Have you read through the multiple discussion threads we've had on this? You are essentially advocating a hands-off approach where we let bigots off the hook for being bigots. Intolerance needs to be called out or it will breed and fester. We need to say, without equivocation or hesitation, that they are wrong. It's not because we're trying to beat them in an argument, it's to establish an environment where bigotry is unacceptable and frowned upon. Bigotry is not a victimless crime.

I'm not sure what to make of your last sentence. I suppose it's an insult. But it's a well deserved one, e.g. in Jacer's case. I will call a spade a spade.

Please allow me to explain, from my point of view, why I see the criticisms of the criticisms as valid.

1) Refers to this post, I believe. While open-ended language can indeed be an issue, that's not the point at the moment. From what I get, most of the arguments and issues with Tungsten's post come from this paragraph here:

"Putting this kind of thing in the Constitution sets a dangerous precedent. I move that rather than amending our rules, we deal with these things on a case-by-case basis. We're mature adults, for God's sake, and if people have a problem with each other then they can settle it like adults."

Well, this is where the "we aren't mature adults" argument comes in. Go down and look at Tray's post. Look at the drama that unfolded with Jacer and Tray leaving. Then come back and tell me that that was handled in a mature manner. I am getting tired of reiterating this, but it seems I have to one more time: A bigot was defended by people in this community after she caused another good, hardworking member of our community to have such mental anguish that he tried to kill himself. Apparently without something reminding us to not be dicks, we can't "settle it like adults." We are not mature people when that happens. This is a terrible precedent to set and we as a community should be ashamed to have let it happen.

As for the argument you labeled as avoidance... well yes, in this case, I would rather change the rules than have someone like Tray leave. And pretty much everyone else who spoke up and stated they would too if Jacer's presence was given further tolerance.

"Yes, we may lose some members. But that's always going to happen: people disagree. I'd much prefer that to a board where a ban on "diffusion of harmful opinions" is in force."

There is people disagreeing about plots and character arcs, and whether one should use an Oxford comma or not, and then there is someone who believe that it is her purpose, nay, her God-given duty to go around telling people that they're sinners because of the way they were born. That they're disgusting. That they are sub-human monstrosities. That the way she believes is the way things should be for all.

To paraphrase an actual decent person: "To tolerate intolerance is to breed intolerance."

2) Going off this post. Here are my issues with it.

"At the same time, it would be great if we didn't develop a vigilante culture where people are not permitted to move on from past mistakes after acknowledging and correcting them."

Well, aside from the fact that the PPC has the tendency to not actually have mods and has survived by everyone sort of glaring at the wrongdoer? Except in larger, drama-filled cases, apparently?

Please, show me anywhere that Jacer ever showed any sign of remorse for what she was saying and doing. She didn't. Never did she apologize or show any sign of sorrow for the pain and hatred she spread.

"If they'd instead gone all SOCIAL-JUSTICE-WARRIOR-HULK-SMASH, it would have been a much more lonely and painful process, and I wouldn't have had anywhere safe to land after completing it. It feels good to dispense the fire of righteous justice from above, but when it's dispensed indiscriminately, people who are genuinely trying to do better have nowhere to do it."

Well yes, this. Jacer showed us the effects of raining her own version of righteous justice down on a pretty large portion of our community.

Yeah, if someone shows signs of bigotry, do try and convince them otherwise. But when hatred leads to a massive amount of mental anguish about oneself, then they need to be removed. Trying to help someone is all well and nice when you can handle it and you aren't constantly in their line of fire.

3) Going off this, this, and this.

I honestly don't see any bit where VM says she actually thought that this is what StarShadow thought.

"The problem I see is that anyone who doesn’t support gay rights, and all their opinion on said topic, are labeled as homophobic."

I defy anyone on this planet to come up with a reason as to why not supporting gay rights is not homophobic.

There are only really two possibilities, with the strict focus on same-sex marriage:

1: You're against all marriage.

Doesn't make you homophobic because you just don't believe anyone should be getting married. You're as against heterosexual marriage as same-sex marriage.

2: You've never even heard of the concept of gay marriage.

But once you have, where do you go from there? If you aren't okay with it, any excuse you can come up with makes it homophobic.

VM responded to that with this:

"Yes. It is true that this amendment would result in basically prohibiting people from talking about how they do not believe in the civil rights of LGBTQ people."

While I have a feeling that few would necessarily disagree, this is a point that did need clarification and was horrendously over-simplified, as VM later admitted and further expanded upon to essentially say "yeah, you can state your opinion, just don't be a dick about it."

Therefore I'd have to say that what you stated about VM was grossly taken out of context and pretty much completely disregarded her entire argument. VM did not state that StarShadow assumed anything. She simply pointed out that there is a difference between having an opinion and bashing people over the head with it.

Now, I am well aware that I am mighty incensed right now, and here's why: None of these arguments are illegitimate. The problem is the context in which they were brought up. They essentially ignore the entire issue with Jacer and what she did, and that I find utterly disgraceful. We were not mature, we were not reasonable. We were not vigilantes, we were bystanders. We didn't just let someone have an opinion, we let someone smear it in our faces and beat us around the head with it.

thank you, Phobos and Neshomeh.

And I absolutely agree that both 'I can do it because the Constitution' and 'You can't do that because the Constitution' can be dangerous and stupid statements. The problem recently seems to have been that people's consciences seem to have been saying different things - and thus, we codify it a little while assuming that the glorious old PPC spirit of free-range anarchy with big brains will continue to apply its common sense both to what is and is not said.

hS

It's a Discworld reference.

I'd love to have someone update those of us who don't visit on what changes (if any) are being suggested.

hS

I am somewhat unsure as to why you are now leaping to use Rule 12 as a defense and in opposition to these changes, when earlier you wanted us to outright ban starting threads on 'potentially controversial topics'.

Specifically views on gay marriage, but they can be extrapolated to other debates.

1/ Huinesoron's actual belief: As a Latter-day Saint, I believe that people will be married for eternity for the purpose of having children (it's complicated). As it stands, Church doctrine is pretty clear that this will require a male and a female - although actually, given that this is God we're talking about, that may be simply an unwarranted assumption (never thought of that before right now). However, up until 30 seconds ago, I would have said, therefore an eternal gay marriage would be something of a contradiction in terms - it wouldn't serve its purpose. However, that's only eternal marriages - sealings, we'd say. What people do in their worldly time is none of my business.

2/ Hypothetical orthodox liberal Mormon's belief: She believes that eternal marriage exists for the having of children, and therefore is between a man and a woman. She also believes that every earthly marriage should be working towards becoming an eternal marriage - since she believes (actually so do I) that God's plan is for everyone to be married who desires to, this means gay marriage would get in the way of that. However, she understands that this is a belief, and shouldn't affect the laws of the country.

3/ Hypothetical orthodox conservative Mormon's belief: He believes much as 2, but also that it is his duty to try and democratically alter the law so that people are encouraged towards (what he believes is) the Right Way.

4/ Hypothetical orthodox Mormon idiot's belief: She believes the same as 3, and that it is also her duty to explain to any 'gaymosexuals' exactly why they are sinful for wanting to get married - but in the spirit of loving kindness, of course.

---

Now, I think it's pretty clear that 4 is not welcome here - she's basically going to harangue people and tell them they're bad people, which is not a good thing. It's also (I hope!) pretty clear that I'm still okay (since according to the above, I actually apparently believe 'Dunno').

My personal opinion is that 2 and 3 - provided of course they conduct themselves in a respectful fashion - should be welcome on the Board. They have beliefs, they act on them, but they don't use them as an excuse for disrespect of persons.

This is of course only one of their many interlocking beliefs relating to gay marriage, and how welcome they would be of course depends on whether they also believe gay people are whatever whatevers who should be taught the error of their ways for non-marriage-related-reasons (which I do not, in case you're worried yet), but assuming the opinions above are all they give, in much the same way I've presented it... which do people think should be allowed on the Board?

hS, desperately hoping he hasn't left out a 'not' somewhere that changes everything around...

To start with, not supporting gay rights does not make you instantly homophobic. When your reasons for not supporting gay rights or LGBT is because they are terrible, sinful and disgusting people, that is homophobic. That is bad. That is what Jacer had done, and she backed this up with blatantly incorrect 'facts', such as that the Church has a right and imperative to intervene in matters of the State.


On a second note, people deserve equal rights, regardless of what they are or where they come from. This, strangely enough, includes gay people. I'm not sure where the wrong in saying people don't have the right to say other people have no rights is.

Yes. It is true that this amendment would result in basically prohibiting people from talking about how they do not believe in the civil rights of LGBTQ people.

I'm not sure how that's a problem.

Since I'm currently unable to access the Constitution in either version (computer restrictions), can someone copy in Article 12 so I know what we're talking about?

hS

Hopefully someone can get a finalised/integrated version up soon, everyone can agree, and I can put it into the Constitution.

hS

Between vacation, and then the Neshomeh stuff up there, and then just general life.

1. Discrimination and persecution of any kind will not be tolerated, especially on the basis of sexism, racism, ableism, nationalism, homophobia, transphobia, or religion. We will not tolerate individual people or groups who intentionally oppress, persecute, abuse, other, use or otherwise attack others in any way, shape or form, for any reason.

2. Do not flame. There is a distinct difference between 'I don't agree with your opinion and I think that your theory is factually wrong' and 'You're an idiot and your opinion is built on lies and stupidity'. If you find that you're hurling insults around, just stop. In addition, we don't tolerate anyone making jokes about topics like rape, murder, abuse, bigotry and mental health issues.

3: People engaged in any violation of the Constitution, particularly Articles 1 &2 will be given at least one actual chance to stop and apologise.any Telling someone to shut up because their opinion is unwanted does not constitute a chance. Giving someone a chance means informing them their behavior is wrong or unwanted as according to our Constitution and why, as per Rule 7.

4: All respectful opinions that do not attack, insult, or persecute others (see 1) are welcome. We encourage respectful, friendly debates here. Should a debate escalate into an argument for any reason, everyone involved should step back and calm down before continuing. If this cannot be done, it may be best to abandon the conversation entirely.

5: Everyone on the Board should be respected as people, regardless of who they are. The opinions of a newbie are just as valid and wanted as those of someone here for four years. Everyone deserves respect until they show themselves to be unashamedly disrespectful themselves, which means people who show disrespect and discrimination as per Article 1 do not warrant respect based on those views. However, not warranting respect does not mean they do not warrant politeness. This means you are not allowed to descend into flaming and insulting them, but instead should follow Article 8.


6: If someone says something that seems offensive, but you’re not sure exactly what they meant, ASK them first, before jumping down their throats. Astonishingly enough, most people aren’t out to offend anyone. (If they are being deliberately insulting, believe me, you’ll have a lot of backup.) Don't be afraid to ask what someone meant- it isn't silly to want the full facts.

7: If you find it impossible to get along with another member of the PPC, please take it up in private e-mail. However, the rules of civility and respect do not ouside PPC community spaces or while communicating with other PPCers; harassing others by private means is just as serious as harassing them in public- if not more so, and will be treated as such. Don’t engage in bullying behaviour, and don’t say anything about another PPCer you wouldn’t say to their face. Remember, if you have to ask yourself if you’ve gone too far, you probably have. Everyone should do their best to be as civil as possible while in our community.

8: The PPC as a community is responsible for upholding the Constitution. If you see someone breaking any of the rules and guidelines herein, please ask them to stop (politely- remember Article x!) and explain why. If this doesn't resolve the situation, you will be backed up - and if it continues, a persistent rule-breaker should be shunned or asked to leave. (If you're being accused of breaking a rule, take a step back and, if you are in the wrong, stop, apologise, and move on. Grudges are no fun!)

9: All discovered mimes will be thrown into a pit, which may or may not be filled with various objects such as scorpions upon their availability.

9.5: There will be no clemency for these mimes until they learn the words.


Think a fourth thread is needed, or is it sorted out enough at this point to just prod it in? Form up top received enough okays, I think, and this is just a refinement.

... it saddens me that the PPC Board no longer believes the opening clause of (current) Article 3:

Part of the wonder of the PPC is the ability of its members to engage in mature debate without descending into flames and fights...

hS