Posted by Dr. Bob on March 25, 2008, at 20:51:46
In reply to Re: Suggestions and solutions, posted by Toph on March 25, 2008, at 15:36:03
> When people are blocked for expression of opinion, whether because of 'generalizing' or because a particular view is perceived to be threatening from another position, it feeds the perception that certain viewpoints are unwelcome here.
Uncivil viewpoints, or expressions of viewpoints, are in fact unwelcome here...
> I'm not sure if you can advocate the bombing of Iran, but you can't criticize those who advocate it, and I'm not sure how you could characterize the proposal without being seen to be offensive.
>
> SigismundIt seems to me it should be possible to express in a civil way (with I-statements, for example) support for bombing or for alternatives to bombing.
--
> Idealistic, because it assummes that we all have the well-being of this community and each member at heart. Unmanagable because precident seems to be a valued aspect of fairness here - at least I see people comparing former decisions with subsequent ones. Consistency and equal justice under the law would appear to be sacrificed here, not by design but because some speech will be found objectionable while later similar speech may be overlooked. This is fine with me, but I can envision a lot of complaining about inconsistency.
>
> TophConsistency and fairness have been and will continue to be important to people here.
It wouldn't require *everyone* to care about the well-being of the community, just enough people to keep all the boards covered.
The general idea (there might be exceptions) would be that if no one notified us about something, we'd consider it OK with everyone, and if something was OK with everyone, then it would be OK with us. If posters thought something was overlooked, they would be empowered to notify us. And it would be their responsibility to do so.
Bob
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:818822
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080313/msgs/819907.html