NationStates Jolt Archive

I strongly object to language such as that used by Valdania being allowed on the forums. I don't care how much he dislikes someone, I don't think that wishing death or injury on them is acceptable.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10829369&postcount=1
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10829539&postcount=13

Tactical Grace has commented on the thread so I'm assuming that this isn't against site rules; I did, however, still want to raise my objection and hope that you will take a stronger line against it in future, even if this particular instance isn't 'illegal'.

(From thread http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=479170)

Does this mean we crack down on all who wish the same on Osama bin Laden? Or George W Bush? Or Robert Mugabe? Where do you think the line should be drawn on protecting famous people, not on this board, from people who express gloating at their misfortune?

Does this mean we crack down on all who wish the same on Osama bin Laden? Or George W Bush? Or Robert Mugabe? Where do you think the line should be drawn on protecting famous people, not on this board, from people who express gloating at their misfortune?
I have nothing against people protesting views or putting forward positions, but saying that you think it would be 'amusing' if 'the little turd' was seriously injured?

In the case of Bin Laden or Mugabe, this is not calling for assassination or even torture as a political point/measure; it is calling for torture for the persons own amusement.

Free speech is one thing, but there is a time for a little decency as well.

Since the individual in question is to the best of our knowledge not a NationStates user, and the expression used is a general wish of harm rather than a specific death threat, and it does not constitute an incitement to violence, it is not against the rules. Pretty much anyone can pull a Pat Robertson, and many people do, provided no-one crosses the line by advocating an illegal course of action.

I have nothing against people protesting views or putting forward positions, but saying that you think it would be 'amusing' if 'the little turd' was seriously injured?

So? I've expressed wishes for the demise of our own royalty several times. There is a difference between "oh, I wouldn't mind them dying in a plane crash" and "I'll kill them, or you kill them, and let's hatch a plot to do it!"

In the case of Bin Laden or Mugabe, this is not calling for assassination or even torture as a political point/measure; it is calling for torture for the persons own amusement.

Again, so? It's not going to actually come to fruition. Nobody is going to take it seriously.

Free speech is one thing, but there is a time for a little decency as well.

I really do doubt the mods would like to become arbiters of something so, well, arbitrary as "decency." And I do seriously doubt they'd share your view that "freedom of speech" (not that we ever have anything even close to resembling that on this privately owned forum) is less important in this case than protecting your precious little sentiments.

So? I've expressed wishes for the demise of our own royalty several times. There is a difference between "oh, I wouldn't mind them dying in a plane crash" and "I'll kill them, or you kill them, and let's hatch a plot to do it!"
Again, you have missed out the key point; even "I wouldn't mind them dying" is not the same thing as "it would greatly amuse me if they were killed in a plane crash, preferably as painfully as possible."
I really do doubt the mods would like to become arbiters of something so, well, arbitrary as "decency." And I do seriously doubt they'd share your view that "freedom of speech" (not that we ever have anything even close to resembling that on this privately owned forum) is less important in this case than protecting your precious little sentiments.
I was not expecting that the mods would become arbiters of decency. I made the thread to register my protest, not because I was anticipating any real change to come of it. Sometimes you have to stand up for what you believe in; not because you think you can do anything about it, but because you feel it to be important that your voice is heard.

You may belittle my objections as 'precious little sentiments', but I feel that if more people were to follow those 'precious sentiments' the world would be a much more pleasant place. You and I are never going to see eye to eye on a huge number of issues, but I would never find it amusing to discover you lying horrifically injured. If people could learn to object to an opposing view rather than hate the person holding that view, then the level of debate on this forum would greatly improve.

Well, I have to admit, Bush choking on a pretzel was pretty funny. :p

That's Generalite culture for you.

Again, you have missed out the key point; even "I wouldn't mind them dying" is not the same thing as "it would greatly amuse me if they were killed in a plane crash, preferably as painfully as possible."

You mean to tell me that you took his, for all intents and purposes, humorous hyperbole seriously?

I was not expecting that the mods would become arbiters of decency. I made the thread to register my protest, not because I was anticipating any real change to come of it. Sometimes you have to stand up for what you believe in; not because you think you can do anything about it, but because you feel it to be important that your voice is heard.

You may belittle my objections as 'precious little sentiments', but I feel that if more people were to follow those 'precious sentiments' the world would be a much more pleasant place. You and I are never going to see eye to eye on a huge number of issues, but I would never find it amusing to discover you lying horrifically injured. If people could learn to object to an opposing view rather than hate the person holding that view, then the level of debate on this forum would greatly improve.

So, basically, you did something you knew was pointless in that you yourself realise why it is unworkable, in deciding to bitch to the mods, instead of trying to affect a change in people's attitudes by, you know, affecting the attitudes of people, about how not everyone is as sanctimoniously holy as thou and that they should try to enforce your ("I still want to raise my objection and hope that you will take a stronger line against it in future"), for lack of a better term, "morality" in the future?

You mean to tell me that you took his, for all intents and purposes, humorous hyperbole seriously?
Yes. You may dispute my 'morality', but I don't think it is ever 'humorous' to laugh at serious injury, any more than it is 'humorous' to laugh at racist jokes ("I've got black friends, honest"), sexual harrassment, homophobic insults...the list goes on. Saying it is wrong to wish injury on someone is common decency, not PC gone mad.

So, basically, you did something you knew was pointless in that you yourself realise why it is unworkable, in deciding to bitch to the mods, instead of trying to affect a change in people's attitudes by, you know, affecting the attitudes of people, about how not everyone is as sanctimoniously holy as thou and that they should try to enforce your ("I still want to raise my objection and hope that you will take a stronger line against it in future"), for lack of a better term, "morality" in the future?
Several people had already raised objections to the poster himself in the thread. I wanted to raise objections to the mods, and so did so here.

You may throw 'morality' around as if it is a dirty word; I do not believe it is so. Every system needs rules and boundaries or it decends into anarchy and chaos; I simply objected to where the line is drawn in this case.

Yes.

Then you really should think long and hard about turning the computer off, if something like that gets your knickers in a twist and you actually take it seriously.

You may dispute my 'morality', but I don't think it is ever 'humorous' to laugh at serious injury,

Then you are in the minority, it would seem, what with the popularity of home video shows and films where people fall down a lot.

any more than it is 'humorous' to laugh at racist jokes ("I've got black friends, honest"), sexual harrassment, homophobic insults...the list goes on. Saying it is wrong to wish injury on someone is common decency, not PC gone mad.

Red herring.

Several people had already raised objections to the poster himself in the thread. I wanted to raise objections to the mods, and so did so here.

You confess to knowing how unworkable what you suggested was. Seems to me like you just wanted to see yourself post. Almost spammish, in a sense.

You may throw 'morality' around as if it is a dirty word; I do not believe it is so. Every system needs rules and boundaries or it decends into anarchy and chaos; I simply objected to where the line is drawn in this case.

And your objection falls on deaf ears, it seems, probably seeing as it is quite frankly overly sensitive, which brings us back to that whole business about turning the comp off if people are too human for you.

Then you really should think long and hard about turning the computer off, if something like that gets your knickers in a twist and you actually take it seriously.
Why? I am capable of raising an objection to something without 'getting my knickers in a twist' about it. I assure you I am not foaming at the mouth or bouncing around in a rage. Sometimes it is possible to object to things calmly, you know.
Then you are in the minority, it would seem, what with the popularity of home video shows and films where people fall down a lot.
Are these clips serious injuries, caused by a dispute over ideologies?

I would say I am very much in the majority, what with the courts taking a very dim view of people who actually commit violent crimes or stand by laughing at a serious injury.
Red herring.
"Fass would rather not argue this point, and so is going to ignore it as irrelevent."
You confess to knowing how unworkable what you suggested was. Seems to me like you just wanted to see yourself post. Almost spammish, in a sense.
There are many people who bring petitions to national Parliaments, go on marches against wars/poverty/crime/debt etc. Are they being 'spammish' in raising their protest, despite knowing it is unlikely to make a difference?

Only by voicing our views can we hope to be heard.
And your objection falls on deaf ears, it seems, probably seeing as it is quite frankly overly sensitive, which brings us back to that whole business about turning the comp off if people are too human for you.
I am aware of the nature of people, and, as I said above, am equally aware that laws and boundaries exist for when people take such nature too far.

Why? I am capable of raising an objection to something without 'getting my knickers in a twist' about it. I assure you I am not foaming at the mouth or bouncing around in a rage. Sometimes it is possible to object to things calmly, you know.

People who don't have their knickers in a twist don't go crying to an authority to make the bad people go away.
Are these clips serious injuries, caused by a dispute over ideologies?

Is expressing a casual wish to see someone famous you do not like get hurt going to, in any way, cause that person to get hurt? Really, now. What you are reacting to is only dwarfed in its insignificance by the insignificance of your reaction to it.

I would say I am very much in the majority, what with the courts taking a very dim view of people who actually commit violent crimes or stand by laughing at a serious injury.

No court in the democratic world would ever touch anything like this. In fact, they would laugh you out of their chambers for trying to waste their time with something as silly as this.

"Fass would rather not argue this point, and so is going to ignore it as irrelevent."

Rather, I will not let you introduce irrelevancies so that you may argue them and then pretend you argued whatever point it is you attempted to have in this thread.

There are many people who bring petitions to national Parliaments, go on marches against wars/poverty/crime/debt etc. Are they being 'spammish' in raising their protest, despite knowing it is unlikely to make a difference?

Only by voicing our views can we hope to be heard.

You are comparing this to petitions against societal injustices? I suggest you adjust your perspective as well as your sense of self-importance.

I am aware of the nature of people, and, as I said above, am equally aware that laws and boundaries exist for when people take such nature too far.

And there are no laws, or regulations on this board, that prohibit us from saying nasty things about famous people. What you're doing here is basically whining over something very, very insignificant, which you are trying to blow into ridiculous proportions.

Okaaay... I think the body of official opinion has been established. ;)