BS: Shamefull threads

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: Bernard
Date: 02 May 01 - 08:55 PM

Yup. The reality is that there will always be someone who cannot see things the way another does, with predictable consequences.

Some 'flamers' probably do not set out to flame intentionally, but find that they cannot back down without losing face - as if that's so important...

In reality, they may not even believe they are flaming the thread - they may well be quite serious in their views.

The beauty of Mudcat is the way that we are able to 'publicly' discuss things, or contact an individual on a 'one-to-one' basis.

When that discussion degenerates into a public 'brawl', slanging match, etc., everyone else can see clearly what is going on, and will form their own opinion - if they think it is worth the effort!

Targetting an individual within a thread is an obvious effort to 'score points' - a Personal Message probably serves the purpose more tactfully, and causes less ill feeling. However, once a member has openly and deliberately targetted another, it is very difficult for them to back down. Then to repeat such a faux pas...

I'm not sure about barring 'guests' from posting - it's only going to cause 'cookieless' members unnecessary inconvenience...

Earlier on in this thread I apologised for any possible offence I may have unintentionally caused - that still stands. In polite society it is usual to graciously accept such an apology - not to repeat the attack.

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: Ma Fazoo
Date: 02 May 01 - 09:28 PM

It breaks my heart that Joseph Paul Katzberg's naivete at sharing some of his father's and granfathers favorite stories has turned into a vicious thing and caused such bitterness and controversy. From now on you may be assured that I will censor my own thoughts heavily before sharing them on this site. It has been such a boon to me, as I am disabled and don't get out to see my friends very much. I thought perhaps I would find some friends here. I do want to thank those who realized that there was no bad intent on Cranky Yankee's part. Please, I know he will become defensive and express himself in blunt terms. I have been married to Jody for 31 years this month and have never seen him deliberately hurt anyone. I gusess what I would say in the end is, let us all evolve at our own pace, and we'll all try to grow as well as we can.

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 02 May 01 - 09:33 PM

Recently there have been several threads which I have found unpleasant. I understand the arguments against a mudcat "administrator" using a censorship veto, but I would appreciate a way of giving a "thumbs down" to offensive threads.
Many people talk about Democracy, but usually mean "I want to behave like a spoiled brat, and stuff you if you don't like it". People who do "give a damn" and attempt to counter with a reasoned argument, just get sidelined.
Is it within the programmers capabilities to add a "veto" box to threads, so when a specified number of mudcatters (different ones, and not Guests) object to a thread it be consigned to Room 101, where our worst nightmares live.
This would be a form of internal democratic moderation, not an imposed arbitrary censorship.
Just a thought for the day!
Geoff the Duck!

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: bbc
Date: 02 May 01 - 09:37 PM

Formerly Ironic,

You've got me there. April 1st was the start of me realizing, for a time, that Mudcat was very important to me. I was certainly one of the ones who fell hard for the "joke." The sense of community that many perceive on Mudcat largely began w/ that incident & those of us who fell hard, for what it's worth. For me, "Why are Americans so fat?" was the straw that broke the camel's back.

bbc (no longer of the Resources site)

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: Bernard
Date: 03 May 01 - 04:19 AM

I think the problem with your suggestion, Geoff, is the way threads spread out like ripples in a pond. Closing down a thread will only make it reappear elsewhere, possibly with more vigour - possibly giving it some artificial 'cult status'.

We saw this a few months ago when Max deleted a thread...

No, I believe they have to be allowed a 'natural death' by being ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: CRANKY YANKEE
Date: 03 May 01 - 04:57 AM

WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE, CHOOSING UP SIDES??? WELL, COUNT ME OUT. MY BRAWLING DAYS ARE OVER.


Let's just suppose,. for one moment, that Abner Doubleday DID invent the game of Baseball. (Which he did not, English kids have been playing "Rounders" for centuries). Let's just pretend that he did.
That being the case, then, he also invented "Baseball Bats". Right????
A very small number of people have used baseball bats to inflict pain, injury and/or destruction of property. DOES THIS MEAN THAT THE GAME OF BASEBALL IS "SHAMEFULL"? SHOULD BASEBALL BE BANNED ?

Basketall WAS invented outright by some guy from Springfield, Mass. Is it a shamefull thing because players sometimes foul their opponents without intending to, and also DELIBERATELY foul the other team????.

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: CRANKY YANKEE
Date: 03 May 01 - 05:16 AM

Let me close this battle with one last joke. This one should offend , OOOH!!, about 2/3 of the world's popultion, but it, nevertheless, is very funny.

aboput 1, 995 years ago, an unfortunate woman was being stoned by villagers, for some crime or other. Jesus stopped the process and said, "Let he, who is without sin, cast the first stone".
An old woman came out of the crowd, picked up a large stone and hurled it at the poor, unfortunate woman. Jesus took the old woman by the arm, gently led her away from the crowd, and, when out of earshot quietly said, "Mother, sometimes you really piss me off."

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: GUEST,Katy P.
Date: 04 May 01 - 11:16 AM

My dad is a folksinger, so I've been around folk music and folk music people all of my life.

I grew up listening to my dad's songs and those of Pete Seeger, Phil Ochs and other family friends and I lived most of my life under the illusion that folk music people leaned left, believed in peace and brotherhood, and would never hurt or insult anyone based on such things as race, religion or ethnicity.

That's why I'm often taken aback when I visit the Mudcat Cafe. Here I see advocates of militarism and capital punishment, proponents of multinational big business, ethnic-based nationalism, etc. Obviously, there are a lot of different values at play in this forum.

But reading through the joke threads, I was utterly shocked, both at many of the jokes, and at the underlying racism and anti-Semitism that is at the heart of them. As an example, I cannot fathom how the teller of the toilet paper joke would not see how hurtful is.

I agree that these threads are shameful. They are most unbecoming of a forum that describes itself as "a magazine dedicated to blues and folk music."

Katy P.

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: Jande
Date: 04 May 01 - 12:12 PM

Skeptic: "I think we should all keep Edmund Burke's advice in mind. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. "

Thankyou! That was in my thoughts as well as I read through the posts here.

Mick: On one of the popular game forums in which I have been a long-time respected regular, we always hi-jacked the threads produced by trolls --and simply had a troll barbeque and a virtual party. LOL! Trolls didn't seem to stick around for long there. Then inevitable thread-drift would kick in and the thread name might even get changed. But that was on a usenet forum.

Here, it might help if when the topic of a group changed, someone monitoring things might change the thread title accordingly, or put a warning on the offensive ones. I don't know how realistic that would be though...

I tend to ignore joke threads anyway, but I'm glad I didn't miss that Jesus joke that Cranky Yankee posted here. I suppose it will offend people who believe that Jesus IS God, but I believe he was a man who was aware of human-ness AND the sacred spirit in all of us, including himself.

That joke underlined for me the human-ness of Jesus. I believe his whole point was "I can do it and I am human just like you, therefore so can you (IF you have ears to hear and eyes to see)!" That Roman Citizen, (St.) Saul/Paul, has a lot to answer for, if you ask me. (which you didn't) ;`)

Thanks for this thread, Kat. Stupid to suffer in silence, when speaking out will gather you support, and further discussion.

~ Jande

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: mousethief
Date: 04 May 01 - 12:22 PM

I think one reason Max doesn't expunge offending threads/messages is the inordinate amount of WORK it would require. He would spend all his time reading messages on Mudcat. Perhaps he has figured that, since he can't censor EVERYTHING, it is best that he censor NOTHING -- lest he end up leaving the imprint of his own taste (or that of the people who complain loudest).

So we must be self-monitoring.

How I wish we could zonk offenders -- especially guests! -- who post offensive messages. Having been the brunt of a vicious attack in the past week or so, believe me, I understand the desire for censorship.

Please also see this message.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: katlaughing
Date: 04 May 01 - 12:27 PM

Thanks to those of you who've expressed support. I appreciate it.

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: marty D
Date: 04 May 01 - 01:21 PM

Guest Katy, try not to get down about that kind of stuff. The VAST majority here are helpful caring folks. Ten agressive jerks with attitude and aliases can make it SEEM like they run the show, but they don't. Stick to the non-controversial and music threads and you'll get a much different picture. I have a friend who's been driving cab at night for 20 years. He encounters so many desperate and dangerous people, that he can't even conceive of another happier world outside the one he inhabits.

marty

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 May 01 - 04:27 AM

Controversy is just a word for people exchanging views about things on which they disagree.

Controversy isn't the problem, discourtesy is. And that obviously includes racism, which is inescapably discourteous.

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: Jeri
Date: 05 May 01 - 11:43 AM

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

And the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, when its sole purpose is to provoke people to do something, is to do something.

This is how I see things:
Anyone who posts to a thread validates and supports it.
Anyone who posts to a thread wants it be read by others, who might have missed it if they hadn't refreshed it.
Anyone who thinks they have to add their opinion to every thread they disagree with, had better search the forum thoroughly, because I'm sure you've missed some.

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 May 01 - 02:35 PM

Anyone who posts to a thread validates and supports it.

I know what you mean, and agree with it a lot of the way. But there can be a trap of imagining that a thread has an existence over and above the posts that it is made up of, and that whatever the intent of someone who started it might be has some special significance.

If a thread has developed into a pointless row about nothing in particular, leaving it be is often the sensible thing to do. But other times an interesting and relevant discussion is developing, albeit maybe interspersed with ill-tempered coat-trailing and personal abuse from people trying to stir things up, and I don't think that the stirrers should be given the privilege of shutting down the discussion. (And that's not a comment pointing at anybody. I feel it prudent to emphasize that, because sometimes people can be a bit thin-skinned here on the Mudcat, or something you've said with one meaning can take on a new one you hadn't meant, because of an intervening post etc.)

Subject: Bigotry
From: Bernard
Date: 06 May 01 - 04:19 PM

bigot

n. a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his own,
esp. on religion, politics, or race.

After some due consideration I have decided to withdraw from Mudcat.

Right or wrong (this is no longer open to discussion as too much has already been said), I posted some jokes at which someone else took offence.

Even though I apologised, this person saw fit to repeat and prolong the haranguing, and I'm afraid I'm not prepared to put up with such bigotry here, or anywhere else for that matter.

Anyone wishing to speak to me on the subject (or any other subject!) may do so via normal email...

Posting, or Personal Messaging, will be to no avail, as I will not be here. Those who know me well will realise that depression is getting the better of me once more - and this is one reason why I must withdraw from the Forum.

I am not a bigot, nor am I racist or homophobic (although people close to me find that quite surprising, considering what I was put through), and I believe in 'live and let live'.

I am not tolerant of bigots and I know what the term means. A bigot is not necessarily racist per se, but is very narrow minded and self-opinionated. I have always thought myself to be broad minded, and open to the ideas of others.

Children are among the worst 'bigots' imaginable, but they do not know any better. So, by definition, they are not really bigots, they are simply displaying such characteristic behaviour. An adult, on the other hand, does know better, and should, therefore, behave in a more adult manner.

Okay - perhaps it was a serious error of judgement on my part when I posted the jokes. But I believed that others were as broadminded as I - and that was my big mistake. I am renowned for my irreverent sense of humour, and still believe that someone who takes offence to such an extent is spoiling for a fight - just a little too indignant for credibility. I don't want a fight, so sod off!

I am not prepared to put myself at risk again (given my mental ill-health), as I feel I ought to be able to say what I like without having to censor myself. If someone takes exception to what I have said, and is prepared to discuss it in an adult, non-bigotted manner, I do not mind.

Mudcat is voluntary in more ways than one. It is free in more ways than one. If someone visits a thread expecting to be offended, they shouldn't be surprised if they are offended. Certainly, neurotic histrionics do nothing to give a complaint any credibility.

Censorship of the Mudcat Forum is a bad thing - members should accept that they aren't always going to find they agree with everything they find. Such is life.

I have said enough.

Goodbye...

Subject: RE: BS: Shamefull threads
From: CarolC
Date: 06 May 01 - 04:55 PM

Bye, Bernard. Take care of yourself. And good luck with the depression.

Carol