

40 minutes ago, dawei said:

 

global assault on the character of another Bum  

 

A great metaphor, just not accurate 

 

The only person we've discussed action on is TM... she reported Jonesboy despite he apologized twice and explained (owned up to) trolling a bit.   She pursued him and pushed the issue till he commented with the phrase 'butt-hurt', which she reported and admitted she has no real understanding of it and then proceeded to claim definitions that don't exist for it:

 

 

 

 

In her reported post, she threaten the staff she would post more of the claim if mods didn't do something.

 

Her response can be seen here:

 

A simple google search will reveal its real history as spanking that then turned to simply meaning more of "overly or unjustifiably offended or resentful."

 

I did a simple google search, apparently Taomeow isn't the first person to have noticed a rather stronger possible association to the term butt-hurt than you have presented:

 

Quote

There is, however, a pretty obvious cause of butthurt that everyone envisions when they try to think of its point of origin. It's called getting fucked in the ass.

 

http://gawker.com/5965417/on-butthurt

 

 

[Kar3n]

17 minutes ago, Bindi said:

 

I did a simple google search, apparently Taomeow isn't the first person to have noticed a rather stronger possible association to the term butt-hurt than you have presented:

 

 

 

It says a lot about the mind and character of a person who would go to that extreme in defining the term. 

[Marblehead]

14 minutes ago, Bindi said:

I did a simple google search, apparently Taomeow isn't the first person to have noticed a rather stronger possible association to the term butt-hurt than you have presented:

 

Sure, we each have our personal background of experiences.  There will always be differing understandings of terms we use.

 

This is when we must remain flexible with our responses to others.

 

I'm sure, because of my Army background and the language I use I get reported more often than I am ever made aware of.  I can understand where some might be a little offended by some of the terms I use.  This is where I ask others to be understanding of my background.

 

The term "butt-hurt" was actually a new one for me.  And that it has two definitions leaves the reader responsible for how they define the word.

 

"Butt-hurt":  I have always used the phrase that I got screwed without getting a kiss first.

 

 

 

 

[Marblehead]

3 minutes ago, Kar3n said:

It says a lot about the mind and character of a person who would go to that extreme in defining the term. 

Be easy on me regarding what I just said above.

 

[Kar3n]

6 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

Be easy on me regarding what I just said above.

 

Of course...

 

A simple Google search could have cleared any misunderstanding of the use of the term in this case. There are 17 Google search results before the above linked article that contain the intended use and widely accepted meaning.

 

If a person wants to take a word or idiom and make it something other than it's intended use, that is on them and in their mind. We can not blame others for what we create and conjure as our own truth.

[dawei]

45 minutes ago, Bindi said:

 

I did a simple google search, apparently Taomeow isn't the first person to have noticed a rather stronger possible association to the term butt-hurt than you have presented:

 

  Quote

There is, however, a pretty obvious cause of butthurt that everyone envisions when they try to think of its point of origin. It's called getting fucked in the ass.

 

http://gawker.com/5965417/on-butthurt

 

 

funny you didn't quote what they claimed is the #1 definition... which is the common usage and how it was used... but instead used one that claims 'everyone envisions'...  please...  it should read, everyone whose head is in the gutter.   I guess dickhead (a stupid, irritating, or ridiculous person, particularly a man.) would be off limits too then ?   

 

This only reminds me of the childhood phrase... sticks and stones...  

 

But I do feel bad if someone mistook a sexual meaning as there is none in the context it was given.  It's been explained too many times but it just gets ignored.  We (staff) really only need to address how and when it was used, not every possible flight of definition the world envisions. 

 

[Trunk]

1 hour ago, Kar3n said:

It says a lot about the mind and character of a person who would go to that extreme in defining the term. 

 

What unwelcome violation could someone do to you, that would make your butt hurt, that would cause you distress and that would be worthy of strong complaint?

 

59 minutes ago, dawei said:

This only reminds me of the childhood phrase... sticks and stones... 

 

This whole forum is entirely words.

[liminal_luke]

A person could fairly say that this whole topic started out in the gutter and has only gone downhill from there.  I started it but likely won`t finish it.  I do, however, have a few concluding comments before I take my final bow (or am booed off-stage).

 

(1) I personally don`t think Jonesboy meant the term "butthurt" in a sexual way.

 

(2) Butthurt is a very vivid word.  A Bum doesn`t need to start out in an erotic frame of mind to end up with unpleasant and unwelcome (to some) images in  mind.  The denotative dictionary definition having to do with insults is really a metaphor for actual literal butt hurt.  How does one get one`s butt hurt?  There`s only a limited number of ways and I hope we never have legitimate cause to discuss any of them in the course of a thread porportedy dealing with the president of the United States.

 

(3) Taomeow has said she meant her posted reaction to the butthurt comment in a tongue-in-cheek way.  She seems to have been making the point that words that conjure images of anal sex have great potential to trigger emotional reactions.  The emotional reactions that her post triggered prove that she was right.  If I thought she truly meant to be homophobic, I`d be the first person to say so.  I do not.

 

(4) Rules need to be clear.  At the moment there`s a lack of clarity about the moderation process.  The insult policy as written states that name calling is not allowed and yet...Marblehead says that moderators are trying to let us be "self-moderating" ...Dawai says "sticks and stones will break my bones...".  So which is it?  Right now I`m not certain if reported name calling will result in moderation action or not.  Perhaps it`s just my absolutist streak coming to the fore, but I believe the answer should be yes or no.

 

 

 

 

[Kar3n]

6 minutes ago, Trunk said:

 

What unwelcome violation could someone do to you, that would make your butt hurt, that would cause you distress and that would be worthy of strong complaint?

Oh, let me see, there is not a thing on this forum that literally makes my butt hurt or chaps my ass in a way that I would need to to apply cream to it.

 

The intended definition has been posted quite a few times, there is no need to reiterate it to those who choose to ignore it and justify such a vile and not so "tongue in cheek" response to it.

 

With the thought processes in play in this discussion, I wonder if anyone will think to ask if TM is talking about the cheek as it relates to the face and inside of the mouth or the cheek of somone's ass? Pretty ridiculous, huh? Almost as ridiculous as defending the nasty attack made against my husband because he used the term butt hurt.

 

6 minutes ago, Trunk said:

 

 

This whole forum is entirely words.

 

[Aetherous]

Common usage of "butthurt" is to say that someone needs to get over what they're upset about.

The implied meaning of the term is that they were just raped. Doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.

[Kar3n]

15 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

Common usage of "butthurt" is to say that someone needs to get over what they're upset about.

The implied meaning of the term is that they were just raped. Doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.

By that logic, we can infer that TM wants to lick someone's ass or lick someone in the ass, as she did say it was tongue-in-cheek.

[Aetherous]

3 minutes ago, Kar3n said:

By that logic, we can infer that TM wants to lick someone's ass or lick someone in the ass, as she did say it was tongue-in-cheek.

 

I don't really have time to read what she said, but perhaps she was making that joke...and if so, that's quite witty.

[Kar3n]

1 minute ago, Aetherous said:

 

I don't really have time to read what she said, but perhaps she was making that joke...and if so, that's quite witty.

Funny how wit comes into play when we are talking TM, but when we talk jonesboy it is troll, bully, sodomite, rapist and abused.

 

The double standards are quite amazing...

[rainbowvein]

2 hours ago, Trunk said:

This whole forum is entirely words.

 

We live in an energetic sea. Inherent in words is energy.

 

The energy experienced can vary:

The actual meaning, perceived meaning, and also the energy and intent of the author.

 

One person's energetic nick is another's incision.