The following is a thread posting I made to a discussion on the Bountiful forum. I have moved it here to The Blunt Edge World because within minutes of posting, a couple newer members of the forum showed it was not well received. I felt that what I had to say was worthwhile, but since I was not asking for others to publicly critique me or to create potential for other contention because I speak frankly, I have replaced the comment in the forum and placed it here for those who care to examine the comment objectively and see if the words contain any merit.
arbilad wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the consensus is PMs, we can do that in the future. When we started this forum the emphasis was on doing absolutely everything publicly. Experience, I think, has shown that to be the wrong path. So I'm sorry if I caused hurt by posting about it publicly. But in this case I think the discussion of emoticons has been helpful. It could certainly have taken place in absence of a moderation action, though.
Who has been assuming that others know what is offensive to them? I was nearly certain earlier, and am certain now that you posted, that you intended absolutely nothing negative by your use of that emoticon, and were not aware that it could be offensive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm may regret saying this (or I'm sure some folks will probably expect me to regret it), but I'm going to regret more not saying it. I have been trying to take a sabbatical from this forum, and the farther I get from here in emotional vesting, the more and more I am seeing Bountiful seems to be turning into nothing more than an extension of that place across the river. And for the time, energy, and emotion I have vested in this forum over the past year, I can't just ignore the current state of things.
Arbi, "Who has been assuming that others know what is offensive to them?"
Well, it seems like you have lately, for one. I am surprised that you would ask that, but then again that is from my perspective.
For example, you made a mountain out of a molehill about one word I used over two weeks ago, and everytime I tried to ask that the issue be dropped it was like adding fuel to a fire. And then when I tried to start a discussion to resolve the difference of opinion, I was told by word and action not once, but twice that discussion was summarily done and that there would be no further discussion (remind you folks of anything or place?). AND all the while it turned into harp on Cat time.
Now, another mountain seems to have been made over something not even as big as a molehill.
If people insist on going out of their way to find things to be offended at, as a forum, we shouldn't expect people to know what is considered offensive to any subset of people in this forum unless there is a publicly posted and agreed upon list that states this word or phrase or emoticon are offensive (and why). Otherwise, it is all subjective and individually interpretable, which is neither pragmatic nor common sense.
Unless I am mistaken, part of the reason Bountiful was set up was to avoid all that subjective application of and interpretation of rules we all were /are subject to elsewhere. We also set this forum up to allow people the opportunity to express their opinions freely within the confines of the agreed upon and posted rules, without fear of censorship or retribution. Arbi, if you want to start ruling "your" forum the way it seems you are moving, have fun... I thought this was "our" forum, meaning it belonged to the group as a whole and would be run transparently and with at least the semblence of democracy.
That transparency, by way of reminder, was that if an offense occured publicly, the resolution of the offense was to occur publicly and that if an offense occured privately, it is to occur privately. If you are offended by something privately, then if you can't forgive and let it slide, you take it between you and the individual who offended you privately and work it out. If you are publicly offended, then you work it out publicly for the benefit of all. As the scripture says, leave your offering at the alter until it is resolved and then return so that your offering can then be acceptable unto The Lord. Making everything private is counterintuitive to people actually doing that, or so has been my experience. And, the transparency was also put in place to be a check against moderators / administrators power abuse.
The private and public offense reactions are being mixed up here in both examples, the word I used and the use of the particular emoticon by Poncho. A few people may have been privately offended by either or both, but nothing was said privately to either of us to allow us the opportunity to self-edit. Okay, shouldn't it then be logical to assume that if there was any offense taken, it was allowed to slide off the offendee's back? Instead, there were public accusations of rule breaking with a connotation perhaps it was purposeful offense giving. That may be in order from a moderation standpoint IF there was an accepted standard by which to measure offensive commentary against. But there is none. Rather, statements from moderators and non-moderators alike are made that if only people understood things the way someone else understands them then others would see it the same way and agree (e.g. have read William F. Buckley or are familiar with British Naval history or British etymology). Isn't that attitude what forum rule five was created to speak out against and say was wrong?
There is a far simpler way to handle this than what it appears you feel you need to default to, Arbi, and it is to keep with the original intent of the forum rules and ideal. Forum rules and official policy, with the requisite level of granularity needed, that is put out to the forum membership for discussion and voted on for adoption. There is no need to consolidate power or take a heavy top down hand in moderation like you seem to be moving towards.
No one moderator (including yourself even as administrator, Arbi) has the right to unilaterally dictate what is and is not deemed offensive (except in egregious circumstances) and moderate it out without giving the individual who posted the item in question the right to self-edit first. Offense can be avoided as easily, perhaps more so, when individuals are less apt to find offense.
I suggest that we stick by what the Bountiful forum ideal was by everyone exercising an extraordinary amount of letting things roll off their back. In addition to this, let us establish a specific standard by which agreed upon offensive commentary can be measured. That way, if one has breeched compliance with that publicly, a public courteous reminder be given, allowing the individual to bring the comment into compliance. What we don't need for sustaining the unique sense of community Bountiful once had, and hopefully can regain, is to encourage (actively or passively) a culture where people talk behind each other's backs, complain privately (and from the offendor's standpoint anonymously) about others to moderators or other forum members, take offense at every little thing, and are afraid of giving offense at every turn.
We seem to be suffering as a forum from a drop in trust between and towards one another. And it is manifesting itself in a variety of ways. This whole nonsense we have been exhibiting about little phrases, words, or emoticons is just a symptom.
1 year ago
6 comments:
I disagree with your assessment in part, but I'm not sure how to articulate that without being interpreted as 'harping on you.' And considering a history of disagreement, I'm not sure you'd see me as objective anyway.
I was unaware we had a history of disagreement between us personally. While our opinions may differ, I readily acknowledge I have a different perspective than most. I'm not so sure others appreciate it or understand what I went through to develop it. That is why I try to share my perspective, even when others do not like to hear it.
Not saying I'm more right or more wrong, but it is what it is. I can not avoid filtering the perceptions of interaction with others and atmosphere of an online community through my perspective.
I'm not seeking validation. Fact is, it has become increasingly harder for me to communicate my observations, my frustrations, my suggestions, and my opinions in the community without one or more people taking offense and/or dismiss me as overreacting.
Ultimately, the question I ask is am I responsible for the shift in response from others, or does the onus for that lie elsewhere. I feel it is elsewhere, which is why I moved my post out of the forum and brought it here.
As you said, you are not sure how to articulate without it being misinterpreted. My blog is definitely not neutral ground for you or others. Bountiful feels like it has ceased to be neutral ground for me. So, even though I still think you're a good egg, welcome to the awkwardness I deal with regularly. ;)
Cat, the reason why I responded on Bountiful was because it irritates the crapola out of me that you are terrified of Bountiful becoming like Nauvoo. While I understand your trepidation and history, Bountiful is not and will not be another Nauvoo. No matter how many women post, no matter how the moderation happens, no matter the offenses given/taken.
One reason I joined Bountiful was because of its very nature the differences are so transparent. Issues discussed and the manner of discussion on Bountiful are very different than Nauvoo.
I am not one to get easily offended...I get annoyed or irritated, but I soon get over that. I was not offended by Poncho's post. Nor was I personally offended by your use of the word--I was amazed that you were surprised at other's reactions to your word since it is an inflammatory word as it was used.
To answer your question, "am I responsible for the shift in response from others, or does the onus for that lie elsewhere": yes and no. We are all responsible for our words...we are cautioned in the scriptures to watch our tongue and to remove ourselves from offenses. I interpret this to mean that if my words are offensive, by design or naught, then I have the responsibility to do what I can to erase the offense (by apology, explanation, avoidance of word/phrase, etc.).
By that same token, I also have a responsibility to not be easily offended. A person's words may be hurtful, but I do not have to choose to be hurt or offended. If I am offended, then I have choices there as well. I can let it fester and grow to unreasonable proportions. Or I can retaliate. Or I can go to that person to resolve the issue. Or I can ignore it and move on. Regardless of what I choose to do, I am responsible only for my actions.
I hope I articulated by thoughts well. I value your comments and experiences. I laugh at your jokes (sometimes when they aren't funny, just because...well I laugh alot). I value our differences. And I value your expressions of faith and devotion. It is difficult to find people such as you and Poncho who strive to live righteously and improve themselves while maintaining a sense of normalcy and humor.
Wow! I just have to say this about your comment, it kind of supports what I've been feeling all along.
There are a couple things that need commentary on...
1. "I understand your trepidation and history" Do you really now, or has your information been third party? Forgive me if I sound skeptical and cynical. I honestly don't remember if you were around across the river when I was there and a certain cadre of people decided that it was better to close the door on me than to work out a mutually agreeable solution.
2"Bountiful is not and will not be another Nauvoo. No matter how many women post, no matter how the moderation happens, no matter the offenses given/taken." Don't be so certain about that. Attitudes left unchecked tend to follow people kind of like fleas, cockroaches, and lice. And please, let's not start with the indirect labelling I'm some sort of misogynist... that is so across the river...
3. "I was amazed that you were surprised at other's reactions to your word since it is an inflammatory word as it was used." There we go with defining what another has meant and defining the context for them. Would it have been more palatable and deemed less inflammatory in your part of the nation if I had used the term butthead or idiot or jerk or perhaps a word of profanity? I don't know. Do those who felt the use of the word "moron" was ad hominem and inflammatory know that back here in our part of the nation it is an everyday, acceptable expression to indicate someone else is not thinking or behaving in a reasonable fashion. Were you folks aware that the word is (gasp) used even in some popular animated children's movies put out by Pixar that are probably in nearly every LDS home?
4. "A person's words may be hurtful, but I do not have to choose to be hurt or offended." True. And that has been my whole argument. If people are going to start wearing their offense chips out on their sleeve instead of letting things slide, then let's get some consistency here and start making a public list of things that are verboten to say or reference or post instead of everyone just maintaining their own internal Meter O' Tolerance towards fellow forum members. Cuz, I'm warning and forewarnin' all of ya, as long as there are those who chose to take and find offense easily, the closer and closer the forum will come to imitating what happens across the river... or that as soon as someone with power or a group within the membership collectively decides someone else has crossed some unknown boundary, no further tolerance towards the individual will be afforded.
And right, wrong, or indifferent, for whatever reason, I am an easy target. Let's face the fact. There are a fair number of individuals who have in the past and who still do find it easy to get irritated at me. I speak my mind, and I speak frankly. And, I don't sugar coat things. And what a lot of people forget or do not take into account is that maybe behind the comments, there is an individual who really does care deeply and is a highly sensitive and caring person who has absolutely no pretentions about it being all about him...
Thanks for taking the time to visit The Blunt Edge World.
Well, I guess my post set off some kind of alarms. Not my intention at all.
1. Nope, heard your side of the story from this blog. Never heard anything from anyone else regarding that incident.
2. Where did I call you a misogynist? I'm simply trying to point out that although some of the people from Nauvoo post on Bountiful (let's face it, primarily women) that doesn't in effect equate to becoming another Nauvoo. My point is that each forum takes on its own personality.
3. Ok, this one, I'll have to quote you first. There we go with defining what another has meant and defining the context for them. Would it have been more palatable and deemed less inflammatory in your part of the nation if I had used the term butthead or idiot or jerk or perhaps a word of profanity? I don't know. Do those who felt the use of the word "moron" was ad hominem and inflammatory know that back here in our part of the nation it is an everyday, acceptable expression to indicate someone else is not thinking or behaving in a reasonable fashion.
Do you honestly not see why someone could get offended if called a moron--even in a group setting? By your definition, it indicates someone who is not thinking or behaving reasonably. No one likes to be told they are unreasonable. No one in any circumstances (no matter if the circumstances may be warranted).
You stated that this word is used in Disney movies...as if that makes it acceptable. I'm not saying it is a curse word. I'm not saying you can't use it. I'm saying that if you choose to use it, be aware of the consequences. Because I've yet to see that term used in such a way to denote love, affection, respect or any other positive emotion. Perhaps you're thinking that it is simply a name...such as scholar, intellectual, or simple. You may have that perception, but others view it as derogatory.
4. We agree on the second portion of this part of offenses. What about the first portion? That we all have a responsibility with our words and actions to avoid offense as much as possible? Some people choose to take offense no matter what we do/say to avoid it. But, that doesn't release me from my responsibilities.
Cat, I'm sorry you feel you are a target. By being outspoken and blunt, you will tread on people's toes. And because you are blunt, they will be honest back at you. But, that's one of the things I like about your presence on Bountiful. There's no hidden agenda at all with you...you just tell it like you see it.
Well, I guess my post set off some kind of alarms.
I appreciate the fact you did not back down, and it tells me you are willing to talk with me instead of at or around me. It also indicates you probably seek first to understand before being understood. Okay, we’re getting somewhere now…
Where did I call you a misogynist?
Nowhere. You only brought up the thing about the number of women, so I thought it bore talking about. In the past whenever I have even hinted or warned at shift in atmosphere of Bountiful, others (of the female sex) have accused me of it because I had commented on noticing some of the same attitudes cropping up here as are exhibited in the other forum, and well, women are the more prolific of posters in both places (right, wrong, or indifferent). The misogynist thing was something that got leveled towards me on more than one occasion across the river when I dared voice differing opinion to some of the more vocal females on some volatile topics. I think most men are familiar with a tactic many (not all) women use (even if the women don’t recognize it themselves) of silencing men by implying they are anywhere from not being supportive to them (on one extreme) to being outright chauvinist (on the other extreme) when the man is not right there with them in their opinion and way of thinking. And it even happens a lot in the membership of The Church.
I'm simply trying to point out that although some of the people from Nauvoo post on Bountiful (let's face it, primarily women) that doesn't in effect equate to becoming another Nauvoo. My point is that each forum takes on its own personality.
Sure, each forum takes on its own personality, but fact is that with the exception of about five active members of this forum, everyone here was or is also affiliated with across the river. When people default to the Nauvoo pattern of interaction in Bountiful, is it not essentially the same except without the former forum’s specific moderation patterns? Don’t people start to push to re-create what they are familiar with across the river in Bountiful rather than to do what may be hard or uncomfortable and adapt to the Bountiful mindset and ideal?
Do you honestly not see why someone could get offended if called a moron--even in a group setting? By your definition, it indicates someone who is not thinking or behaving reasonably. No one likes to be told they are unreasonable.
I can and do see, and know, how someone could get offended, even in a group setting. Believe me I do, that is not the point. My point and why I feel it warrants discussion in the first place is the latter part of what you said. No one likes to be told they are (__fill in the blank__). Why do they not like to be told that? Are they not still free to decide how they will react to it? What if it were someone they actually loved or respected who told them that? What if it were an authorized representative of The Lord or The Lord Himself providing some direct, blunt chastisement? It boils down to this, if we can’t learn and grow together as the imperfect ordinary people and Saints in things as mundane as communication in the virtual world, how can we expect to stand together and not take offense when faced with the challenge of real chastisement and the like in the real world as we face the real challenges of building up Zion?
What about the first portion? That we all have a responsibility with our words and actions to avoid offense as much as possible?
Personally, because I am blunt, I typically chose my words very carefully so as to avoid giving as much offense as possible and still get my message across. It may not always look that way, and I do write with passion at times. But truth be said, sometimes plainness is more effective than language that is all touchy-feely fuzzy-warm feel-good. Truth be said, the bit about my being an easy target is simply a cross I chose to bear, hopefully for the benefit of others. I don’t like to be viewed as a martyr or some sort of tragic drama hero figure. But if I can help catalyse others to grow and come closer to the Savior even in small ways like my blunt postings in Bountiful forum and here on my blog, then I feel maybe I’m improving upon my lot here in life. It sometimes gets tiring and frustrating to wonder if others realize there is a real, caring, and sensitive being behind the façade put up. I do appreciate that you appreciate that with me, you get face value. That does mean a lot to me! :D
Post a Comment