What Is Harassment?

[Fencesitter]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

My thoughts are that harassment is not just a basic annoyance or disagreement, it's chronic and constant abuse, has a chasing nature to it, and it's deliberate.

Ok, that's a start.

How does one determine when something went from an annoyance or disagreement and then became chronic and constant?

How do you define a "chasing nature"?

How can one know if someone is doing something deliberately?

Fence

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by Fencesitter

Ok, that's a start.

How does one determine when something went from an annoyance or disagreement and then became chronic and constant?

I don't know what to tell you.

How do you define a "chasing nature"?

A following around. A thread for instance, where there is no interest in the discussion and not just in the sense of derail, but as an example of being there just to attack like this:

Originally Posted by Adora

Don't worry Sweetie. You'll always be a skank to me.

http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...ank#post106153

Now, I have said and I will say again, I understand from the other side where my case wouldn't be so easy to judge because I'm not one to just lay down and take it but the chronic and constant abuse and attacks of others who did nothing apparent to provoke I think are good examples, such as in the case of Alex Bragi.

How can one know if someone is doing something deliberately?

Fence

Gloating firstly, a recognition that they are doing something that is offensive and then adding insult to injury:

Originally Posted by Adora

I'd like to point out that Desert Dweller, like the other wankers Sweetie and Alex Bragi that came before him, keeps PMing me about this issue, even though he's supposedly ignoring me here in the public forums. Maybe somebody else would like to pass on that handy bit of information about knowing how to properly use the ignore feature, and not acting like an arse when one claims to be ignoring someone because they didn't like the facts interfering with their psychosis.

http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...agi#post115961

To me this is a recognition of bad behavior, and gloating over it. I will be offensive and I will attack even if you PM me to ask what's what and to try to get me to stop, so just get used to it. I do it because I can, others have been defending my right to be verbally abusive with the idea that you can just ignore it if you don't like it, so do so.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Fencesitter

Hey maddog,

Could we discuss this for a moment? I may be unintentionally taking your quote out of context, so you can let me know if that affects the discussion.

Sure, Fence.

Originally Posted by Fencesitter

I disagree. While I do agree that there is a wide spectrum of verbal abuse, . . .

You can stop there. That's all I was saying. What is "verbal abuse" in some eyes is not in others. Different people have different sensibilities. There is a wide spectrum of verbal communication which might or might not be considered abusive.

Originally Posted by Fencesitter

I think (and hope) there are times when most, if not all, of us would agree that verbal abuse is taking place. For instance, if a mother screamed at her young child, "You're a fucking idiot!", I hope most of us would agree that this is objective verbal abuse and could be more hurtful than physical abuse in the development of that child.

No argument from me there, that certain behavior (like that you have described) is, and would be recognized under general social norms, as abusive, and hurtful.

But that is just a threshold question to the next question, which is what can be done about it?

Suppose you hear a parent screaming at a young child. What do you do? Speak to the parent? Call the cops? Call CPS? Do nothing? What are you entitled to do? How do you feel about it? How would you feel if someone did that to you, when you flew off the handle at your child? Suppose you speak to the parent, but they tell you to mind your own business. What do you do then?

Suppose the parent isn't screaming, but talking in a normal tone of voice, and says the same thing. Again, what do you do? Intervene in some way? What way? What are you empowered to do? What control do we have the right to exercise over a parent and child, and what they say to one another?

Suppose a child is saying abusive things toward the parent. Same question. What do you do? What is appropriate, as a matter of statutory policy?

Originally Posted by Fencesitter

Now, moving away from that scenario and towards this one, what are the similarities and what are the differences?

One of the similarities is that the same words or very similar ones expressing the same sentiments are being used.

Some of the differences are that this interaction is taking place between adults (supposedly, though we can't know this), this is a written medium instead of a physically verbal one, people supposedly have the power to walk away from this forum as opposed to the child who is helpless to do so, and fault is more difficult to determine as one person doesn't have the responsibility over another person here.

Another difference is that this is not face-to-face interaction. Another difference is that, in addition to walking away from the forum altogether, you can effectively have the equivalent of a "V-chip" to censor out posters you personally find offensive, and neither see their posts nor interact with them. A possible analogy is music or television. Personally, I don't care for and largely don't understand rap music. I find it highly distasteful and offensive. I don't listen to stations that play rap music. If I found a TV program morally objectionable, I could decide not to tune in. It bothers me that there are some shows out there that promote stupid and vile morals and conduct. But plenty of other people want to watch them. I simply opt out of that audience.

Suppose you see an adult-to-adult communication like that you described between a parent and child. Let's say you are on the bus, and overhear a couple saying nasty things to one another. What do you do? What should you be legally empowered to do?

Originally Posted by Fencesitter

Some of the differences are mitigated somewhat by the power structure here. And despite there being only one similarity, I don't denigrate the power of it.

I don't follow, Fencesitter. Can you explain this a little more?

Originally Posted by Fencesitter

I disagree. I don't believe that the principle of freedom of speech is at play here.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree about this one, Fence. The fundamental principle of this forum, embodied by its very name, is freethought, which, to me, means freedom of speech/expression. That's the advertising pitch here. You can come here and say what you think. That's free speech, pure and simple.

What some people are interested in speaking/writing about, does not interest me. I don't respond to those threads. Reasonable philosophical discussions do interest me. Hence, here I am, talking to you.

Originally Posted by Fencesitter

Many of the views here are one-sided and under-represented or not represented by an opposing view.

I'm not sure that that makes a big difference. To every point of view that I have, it is possible for someone to disagree, whether or not anyone is actually here saying so. I recognize that, in any community of ideas, I am going to be sometimes in the majority and sometimes in the minority.

Originally Posted by Fencesitter

To say that freedom of speech applies here is like saying that one can go into a clubhouse of people who hold a particular view and say what they wish to say but when they are given harsh words, that's because freedom of speech applies.

Hmm. I think, at least in First Amendment free speech jurisprudence, that is exactly the case. You have the right to go into a homogeneous community and say things that that homogeneous community may find offensive. Some members of that community may also respond angrily. I think that is to be expected. People may disagree reasonably, or vehemently. It is all part of the competition in the "marketplace of ideas." That's what the First Amendment is all about. That's the very essence of "free speech," IMO.

Originally Posted by Fencesitter

This may be sliding off-topic, but I was watching the Nova on Albert Einstein last night. What I found interesting was that after he wrote his 5 brilliant papers in a year, there was total silence for 4 years until one physicist took a chance and endorsed Einstein's theories. This silence neither confirmed nor denied his brilliance.

Fence

Neither did the endorsement. Scholars and scientists write papers all the time, critiquing one another's work. Some critiques are benign and helpful, some are vitriolic. The level of fire in a response, and whether it is positive or negative, does not ultimately determine the truth of the idea expressed by the original proponent. Or perhaps I have misunderstood here the point you wished to make.

Thanks for your thoughtful contribution to this thread, Fence.

#573

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

. . .
At present, what other claim need I meet to your satisfaction maddog? What haven't I done?

You don't need to satisfy me, Sweetie.

I think that's where things get off track, thinking that we have to "satisfy" other people's "claims." I'm not at all sure that that is even important. You need to decide what your purposes are and satisfy yourself.

I was simply confused about what you were interested in talking about in this thread; you have now decided you are not interested in that topic. That's perfectly fine. We can all move on to other topics, then.
#574

[Petra]

Maddog is calm and wise. I like maddog.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Carlos

Why you didn't officially warnered Latinijral to STOP before taking that banning action?

We didn't warn him because we didn't want to inspire him to lash out even more than he already had. That was a mistake, both according to our principles and in practical terms, because after all, it might actually have worked.

Originally Posted by Carlos

Is not honest enough to tell a poster about the changes before taking any radical banning action and AFTER posting the amends to the rules?

Yes, it is more honest and fair. However, we decided against instituting rules against deluging the forum with insults, but chose instead to make explicit our rights of ownership -- always inherent in the forum structure itself -- and refuse him publishing rights here. Whoever owns the forum allows people access. No matter what mission and rules a board has, what variety of policies it implements, that is an unchanging reality whether explicitly stated or not.

Our biggest mistake was that we hadn't sorted out what we should do to deal with forum-wide disruption back when the voting system was first disabled. We should have made it clear then that we would assert our right to deny people the use of our software when we felt it necessary for the health of the forum.

Originally Posted by Carlos

If the same posters didn't ignore Latinijral , what is the point to give her the ignore advice?

Actually, in a practical sense latin was being ignored by most people in the last 48 hours or so, though he was posting more frequently and on more threads. It was the nature and frequency of those posts which finally spurred us to ban him, not people's responses. There were hardly any.

Ignore isn't the best tool for all circumstances, like when an ignored member posts in every thread on the index and conversation stops. Ignore works much better with conflicts between individuals which is why we continue to recommend it in those cases.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by lunachick

Maddog is calm and wise. I like maddog.

A hearty yea on all counts.

[Veritas]

The beauty of the internet is that one can resign from such fora if one chooses to. I can understand people wanting to get the last word in, but really, isn't ignoring the person who offends you the best thing to do? "The best revenge is to lead a good life." I've done it myself on other message boards I'm a member of. I just don't post for a few weeks, or ignore their posts, or...oh, I dunno...Go out with real friends for the night.

[Miss Shelby]

Originally Posted by sweetie

I remember learning to walk, for the record.

I remember poo-ing in my diaper the first time,,,. Top that one.

Michelle

[Carlos]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

We didn't warn him because we didn't want to inspire him to lash out even more than he already had. That was a mistake, both according to our principles and in practical terms, because after all, it might actually have worked..

Not only was a mistake, it was a dishonest action from a forum with specific rules at the time Latinijral was banned.

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Yes, it is more honest and fair. However, we decided against instituting rules against deluging the forum with insults, but chose instead to make explicit our rights of ownership -- always inherent in the forum structure itself -- and refuse him publishing rights here. Whoever owns the forum allows people access. No matter what mission and rules a board has, what variety of policies it implements, that is an unchanging reality whether explicitly stated or not.

Our biggest mistake was that we hadn't sorted out what we should do to deal with forum-wide disruption back when the voting system was first disabled. We should have made it clear then that we would assert our right to deny people the use of our software when we felt it necessary for the health of the forum..

Another mistake of FF in Latinijral's banning action.

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Actually, in a practical sense latin was being ignored by most people in the last 48 hours or so, though he was posting more frequently and on more threads. It was the nature and frequency of those posts which finally spurred us to ban him, not people's responses. There were hardly any.

Ignore isn't the best tool for all circumstances, like when an ignored member posts in every thread on the index and conversation stops. Ignore works much better with conflicts between individuals which is why we continue to recommend it in those cases.

Do you agree then that ignore doesn't solve this kind of "problems" : threads can still be derailed, discussions can still be quashed , gratuitous insults are still allowed ( even to newbies) and the board can still be a hateful place .?

Do you think this kind of problems are still happening here at your forum no matter Latinijral is banned?

Is there a possibility to unban Latinijral considering the confessed mistakes FF did when they took that dishonest, unfair and wrong banning action against the principles of FF philosophy of past and present?

I assume you Liv , didn't reply the rest of my post because it was more directed to VM's claim about the same topic.
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...5&postcount=87


Thanks,
Carlos

[viscousmemories]

Carlos, livius has already gone to bed but we'll discuss your response further tomorrow and she may want to add to this. But for now I'll say that her previous response was the result of our discussing your post and focusing on the questions you raised that we hadn't already addressed in the original thread on the subject of latinijral's banning or your first thread on the subject.

I know you disagree with our judgement of the quality and content of latin's posts here and I'm not going to spend a lot of time and energy debating the exact text of each one.

Originally Posted by Carlos

Is there a possibility to unban Latinijral considering the confessed mistakes FF did when they took that dishonest, unfair and wrong banning action against the principles of FF philosophy of past and present?

This is of course a complete mischaracterization of livius' comments. She was very specific about where we feel we acted wrongly, and nowhere did she say that we believe our decision to ban latinijral was dishonest, unfair or wrong, nor against our principles or forum philosophy of past and present. On the contrary, she said that he was banned on the basis of our implicit authority as the owners of this software which we then made explicit by way of an additional disclaimer in our rules.

In other words it is our opinion that we were wrong to handle latinijral's banning as we did, but we were not wrong to ban him. So no, there is no possibility that he will be unbanned. However we did learn from our mistakes and you can rest assured that anyone else banned from here for grossly disruptive behavior will have advance warning.

[Carlos]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Carlos, livius has already gone to bed but we'll discuss your response further tomorrow and she may want to add to this. But for now I'll say that her previous response was the result of our discussing your post and focusing on the questions you raised that we hadn't already addressed in the original thread on the subject of latinijral's banning or your first thread on the subject.

Take your time.

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

I know you disagree with our judgement of the quality and content of latin's posts here and I'm not going to spend a lot of time and energy debating the exact text of each one.

This is a complete mischaracterization of my reply to you.
I presented the evidence of your mistakes in your claim that Latinijral's posts didn't have any substance and relevance to the threads he was posting on.

If you want to dodge the evidence , it is up to you.
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...5&postcount=87

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

This is of course a complete mischaracterization of livius' comments. She was very specific about where we feel we acted wrongly, and nowhere did she say that we believe our decision to ban latinijral was dishonest, unfair or wrong, nor against our principles or forum philosophy of past and present. On the contrary, she said that he was banned on the basis of our implicit authority as the owners of this software which we then made explicit by way of an additional disclaimer in our rules.

I am aware that you made it explicit on an additional disclaimer in your rules AFTER you banned Latinijral.

I am aware also that you wrote the following two days before banning Latinijral on a thread with this insulting title :"why we should all ignore the cocksucker" , created at this Administrative Forum :
"but I assure you we will not be banning anyone here who hasn't violated our written rules as they are today no matter how many members request (or demand) that we do."
http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...5&postcount=71

If that quote of yours doesn't reflexs the policy of this forum on past or present , please enlight me.
If you banned Latinijral who didn't violated your written rules , why you wrote it and made it public?
Don't you see a contradiction on your banning action and what you wrote?
Are you aware that is the same double speech other forums have?

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

In other words it is our opinion that we were wrong to handle latinijral's banning as we did, but we were not wrong to ban him. So no, there is no possibility that he will be unbanned. However we did learn from our mistakes and you can rest assured that anyone else banned from here for grossly disruptive behavior will have advance warning.

You can play semantics if you want and if you feel touched.
You made a big mistake and were dishonests and unfair , as I proved with the evidence based in your own words , philosophy and rules.

Thanks,
Carlos

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by Miss Shelby

I remember poo-ing in my diaper the first time,,,. Top that one.

Michelle

Eh?

Look, I've spent alot of time in defense of TomJoe, his actions as a mod, his personal behavior and opinions, some of which his opinions were my own. I've defended him to a friend once or twice, who has or had regular dealings with him and regular complaints. Looking back, I'm not so glad that other people took my opions and arguements to heart perhaps.

There's two really loud discussions, the Virgin Mary Underpass and the one about the morality of killing babies that I only got involved with because you were the underdog and you asked, I don't know what, for an opinion or commented on something and I wanted to help you out, even if it involved a friend of mine whom I hate discussing things like this with. I could've cared less about those threads, you were getting pissed on or weren't holding your own so I thought I could help.

I don't understand your comment, if it was sarcastic, if it was meant to be funny. I don't really need to fight you for any reason, I don't know if you and TomJoe are a team though it seems to work that way. Other than that, I just don't have anything to say, I'm sorry. I think the way he reacted to my friend was shitty and presumptuous and in the end, this thing with he and I started over an issue of albert's behavior. I think albert's behavior stunk almost as much as Adora's. I'm just saying to him, "how do you like them apples?" Sometimes, he deserves it. Sometimes I do too. Where do you fit in exactly?

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by maddog

You don't need to satisfy me, Sweetie.

I think you were accusing me of getting off topic following the lead of others as if that meant something. I can respond to on topic posts on topic-ly, and I can respond to off topic posts off topic-ly, all at the same time. I can do both.

I think that's where things get off track, thinking that we have to "satisfy" other people's "claims." I'm not at all sure that that is even important. You need to decide what your purposes are and satisfy yourself.

I told you, I already answered my own question. I'm not sure what else I'm expected to do to be on topic.

I was simply confused about what you were interested in talking about in this thread; you have now decided you are not interested in that topic. That's perfectly fine. We can all move on to other topics, then.
#574

That doesn't really say anything about whether or not I have a point, which is the point. I don't really see why this hinges on me, why doesn't it just hinge on principle?

?????

[MooseIBe]

This is like watching a slow motion car-wreck and I am simply not going to bother after this post. Sweetie, your arguments are incoherent to the point of ludicrousy. What does it matter what your earliest memory is? What does it matter how many people have done drugs on this site? What does ANY of this have to do with your OP?

You're your own worst enemy. I actually felt sorry for you for a while way back when, before I realised that you facilitate all the 'abuse' you've received. A shrink could have an entire convention based around you.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

I think you were accusing me of getting off topic following the lead of others as if that meant something. I can respond to on topic posts on topic-ly, and I can respond to off topic posts off topic-ly, all at the same time. I can do both.

Oh, dear. I apologize, Sweetie, if you thought I was accusing you of anything. I was just confused about the topic of the thread; it turned out to be different from the topic I thought it was going to be about.

Originally Posted by Sweetie

I told you, I already answered my own question. I'm not sure what else I'm expected to do to be on topic.

Well, since you are choosing the topic, you get to decide. The point of difficulty for me was understanding clearly what the actual topic was. Once you cleared that up, I realized that it was simply different from the one I had thought it was going to be. That's fine, now that I understand.

Originally Posted by Sweetie

That doesn't really say anything about whether or not I have a point, which is the point. I don't really see why this hinges on me, why doesn't it just hinge on principle?
?????

Just for purposes of clarification -- you say, "that doesn't say anything about whether I have a point, which is the point" --exactly what point "is the point" to you? that Adora is rude and abrasive? that regular members and newcomers might find her posts offensive and distasteful? No argument from me on either of those. I had thought you would know that already, as I had said in the earlier thread,

For purposes of discussion, I'm assuming there IS an issue, a problem, or a question . . .

or a point. I'm taking that as a "given," a starting point for the follow-up question.

The next logical question would be, what to do about it. I don't know if you are interested in that topic; originally, I had thought you were, but if I understand you now, you have just said that you aren't. And that's perfectly fine. No expectations. No worries.

#576

[Miss Shelby]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

Where do you fit in exactly?

I found it to be a bit of stretch that you remember learning how to walk. That's all. I am not sure why my comment about that instigated your in depth and somewhat off the wall explanation but that is okay.

Michelle

[Miss Shelby]

You really do retain this stuff for a long time Sweetie. The only thing that I can remember about the Virgin Mary Underpass thread is that someone posted a picture of a vagina in it.

Michelle

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by Miss Shelby

The only thing that I can remember about the Virgin Mary Underpass thread is that someone posted a picture of a vagina in it.

That would certainly increase the value of this thread by several orders of magnitude.

All we have here is a ... never mind.

But seriously, what is the issue here? Is it that the behavior of certain members is apt to discourage a potential new member from joining? Because if I was in such a position and observed one member calling other people fucking idiots and another member incoherently deconstructing a bunch of offhand remarks by others and drawing unwarranted and inflammatory inferences from them, I know it would be the latter that gave me more pause, not the former.

[Miss Shelby]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

That would certainly increase the value of this thread by several orders of magnitude.

All we have here is a ... never mind.

But seriously, what is the issue here? Is it that the behavior of certain members is apt to discourage a potential new member from joining? Because if I was in such a position and observed one member calling other people fucking idiots and another member incoherently deconstructing a bunch of offhand remarks by others and drawing unwarranted and inflammatory inferences from them, I know it would be the latter that gave me more pause, not the former.

I really don't know which might be apt to turn more people off. But it seems to me that Sweeties main complaint is that she was being verbally abused by Adora. My observation, which may be limited as I do not view alot of threads here, is that Adora has subsided considerably in even interacting with Sweetie. So, I would say at this point, she has nothing more to complain about. That is just my opinion for what it is worth.

Michelle

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by Miss Shelby

So, I would say at this point, she has nothing more to complain about.

I agree with that, for several reasons.

But don't worry, she'll find something else to complain about, even in maddog's patient and conciliatory entreaties.

No matter what one says it's difficult not to make yet another contribution to her ongoing martyrdom.

[MooseIBe]

I'd certainly find THESE threads off putting as a newbie. Someone calling someone a fuckwit though? Not so much. It happens all over, both irl and online.

[Carnivale Ed]

Hi All,

I won't bother quoting, but, at various points on this thread, the question of how to treat newbies has come up. I'm a newbie, both to this forum, and, until recently, to forums in general. Before I joined here, though, I had a look around, got a feel for the place and made a judgement call about whether I thought I'd fit in. Obviously, I thought I might. It was my decision, nobody else is responsible for it, and I certainly don't expect veteran posters to treat me with kid gloves. Even a cursory cruise around the various threads told me that this wasn't a place for shrinking violets and, if I wasn't prepared for that, I would never have joined in the first place.

In the event that I am actually 'harassed', I'd like to think that I could give as good as I get but, should I not be able to, perhaps I didn't belong here in the first place.

This is a site that purports to be about freedom of thought. I say, let it be that.

And, for the record, even though I had no idea what an 'ignore' function was a week ago, consider me now fully briefed. If I need it, I'll use it.

Thanks,
CE

[Veritas]

Never, in the field of human threadmaking, has so much been posted by so many about so little.

[MooseIBe]

welcome Ed! I hope you enjoy your stay here