Question re. AGBF's Thread About the Catholic Boys

[missy]

It's one thing to report when someone is breaking the rules, you think they're shilling etc. That's not necessarily something that should be made public, in my eyes. I feel it's different when it becomes something that offends someone's tender sensibilities. Like I've been talked down to and demeaned on FB for typing "God" when talking about religious things on people's walls--those that have a come apart about it feel that it is blasphemous and I guess means I'm going to hell..*they* prefer you type "G-d". That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.

Or if we were to be allowed to have a discussion about religion and I volunteered about how I grew up, people are at times offended by that. Then in my estimation, you need to have the gumption to raise your hand and say "it offends me that you don't believe what I do", rather than refusing to contribute and refusing to ask questions to learn about things, and rather than hiding behind the screen. Own it. We should be adult enough to accept our own thoughts. And if you *can't*-if you can't contribute, if you can't ask questions, if you can't act like an adult, then I fully believe your offense should be duly noted, and dismissed. "it offends me that so and so said Christmas is a pagan holiday, it should be deleted and so and so should have a time out" "Have you contributed to the thread and stated your thoughts so you could discuss them rationally and like an adult? No? Ok then" End of story. Or, "Oh, you have? And so and so said you were an idiot for believing otherwise? Well, that's a whole 'nother thing, we'll take care of it, thanks for letting us know"

I like to learn, I like to grow and expand my knowledge. If I hadn't been allowed to have discussions-adult discourse, adult talks, adult conversation, with others, I would have an entirely different mindset than I do right now. Talking with other people is what made me understand that gay people are not scary. Atheists are not scary. I like to talk and ask questions.

Yes yes and yes. I am just dittoing your whole post Packrat. You said what I was trying to say more clearly than I did. I get reporting spam and shillers etc but if a post offends one's sensibilities then please let's discuss why. Because just reporting without discussing lends nothing to the conversation and cannot lead to growth and awareness. I also 100% believe in being respectful of others opinions but I like to know what those opinions are and why so I can understand and learn.

 

[kenny]

People are assuming the only reason posts are reported is an overly sensitive member is offended.
Not always so.
What about reporting a post that (while not offensive to the reporter) may violate PS rules?

For instance consider the follow rule-breaking ...
Links to pics hosted on sites like photobucket.
Personal email addresses.
The same person having more than one account/screen name.
... and yes race, politics, and religion posts that may violate PS rules and call for a moderator decision.

Ella can't read every post and all these violates PS rules.
Reporting those is being a good community-minded PS member.

Last week I reported a man who shot a squirrel with a gun right in front of me in a busy residential area.
I was praised here for speaking up and not 'minding my own business'.
Cities have rules that limit personal freedom for good reason.
Same with PS.
Every member of a community being willing to maintain standards is a good thing, not bad yet people who do so are unfairly criticized as intolerant, delicate flowers, or busybodies.

 

[kenny]

... gay people are not scary. Atheists are not scary.

I'm not?

I guess I'll have to try harder.

 

[missy]

Kenny, I understand your point however we are not comparing apples to apples IMO. Your reporting what happened is a public safety issue and what that man did was criminal. In that case reporting anonymously is smart for your safety. Anyway I feel one should stand by their reasons and actions. YMMV but that is how I feel. If you feel strongly enough to report a post stand behind that and explain why so we understand and can learn from the reasons.

 

[kenny]

Kenny, I understand your point however we are not comparing apples to apples IMO. Your reporting what happened is a public safety issue and what that man did was criminal. In that case reporting anonymously is smart for your safety. Anyway I feel one should stand by their reasons and actions. YMMV but that is how I feel. If you feel strongly enough to report a post stand behind that and explain why so we understand and can learn from the reasons.

But when people will likely disagree on borderline things it's a mod's job to make a call.

 

[missy]

Absolutely.

Kenny, I understand your point however we are not comparing apples to apples IMO. Your reporting what happened is a public safety issue and what that man did was criminal. In that case reporting anonymously is smart for your safety. Anyway I feel one should stand by their reasons and actions. YMMV but that is how I feel. If you feel strongly enough to report a post stand behind that and explain why so we understand and can learn from the reasons.

But when people will likely disagree on borderline things it's a mod's job to make a call.

 

[kenny]

Absolutely.

Kenny, I understand your point however we are not comparing apples to apples IMO. Your reporting what happened is a public safety issue and what that man did was criminal. In that case reporting anonymously is smart for your safety. Anyway I feel one should stand by their reasons and actions. YMMV but that is how I feel. If you feel strongly enough to report a post stand behind that and explain why so we understand and can learn from the reasons.

But when people will likely disagree on borderline things it's a mod's job to make a call.

So, in cases that are judgement calls (which will get a different call depending on each poster's background and beliefs) publicly posting that, "I just reported X for reason Y." will only start the kind of food fight PS rules tells us to avoid. Some here would call that pot stirring.

 

[packrat]

violating policy, that's what I was saying is a reason to report, and to be able to report quietly and not be called out on it. Being able to report quietly and not be called out b/c you are offended b/c someone said gay marriage should be legal, no. That's not the same thing.

ETA crap I can't remember what I'm responding to and can't scroll to see it w/just the edit button. sorry.

 

[missy]

violating policy, that's what I was saying is a reason to report, and to be able to report quietly and not be called out on it. Being able to report quietly and not be called out b/c you are offended b/c someone said gay marriage should be legal, no. That's not the same thing.

Yes I agree completely. If one does not take responsibility for one's actions there is much room for abuse of reporting for whatever reasons IMO.

 

[missy]

Pot stirring is an intentional action to cause trouble so no I don't think of it as the same thing. However Kenny you are the pot stirring expert so you certainly know more about that than I.

 

[kenny]

Pot stirring is an intentional action to cause trouble so no I don't think of it as the same thing. However Kenny you are the pot stirring expert.

The term pot stirring has lots of unfair baggage.
Sometimes challenging status quo is a brave and healthy alternative to ... Yeah Yeah Yeah. Things are messed up but just leave well enough alone. Don't stir the pot..

Pot stirring can be a good thing.
"Pot stirring" ended slavery and segregation, got the women the vote and gays marriage.

 

[packrat]

People are assuming the only reason posts are reported is an overly sensitive member is offended.
Not always so.
What about reporting a post that (while not offensive to the reporter) may violate PS rules?

For instance consider the follow rule-breaking ...
Links to pics hosted on sites like photobucket.
Personal email addresses.
The same person having more than one account/screen name.
... and yes race, politics, and religion posts that may violate PS rules and call for a moderator decision.

Ella can't read every post and all these violates PS rules.
Reporting those is being a good community-minded PS member.

Last week I reported a man who shot a squirrel with a gun right in front of me in a busy residential area.
I was praised here for speaking up and not 'minding my own business'.
Cities have rules that limit personal freedom for good reason.
Same with PS.
Every member of a community being willing to maintain standards is a good thing, not bad yet people who do so are unfairly criticized as intolerant, delicate flowers, or busybodies.

Ok I'll do it this way instead. The bottom paragraph--rules that limit personal freedoms for good reason, being willing to maintain standards is a good thing.

Yes, it is. And someone who is trying to maintain community standards, reporting someone for possibly shilling, for instance, that's not who I'm calling out as "unfairly criticized as intolerant, delicate flowers or busybodies". THOSE types are the ones who are peeking out their windows and calling the police station b/c a man walked down the street. B/c they think someone crossed the street and wasn't at a cross walk. Bc someone's dog was outside for 1 minute 11 seconds and it is exactly 32 degrees outside and that is abuse. B/c the dog barked 5 times in 18 minutes. That's a busy body. Not someone who reports someone for shooting in town. JD has called and reported things like that himself. That's being a good citizen.

 

[missy]

Pot stirring is an intentional action to cause trouble so no I don't think of it as the same thing. However Kenny you are the pot stirring expert.

The term pot stirring has lots of unfair baggage.
Sometimes challenging status quo is a brave and healthy alternative to ... Yeah Yeah Yeah. Things are messed up but just leave well enough alone. Don't stir the pot..

Pot stirring can be a good thing.
"Pot stirring" ended slavery and segregation, got the women the vote and gays marriage.

Yes agreed. What I am saying about reporting posts (with the exception of what packrat wrote about) is that if a post offends you why wouldn't you stand behind the reason and explain why? Otherwise reporting posts secretly can become abusive. Doing things secretly can lead to issues while being open and above board (transparency) is a good thing. IMO.

And again I agree with packrat and her explanation of the different types of reporting. I.e. Shilling posts, spam etc.

 

[packrat]

Pot stirring is an intentional action to cause trouble so no I don't think of it as the same thing. However Kenny you are the pot stirring expert.

The term pot stirring has lots of unfair baggage.
Sometimes challenging status quo is a brave and healthy alternative to ... Yeah Yeah Yeah. Things are messed up but just let it be.

Pot stirring can be a good thing.
"Pot stirring" ended slavery and segregation, got the women the vote and gays marriage.

Challenging the status quo is brave. Pot stirring is just done to purposely get people riled up. Not to make things better. There's a difference.

I can't find any definitions of "stirring the pot" or "pot stirring" that don't mean to intentionally cause drama.

Challenging the status quo, some of those definitions could also apply to pot stirring-but there were some like, "object", "not conform". David Bowie challenged the status quo-he didn't stir the pot. Maybe the line is fine, but I feel it's there.

If you want to challenge the status quo, you'd post and say "hey, I'm not sure I agree w/that, and here's why"

If you want to stir the pot, you'd either report something anonymously or you'd purposely cause drama to incite the other person. "You're wrong and you have a feeble mind if you believe cockamamy shit like that. You're ridiculous"

 

[missy]

Pot stirring is an intentional action to cause trouble so no I don't think of it as the same thing. However Kenny you are the pot stirring expert.

The term pot stirring has lots of unfair baggage.
Sometimes challenging status quo is a brave and healthy alternative to ... Yeah Yeah Yeah. Things are messed up but just let it be.

Pot stirring can be a good thing.
"Pot stirring" ended slavery and segregation, got the women the vote and gays marriage.

Challenging the status quo is brave. Pot stirring is just done to purposely get people riled up. Not to make things better. There's a difference.

I can't find any definitions of "stirring the pot" or "pot stirring" that don't mean to intentionally cause drama.

Challenging the status quo, some of those definitions could also apply to pot stirring-but there were some like, "object", "not conform". David Bowie challenged the status quo-he didn't stir the pot. Maybe the line is fine, but I feel it's there.

If you want to challenge the status quo, you'd post and say "hey, I'm not sure I agree w/that, and here's why"

If you want to stir the pot, you'd either report something anonymously or you'd purposely cause drama to incite the other person. "You're wrong and you have a feeble mind if you believe cockamamy shit like that. You're ridiculous"

+1

 

[kenny]

Pot stirring is an intentional action to cause trouble so no I don't think of it as the same thing. However Kenny you are the pot stirring expert.

The term pot stirring has lots of unfair baggage.
Sometimes challenging status quo is a brave and healthy alternative to ... Yeah Yeah Yeah. Things are messed up but just let it be.

Pot stirring can be a good thing.
"Pot stirring" ended slavery and segregation, got the women the vote and gays marriage.

Challenging the status quo is brave. Pot stirring is just done to purposely get people riled up. Not to make things better. There's a difference.

I can't find any definitions of "stirring the pot" or "pot stirring" that don't mean to intentionally cause drama.

Challenging the status quo, some of those definitions could also apply to pot stirring-but there were some like, "object", "not conform". David Bowie challenged the status quo-he didn't stir the pot. Maybe the line is fine, but I feel it's there.

If you want to challenge the status quo, you'd post and say "hey, I'm not sure I agree w/that, and here's why"

If you want to stir the pot, you'd either report something anonymously or you'd purposely cause drama to incite the other person. "You're wrong and you have a feeble mind if you believe cockamamy shit like that. You're ridiculous"

Clearly we need a moderator call on this.

 

[missy]

Pot stirring is an intentional action to cause trouble so no I don't think of it as the same thing. However Kenny you are the pot stirring expert.

The term pot stirring has lots of unfair baggage.
Sometimes challenging status quo is a brave and healthy alternative to ... Yeah Yeah Yeah. Things are messed up but just let it be.

Pot stirring can be a good thing.
"Pot stirring" ended slavery and segregation, got the women the vote and gays marriage.

Challenging the status quo is brave. Pot stirring is just done to purposely get people riled up. Not to make things better. There's a difference.

I can't find any definitions of "stirring the pot" or "pot stirring" that don't mean to intentionally cause drama.

Challenging the status quo, some of those definitions could also apply to pot stirring-but there were some like, "object", "not conform". David Bowie challenged the status quo-he didn't stir the pot. Maybe the line is fine, but I feel it's there.

If you want to challenge the status quo, you'd post and say "hey, I'm not sure I agree w/that, and here's why"

If you want to stir the pot, you'd either report something anonymously or you'd purposely cause drama to incite the other person. "You're wrong and you have a feeble mind if you believe cockamamy shit like that. You're ridiculous"

Clearly we need a moderator call on this.

Yes and thank you for not reporting anonymously.

 

[kenny]

What I am saying about reporting posts (with the exception of what packrat wrote about) is that if a post offends you why wouldn't you stand behind the reason and explain why?

Because certain borderline cases requiring a decision by a moderator may result in a shit fest here ... and be considered stirring the pot.

 

[packrat]

What I am saying about reporting posts (with the exception of what packrat wrote about) is that if a post offends you why wouldn't you stand behind the reason and explain why?

Because certain borderline cases requiring a decision by a moderator may result in a shit fest here ... and be considered stirring the pot.

I don't understand. It could be b/c I am clogged up and my head feels like it's floating above the clouds. Or it could be that I just am a buffoon I dunno, but I'm confused. I did remember to put pants on today, so give me some credit there..

 

[kenny]

I did remember to put pants on today, so give me some credit there..

I'm naked.

Actually ...

 

[missy]

I did remember to put pants on today, so give me some credit there..

I'm naked.

Actually ...

Kenny, no fair. You are being a tease now. A pot stirring tease.


Packrat, you are making complete sense. I only +1 those PSers who make good sense. Honest.

 

[kenny]

Kenny, no fair. You are being a tease now. A pot stirring tease.

But I'm a guy without a spoon, so the only way I can stir the pot is to be naked.

 

[minousbijoux]

Pot stirring is an intentional action to cause trouble so no I don't think of it as the same thing. However Kenny you are the pot stirring expert.

The term pot stirring has lots of unfair baggage.
Sometimes challenging status quo is a brave and healthy alternative to ... Yeah Yeah Yeah. Things are messed up but just let it be.

Pot stirring can be a good thing.
"Pot stirring" ended slavery and segregation, got the women the vote and gays marriage.

Challenging the status quo is brave. Pot stirring is just done to purposely get people riled up. Not to make things better. There's a difference.

I can't find any definitions of "stirring the pot" or "pot stirring" that don't mean to intentionally cause drama.

Challenging the status quo, some of those definitions could also apply to pot stirring-but there were some like, "object", "not conform". David Bowie challenged the status quo-he didn't stir the pot. Maybe the line is fine, but I feel it's there.

If you want to challenge the status quo, you'd post and say "hey, I'm not sure I agree w/that, and here's why"

If you want to stir the pot, you'd either report something anonymously or you'd purposely cause drama to incite the other person. "You're wrong and you have a feeble mind if you believe cockamamy shit like that. You're ridiculous"

Well said. Its important that disagreements be presented in a respectful manner, not by starting the dialogue of dissent with any put downs of the other's position/opinions - that to me, is stirring the pot.

 

[aljdewey]

It is worth pointing out that some of the people claiming offense to us removing religious posts are posting in both of these threads.

So if you wish us to stop removing posts like those, stop reporting them and telling us you don't like those types of posts and want us to enforce the no religion at all policies.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, Ella, for flatly saying what I was implying. That's precisely the point, and I'm so very glad you said so directly.

 

[aljdewey]

Pot stirring is an intentional action to cause trouble so no I don't think of it as the same thing. However Kenny you are the pot stirring expert.

The term pot stirring has lots of unfair baggage.
Sometimes challenging status quo is a brave and healthy alternative to ... Yeah Yeah Yeah. Things are messed up but just let it be.

Pot stirring can be a good thing.
"Pot stirring" ended slavery and segregation, got the women the vote and gays marriage.

Challenging the status quo is brave. Pot stirring is just done to purposely get people riled up. Not to make things better. There's a difference.

I can't find any definitions of "stirring the pot" or "pot stirring" that don't mean to intentionally cause drama.

Challenging the status quo, some of those definitions could also apply to pot stirring-but there were some like, "object", "not conform". David Bowie challenged the status quo-he didn't stir the pot. Maybe the line is fine, but I feel it's there.

If you want to challenge the status quo, you'd post and say "hey, I'm not sure I agree w/that, and here's why"

If you want to stir the pot, you'd either report something anonymously or you'd purposely cause drama to incite the other person. "You're wrong and you have a feeble mind if you believe cockamamy shit like that. You're ridiculous"

HUGE CO-SIGN to this.