related links ›
(Page 2)
Karina...
I agree with you 100%
Let me get this straight... no name calling and personal attacks... yet, I read in this very blog the following words:
(( [Harold J Macek] --because he is a spoiled brat...never had to do a days work in his life, and has the elitist attitude toward the working class. ))
This statement is factually incorrect and even has a personal attack in it. I am amazed.
I must admit, I have started phrasing my stories titles to "light the powder keg" when people were not responding to objectively written subjects.
I hope that we will see some change in the community.
My question regards the enforcement of abusive and non contribution to the threads. The perpetrators should be revealsed to the "Netscape Public". They should be made an example of to the rest of the community.
The principle problem with flaming posts is that they make it very difficult (for me, at least) to follow the thread of a discussion. I read the comments to gain depth on an issue: not depth on the personality of the commenters. Maybe we need the posters to present an honest emotion vs. analysis ranking. Eventually, this could become an "emotionality" rating for the poster over time. Then we could just set our tolerance level and be done with it.
Eventually, those that like to contribute flaming posts would simply find themselves filtered out - they'd become non-participants, because everybody would be ignoring them. It would be up to them to moderate their conduct to be admitted back into the community.
I guess that I'd like to preserve free speech (although I don't think that Netscape is a government institution: start your own news community?), but also to preserve the right for the thoughtful to be heard. Shouting somebody down is as much an infringement of their free speech as turning them off.
I am a WWII veterans and have the scars to show for it. The plea for politeness in our comments is not at all well taken. We have a chief executive officer who has trashed out civil rights I no longer have a right to a write of habeas corpus (nor do you) And he has trashed our human rights: on his say alone )or that of Mr. Rumsfeld) I can be tortured by simply being called an "enemy combatant."
Although I abhor unnecessary violence, I want to remind the readers that the British crown would not listen to the colonists' polite grievances. The colonists had to rise up in arms. (I am sure they were classed as terrorists by the ruling parliament at the time. - Perhaps they were only classed as uncouth, unwashed, intemperate, foul-mouthed "savages," just like the "redskins.)
The Union was losing the Civil War until black soldiers were permitted to fight and only in the last two years of the war. All of the speeches and all of the dialogues were useless, the Confederacy had to be defeated by blood. It was largely black blood that did the bleeding in the Union Army. (If you think I am exaggerating, check the numbers for yourself.)
The President of the United States was appointed by the Supreme Court in 2000 and again in 2004. In the second bid for office his only opponent kept saying:"I can do it better." His opponent did not call him a liar, a cheat or a coward. How nice! We are now saddled with four more years of his lies, his cheats and his cowardice and his opponent still sits in the U.S. Senate..
I would rather that he curse me but treat me like the human being that I am rather than have you be polite but muzzle me and put me in a secret prison and get tortured with the authority Congress had just handed him. (By the way, that congress includes the majority of Democratic representatives. I won't eaven mention Lieberman.
Maybe I am too old to take to the streets but I have done so repeatedly in my 82 years and it distresses me that my fellow Americans have not done so.
The Viet Nam war was stopped on the streets and students were shot on a college campus before the people's voice was heard.
Politeness is not the order of the day, ACTION IS!
If we have free speech then we have free speech.! Maybe you need to put a warning but, if i have something that i feel pasionate (sp) about then I'm going to lay it on the line.
Judging from the vast number of blogs this morning applauding Karina's actions to ban the most offensive comment-makers, it is apparent most people agree with her/Netscape's stand on the subject of "comment abuse". I agree with 'Unorthodox' when he/she says that "Being passionate about a topic differs vastly from reviling those whose opinions are at odds with ones own". I, and I'm sure most people do NOT agree with 'guy Battaglia' who believes that "provocation" is the point of a blog.....I thought blogs were all about debate, ie a forum for open discussion, chats, sharing of views and opinions (whether differing or otherwise) with others, and not about provocation or intimidation. People who resort to offensive/abusive language and personal attacks are not interested in hearing and understanding others' views of the world but only with 'intimidating' others whose opinions differ from their own to, as Karina rightly puts it "win the debate".
I concur with many of those responding to this post. Too often divergent opinions are greeted with insults like "ignorant", "nazi", "fascist", and on and on and on....
We need to develop and demand the practice of "civil" discourse in these forums.
When it comes to fulgarity, no matter how many $'s are placed in the word, its meaning is still clear. Resorting to that tactic is and should be beneath the members of this forum.
I am very pleased by the remarks and sentiments, (from all sides?) on this issue.
Again, my position is not to inflame ...I just want to see Americans and those who want to be Americans be able to enjoy their rights and freedom.
Etiquette, or Netiqeutte is a subtle standard that is left for those who can type, be it with their thumbs or index fingers. I have noticed a decline in the civility of on line banter over the years because we have become too acustome to it being our 'second voice'.
Actually, I thought our politicians should be our 'second voices' but that brings up another point for this string...
As we watch those elected officials and their well earned campaign finances launch aggressive ads and internet positions to denounce, inflame and degrade their opponents and those who believe one way or another...again, the tossing of the baby with the bath water will be for all to see.
The web, is a tool and a fool with a tool is just a faster fool.
May America be strong
See the truths and take the internet with a grain of salt...unless you invested in Google, early.
Thank you
Guy B.
Unforunately what is going on here is a small reflection of what is happening in our society at large. The question is how do we get back to having civil debates about issues and ideas rather than hateful slugfests? As is common, it seems that a few ruin things for the rest.
When I was young there was a standard phrase "Step outside and say that". This has been banned because even to hint at physical violence was thought to be too horrible. The result has been an unleashing of a vast wave of non-physical bullying by people who no longer fear retaliation or the minor humiliation of having to back down (most effective when the challenger was just a bit smaller). The threat of banning these bullies from the Netscape community must be welcomed but is it enough?
Thank you for drawing the line.
Don't let the cry about censorship dissuade you.
Abusive language is like "class", hard to define, but
you know it when you see (hear)it.
This is my first entry--only because you finally said "ENOUGH!"
Hi, you all. I'm Paul from the great state of Texas and I'm a proud Republican. My beef is not with the rank and file of Democrats, but, with some of the so called leaders of that party. It seems to me that these people practice hate speech all the time, (i.e. referring Bush to Hitler and so forth. Weather you like the guy or not, in a time when we have people out there who want nothing more but to end our way of life, well, I think that we need to all band togeather and fight the common cause.
We can return to our bickering and such after we've defeated the common enemy. Just my opinion. I've met many good decent Democrats in my time and I've had spirits debates with them. Sometimes those debates got very passionate, but, at the end we shook hands and made up. I'd also invite all of you to visit my web site promoting my new book. Thanks and God Bless
Paul C. Kerr
Great post. I think when discussion devolves into namecalling, you've missed the point. The purpose of debate is to try and pursuade another person over to your point of view. Name calling puts a barriers between your message and the person youa are trying to persuade. Passion is wonderful, unforgiving zealotry is not. I've been dragged into a few of these sessions and I feel the less for it.
Also for those who cry 'censorship' and 'violation of my rights' remember this is a privately own forum and not a publicly own site. The only rights and privelidges you have here are those given you by the owners of this site.
I guess that your banning of "Hate Speech" includes a ban on anything that Kieth Olberman writes!
8:11PMDavid Leonard Vega (Kawika Kaleoikaikaonanai'a)
Aloha From Hawaii,
This is absolutely the first time in six years I have seen someone take a stand against abusive language, personal attacks, threats, and individual bashing on a comment thread. I stopped posting anything on comment threads, as well participating in chat groups, or bulletin boards because of the abusive after-posts. I tried to be as objective as possible stating my view of a particular subject only to be picked apart needlessly by people hell-bent on venting their untreated anger issues.
Bravo to those of you who are conscientious enough to want free speech, argumentation, and debate without the personal attacks and other IMMATURE behavior. Bravo!