Harassment On Mormon Discussions.

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Locked
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Harassment On Mormon Discussions.

Post by _harmony »

collegeterrace wrote:Until I see the content of said harassment, I cannot comment.


Good is in the eye of the giver and evil in the eye of the receiver.


Comments about female genetalia come to mind.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Harassment On Mormon Discussions.

Post by _Gadianton »

In that post, she does say that this behavior occurs on every LDS theme board she's been too. So apparently, with or without the "free speech" this kind of behavior goes on. Also, the comment about the t-shirt, well, it's a gray area, but not downright offensive or harrassing. Some might take that as a compliment, some might give that as a compliment because they don't know how to communicate with women. Also, in the other post you mentioned by her, she did say that she was already becoming bored with the forum for other reasons.

Of course, what it comes down to is that we don't know the stuff behind the scenes so there is not much for those of us not involved to comment on. I'm not saying make it public, I don't really want to know. But I would encourage anyone who is being stalked or clearly harrassed in PMs, chat, or through other personal contact derived from snooping around to PM the mods about it.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_collegeterrace
_Emeritus
Posts: 603
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 7:28 am

Re: Harassment On Mormon Discussions.

Post by _collegeterrace »

harmony wrote:
collegeterrace wrote:Until I see the content of said harassment, I cannot comment.


Good is in the eye of the giver and evil in the eye of the receiver.


Comments about female genetalia come to mind.
Or the washing device of said genitalia?
... our church isn't true, but we have to keep up appearances so we don't get shunned by our friends and family, fired from our jobs, kicked out of our homes, ... Please don't tell on me. ~maklelan
_rcrocket

Re: Harassment On Mormon Discussions.

Post by _rcrocket »

Too bad. Somebody invite her back.
_Ray A

Re: Harassment On Mormon Discussions.

Post by _Ray A »

rcrocket wrote:Too bad. Somebody invite her back.


Beastie isn't the sole subject of this thread.

Anyone seen Truthdancer lately?
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Re: Harassment On Mormon Discussions.

Post by _asbestosman »

Out of curiosity, why doesn't the foe's list work? I'm not blaming the victims here. I'm just wondering if there can be some kind of defense in depth (a security concept).
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
_Ray A

Re: Harassment On Mormon Discussions.

Post by _Ray A »

I should make a clarification here. In the heat of the debates, why do I focus so much (too much?) on the untoward behaviour towards females, such as Antishock8 calling Jersey Girl, "pissflaps"? Because this has nothing whatsoever to do with debates. And it is insulting to females, and a classic case of ad hom.

The references to female genitalia has to stop. And that goes to you too, College Terrace.
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Harassment On Mormon Discussions.

Post by _Gadianton »

Well, I would say reaching into the realm of the most vulgar ways someone can put something as in your example for me is grounds for simply editing out. I'm not a huge respector of "women", I don't have any respect for someone just because of their sex. I've known enough women to know they are every bit as foul as men are. But sure, extreme vulgar name-calling is grounds for editing I'd think and if repeated over and over, more punishment, just because of the work required to keep up.

I presume this was something in an open post. But it sounds like the meat of the problem has been behind the scenes. And that's something none of us can really comment on or agree to prohibit.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Re: Harassment On Mormon Discussions.

Post by _Jason Bourne »

Beastie, TD, Jersey Girl, Moniker, others

all gone.

You all know who you are. Little boys who when challenged seem to need to stoop to vulgarities and sexual body part comments. It is sad that you all have gone a long way to driving away those who make the board interesting. An un-moderated free speech board like this really requires some self restraint by its participants. It is too bad there are so many pubescent little boys here.

Try harder to be real men.
_Ray A

Re: Harassment On Mormon Discussions.

Post by _Ray A »

Gadianton wrote:Well, I would say reaching into the realm of the most vulgar ways someone can put something as in your example for me is grounds for simply editing out. I'm not a huge respector of "women", I don't have any respect for someone just because of their sex. I've known enough women to know they are every bit as foul as men are. But sure, extreme vulgar name-calling is grounds for editing I'd think and if repeated over and over, more punishment, just because of the work required to keep up.


Colour me old-fashioned, Gad, but I do have respect for women. Probably because I have two daughters, and if anyone called one of my daughters "pissflaps", even in my old age I'd rise up and punch the crap out of them. I suppose I'm showing my "final straws". Your assessment that women are "as foul as men are" can only be applied on a limited scale. I'm a braindead taxi-driver, Gad, and I'll leave you to wonder why me and my cab-driving mates will not pick up groups of males, unless there's one or two females present. You think we just "imagined" this? I'm sorry, debate with all the "free speech" you like, but leave out references to female genitalia and the denigration of what your own mother is/was - a woman.
Locked