beastie wrote:Are we to assume that most MDD posters knew about the Graham pictures but didn't bother to condemn them? I don't. I assume that they, like me, just didn't know what was going on. I think the vast majority of posters on either board would condemn both what was done to Juliann and Kevin.
I don't know if most were aware, but I do think more were aware than have conceded it. Only one bothered saying anything about it before MDD brought it up and did so on the thread discussing the memes (as I recall). I don't disagree that most would condemn what happened to Juliann and Kevin.
Yes, this board has more vulgarity than the more strictly moderated MDD, but certainly no more insults. Yes, this board tolerates some posters that MDD would ban, but that is Shades's libertarian vision (with which I don't entirely agree, by the way.) But I think assuming that the majority of posters on this board approved of what was done to Juliann is a different type of vulgarity.
I don't know that this is necessarily about the majority of posters. This is similar to other thoughts you had from Pahoran's thread. As Pahoran wishes that thread to no longer discuss Will, I will make my remarks here.
beastie wrote:asbestosman wrote:Oh, you mean a group can be held responsible for the actions of one person? That's an interesting admission there. I wonder why it only seems to apply in that case. Perhaps I should read on.
No, that's not what I mean. If it were, that's what I would have said. I said, and I think pretty clearly, that Will's behavior would REFLECT poorly on the MI. That is far different than saying the MI should be held responsible for his actions.
This is just a reality of life. When a business organization hires a celebrity for advertisements, if that celebrity is caught doing something horrible, that celebrity will be dropped. Why? No one is saying that the business is "responsible" for the celebrity's actions. But what the business knows is that the actions of the celebrity has the potential of negatively affecting their business, anyway.
I apologize for misreading you. I think that's fair enough. Can I amend my statement to say that it reflects poorly on our board that have certain vulgar posters here? That doesn't mean each individual here bears responsibility, but such folks can reflect negatively on the nature of this board.
You mean like this board. I suppose that goes without saying. Of course, it's hard to think too highly of a board that doesn't have much of a vested interest in even the appearance of decency and morality--at least until the lights are turned on it.
Oh, please. How many times have board members protested the vulgar actions of others aside from Will? Quite a bit.
You are correct that many board members have protested actions of posters such as PP, Thews, and Dr. Cam. Many here also protested non-vulgar but undeserved actions such as Sockpuppet's words about Daniel Peterson and BDM. So you are right that many posters do in fact condemn bad behavior regardless of the source.
I think it's the board's (or more precisely Shades') libertarian vision, though, that fosters an environment where the most vile of things are found. In that sense, the board (not the board members, but the board as an environment) has no interest in the appearance of decency. If we put more limits in place, it lowers the incentive for certain kinds of nastiness. If Shades routinely deleted the most vile of comments, tempers might not flare quite as much. If no links were allowed to the nasty memes, it would be less likely to happen because the trolls who did it wouldn't receive much of a reaction. By removing links to it and banning discussion of it, the troublemakers wouldn't bother doing it--too boring.
The other part to be aware of is the tribalism that goes on. When we start pointing fingers of suspicion only at the other side, we're engaging in tribalism. When we refuse to reflect on how we could have acted better, we are in danger. Many of us here are not guilty and I'm quite sure Nemesis isn't literally referring to the whole board. As I mentioned, Nemesis is unlikely to blame Daniel Peterson, Nehor, or even EAllusion despite the fact that EAllusion is a critic. Chris Smith is also a likely candidate for being guiltless and many more individuals probably don't bear much if any guilt. Sadly, my guess is that those who should feel the most guilty (the actual culprits and secondarily supporter in the know if any) probably don't in the least. Such individuals routinely offer apologies when their behavior is discovered and they are called on the carpet for it. Yet they often betray that are not truly penitent. They're just sorry we won't agree with them.
This situation is bigger than just Will or the memes. It extends to the mockery thread and Doctor Scratch's delusions about Daniel Peterson as well. How much guilt does an individual bear for participating in that? It probably depends on the individual's participation and support in such things. Some here have condemned Scratch in the past, but most of us got tired of essentially talking to a brick wall on that issue. In fact, that may be part of the reason few here routinely condemn all bad actions. When a thread is dedicated to condemning bad actions (like memes or vulgarity), many people will jump on the thread to condemn the bad behavior. However, if it's merely part of another thread, then often times it's just some of the same old trash from the usual dispensers.