BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies

Subject: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 13 Nov 13 - 08:40 AM

Perhaps the owners/moderators of Mudcat would like to read this article..then review the number of suicides from the Ask.fm site, where young people are bullied so badly by 'Guest/Anonymous' posters that many have preferred death to living in such a terrible world....


Time to be responsible

Izzy, lived just along the bay to me..the only child of her distraught mother, whose entire life has collapsed..She was bullied at school and also on this foul site....

ANY site that allows 'Guest' posters in is knowingly opening the doors to foul and putrid bullies, because they will use that facility to do *exactly* that, over and over and over...without thought, care or concern for the outcome of their actions....


The Izzy Dix Anti-Bullying Memorial Page - Facebook

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 13 Nov 13 - 08:41 AM

'this foul site' pertains to Ask.fm, by the way, just to clarify.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Nov 13 - 09:25 AM

Oh, no- its back with more of the usual nonsense.

Liz, there's a very simple solution:

STAY OFF THE USELESS, SELF SERVING AND NARCISSISTIC "SOCIAL NETWORKING"[sic] SITES.

Or, are you just whining about THIS site because people are more than fed up with your crap and have repeatedly told you so?

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Nov 13 - 10:39 AM

Fed up with yours too, Greg, but that hasn't stopped you either.

The foul site apparently requires membership.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 13 Nov 13 - 12:33 PM

No, Greg...I sat next to some of Izzy's Mum's friends the other day, whilst talking to our local MP, about how to get the brothers who own this site to take notice of the many parents who now have NO children...

Izzy's Mum has moved up country now, fled the house the night she found her beloved daughter hanging, now lives with her own mother, sleeps in her bed too, wakes up screaming for all the bullies to leave her precious daughter alone...

She's in a very bad way.

She started the page in memory of her child, to try and change the WORLD, not just the UK....

Adrian, our MP, is going to ask the Education Minister and Nick Clegg, the Deputy PM if they'll meet with us to stop the bullying exam system which is putting such grave pressure on our youngsters...to get Kindness, Compassion, Empathy and Sympathy being taught in schools...and to try to get ASK.fm either blocked from the UK, or taken down entirely..

The brothers who own it are Russian, I believe...and don't give a damn it would seem, boasting of their membership numbers going up with each suicide....

Nice guys, huh?

Hope that satisfies you....and thank you for demonstrating the bullying tactics I am talking about it.

Lizzie, not an 'it', but a deeply concerned and passionate mother, woman and member of the species called Humans, who are, so sadly, rapidly losing their Humanity.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Nov 13 - 12:55 PM

I am in agreement with you Lizzie, but if the membership will not stand up to the abusers, what can you expect admin to do?
It would be a continual battleground and they are unpaid volunteers I believe.

Most of the people who came to this section for serious discussion have left and "below the line" seems to have become an infantile playground for trolls.

I've been in Hatfield for the past week collecting some racing trophys and catching up with old friends....it was great...no computers, just real genuine greyhound enthusiasts. I didn't even miss this place!

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 13 - 01:41 PM

I agree. Bullying should be stopped. I have seen first hand the devastation it can cause, particularly amongst youngsters. But who defines who is the bully and who is being bullied? Who says whether an argument is bullying or, simply, a disagreement? I cannot. I don't know if the unpaid volunteers here are qualified in that field either.

This article is an interesting insight into how the 'hidden bully' works. Their behaviour can include any of the following "Hidden traits":

1.Charming
2.Obsessed with image
3.Distorts truth and reality
4.Evasive
5.Plays the victim
6.Self-righteous
7.Pompous
8.Hypocritical
9.Two-faced
10.Rumor-monger
11.Passive-aggressive
12.Pretends to care

To be honest, I have seen far more of these traits displayed here on Mudcat than I have of the archetypal bully and I do not know who is the bully and who is being bullied at times. I am pretty sure that it is not as prolific here on Mudcat as some would have us believe. Bullying is not about disagreements. Bullying is not about vehemently standing up to the injustice or the supporters of it. It is about control and manipulation of others.

I find it very worrying that someone who finds themselves in disagreement with another could very easily cry 'bully' and get their fellow poster banned, fined or whatever punishment they deem fit. It would very quickly become as easy to play the bully card as it is to cry racist or sexist improperly. And that will only ever lead to a dilution of the genuine victims case.

Of course it is a tragedy that anyone has died. Of course we should do all we can to help prevent it. But let us not become blind to the fact that unqualified interference may only lead to the situation becoming worse rather than better.

Just my two pen'urth.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Nov 13 - 02:57 PM

Fed up with yours too, Greg,

Fed up with my WHAT precisely, Jeri? Please be specific.

Or are you obliquely referring to my disinclination to suffer self-serving, narcissistic fools?

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 13 Nov 13 - 03:54 PM

What a collection of cookware!

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Nov 13 - 04:00 PM

You sure do "suffer" them. You seem to come here to seek them out. I can't see that you post about anything other than what you despise. Maybe I just missed it? It's not just you, though. There appear to be quite a few people who come to Mudcat to go after whom, or what, they hate, and don't really like anything about the place.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Nov 13 - 05:03 PM

Jeri: You sure do "suffer" them.

No, not in the least. Please provide evidence to support this assertion.

Jeri: You seem to come here to seek them out.

Not at all. I come here, as I have done for more than a decade, because most of the folks who post are interesting & present interesting & germaine information & because I like to read the "above the line" music threads to learn tho I often have nothing of substance to contribute. In fact I am rather more than fond of Mudcat "the place".

Calling out the self-serving, narcissistic, know-all assholes who from time to time infest "the place" and/or pointing out the idiocies of those who choose to believe in arrant nonsense for the idiots they are is something else entirely.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Nov 13 - 06:02 PM

"Bullying" is sustained personal attacks on other members OR non members, most of the list supplied by Dave, one of our new "messiahs",are simply slightly devious debating tactics.
This forum is almost wholly comprised of "grown ups", who should be capable of debating any subject without resort to personal abuse.
The personal abuse we see here would not be tolerated a few years ago, because most of the membership would stand against it and the moderators would feel they had the support of the majority of the membership.
In my opinion, the abuse is perpetrated mainly by UKers, a small group of whom would like to run the place in their own image and if this is not possible, to see the discussion forum closed.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Nov 13 - 06:08 PM

That's right Pharoah - the moderators are all wusses.

And its all the fault of those dastardly posters from Blighty.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 13 - 06:33 PM

So, Ake, you make a post decrying personal attacks by making a personal attack on me? Sorry, but I don't really see the sense in that.

Bullying, as I said earlier, is about control and manipulation. The list 'supplied by Dave' was in fact a direct and very relevant cut from the article I linked to. I don't understand the rest of your comment I'm afraid but rather than labour the point here why not stick to the point of the thread rather than take yet another opportunity to 'have a go' at the moderators?

Up to you of course.

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Nov 13 - 04:23 AM

Dave....I don't use personal abuse.
The moderators have an impossible job, if not supported by the bulk of the membership. Everyone of us who are here for adult discussion should condemn such behaviour, but when cursing directly at other members, death wishes ect are expressed, most of the membership scurries off to hide, leaving the mods to face a barrage of abuse.

If we want a grown up forum, where any subject can be discussed then we have to do a bit of moderation of our own.

If we are too cowardly to do so, we deserve the "trolls playground" that this section has become.

The list was supplied by you Dave and the "Messiah" bit was meant as a joke with no malice intended.....you do use the word rather a lot? :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 14 Nov 13 - 04:54 AM

You still here?

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 14 Nov 13 - 05:17 AM

"..But let us not become blind to the fact that unqualified interference may only lead to the situation becoming worse rather than better."

Unqualified?

Unqualified in what way exactly?

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Nov 13 - 06:31 AM

On the other hand?....perhaps what is happening here is an example of "evolution"....the dumbing down of human interaction.

I watched part of a tv show last night which has achieved a degree of popularity amongst young people in the UK.
It seemed to consist of a contest to say the word "fuck" the loudest and the largest number of times.....it made me very sad, no attempt at wit or even slapstick humour, just gratuitous swearing.

The biggest kick for the audience seemed to come when someone regarded as "respectable" or "establishment"(Eamon Holmes) were persuaded by the frenetic presenter to say "fuck".......ooooooooooooooooooooooh!!

I wonder if they had TV in the last days of the Roman Empire?

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Nov 13 - 08:03 AM

Anything said to me, using my name, is personal Ake. I believe it is a form of abuse to manipulate the facts to suit yourself. I repeat, the list was not supplied by me. Simply repeated. Did you read the article and take note of point 3 on the list? It was addressed to me personally and I believe it was an abusive post. It is therefore, to me, personal abuse. Happy for you to chose to ignore that if you like.

Lizzie. Unqualified in that I am not trained to spot or act against bullies. I do not know if our moderators are the same. Acting on behalf of victims is therefore not within my knowledge or training and I believe I could do more harm than good.

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 Nov 13 - 08:26 AM

As opposed to Liz, who knows everything about everything & thus can do no harm.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 14 Nov 13 - 10:47 AM

1. The original post puts Mudcat in the same category as a social network site. I doubt I can see the comparison between this and something young or vulnerable people use in the way they use such social outlets.

2. All the threads here are moderated. Being international, it leads to cultural misunderstandings such as banter being construed as insult or insult being construed as hate, but moderators do intervene sometimes. They miss some things that people could read and be distressed at and they sometimes remove perfectly reasonable posts, but on the whole we remain aware of the Mudelves.

3. The original poster can be very abusive and the person above complaining about abuse on Mudcat posts the most offensive obscene posts of them all.

Interesting thread.

Good luck.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Nov 13 - 12:38 PM

A guest here regularly refers to the US as "Dumbfuckinstan",thereby stereotyping all Americans as ignorant and stupid, this person considers himself a champion of liberalism, equality and fairness :0), what sweet irony.

This statement from the guest may be crass and insulting to many Americans who appreciate the good things about the American people...and there are many, but it is not personal abuse and does not interfere with sensible debate. He can either be ignored or, if you can be bothered you can engage him in debate. Before long his stereotyping will be shown to be invalid.

Personal abuse on the other hand, aimed at one individual, usually by a gang, can have the affect of closing down the discussion, as the victim often feels intimidated by the gang, especially if other members fail to protest the abuse.

Personally, I always denounce personal abuse used as a tactic in debate, whether I am in agreement with the abuser's stance on the issue or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Nov 13 - 01:06 PM

Don't really know how to respond to you Dave, my post was not intended to be abusive...and I don't see how you can view it as such, as you supplied the link to this forum from a third party?

I have of course read the article, and do not share your views on it at all, the conclusions which he asks us to draw are "woolly" and unreasonable.
As I said before most of the points drawn are devious debating tactics, underhand, but hardly to be described as "bullying"

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Nov 13 - 03:50 PM

Don't really know how to respond to you Dave

But you have. If you really don't know how to respond, then just don't. Easy.

my post was not intended to be abusive...and I don't see how you can view it as such

Abuse is in the eye of the abuse, not the abuser. Calling someone a snotty faced heap of parrot droppings is an obvious metaphor. Implying someone is less important than yourself and trying to back it up with tentative logic is serious abuse.

underhand, but hardly to be described as "bullying"

Bullying is underhand in it's nature. I suspect, although as I said I am not qualified to say, that a lot of the bullies party to these tragic deaths reckon that their remarks could hardly be described as bullying as well. Dismissing the surreptitious tactics described in the article as simply 'devious debating tactics' does not help the people who are at the receiving end.

That really is my last comment of this exchange, although possibly not on the thread. If you feel the need to have the last word. Please feel free.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Nov 13 - 06:45 PM

Oh!...Alright then.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Fossil
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 03:11 AM

Well, didn't take long for *this* thread to fall off the rails, did it?

G'night all.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,musket
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 03:34 AM

That the best you got?

When I refer to the Bible toting tea party idiots I call them residents of Dumbfuckistan. I spend a fair amount of time in The US and picked the term up from the many who use it to describe the Republican drive for power in a less than secular manner.

So you interpret that as meaning all America? I suppose when you say gay love is perverted you don't mean gay people on Mudcat.org then? When you refer to the "homosexual act" as being disgusting, that is except fellow mudcat.org members who happen to be gay. When you suggest all gay men must be forced to register with the authorities and have forced testing for STDs, you mean all gay people except mudcat.org members?

Social network responsibility has been a huge issue. This is why, as much as free speech is important, publishing hate in the manner you do is unlawful where you and I live.

Moaning about attitude? You even manage to commit criminal acts when you bloody well post!

It would be a nice world indeed if bigotry died out but for now it remains with us and ignoring it doesn't make it go away. It needs confronting and questioning wherever it raises its filthy head.

Back in your hole worm.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 04:18 AM

So you think all people who vote in a certain way or have certain values which you don't happen to agree with are to be confined in "Dumfuckinstan"......Is that a geographical area then?
How very inclusive of you!   I'm so sorry Ian you are a "liberal" and democrat of real stature.

If you wish to debate my opinions on homosexuality, open a new thread in which I will be pleased to make my views clear on whether the promotion of a lifestyle which carries such rates of sexual disease is good for society.
In the meantime, quoting me out of context has been attempted several times before the appearance of you and your anonymous friend, and only succeeds in making the people who use these tactics look foolish.

"You still here"   :0)   Oh yes Ian, I will be here when you are long gone.....mods willing.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 05:25 AM

Dumbfuckistan???

Hmmmmm....it does have a certain ring to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 05:36 AM

Don't worry. There's always hope for you Whilstever the real person behind Akenhateon is too ashamed to reveal himself whilst calling Musket Ian in order to ensure everyone knows who I am. I'm someone who can look myself in a mirror.



Hey Joe! I reckon I first heard it by the barman in a hotel in your state. It summed up the whole GOP reactionary forces for me. (Hotel Cheval, Pasa Robles. I'm still trying to find the perfect Pinot.)

Since then, I hear it often when over in Boston. Although retired from the board, I still take an interest in what is happening to my stock and pop over when I get the chance.   Mind you, I am occasionally just as bad back when people start lauding Blair or even, Clapton forbid, Th*tcher!

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 07:19 AM

I am a lifelong socialist, I have a number of friends who are conservative, socially and politically.

Even a "pariah" as Ian believes me to be, would never categorise these fine people as "dumb fuckers", many have a much better formal education than I have.

I leave that to "committed equality campaigners" such as yourself Ian.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 08:35 AM

These fine people eh?

Keep going. The mist is clearing.... Mind you, don't let these fine people hear you say you are a socialist. They will organise a lynch mob in your honour. Yessiree! No commie scotch boy gonna pollute our soil! GBA.

I think you will find that when you use the term conservative, there's a bit of a difference between Sarah Palin and Malcolm Rifkind...

Mind you, I'd steer clear of San Fransico with your attitude too for that matter.

In fact, after I saw Location Location Location refer to Govan as creating a cafe culture, I reckon your own neck of the woods is too cosmopolitan for your liking.... They reckon it's one in ten men now. I'd start looking over my shoulder when out and about if I were you. I'd hate you to catch something. They reckon a sense of humility can be contagious..... Bigotry can be cured too. You can get eye openers on prescription.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Wesley S
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 09:19 AM

What it boils down to is that we can be bullied only if we allow it to happen to us. At some point - IF we are mature enough - we have to ask ourselves why should we give an F what some nameless faceless cipher thinks about us? It's unfortunate that many of the youngsters that use these "social" websites most often - are also the same people who are most ill-equipped to handle criticism.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 09:36 AM

Gee, Wes, ya mean these ""social networking"[sic] sites aren't the harmless, universal blessing that's gonna change the world for the better that some advocates here would like us to believe?

After all, the folks on these sites are our "friends"[sic], aren't they?

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Nov 13 - 04:20 PM

"Lynch mob"....surely not more stereotyping of US conservatives :00

You are a right disgrace to the "inclusiveness and equality" gang Ian.

Not all humans are ruled by their political agenda, being a socialist does not preclude me from having friends with differing political views......in fact I am much more inclusive and open minded than you are. You are imprisoned by your political beliefs.

Although a socialist, I long ago discovered that the system cannot be changed without inclusiveness and toleration.

That toleration does not of course include allowing epidemic rates of disease to affect one small section of society for political purposes.

Your figures are interesting, if unbelievable. Care to give us a source?

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 16 Nov 13 - 01:44 AM

So I suppose even mudcat.org can be infected by hate. Luckily, it is either ignored or challenged. I have yet to read someone saying "Yeah, you are right. Gay people shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else! What was I thinking about? "

Of course, nobody needs sad bitter old men to tolerate them. The question is the degree to which people tolerate sad bitter old men.

Not much in my case. It may be difficult to alter mindsets and everyone has the right to privately think what the hell they like. But society has limits of what is respectable and worthy of being tolerated. Hatred of sections of society based on their choice of lover or lifestyle being beyond the pail.

That said, it can't be nice to browse a mudcat.org thread and see that homophobic hate hasn't been removed. Gay members of mudcat.org deserve better.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 16 Nov 13 - 05:18 AM

Joe...Ian's "Dumbfuckinstan" may have a certain ring to it, but its barbed wire borders are likely to contain many people "of faith", not unlike your good self! :0).

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 16 Nov 13 - 08:46 AM

Bloody hell. He reckons Joe is one of the religious right now. ..... After what their favourite shock jock said about Catholics I'd be careful before stereotyping the word "faith" as one happy family!

Back to social networks... I am not a member of any but have experience of a family member getting threats from an ex partner via Facebook. This included casting lies about him to get others to take sides too.   I reckon such media is no worse in principle to verbal or other older ways of social intercourse, but the audience can be more, which can be bad. It can also be very 1 to 1, , which is bullying in a very bad way.

However, mixing the concept to Mudcat.org allowing guest posts is silly. I doubt this site qualified as such a form of media.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 16 Nov 13 - 06:25 PM

Maybe the point being made by the OP is that any site that allows Guest posters anonimity is allowing the chance for trolls and bullies to sell their wares unmolested. Only Liz can answer for herself but that was how I interpreted it.

For what it is worth I gave up here some while back posting because of what I perceived as unchallenged bullying. Every time I made a stand for gay (human rights) I was either disparaged or attacked by certain members for being stupid or liberally insane.

Bullying does happen here. It may be subtle but it is still damaging to the 'victim' just for opening their mouths. And it gets personal too. Eventually I had enough and stayed away. I still visit but it's been a long time since I stuck my neck out.

So here it is again... whose for taking a chop this time?

The fact remains. I am a grown woman so used my sense and left. Many people of less maturity or disposition get bullied and cannot stick up for themselves. I got so I was feared of posting here for fear of limitless behaviour by some to attack on an emotional level. Now this can be believed or not. I am sure it won't be.

But I know how I felt back then and the proof is that I am still here quietly and my posting history shows what I say....


and now I am off again

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket between courses
Date: 17 Nov 13 - 01:51 AM

Of course, you have to realise that the homophobic troll in this case isn't a guest but logs in as a member.

He is too ashamed to let his name be known (although I do happen to know it) yet makes a point of addressing those he attacks by their real name rather than their mudcat.org nickname. ...

Oh. Then complains of bullying on mudcat.org.   For what it is worth, I sent links to his hate posts to Stonewall via our local authority reporting site. They are inundated with reports sadly and I very much doubt they will follow it up. But doing nothing isn't an option. To permit is to promote.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Claire M
Date: 17 Nov 13 - 02:16 PM

Hiya,

The best thing you can do is either use your sense & leave the site[s], try hard to not put anything on it/them that'd make people pick on you, /not use social networking sites in the 1st place........

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Nov 13 - 02:35 PM

Ah Jeez, Claire, you really don't want to interject common sense and personal responsibility into the discussion, do you?

That'll ruin absolutely EVERYTHING!

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 17 Nov 13 - 05:17 PM

It should not be necessary to

try hard to not put anything on it/them that'd make people pick on you.

People who write their opinions in a decent manner must brace themselves against decent dissent and criticism. If they defend their opinions aggressively, so may the opponents. Most of us will agree to this rule but some claim that their opponents breached that symmetry. Normally, the moderators and other moderate readers do not feel it their job to judge about that. In such cases, the best advice is: Once you have made your point sufficiently clear, stop responding to the "bullies". If you need moral support, ask for it.

However, some of us, including the OP, feel obliged to fulfill a "mission" to convince the world, by shouting their opinions whenever they can, repeating the same points over and over. They should not be surprised to face massive criticism - and in the end to fail their mission, since it is not backed by decent behaviour. The above advice applies here as well, since it also helps to enhance the poster's reputation.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Nov 13 - 06:20 PM

Perhaps it shouldn't be, but in practice, espescially on FarceBook, Shitter and such like exhibitionist narcissist sites experience should indicate that in practice it most assuredly IS.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Nov 13 - 03:41 AM

In fairness, I don't think that blaming the victims because they go on Facebook is any more right than blaming them because they go to school or live in a certain town. Face book is, as far as I can see, essential for teenagers and no-one should stop them using it. However, as I said before, disagreeing with someone is not bullying. Not all abuse, even personal, is bullying. What has happened a number of times here on Mudcat is that a large number of people have disagreed with a post. The original poster then accuses those in disagreement of bullying and 'ganging up' on them. This is completely different to the real life or cyber bullying that has precipitated the sad cases in question. Again, just my views.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 18 Nov 13 - 04:55 AM

It is a fact that the younger you are, the more that social networking via the internet is part of your life. Thousands of years ago, the first a use by social networking occurred. It was possibly a few grunts whilst pointing at the person to be cast out of the group, but it was there.

I doubt we should cease the power of speech as a result....

One aspect of linking such technology to age can be seen in a local NHS trust where the cost of keeping a staff forum on their intranet going was getting expensive with licence costs and regular IT support. The trust set up a forum in Yammer, which is similar to Facebook. It is also free to use and you can set up an internal network without it being dumped for all to see.

Sorted!

Except...   The old forum was used by a large cross section of staff. Yammer seems to them to be predominantly younger staff. Whilst they didn't tell me whether the figures matched to the same people as such, the percentage of Yammer members matches the percentage of staff under the age of 30.

Any wannabe HR gurus out there, I am sure there is a dissertation in it..

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Nov 13 - 09:40 AM

Face book is, as far as I can see, essential for teenagers...

ESSENTIAL? Oh, please.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Nov 13 - 10:02 AM

c,mon, Greg. Surely even you can remember far back enough to when you were a teenager :-) Was there not something that old grumps decided was nonsense, even though you know it was the be all and end all of your life at the time?

Facebook is todays pop music, football, drug and relationship rolled into one for a lot. Whether it should be is a different argument but the fact remains that it is, yes, essential, for some.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Nov 13 - 12:46 PM

I sure can remember. However, FarceBook really IS time-wasting, narcissistic, addictive crap- recognized by quite a few folks other than old farts like myself.

For that matter, heroin is essential for some addicts, just as FarceBook and Shitter are.

Never too soon to get techno-addicts into a 12 step program so they can get their lives back.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Nov 13 - 02:03 PM

Spot on, though, Greg. It is essential to some. That is the only point I was making! No good saying don't use heroine to the addict any more than saying don't go on facebook to some. Like we try to make drug use safer we should be trying to make social media safer.

Calling what goes on here on Mudcat bullying of the same type that goes on within the major sites will, in my opinion, do more harm than good. If the powers that be are forced to look at the trifling abuse on here, that is less time looking into more serious matters. Yet again I add that I am not a qualified social worker, abuse or bullying counsellor or any such. I just hope that I am making sense.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 Nov 13 - 02:22 PM

Calling what goes on here on Mudcat bullying of the same type that goes on within the major sites will, in my opinion, do more harm than good.

And, in addition, Dave, its rather silly to call it such. And you are, indeed, making sense.

Liz may disagree with you & me - but she often disagrees with many aspects of reality, so probably best to let it pass.

Cheers -

Greg

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Nov 13 - 06:38 PM

but she often disagrees with many aspects of reality

True, Greg, true. But, then again, my version of reality is, quite often, different from everyone else's! I can only hope that, occasionally, my version coincides with someone else's. Or not, as the case may be :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 18 Nov 13 - 07:07 PM

Some years (decades?) ago I frequented a rather pleasant little "social watering hole" that was always well attended by a very congenial, although varied clientel.

Unfortunately, a small group started coming in who generally sequestered themselves in a corner and "argued for the sake of arguing."

At first the regulars pretty much ignored them, but occasionally one would "get involved" in their "debates." As more and more of the regulars started to notice them, and occasionally joined in, the "mood" of the place became increasingly "combative" and the regulars who weren't interested in their phony "debates" came less regularly.

It took about a year before patronage dropped to the point that the original owners couldn't pay the lease, and sold the business. It moved "across the street," and the last time I stopped in at the "new" place there were two waitresses, one cook, one bartender, and two customers, in place of the average of 30 - 40 regulars previously in the old place.

Not long ago, I saw a "review" of a book with a title something like Brawling As a Recreation. This was a "history" of Irish immigrants in the US, apparently based on analysis of anecdotes about the "eastern Irish bar scene" during the immigrant period. The premise appeared to be "some people just like to argue" when they have nothing much else to do.

Unfortunately many of us don't understand how to tell when an "argument" is just for the sake of argument, and for those of us so affected being in the presence of constant "contentiousness" is unpleasant.

On the other side, those who are "just gaming each other" DON'T COMPREHEND how unpleasant their "games" are to the innocents who may, accidentally or out of curiosity, come into "their area."

Participation at mudcat, IMO, has suffered from the unpleasantness of behaviours of a kind that confuses the innocents, but apparently satisfies a small group of "brawlers."

If we were all among the offended, NO ONE WOULD EVER reply to posts obviously intended to "flame" a subject, but we do apparently have a sufficent number who enjoy "mutual insult matches." The rest of us should just ignore.

Perhaps eventually the brawlers will realize how boring their exchanges are and either leave or cease to participate.

Of course, that's just one opinion - - subject to discussion.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Nov 13 - 02:59 AM

John - Presuming that you are using the brawling thing as an example of what goes on here, I must disagree. And yes, I can see the irony in that :-) But here on Mudcat I believe that the vast majority of posts are not combative. There are a number of disagreements and that is quite common anywhere. But disagreements are neither brawling for brawling's sake nor bullying. OK, the odd thread gets silly but it is, in my opinion, minimal and most people visiting here will stick to the informative, witty and civil threads that abound.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Wesley S
Date: 19 Nov 13 - 08:30 AM

It's the nature of the internet that promotes many of the "brawls" that occur here. If these conversations were to take place in the same room with folks who were face to face I doubt that many of the debates would get any foothold at all. Certainly the language would change - and the discourse would be much more civil.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 19 Nov 13 - 09:27 AM

Claire said "The best thing you can do is either use your sense & leave the site[s], try hard to not put anything on it/them that'd make people pick on you, /not use social networking sites in the 1st place........ "

The problem being is that in accepting that as the only course of action, many people will never post or comment, who could actually make a great contribution to a thread, for living ib fear of getting picked on or bullied out. It actually says that if the 'brawlers' shout loud enough then they will see to it no quiet contribution can take place. I would ask why anyone should have to accept being picked on as a part of making decent contributions in a place purporting that everyone is entitled to a voice.

Indeed people will and do disagree. It's when it is made personal that things get really out of hand and if you are not willing to get personal back then you are invited to leave or stay away as an alternative?

So, in essence, I disagree with how I read your post Claire BUT the big difference is you and I will not argue or call each other for it. I respect what you wrote. You will likely respect my reply, yet still we will differ.

Maybe I am nieive but I think that is how decent discussion should happen.

Shouting someone out must never be seen as a way of winning a discussion or point. It's not winning. It does not make anything right. It is bullying to win. It is a fact of everyday life in society, I know, but it's still not good on those quieter folk who wish to contribute without fear.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Musket
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 07:58 AM

A bit of a dig here and there in this thread about UK vs USA manners when posting on Mudcat.

I have noted before that generally, we in The UK tend to start shouting at each other and treat Johnny Foreigner with disdain. Or at least that is how it is said. I personally think, having lived and worked in both countries, that banter etiquette is different, thats all.

True, calling a spade an earth inverting horticultural implement isn't the usual trait of UK based mudcatters. However, be grateful we can't carry guns. In any event, with the dishonourable exceptions of perhaps Songwronger and Goofus, we also have the most number of obnoxious idiots so be grateful we enjoy wrestling in the mud with the pigs.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 08:56 AM

Hey, less of the obnoxious idiots. I'll have you know I am an odious ignoramus.

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Musket
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 09:53 AM

Then get yer leotard on and grease up!

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: MikeL2
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 10:28 AM

Hi

This thread produced it's predictable shouting match. It was inevitable from the first sentence.

I like Lizzie a lot. Many times she makes really good points - but some of them can be controversial.

I don't always agree with all of her points but I always remain in the shadows waiting for the rumpus to start.

I read some of the controversial threads by way of amusement, mostly I just smile to myself and let the " tigers roar".

There are many sensible people here who create both interesting, entertaining and extremely useful and helpful topics.

Those are the ones I go to and occasionally participate.

Let the trolls spout I say. Soon they will all be together leaving us to enjoy the sensible stuff.

Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 11:10 AM

The OP tells us she is from the UK herself (Cornish - does that make a difference?). In fact the national idiosyncrasies are not as marked as sometimes claimed, usually as lame excuses. Another effect is more dominant: many "netizens" who sail under their true name tend to feel exempt even from the rudimentary rules of politeness and dignity that apply, say, in English pubs or US "saloons" for anonymous customers. Strange, innit?

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Musket
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 12:08 PM

I was impressed by how quickly any embryonic shouting match fizzled out in this thread?

When I offered a wrestling match in the mud with the pigs, only Dave replied and he doesn't count as he is a co Messiah, (or at least the official associated gnome, see a couple of the "holier than thou" threads for further details.)

With regard to Grishka's last point, another trait of those using their real names and lack of dignity is that they tend to refer to those of us with silly Mudcat names by our real names too, as if a) no bugger knows who you are and b) that the real you might reply differently.

I suppose there is something in that.

(Insulting crap from x member, say... I don't know; from Scotland to give a random example)

Ian Mather's response - "I honestly think that your viewpoint doesn't hold merit with regard to this debate. Having a view on others based on something other than their words and deeds isn't really objective or useful."

Musket's response - "Why don't you @££^&!! off you bigoted Tw2365!!!!"

Likewise, someone might put, politely and without bad language something so outrageous and insulting, but phrased as if butter wouldn't melt in their mouth. When I or others point this out and let them know how awful their comments are, especially to those aimed at, we are the ones "lowering the tone" in the eyes of silly buggers who think any view is valid and should be heard, even if it happens to be full of stereotyping hatred or judging sections of society based on their prejudice.

You know, what gets me isn't the ones shouting, its the ones keeping quiet when they know a post is beyond what is acceptable. To permit is to promote.

I don't mind being dismissed as a shouty twat. There are some on here who need shouting at or they think their more odious views are mainstream.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 03:22 PM

Musket's OK. Messiah M is good. That Mather bloke is a pain in the arse. Never see him getting down and dirty...

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 03:33 PM

You didn't used to see him in The Drum in Shirebrook on payday. ..

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Nov 13 - 03:36 PM

BTW - Must disagree with MikeL2 as well. Sorry Mike but the shouting match was a non-entity. I think you expected one and saw what was not there. A couple of sarcy quips and it was over. I did find your post very 'holier than thou' though. I think if you should go on one of the religion v atheist threads and see a proper shouting match. Either that or go2L (gerrtit? Eh?)

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 01:11 AM

It might be of interest to note that "bullying" is not limited just to kids (including those here) but is a growing concern for other (non-juvenile) areas of law inforcement:

Witness intimidation on social media: Law enforcement's growing challenge
By Elizabeth Chuck, Staff Writer, NBC News
15 Nov 2013

When news broke last Friday that there was an Instagram account devoted exclusively to ratting out witnesses to crimes across Philadelphia, social media experts barely blinked an eye.

"It's absolutely not surprising to me. People are taking pictures of witnesses, they're posting them online, and they're doing it specifically for witness intimidation," said Bradley Shear, a Bethesda, Md., attorney who specializes in social media law, adding that both Facebook and Twitter are also part of the growing trend. "And it's only going to increase with frequency. People have to be so careful with where they are, who is taking pictures of them."

While intimidating witnesses isn't new, social media is the latest vehicle by which to do so.

"Witness intimidation has long been a part of the challenge of using criminal informants in our justice system," said Alexandra Natapoff, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "Social media and the online exchange of information have changed many of the ways we think about law enforcement and crime control, and this is one of the important ways."

The account on the photo-sharing site — called "rats215" — had identified more than 30 witnesses since February, and had posted pictures, police statements and testimony, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported.

The account has since been disabled. But it's just the latest example of witnesses encountering threatening messages on social networks or being photographed in courtrooms and later having their pictures show up online.

Last month, a Buffalo, N.Y., drug defendant was convicted of witness intimidation and tampering with a witness after the witness' testimony and statements were posted to Facebook on the eve of his trial. In July, two Louisiana men were indicted for threatening a federal witness via Instagram; each face maximum sentences of 30 years in prison if convicted.

The following month, in Philadelphia — where the District Attorney's office says witness intimidation is at a "near epidemic" level — a 20-year-old man was sentenced to up to 23 months in prison for Facebook posts in which he threatened witnesses, including posts showing a witness' statement and status updates that said "Kill all rats." A Pottstown, Pa., woman is currently serving a two- to five-year sentence for using Facebook to intimidate a witness of an attempted murder by her boyfriend.

There is even an online database, whosarat.com, where members can post and view photos of thousands of criminal informants.

On Tuesday, Philadelphia police made an arrest in connection to the "rats215" account: Nasheen Anderson, a 17-year-old of East Germantown, Pa., was charged with witness intimidation and terroristic threats for labeling victims as rats on Twitter. The account posted information about a 2012 shooting in Philadelphia, according to the District Attorney's office; a police spokesperson said the same information that appeared on the Twitter account showed up on the rats215 Instagram account.

"I don't care how old you are, if you intimidate a witness in this city, I'm going to come after you," District Attorney Seth Williams warned in a press release on Wednesday.

Digital witness intimidation has created new problems for law enforcement and for courts, experts say.

"It used to be that the control of information in the criminal justice was an important way that we kept the system regular and safe, and now social media and the Internet have really destroyed the government's ability to control information in cases. It's opened up all kinds of possibilities that are challenging the old rules of criminal justice and criminal procedure," Natapoff said.

Efforts to combat social media witness intimidation have increased around the nation in recent years, but more laws are likely, Natapoff said.

Already, some courthouses have gone so far as to ban cellphones. Cook County, Ill., where gang intimidation has been a persistent problem, passed a law banning mobile phones from their criminal courthouses this past April.

Circuit Court of Cook County Chief Judge Timothy Evans said he pushed for the ban, which includes laptops and tablets, because cellphone pictures and videos have led to the murders of witnesses in Cook County.

[The post is about half of the article. The remainder speaks largely of the difficulties of enforcing limits on witness intimidation in and out of the courts. Since it's been up for a few days, I'd suggest anyone interested should read the whole thing soon, as such "news" tends to disappear when something more sensational comes along.]

John

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 05:05 AM

What I don't understand, amongst many other things, is what makes the above intimidation into bullying. I do note that you put "Bullying" in quotes John so I assume that you are not sure whether this is bullying either? As I have said before, I am not qualified to determine whether someone is being bullied, intimidated or abused. None of them should be tolerated but what is happening here and in many other places is that people are jumping on the "Bully" bandwagon. This is not doing the recipients of any of these activities any good.

The intimidation detailed in the article John linked has specific criminal links and is done solely for the purpose of corrupting the course of justice. Bullying isn't. Disagreeing, however vehemently, with someones views is debating. Bullying isn't. To lump all such things together only dilutes the case against real bullies. Those who scream bully when none are there can only be making things harder for genuine victims. In my opinion of course.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket between courses
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 05:34 AM

Snag is Dave, as we see on other threads. Some people think it is clever to dismiss disagreement with their views as bullying or, in one hilarious thread recently, being disrespectful to a few million dead people.

We have seen people who don't like being questioned go running to the moderators crying bully!

As the genuine concern on this thread can be for young or vulnerable people, perhaps we should be aware of the lack of maturity of some of the less respectable members of Mudcat.org. ....

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 05:36 AM

DtG

In order to discount that much of the stuff mentioned in the article I posted is bullying, you have to assume that it ALL IS POSTED ONLY BY THOSE with the specific intent to intimidate witnesses for the purpose of affecting legal processes.

There are far more people with the antisocial attitude attitude that anyone who helps law enforcement is "someone I don't like" so "I should tell everyone how horrid these people are."

That's perfectly consistent with what I see as "bullying."

There are plenty of people who create and spread defamatory tales about people they just don't like, and those kind are included in the ones mentioned in the article, along with the criminals themselves.

Speech, action, or anything else with the intent to harm someone "just because you want to" is bullying, regardless of the motive - or the age of the ""criminal.""

I fail to see the difference you claim, except the most superficial interpretation of the kinds of bullying that deserve the name.

John

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 06:34 AM

DtG: In fairness, I don't think that blaming the victims because they go on Facebook is any more right than blaming them because they go to school or live in a certain town. Face book is, as far as I can see, essential for teenagers and no-one should stop them using it.

Greg F: I sure can remember. However, FarceBook really IS time-wasting, narcissistic, addictive crap- recognized by quite a few folks other than old farts like myself.

I don't see this at all. FaceBook seems to be used across a wide spectrum of age groups. In fact, a lot of the younger people I know don't use it much...they're more into peer-to-peer communications on their smartphones.

Certainly of my fairly large group of FB contacts, all those who've recently deactivated their accounts have been under 25. Only 1 of my 3 kids is on FB. One recently deactivated her account. Most of their friends aren't on it.

I'm pretty "mature" myself at 58 but to me a large section of Mudcatters seems to be cut from the same cloth as my grandparents/ parents...grandma who thought that these "telephone" things were totally unnecessary...anyone who couldn't wait for the second post was in too much of a hurry! And parents who thought that all this "music" I listened to as a teenager was "just noise" and why couldn't I listen to *proper* singers like the InkSpots or Paul Robeson?

The thing about anything new is to use it properly and not to let it use you. Almost all my climbing, music and fitness/running events, meetings and socials are organised through FaceBook. There's hardly any "narcissistic" content from the people I'm connected to. Just had a quick look at the age profiles of my FB friends and the curve peaks at late 30s to mid 40s. I admit that's probably a bit skewed by my own age, but OTOH I do socialise pretty widely across age groups. My oldest running friend is 82 and my youngest climbing friend 17. Running friends tend to peak at around 32.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 07:56 AM

I think we will just have to disagree on that, John. I don't see witness intimidation as being in scope of anti-bullying legislation and, I believe, the law is quite clear on it. The laws applied to bullying are far more vague and do not, I believe, come under the remit of corrupting the course of justice. I do, therefore, think that to put witness intimidation in the remit of anti-bullying laws is wasteful in that intimidation is already severely dealt with. I understand that the laws in the UK are different to those in the US where anti-bullying legislation may vary from state to state, but I think the principle still stands. If we put too much in the scope of anti-bullying we will detract from dealing with cases like those mentioned in the OP.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: kendall
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 08:14 AM

Old Maine saying: "If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen."

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 10:59 AM

Well I dunnoe Kendall, personally I don't care a damn what anyone calls me on an internet forum.....and I have been abused verbally probably more than any other member, because I say that male to male sex in unhealthy and carries huge rates of all male STD's.
This is a fact and not an opinion, but I am abused for stating a fact.

Many members are more easily intimidated than I am, and whenever they are told that "it would be better if they stopped breathing", or that they are "worms or steaming heaps of shit", or "morons, bigots, racists, homophobes etc, etc, is it not possible that they may be put off from posting their views?

Personal abuse should be stopped, do you notice that, when Joe or a respected poster like J from K appears on the thread, these people suddenly develop debating manners.....quite the little choirboys they are :0).

They are indeed children, children who think they can further a debate by driving others away with childish abuse.

If some issues are not to be debated, make them clear and they will never be mentioned.....if not come down on those who use personal abuse as a weapon, like a ton of bricks.

Ian put it in a nutshell when he urged others not to engage in debate with me, saying that "it gives him an aura of respectability".
What he meant was... reinforce the abusive language that he had already used.

Look at the number of interesting intelligent people who have left the forum through the activities of the abusers.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 12:33 PM

You forgot a few..

Disgusting homophobic stain on humanity. Disgraceful bastard. If I went in a pub and you were there I would sup up and leave, wiping my feet on the way out. Classic combination of hate, ignorance and access to the internet. Pathetic attempts to twist figures he doesn't understand to justify a view that has no place in society.

Many more where they came from.

Akenhateon is a classic example of how even Mudcat can fall into the category of abuse. Gay members of Mudcat have to endure his vile filth, reading that they are perverts, that they should be forced to register and be assaulted, undergoing clinical tests they don't consent to. When you quiz him about sexually transmitted diseases, he isn't interested, just wants to stigmatise a small section of society.

That is the sort of abuse on this site, mainly by the odious shit hiding behind his Akenhateon monicker. He never fails to remind everybody of my real name, which is odd as he is the one who has shame to hide.

I sincerely wish bigotry would be dead and buried in this day and age, and if it died tomorrow would be no great loss. I can only wish I suppose...

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 01:10 PM

Good gracious, Ake. On how many more threads are you going to claim that you are poor abused little soldier when all you want to say is that male to male sex is perverted. It is you who are employing bullying tactics in an area where it really does matter. You are propagating a hatred of homosexuals for, as far as I can see, no reason but the fact that you dislike them. You pretend to care for their health but it is plain for all to see that it is nothing but a thin veneer of respectability applied to old prejudice.

There is one true statement you make.

Look at the number of interesting intelligent people who have left the forum through the activities of the abusers.

The sooner you stop your homophobic rants the sooner reasonable people can return.

And if nothing else, just stop trying to turn every post into your crusade against gay men.

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 02:19 PM

Well Dave, I don't think there is anyone here who could make a reasonable case "that male to male sexual intercourse is NOT a perversion".....It is obviously a perversion, as males were never designed by god/nature to have sexual intercourse together.
The primary purpose of sex is procreation, and procreation can only be achieved by a man and a woman.

That is not to say that all perversions are wrong or harmful to the participants, but this particular one seems to result in horrific rates of sexually transmitted disease, a fact which needs to be urgently addressed.

Homosexuality is being foisted on society and promoted as "safe and healthy, just another lifestyle" etc, while the serious negative aspects are being completely ignored, or hidden under the spurious "equality" agenda.

To say that I "hate" homosexuals is wrong and a serious lie, I want to see the epidemic stopped, by any means available, whether the procedures required offend the sensibilities of "liberals" is of no concern to me.
To point out the health risks associated by any type of sexual behaviour is not "hatred".

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket being sick
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 05:37 PM

I rest my case.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 05:42 PM

You have never attempted to make a case, Ian.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 05:49 PM

To point out the health risks associated by any type of sexual behaviour is not "hatred".

Treating one section of society as second class citizens because of their sexual proclivities is though. What makes it even worse is pretending it is for their own good. Still, as Musket says, at least everyone can now see who the genuine abuser is.

Sick, just sick

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket being sick again
Date: 21 Nov 13 - 06:20 PM

I am genuinely having problems addressing him and acknowledging his presence. I have inspected prisons and forensic mental health hospitals and tried to see through issues to address their human concerns. Yet I think that the mindset displayed by this person, unashamedly and possibly oblivious to what he is actually saying is as disturbing as it gets. Possibly because he thinks he is normal.

However, he has just asked why I have not made a case. I shall answer that.

There is no case to make.

The only people who need to justify their existence are those who would put limitations on the lives of others. Which is why bigotry and hate are rejected by society.

The fascinating two part BBC documentary shown last month "Stepping Out" missed a trick. Stephen Fry didn't need to travel to Russia, Uganda or The USA to find dangerous individuals, he could have dropped the budget and looked nearer to home.

We like to think the days of casual hate are in the past. Gone are the days when the likes of Bernard Manning were seen as mainstream entertainment. Gone are the days when you could be legally judged by your race, Creed, colour or sexual orientation.

Yet people like this still not only breathe the same air as us, they can't see what is wrong with their view.

Freedom of expression has responsibilities attached. The alternative is personality disorder.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Nov 13 - 06:17 AM

The case to be made Ian, is not to "justify their existence", homosexuality is a fact of life and every generation brings forward the usual 3/4%. To be against homosexuals or to hate them for being homosexual would be sheer stupidity.
It is disingenuous of you to imply that I wish homosexuals to be exterminated and I am sure this was quite deliberate. You are a dishonest debater Ian and you wreck any attemps to discuss this subject in a grown up manner.

The case to be made is why are male homosexuals affected by such horrific rates of STD's in every country in the word; and what will be the consequences to society of bringing this behaviour into the mainstream and promoting it as just another safe and "loving" lifestyle, without examining the serious negative aspects of this behaviour and making a REAL attempt to put an end to the STD epidemic.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: MikeL2
Date: 22 Nov 13 - 06:18 AM

Hi Dave

Sorry you disagree with me but you are not on your own...but I don't hold that against you.

With regard to your <" I think if you should go on one of the religion v atheist threads and see a proper shouting match. Either that or go2L (gerrtit? Eh?)"> comment.

These days I make a point not to go to places on the net that argue about religion or politics.

"go2L"......hah ha ha ha

Regards

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 13 - 06:47 AM

Thanks for the sensible response Mike and glad you spotted the 'holier than thou' leading to religious debate pun. If only all posts were similar :-)

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket being sick
Date: 22 Nov 13 - 08:15 AM

Behaviour?

Perverted?

Sick bastard.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 22 Nov 13 - 09:22 AM

For the sole reason that I hope to cut the discussion short, I'll comment on Ake's hobby:

1. There is no such thing as a "primary purpose" of natural phenomena.
2. According to the currently dominant scientific opinion (not to be confused with public opinion), sexual preference is not chosen willfully, and probably not induced by "promotion" or "seduction" either (though complete ignorance can prevent a "coming-out"). Consequently, there is no moral point against sexual preferences at all.
3. Some such preferences, including pedophilia, must not be allowed to be put into practice, in order to protect other moral values.
4. In cases of danger, the state can impose further sanctions on innocent persons. For example, farmers were forced to kill their perfectly healthy and well-kept livestock for fear of epidemics. Financial compensation is due.
5. Special obligations based on professions are also existing practice, e.g. for (registered!) prostitutes, approved by judges who otherwise insist that the state must not fight prostitution. Regulations only based on lifestyle could be morally and legally justified as well, if there were sufficient evidence that severe danger can be averted to a highly significant extent. In the case of Akenaton's proposal, he is the only person I know who believes this, and he does not appear unbiased at all. As for feasibility: modern ubiquitous spying is sufficient; individual declarations of sexual preference would not be required.

I wish this would finish that strange topic, unrelated to the ones of the threads where it appears, but I do not have much hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Nov 13 - 09:34 AM

Just make your case, or keep quiet.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Nov 13 - 09:51 AM

Sorry Grishka, that was addressed to the poster above(Ian).

I am giving thought to what you have written and will probably post something later. I would use PM, but that is not possible in your case.
I notice that you have not addressed the infection rates associated with one particular sexual preference demographic, why is that?

If a form of sexual behaviour produces those rates of infection, does that not point to a problem for society?

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 22 Nov 13 - 10:01 AM

Ake, you have made your case perfectly clearly, and far too often. Let the readers decide - quietly, if possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 22 Nov 13 - 10:32 AM

I shall be quiet when bigotry has no place on publicly accessible websites such as Mudcat.

He is posting whilst within The UK and as such is obliged to abide by the law. Using Mudcat to propagate hate is subject to scrutiny and his recent comments fall short of legal never mind moral obligations.

Out of interest for our USA based members, he is referring to the increase in infection overall in male on male sex as the possible cause. The Health Protection Agency is concerned that as more gay men come forward than women, the true scale of the issue is not clear. They point out that there are far more infections from unprotected sex between men and women, and data from clinical audit point out that surgical issues from anal sex would be equal for men and women, yet over 90% of presentations at Accident and Emergency or referrals to colo rectal consultants are from women, with the conclusion that more women "receive" anal sex than men. Hence their wish for women to come forward at the same rate gay men do when they feel susceptible to infection.

Add to that surveys by Stonewall, over 30% of men in gay relationships do not participate in penetrative sex. I note that in a recent documentary on a The BBC, Stephen Fry pointed out to a pastor in Uganda who was shouting him down that he had never had penetrative sex, either way, yet has had loving relationships.

The disgusting person behind Akenhateon says that testing all gay people would be some sort of answer. If there is a cure for HIV+ He may have a case for people to come forward but no fear, the queue would be long enough without withholding human rights. I can say from a professional perspective that the clinics are oversubscribed by men who feel they may be vulnerable to infection. The vast majority aren't though, luckily. Also, having unprotected sex whilst not telling your partner you may have an infection is a criminal act, assault, and custodial sentences can follow.

The largest issue in sexually transmitted disease is chlamydia, yet I don't see him wishing all men and women to be forced to be tested. More women receive anal sex than men but I don't see him wishing all women to be forced to be tested.

His insistence that being gay is perverted is all you need to question how or why Mudcat allows hate to be published.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Nov 13 - 12:19 PM

Do you call that any sort of case?
We are discussing infection RATES. Real numbers are meaningless when the size of the demographics are taken into account.

But you knew that very well, didn't you Ian?
I repeat, you are disingenuous....someone in your stated position as a medical pen pusher, should not be spreading misinformation.

I suggested a voluntary register of MSM who could put themselves forward for testing.... and contact tracing if they tested positive.
Hopefully before long it would be seen by practicing homosexuals as social unacceptable NOT to be regularly tested for HIV.
Testing and contact tracing of the demographic most at risk,(70%) of new cases, is the only way in which the epidemic can be brought under control.

One question, how bad must these figures get before something radical needs to be done?

"Also, having unprotected sex whilst not telling your partner you may have an infection is a criminal act, assault, and custodial sentences can follow"(Ian)......That is exactly the point, a very large proportion of the new cases who test positive are entirely unaware of their status and will continue to infect others until their positive status is discovered.

In the interests of the rest of society and their own safety, male homosexuals should be eager to volunteer to join a register and be tested regularly.
The high risks in this particular demographic are patently obvious.

Now, I am about to take Grinska's advice and say no more on the subject for the time being, unless provoked by the "silencers"

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Nov 13 - 01:15 PM

male homosexuals should be eager to volunteer to join a register and be tested regularly

That is not what you have said before, Ake. You have said it should be compulsory. How do you explain that?

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 22 Nov 13 - 03:16 PM

I know quite a few "medical pen pushers." I have respect for their logistical skills. However, I also have respect for clinical staffs who deal with GU issues. They hear and read the disturbing lies put out by the likes of you and have a sense of despair over how idiots like you can have such a negative effect when they try to engage with hard to reach groups.

Respect is alien to bigots so not worth discussing with you. You appear to be able to spell rates but that's it. It is futile to discuss what you repeatedly show you don't understand. If you know a medical pen pusher called Ian, take it up with him. I'm a retired CEO of a manufacturing concern and in retirement support an NHS trust in transformation and improvement, after a few years of regulating their quality and safety, and chairing health authorities and trusts. If you must say stupid things, at least aim at the correct target.

Back in your hole worm.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Nov 13 - 06:50 PM

I think if infection rates continue to worsen a degree of compulsion may be necessary Dave, it would depend if homosexuals were prepared to regulate their own risky behaviour or not.

Soon the costs of lifetime anti viral treatment and associated care costs will become unsustainable..... as well as the tragedy of blighted lives.

I intend to say no more on this subject at present... at Grinska's request, so no more questions will be answered.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket between courses
Date: 23 Nov 13 - 02:23 AM

A degree of compulsion eh? You'd lick your lips at the prospect wouldn't you?

We'd better bring you in too. After all, we only have your word that you don't have unprotected anal sex with prostitutes.

Come to think about it, we don't have your word.

Best drag you in just in case.   We can get the cleaner or porter to carry out the tests because it would be criminal assault for a doctor or nurse to touch you for clinical reasons without your consent or for emergency purposes where consent isn't possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 23 Nov 13 - 07:00 PM

"In order to discount that much of the stuff mentioned in the article I posted is bullying, you have to assume that it ALL IS POSTED ONLY BY THOSE with the specific intent to intimidate witnesses for the purpose of affecting legal processes."

Bullies very often have a purpose in bullying, and I'm struggling to see the difference, in Musket's opinion, between the school bully grabbing his victim's dinner money and the criminal stopping a witness testifying.

So even if it IS witness intimidation, is that not bullying for a purpose?

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,musket ?
Date: 24 Nov 13 - 02:12 AM

Eh?

Did I write about school bullies and witness intimidation? I thought most of my posts were happily bullying the school bigot?

Someone else's opinion I think. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Nov 13 - 03:34 AM

Yes - Mine. And the difference, as I have already explained, is that witness intimidation is already covered by specific legislation and has severe sentencing. Suggesting that witness intimidation, bullying and disagreements are all the same thing only removes the focus from bullying. In my opinion.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 24 Nov 13 - 03:44 AM

Fair point. If you aren't careful it all gets rendered down to the sanitised word coercion.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Nov 13 - 02:49 PM

Humble apologies Musket. It was DtG who commented.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Nov 13 - 03:28 PM

Why is it that any thread that Ake manifests himself on almost invariably gets warped into a discussion on the "perversion" of homosexuality?

Why is he so obsessed with the subject?

If he finds it so distasteful, why does he spend so much mental--and obviously, emotional--energy on the matter?

One does tend to speculate. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 24 Nov 13 - 03:42 PM

I'd rather not speculate. I've just eaten.

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 24 Nov 13 - 05:44 PM

Akeneton said: "I don't think there is anyone here who could make a reasonable case "that male to male sexual intercourse is NOT a perversion".....It is obviously a perversion, as males were never designed by god/nature to have sexual intercourse together"

There is no case to make. If God created man and woman he created homsexuality and bisexuality along in that creation. Nature is blind and homosexuality is rife in other non-human animals. It is quite natural. Even the medics have now taken it off the DMS and mental health books. Thus, it is most certainly not a perversion, even when they said it was. You can make a law against natural behaviours - and in some cases for humans, at least, it is morally responsible to do so. It is ethically right that you then care for and not demonise those that step over those boundaries (ie pedophiles as an example).

Now I am going to get called some kind of liberal inept and stupid bint for this by certain 'people', I dare say. But that will not change the fact that the above statement is totally incorrect and that there is no case to answer that homosexuality is a perversion. It is. But only in the minds of those that fear their own thoughts maybe or have some prurient interest in it? Many many homosexual men do not have anal intercourse in any case, making any such statement against homosexuals as fallacious as it is unintelligent.

... anyway. I revisited the thread to post this below and saw the above. The film below is much more enjoyable and raises hope for the futures that hope still exists...

(the link is safe as I have been on the site and checked it myself)

http://community.1sale.com/2013/11/inspiring-a-group-of-boys-rescue-a-boy-being-bullied/

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Nov 13 - 07:57 PM

Beautiful!!

Thank you, Mauvepink, for posting that!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 04:10 AM

Get a grip Don!

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 12:39 PM

Got a grip, Ake. But yours seems a bit tenuous.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Social Networks - Responsibility/Bullies
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 25 Nov 13 - 01:02 PM

Preferably round the throat of whoever tells him what shit to distribute.