Advocating for the freedom to kill someone, on the basis of a protected characteristic

1235»

Comments

  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    To put it another way, the more extreme the view, the more care needs to be taken in expressing it.

    Also, the Ship is not an undergraduate ethics course, and it's not what people have signed up for. I don't know how such courses are run, but I'd assume as a minimum, explicit consent, forewarning of topics, and heavy refereeing over the short period of the seminar or lecture.

    1) The ship is not an undergraduate ethics course, totally true. My point was that a line of argumentation that brittle undergraduates can handle should be a line of argumentation that adults-in-the-world can handle. 1a) People did sign up for discussion when they signed up for the website.

    2) Explicit consent is not required at any course I have attended or heard about, either through the grapevine or through a friend who taught a course like that. Although ethics is where one would normally encounter such an argument, my ex-wife was a professor of Women, Gender, and Sexuality studies and this line of argument came up routinely in her intro to women's studies courses. No explicit consent was required; a one line trigger warning was included in the syllabus, alluded to at the beginning of the semester, and then that was that.

    3) Heavy refereeing is subjective and I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'd describe what we have here as heavy refereeing.

    All I'm trying to argue here is that an idea that a college campus can handle should be able to be handled by those of us here. I take Eutychus's points about people being personally involved and Colin Smith being insensitive to that, but I don't believe either of those points warrant the heavy hand of the H&A deeming a, what I'd describe as routine, line of argument being off-limits.

    I know I'm arguing in vain and as I've made myself clear and you and yours have made yourselves clear, there's not much more left to discuss. However, I just wanted to explain where I'm coming from.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    edited August 2020
    ECraigR wrote: »
    deeming a, what I'd describe as routine, line of argument being off-limits.

    At the risk of growing hoarse, let me re-iterate that the line of argument is most explicitly not "off-limits". It is, however, considered sensitive and we ask that it be argued with sensitivity. If asking fails to work, we will pursue other methods.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Russ wrote: »
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    So you don’t recall Dumplin Jeff, Russ? Lucky you. I had to read his stuff.

    The formal position re C1 is that jerk covers all sorts of irredeemable obnoxiousness and is applied at the discretion of Admin. I doubt whether there is complete consistency of application but complete consistency is a target rarely achieved in practice by any organisation.

    Sure, you're only human. And acting unpaid. I don't have any problem with the principle of forgiving you if you come down a little too hard one day and let something slide the next. Nobody's perfect.

    What I look for is a clear statement of the rules we're expected to play by, and a (reasonable fallible human) attempt by the Crew to apply those rules impartially.

    One of the issues raised on this thread is whether those rules include censorship of content - views that may not be expressed. Or whether all views are welcome, but have to be expressed in a non-obnoxious way that treats all readers as the equal of the writer.

    Seems like you're ducking that question by referring in the same breath to the view expressed and the insensentivity of its expression ("indifference to the impact on other posters").

    My impression was that Doublethink's complaint was specifically about the point of view and not the way that it was expressed. About the belief and not about any tactlessness with which Colin Smith may have expressed it.

    Would it be unfair to suggest that, perhaps in the absence of a true meeting of minds amongst the Crew, you've fudged the issue ?

    My sense was that you personally tend to think it's better to ventilate the issue than to create "martyrs for truth" by banning ideas. If there is a current that is taking the Ship away from that position, isn't that a policy shift that should be debated ? Rather than a disciplinary matter in which a certain amount of "because I judge it so" is arguably necessary for good order ?

    Russ

    I felt like replying”You may say that, I couldn’t possibly comment”! But the truth is that even that observation has overtones, thanks to House of Cards. So let’s try something more objective.

    As a Host I leave to Admin interpretations and explanations of the application of Commandment 1. Also as a Host I have the privilege of saying confidentially on Host Board anything I like about Admin deliberations re C1. And I do. But you are not going to be told ever what I say in confidence.

    And that is as it should be. I support Admin decisions once they are made because as a Host I am duty bound to do so. And you can take it because I have not resigned that I am comfortable with both the Admin historical record and the latest Admin statement.

    But it is entirely a matter for Admin to handle more detailed queries. And I’m satisfied entirely that that is exactly as it should be.

    So stop fishing with me. Fish away as much as you like with Admin.

  • Anyone attempting to play "go fish" with the Admins is likely to be on the receiving end of "unbecoming levels of snark". We've said our piece.
  • If we ever make any more ship mugs, we should work the tag line “purveyors of unbecoming levels of snark” into at least one design.
  • If we ever make any more ship mugs, we should work the tag line “purveyors of unbecoming levels of snark” into at least one design.

    Definitely. I said it to Rev T the other day and got the response I expected. And deserved. But it is the best thing that anyone on the Ship has ever said to me. Shame we don't have signatures anymore.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    RooK wrote: »
    ...let me re-iterate that the line of argument is most explicitly not "off-limits". It is, however, considered sensitive and we ask that it be argued with sensitivity.

    Thanks, RooK. Admirably clear and definite.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    If we ever make any more ship mugs, we should work the tag line “purveyors of unbecoming levels of snark” into at least one design.

    I'd buy two! (I've just broken a mug and got some well deserved snark as a result.)
Sign In or Register to comment.