randomq - I'll be honest, I've been skipping the longer posts when I see that they're just bickering.
I get that, and figure it's the case for most people when presented with a wall of text. Often times such conversations end up being so nuanced and self-referential that only the two posters are able to keep track of the bouncing ball and maybe it's best to move it to DMs. But then on occasion someone chimes in about some point or the other showing there is some unknown audience playing along. Hard to know at any given moment who, if anyone, is getting something out of it all.
I can see arguing for the truth when people start posting "alternative facts" and allegations about things that matter.
As I think you're getting a sense of, there is a tendency amongst some posters to ignore basic realities and invent fictions that tell them what they want to hear, these made-up narratives that cast them as fighting the imagined evils of the world, or absolve them of personal responsibility for their choices. But when you point out there's no evidence to back up some wackadoodle claim, or that a basic fact of capitalism is that when you give money to a company you provide financial support to the company's owners, and they come back with "well, that's just like your opinion man", it seems like you either choose to try to emphasize the facts again, or go whatevs, ok boomer.
HiloJulie - Just to put a bit of context with respect to what some are calling my seeming "being offended in the name of some self-determined decency standard" comes from my 35 plus year profession. https://www2.stetson.edu/advocacy-resour...INKING.pdf
While it may be true that "the courtroom is not an old boys club", it is obviously true that Punaweb is not a courtroom, nor are posts here legal briefs, so your related expectations are misplaced. Also, your doc there isn't advocating for censoring the offensive language or rude gestures, rather trying to point out that they may not be effective and/or may negatively impact your audience. Ok, sometimes the point is to offend, rude language and gestures exist for a reason, see Carlin's 7 words routine, etc. But again, none of this supports your calls for a tech-based censorship regime.
So please bear with me a bit longer as I learn and come to grips with the fact that some don't think much or care much about human decency and apparently, one could argue, is a "previously existing and long-standing conventions of Punaweb."
Again, some don't think or care much about your definition of human decency, where bad words are a no no, but refusing to listen to community members about the number, tone, and lack of Hawai'i focus of your posts is entirely ok, as it serves your interests, everyone else be damned. Do you really want to be the most disliked member of Punaweb ever, whose permanent banning brings nothing but cheers and sighs of relief?
If so, keep it up then, keep it right up...
I get that, and figure it's the case for most people when presented with a wall of text. Often times such conversations end up being so nuanced and self-referential that only the two posters are able to keep track of the bouncing ball and maybe it's best to move it to DMs. But then on occasion someone chimes in about some point or the other showing there is some unknown audience playing along. Hard to know at any given moment who, if anyone, is getting something out of it all.
I can see arguing for the truth when people start posting "alternative facts" and allegations about things that matter.
As I think you're getting a sense of, there is a tendency amongst some posters to ignore basic realities and invent fictions that tell them what they want to hear, these made-up narratives that cast them as fighting the imagined evils of the world, or absolve them of personal responsibility for their choices. But when you point out there's no evidence to back up some wackadoodle claim, or that a basic fact of capitalism is that when you give money to a company you provide financial support to the company's owners, and they come back with "well, that's just like your opinion man", it seems like you either choose to try to emphasize the facts again, or go whatevs, ok boomer.
HiloJulie - Just to put a bit of context with respect to what some are calling my seeming "being offended in the name of some self-determined decency standard" comes from my 35 plus year profession. https://www2.stetson.edu/advocacy-resour...INKING.pdf
While it may be true that "the courtroom is not an old boys club", it is obviously true that Punaweb is not a courtroom, nor are posts here legal briefs, so your related expectations are misplaced. Also, your doc there isn't advocating for censoring the offensive language or rude gestures, rather trying to point out that they may not be effective and/or may negatively impact your audience. Ok, sometimes the point is to offend, rude language and gestures exist for a reason, see Carlin's 7 words routine, etc. But again, none of this supports your calls for a tech-based censorship regime.
So please bear with me a bit longer as I learn and come to grips with the fact that some don't think much or care much about human decency and apparently, one could argue, is a "previously existing and long-standing conventions of Punaweb."
Again, some don't think or care much about your definition of human decency, where bad words are a no no, but refusing to listen to community members about the number, tone, and lack of Hawai'i focus of your posts is entirely ok, as it serves your interests, everyone else be damned. Do you really want to be the most disliked member of Punaweb ever, whose permanent banning brings nothing but cheers and sighs of relief?
If so, keep it up then, keep it right up...