Open Discussion Bluelight mods engaging in harassment and trolling

[JessFR]

Give me a break Jess.

You were hardly a model CEPS contributor.

Practice what you preach.

Why, cause I had a go at some trump supporters?

If you wanna suggest that I don't consider trump supporters a vulnerable group worth protecting their feelings? Yeah you're right.

You get my concern because of the things you can't help. The sucky circumstances of your life. Not because you believe things that cause you to be rejected by others.

EDIT: tell you what, tell me this. Do you or anyone you're aware of (I won't ask for a name, and it doesn't have to be someone here) have serious emotional distress and trauma because of their rejection for being a trump supporter?

Because perhaps I said something that implied I don't think highly of most trump supporters?

If you can honestly tell me yes. I'd give that serious consideration for the future if I ever return to ceps.

But that's not been my impression at all. My impression is that most trump supporters give better than they get. That they think faaaar to low of people like me on the whole to be hurt by my opinion of them.

If you can tell me with complete sincerity that you think that evaluation is mistaken. I will give it serious weight going forward.

 

[Buzz Lightbeer]

You said the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were right and shouldn't be apologized for.
You said that it was okay for the US to wage war in the Middle East because otherwise other countries would be stirring up trouble and throwing bombs around.

On the top of my head. Now imagine saying these things and a couple months later start a whole discussion that CEPS isn't a safe place because some random visitor could by extreme accident stumble on a post that offends him.

 

[Skorpio]

I will say I post minimally in ceps, although I do follow it, so I probably am not the best example.

I might join in more on some things.

 

[JessFR]

You said the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were right and shouldn't be apologized for.
You said that it was okay for the US to wage war in the Middle East because otherwise other countries would be stirring up trouble and throwing bombs around.

On the top of my head. Now imagine saying these things and a couple months later start a whole discussion that CEPS isn't a safe place because some random visitor could by extreme accident stumble on a post that offends him.

Honestly? I'd be happy to be banned from saying that and err on the safe side. I'll even issue a sincere apology for if anyone was actually hurt by it.

If I thought it was at all likely that people were going to be emotionally hurt by it I wouldn't have said it to start with.

But expecting an English speaking Japanese or middle eastern person to be here and be seriously harmed by my opinions is a long way in my view from say... A western LGBT person hurt by someone said they think their identity is a fad. And their suffering doesn't exist.

Also just for the record. I never said the bombings were right in a moral sense. They were definitely morally wrong. But it was a war and I think it was a moral wrong that was one of the many terrible decisions that sometimes have to be made in war time, and that under the circumstances with what was known at the time it was as correct as an inherently evil wartime action can be, when compared to the also terrible alternatives.

But please let's not get into that. You're absolutely allowed to think I'm wrong. I don't wanna debate it. Just clarifying what I really meant.

 

[Mr. Krinkle]

You said the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were right and shouldn't be apologized for.
You said that it was okay for the US to wage war in the Middle East because otherwise other countries would be stirring up trouble and throwing bombs around.

On the top of my head. Now imagine saying these things and a couple months later start a whole discussion that CEPS isn't a safe place because some random visitor could by extreme accident stumble on a post that offends him.

You said all that, Jess?

you got a lot of nerve talking about what others are saying

 

[JessFR]

You said all that, Jess?

you got a lot of nerve talking about what others are saying

Read the above clarification.

As for the middle east. I have defended as justified with what was known at the time SOME actions, not all.

I suspect what they said has been inferred by my expressions of being pro US foreign intervention.

But again, please let's not get into it. Even with these clarifications you're allowed to believe I'm factually or morally wrong in that position.

The point here is, is it reasonable to say those expressions pose a similar risk of emotional harm and trauma to vulnerable people as say, the George floyd thread or the transgender thread.

I can't say I find it very likely. But I'm open to hearing arguments to the contrary. I don't wanna hurt people.

 

[JessFR]

On the top of my head. Now imagine saying these things and a couple months later start a whole discussion that CEPS isn't a safe place because some random visitor could by extreme accident stumble on a post that offends him.

Also, offense is not really what I'm getting at.

Being offended by someone's political views, because you think they make the world less safe or result in unacceptable loss of innocent life. It's frustrating, it makes you angry. All normal reactions to political discussion.

But it's VERY different to say, invalidating the experiences of a rape survivor. Telling a gay person they chose their lifestyle. Telling transgender people they're mentally sick. Telling black people the prejudice against them is deserved.

Those are arguments that can cut deep into an existing emotional vulnerability.

People generally don't kill themselves because of the former. People have been known to kill themselves over the latter.

And the victims of the latter are far more likely to be here to read it than the former involving foreign non English speaking countries. Even if we assume what I've said is in a similar league.

And thats why I submit they're not the same.

 

[Buzz Lightbeer]

Honestly? I'd be happy to be banned from saying that and err on the safe side. I'll even issue a sincere apology for if anyone was actually hurt by it.

If I thought it was at all likely that people were going to be emotionally hurt by it I wouldn't have said it to start with.

But expecting an English speaking Japanese or middle eastern person to be here and be seriously harmed by my opinions is a long way in my view from say... A western LGBT person hurt by someone said they think their identity is a fad. And their suffering doesn't exist.

Also just for the record. I never said the bombings were right in a moral sense. They were definitely morally wrong. But it was a war and I think it was a moral wrong that was one of the many terrible decisions that sometimes have to be made in war time, and that under the circumstances with what was known at the time it was as correct as an inherently evil wartime action can be.

I appreciate you saying this, no need to go into the specifics though. My points are also somewhat taken out of context.
I don't think that that should be somehow a bannable offense at all.

I once flipped my shit at some guy that said he wants the US to go to war with China, how horrific of a statement this is in my mind, it isn't for many, and this should be able to be said. I am a firm believer that any banning or prohibiting of speech (unless it's legit inciting violence or with a serious intention of hurting people, and it would be the mods' job to decide the lines) is counter productive and ultimately leads to MORE toxicity. Real life and social media are an excellent example of this, I'd hate for Bluelight to bow to this as well, good things come out of here.
Since the lines are always inherently blurred there's a case for just removing the possibility of lines anyway, but plenty of cases to be made to keep it as well.

 

[Mr. Krinkle]

Read the above clarification.

As for the middle east. I have defended as justified with what was known at the time SOME actions, not all.

I suspect what they said has been inferred by my expressions of being pro US foreign intervention.

But again, please let's not get into it. Even with these clarifications you're allowed to believe I'm factually or morally wrong in that position.

The point here is, is it reasonable to say those expressions pose a similar risk of emotional harm and trauma to vulnerable people as say, the George floyd thread or the transgender thread.

I can't say I find it very likely. But I'm open to hearing arguments to the contrary. I don't wanna hurt people.

Hey im ok with what you said, it's your opinion and your right to say it

i mean its all just a point of view....even if we argue over it....so what - right? no big deal...we can still play patty-cake in another thread right?

just as long as birdup over there stops sending me private messages over it, im more than happy to have a good time with her about it

 

[birdup.snaildown]

@JessFR

You have frequently exploded at people on CEPS and then backtracked and/or deleted heaps of posts and apologized later and admitted that you have a tendency to have "emotional" reactions. I've lost count how many times this has happened.

As for Trump supporters, the BLUA doesn't discriminate. But, beyond BL, everybody deserves the same level of respect unless they are being openly offensive. You can't justify mistreating conservatives because you think they are fair game.

Do I know trump supporters who have been traumatized? Yes, absolutely I do. I have a friend in Australia who was spat on and yelled at and even physically assaulted for wearing a MAGA hat. Go ahead and try it and get back to me.

You are ironically contributing to the idea that a certain group of people can be mistreated.

 

[birdup.snaildown]

just as long as birdup over there stops sending me private messages over it

I sent you a polite message asking you to stop insulting me.

 

[JessFR]

@JessFR

You have frequently exploded at people on CEPS and then backtracked and/or deleted heaps of posts and apologized later and admitted that you have a tendency to have "emotional" reactions. I've lost count how many times this has happened.

As for Trump supporters, the BLUA doesn't discriminate. But, beyond BL, everybody deserves the same level of respect unless they are being openly offensive. You can't justify mistreating conservatives because you think they are fair game.

Do I know trump supporters who have been traumatized? Yes, absolutely I do. I have a friend in Australia who was spat on and yelled at and even physically assaulted for wearing a MAGA hat. Go ahead and try it and get back to me.

You are ironically contributing to the idea that a certain group of people can be mistreated.

Trump supporters should not be abused. And your friend definitely was. Violence is not OK. No matter who it's directed at or what they said. You won't get any argument from me.

But physical abuse like that, or even emotional abuse like telling the person that they are worthless as a human being, is a long way from saying you have no respect from their opinions.

I still don't really see that these are the same. Regardless though I'm honestly sorry if my words really have caused the kind of traumatic hurt that I've been suggesting to anyone. Regardless of who they are.

As for my emotional issue. Yeah, I'm not perfect. I make mistakes. Sometimes I have said hurtful things.

Does that make me wrong for saying that those things are wrong? I'm not suggesting I'm perfect, I'm not suggesting I've never said anything hurtful to someone that was beyond what's acceptable.

Should I try and pretend that behavior is OK simply because I'm flawed and have in moments of frustration or weakness or drug related stupidity done the wrong thing?

I am more than prepared to be subject to the exactly the same standards I'm arguing for. With someone else empowered to hold me to them if need be.

 

[Mr. Krinkle]

I sent you a polite message asking you to stop insulting me.

yea ok....thats not what you said

 

[birdup.snaildown]

"I'm not emotionally invested in any of the discussions on this site, nor do I take offense to anything that anybody says. If you'd like to continue to try and insult me, go ahead. You are wasting your time."

This is what I said.

 

[Mr. Krinkle]

and i told you that you were wasting your time messaging me

right?

but i wasn't trying to insult you

i was just bustin chops

 

[Buzz Lightbeer]

I am more than prepared to be subject to the exactly the same standards I'm arguing for. With someone else empowered to hold me to them if need be.

This is exactly the point, the lines are so gray and once you start enforcing certain things, multiple things will happen, the lines will get pushed (the things I said were good examples, they are not black and white, but for some they will be more offensive than some other things, thus pushing the boundaries) and more importantly toxicity and discussion on the boundaries will increase, leading to more hostility.
I really don't see any problems with how things are now.

Spoiler

Before you know it we can't even meme about some famous guy's weight anymore!
Look at this doofus:

 

[Jabberwocky]

I'm not emotionally invested in any of the discussions on this site

Oh yes you are. But I’m not saying which ones.

 

[alasdairm]

People get offended by some of the stuff I post in CEPS but I've never had an infraction for posting my political opinions because I don't break the rules. I don't insult people. I just say what I think.

indeed. that's why, while we often disagree, i enjoy your ce&p contribution.

that said, "i'm not offended therefore you should not be offended" (paraphrasing obviously), never makes much sense to me.

alasdair

 

[Mr. Krinkle]

exactly....some people may be insulted from what you said, that may be offensive in their eyes

but now you're insulted

cmon now

 

[Buzz Lightbeer]

You cannot prevent everyone from being offended when you have people from all over the world and all sorts of backgrounds talking about sensitive issues, it's even impossible for non-sensitive issues. I would be interested if people could come up with stricter CEPS rules and guidelines that wouldn't prove counterproductive to good discussion or appear too arbitrary.