In FB Jail...

[Ez2cDave]

So you'll just have to hope that the jury doesn't convict on the assault charge. He was just exercising his right to free speech, you know...

He did say "maybe" on calling anyone . . . The "S.S.S." principle ( "Shoot, Shovel, Shut-up" ).

Dave F.

 

[Bravo52]

So you'll just have to hope that the jury doesn't convict on the assault charge. He was just exercising his right to free speech, you know...

That's true. The advice I give all my neighbors is to remember that when they are sitting on the jury of a homeowner (the true victim in this hypothetical scenario ). Harassment, kind of like "pornography...you know it when you see it"...we have to ban together and counter the craziness that is going on in the courts (and society) today. "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are unalienable rights just like free speech...but if killing puppies make you happy, there is a line to be drawn in a just society. When a person is being harassed, whether at home or in a restaurant, it is important for society to understand the true impacts of letting the harasser go free. Free Speech is one thing, abusive or obscene actions in the name of free speech shouldn't be tolerated.


EDIT: Yeah, yeah, I know; who gets to define what is "abusive or obscene?"

 

[Arnie]

Now someone has to be really "bad" to get into Rocketry Forum jail. I think some of the moderators did it in the earlier days but if one sticks to technical subjects and respectfully disagree on disputed subjects, they won't have a problem here. Kurt

Well, first of all, I was only barred from further commenting on the Russia vs Ukraine situation. I assume it's because I consistently presented the Russian point of view warning of consequences down the road for NATO. This is another example of viewpoints that run contrary to the hive mind getting censored. Of course, since Germany is rationing electricity and hot water. it'll be interesting to hear "We stand with Ukraine " spoken through chattering teeth.

 

[smstachwick]

The real challenge is deciding what counts as abusive. The word "queer" is a great example. Depending on usage, it can be a slur or it can be an expression of friendship and acceptance. Deciding where to draw that line is nearly impossible without knowing the people involved.

Take another example. If someone stands on the public street just in front of your house and tells you you're a jerk every time you go outside, most people would think it was abusive. But what if they just tell you how much they like your car, how pretty your wife/daughter is, ask where you got those excellent underwear, etc.? They're not being abusive--they're saying nice things about you and your family. Sure, it's a problem for you, but at what point would you call the cops on them for exercising their free speech?

There may come a time when conduct like this, even if done with friendly words, can be grounds for legal intervention. Usually that’s if the speaker’s presence and attempts at interaction are for the purposes of harassment or intimidation, and if it’s very clear that the behavior is unwanted. Some jurisdictions may grant a restraining order.

Is this super likely? I think not. But could this case be argued? Absolutely.

 

[Bravo52]

There may come a time when conduct like this, even if done with friendly words, can be grounds for legal intervention. Usually that’s if the speaker’s presence and attempts at interaction are for the purposes of harassment or intimidation, and if it’s very clear that the behavior is unwanted. Some jurisdictions may grant a restraining order.

Is this super likely? I think not. But could this case be argued? Absolutely.

“Come a time”??? It’s already here…the so-called “misgendering” bs is already playing out in the courts…

 

[smstachwick]

“Come a time”??? It’s already here…the so-called “misgendering” bs is already playing out in the courts…

I mean that in regards to a specific situation getting out of hand, without commentary on a wider societal change.

 

[Ez2cDave]

I mean that in regards to a specific situation getting out of hand, without commentary on a wider societal change.

The "societal change" is what is getting out of hand . . .

Dave F.

 

[boatgeek]

The "societal change" is what is getting out of hand . . .

Dave F.

A short list of people who have made the Establishment think that social change has gotten out of hand:
Socrates
Jesus of Nazareth
Paul the apostle
Constantine
Joan of Arc
Martin Luther
Miles Standish
Galileo
Copernicus
George Washington
Andrew Jackson
Frederick Douglass
Susan B Anthony
F Scott Fitzgerald
Hemingway
Elvis
Paul McCartney/John Lennon
MLK/Rosa Parks/Emmett Till
David Bowie
Ozzy Osborne
Matt Groening (The Simpsons)

As you can see, it’s a long list going back a long time…

 

[cwbullet]

One of the problems with society today is that we reserve ourselves for small groups with similar thoughts. This tribalistic behavior make you think that everyone thinks like you and that differing beliefs are rare and wrong. That is a huge problem and it is magnified by censorship on Twitter and Facebook.

 

[boatgeek]

One of the problems with society today is that we reserve ourselves for small groups with similar thoughts. This tribalistic behavior make you think that everyone thinks like you and that differing beliefs are rare and wrong. That is a huge problem and it is magnified by censorship on Twitter and Facebook.

I think it’s less about censorship by social media companies and more about who people choose to spend time with. I’ve certainly muted family members on social media because their crap doesn’t improve my day. Likewise, people have moved to states/towns where others tend to share their political beliefs.

 

[Ez2cDave]

A short list of people who have made the Establishment think that social change has gotten out of hand:
Socrates
Jesus of Nazareth
Paul the apostle
Constantine
Joan of Arc
Martin Luther
Miles Standish
Galileo
Copernicus
George Washington
Andrew Jackson
Frederick Douglass
Susan B Anthony
F Scott Fitzgerald
Hemingway
Elvis
Paul McCartney/John Lennon
MLK/Rosa Parks/Emmett Till
David Bowie
Ozzy Osborne
Matt Groening (The Simpsons)

As you can see, it’s a long list going back a long time…

Also, as you can see, none of those people caused any harm.

The "societal change" of the 21st century cannot make the same claim !

Dave F.

 

[Ez2cDave]

One of the problems with society today is that we reserve ourselves for small groups with similar thoughts. This tribalistic behavior make you think that everyone thinks like you and that differing beliefs are rare and wrong. That is a huge problem and it is magnified by censorship on Twitter and Facebook.

And that on online forums . . .

Dave F.

 

[Tyeeking]

One of the problems with society today is that we reserve ourselves for small groups with similar thoughts. This tribalistic behavior make you think that everyone thinks like you and that differing beliefs are rare and wrong. That is a huge problem and it is magnified by censorship on Twitter and Facebook.

Tribalism is a human trait that has been around since . . . well since we banded together in tribes.

Clubs, online forums, political parties, religious sects, neighborhoods, sports teams, countries, family coats of arms, . . . tribalism is human nature.

 

[smstachwick]

I think it’s less about censorship by social media companies and more about who people choose to spend time with. I’ve certainly muted family members on social media because their crap doesn’t improve my day. Likewise, people have moved to states/towns where others tend to share their political beliefs.

While convenience is certainly a motivator for some who shape their environments in these ways, those people are the lucky ones. The word “privileged” could easily be applied here.

Others are following similar courses out of necessity. They’re asking hard questions like, “In which of these places am I least likely to be imprisoned or killed just for existing?” These people could, depending on their situation, be classified as internally displaced persons.

Also, as you can see, none of those people caused any harm.

The "societal change" of the 21st century cannot make the same claim !

Dave F.

I’m going to grant you the benefit of the doubt and guess that Andrew Jackson’s famous contribution to one of the longest-running genocides in human history merely slipped your mind and that you don’t view it as a harmless or desirable thing.

I’m also going to guess that you’re not super familiar with Martin Luther’s Protestant Reformation playing a decisive role in triggering centuries of destructive military and civil conflict in Europe and beyond.

I’m not going to ask which modern societal changes you view as harmful, but clearly you’re holding them to a historical standard that just does not happen.

 

[Bravo52]

While convenience is certainly a motivator for some who shape their environments in these ways, those people are the lucky ones. The word “privileged” could easily be applied here.

You can’t conflate working hard to get the life you want with so-called “privilege.” Typically, “privilege” is applied as a bs term by lazy people. There are clear examples of “privilege” playing out in society but it generally is associated with cheating…remember Aunt Becky? People in power do bad things (Jackson Luther ect) but that isn’t coming from privilege, but from the power they hold over people.

As a society, we don’t need a “level playing field”. We need a “clear playing field” so the best candidate can excel without the manufactured obstacles that stand in the way.

 

[boatgeek]

You can’t conflate working hard to get the life you want with so-called “privilege.” Typically, “privilege” is applied as a bs term by lazy people. There are clear examples of “privilege” playing out in society but it generally is associated with cheating…remember Aunt Becky? People in power do bad things (Jackson Luther ect) but that isn’t coming from privilege, but from the power they hold over people.

As a society, we don’t need a “level playing field”. We need a “clear playing field” so the best candidate can excel without the manufactured obstacles that stand in the way.

Would have been nice if we’d started there 400 years ago, but we didn’t. Various groups have been systematically excluded from the best routes to success and there is no clear playing field. Some basic examples:

Black veterans weren’t eligible for many GI Bill benefits after WWII.

Many medical schools didn’t admit Black or female students until the mid-1900’s. My grandmother was the “beneficiary” of a medical school being told that they would lose federal funding if they didn’t admit either Blacks or women. They decided on women and thought they could make Grandma quit through harassment. Fortunately, she has an iron spine.

CS was “women’s work” and relatively low-paid until the first computer kits were marketed as toys for boys. Then the percentage of men in CS skyrocketed along with the pay.

And one of my favorites: women rarely won symphony orchestra auditions for large brass and woodwind instruments because they were believed not to have the lung capacity needed. Once auditions started being held with the player anonymous behind a screen, women suddenly started getting those jobs.

And none of that even starts with people of color being far more likely to be stopped and/or shot by cops.

I would love to have a clear playing field without manufactured obstacles.

 

[smstachwick]

Would have been nice if we’d started there 400 years ago, but we didn’t. Various groups have been systematically excluded from the best routes to success and there is no clear playing field. Some basic examples:

Black veterans weren’t eligible for many GI Bill benefits after WWII.

Many medical schools didn’t admit Black or female students until the mid-1900’s. My grandmother was the “beneficiary” of a medical school being told that they would lose federal funding if they didn’t admit either Blacks or women. They decided on women and thought they could make Grandma quit through harassment. Fortunately, she has an iron spine.

CS was “women’s work” and relatively low-paid until the first computer kits were marketed as toys for boys. Then the percentage of men in CS skyrocketed along with the pay.

And one of my favorites: women rarely won symphony orchestra auditions for large brass and woodwind instruments because they were believed not to have the lung capacity needed. Once auditions started being held with the player anonymous behind a screen, women suddenly started getting those jobs.

And none of that even starts with people of color being far more likely to be stopped and/or shot by cops.

I would love to have a clear playing field without manufactured obstacles.

Thank you!

“A clear playing field without manufactured obstacles” is indeed the goal for most. Too bad so many people are just in complete denial regarding who those obstacles actually hold up.

 

[Blast it Tom!]

So you'll just have to hope that the jury doesn't convict on the assault charge. He was just exercising his right to free speech, you know...

I think he meant to bring straitjackets. Though the temptation to assault (depending on the fellow's demeanor) might be there. Despite "free speech" (which is certainly a natural right), there are things like disturbing the peace, etc.

Sorry for the late comment...

 

[Peartree]

Also, as you can see, none of those people caused any harm.

Dave F.

Umm, that definitely depends on your point of view and your definition of harm. They didn't crucify Jesus because he was a nice guy and a popular public speaker. Paul was repeatedly arrested and/or beaten because townspeople thought he was destroying their way of life. Constantine, Washington, and Joan of Arc led armies into battle. Our perception of "harm" almost always depends on which side you're on.

 

[Blast it Tom!]

Umm, that definitely depends on your point of view and your definition of harm. They didn't crucify Jesus because he was a nice guy and a popular public speaker. Paul was repeatedly arrested and/or beaten because townspeople thought he was destroying their way of life. Constantine, Washington, and Joan of Arc led armies into battle. Our perception of "harm" almost always depends on which side you're on.

Uh, I dunno old pal - Jesus was tremendously popular with us sinners, not so much with the authorities, who also had a pretty good criminal racket going with that Temple courtyard gig. But I do see your point. I had a preacher one time who described such pharasical Christians (maybe you have some on your board...) "They're so fit for Heaven, they're no good for earth!"

It's incredible to me as well that Paul, who was bringing Good News, and in peace as well, was perceived as such a threat. People really cling to their status quo, without even hearing a man out half the time.

 

[cwbullet]

Folks. Please avoid any 3rd rails in your posts.

 

[smstachwick]

Folks. Please avoid any 3rd rails in your posts.

Thanks for the reminder. I’ve been trying to be mindful of that but I’m open to coaching if I get way out of line.

I recognize that that reminder was for everybody but that’s just what I’ve got to say on the matter.

 

[cwbullet]

Thanks for the reminder. I’ve been trying to be mindful of that but I’m open to coaching if I get way out of line.

I recognize that that reminder was for everybody but that’s just what I’ve got to say on the matter.

We have to avoid religion and some political discussions. We tend to insulate ourselves and often folks think everyone thinks like them. The topic of abortion (this is not an invitation) comes up. There are no rights and wrongs and you can really create a firestorm if you bring up your personal beliefs. I have long learned that religion and politics are best reserved for at-home discussions.

 

[dr wogz]

It seems that left leaning posters are being protected from "prosecution" and can do anything they want without fear of retribution.

this notion has come up in a few other discussion over a few other threads. and I believe there is a difference in what eh left & right perceive as being "ok".. some tend to not post, as they have a bit of an understanding, maybe a bit of compassion that their post may cross a line somewhere. While others, will post as they see fit, and expect other to 'deal with it'..

 

[dr wogz]

I would add, that the left right divide is causing people to 'de-friend' others.. petty, in my opinion... Like, we worked together, were friends on FB, and just carried on. We get into a somewhat heated debate about vaccines or 'truckers' and you then just defriend me.. I thought we were having a debate, and friendly banter back & forth.. Of course, we are seeing it a few times here in recent months / years..

 

[boatgeek]

this notion has come up in a few other discussion over a few other threads. and I believe there is a difference in what eh left & right perceive as being "ok".. some tend to not post, as they have a bit of an understanding, maybe a bit of compassion that their post may cross a line somewhere. While others, will post as they see fit, and expect other to 'deal with it'..

I've definitely censored myself a fair bit, and have gritted teeth rather than reporting posts most of the time. I'm a little surprised not to have gotten a hand slap, but maybe I'm good at staying just inside the lines?

Another issue I've seen is that the people who are most willing to come in swinging with "F your feelings" kind of stuff get really really upset when anyone else "talks back" to them. My favorite was a disagreement on political stuff that shifted over the DM (to avoid getting the thread locked). They questioned me, I provided some examples, then they blew up into a storm of profanity and blocked me. It was almost funny how fast it escalated over very little provocation.

 

[Bravo52]

I do find it funny that people take things too seriously and more importantly, take things personal. In my opinion, it results from the "everybody gets a trophy" mentality that started to infect society after the 60s (among other ills). How could anyone take stock in an internet argument about the likes of "FB Jail" or any number of other topics with people they couldn't pick out of a line at the local ice cream shop? But...as BoatGeek alludes to is "feelings". I can't imagine someone taking the fight to the DMs because that does start to get more personal (not really) and shouldn't be done. If the argument is too weak to follow the rules of the public square, then you've already lost.

 

[Blast it Tom!]

I do find it funny that people take things too seriously and more importantly, take things personal. In my opinion, it results from the "everybody gets a trophy" mentality that started to infect society after the 60s (among other ills). How could anyone take stock in an internet argument about the likes of "FB Jail" or any number of other topics with people they could pick out of a line at the local ice cream shop? But...as BoatGeek alludes to is "feelings". I can't imagine someone taking the fight to the DMs because that does start to get more personal (not really) and shouldn't be done. If the argument is too weak to follow the rules of the public square, then you've already lost.

I dunno. I try to be a peacemaker but you can't please everyone. I would DM someone if something were going south and I wanted to explain or discuss it out of view of the "public" here where sometimes we feel more threatened if we feel like we're "losing." Like Chuck said, there are certain "third rail" topics that we all feel very strongly about one way or the other. I'd rather clear up a misunderstanding privately or at least agree to disagree (and still keep mutual respect) in private - or perhaps just have a sidebar discussion about a topic that might generate more heat than light out here on the main floor.

What I count on from TRF in general, should these topics pop up, is a more intelligent and nuanced and respectful discussion. whentha doesn't ahppen, I tend to back down.

 

[smstachwick]

What I count on from TRF in general, should these topics pop up, is a more intelligent and nuanced and respectful discussion. whentha doesn't ahppen, I tend to back down.

My approach is similar. I wouldn’t say “back down” is the right term for what I do, it’s more like “free myself from the responsibility”, whether that be through ignoring, actually hitting the ignore button, or reporting.

…There are no rights and wrongs…

I would strongly disagree with this particular bit even while recognizing varying levels of validity in the rest of that reply. There are societal standards that are so commonly accepted and are so foundational that a line must be drawn. The issues often lie in applicability and seemingly conflicting standards, both of which require wisdom and awareness beyond oneself to think critically, reason adequately, and respond appropriately.

 

[cwbullet]

My approach is similar. I wouldn’t say “back down” is the right term for what I do, it’s more like “free myself from the responsibility”, whether that be through ignoring, actually hitting the ignore button, or reporting.



I would strongly disagree with this particular bit even while recognizing varying levels of validity in the rest of that reply. There are societal standards that are so commonly accepted and are so foundational that a line must be drawn. The issues often lie in applicability and seemingly conflicting standards, both of which require wisdom and awareness beyond oneself to think critically, reason adequately, and respond appropriately.

You have to post the entire post and not focus on one comment to make a discussion for this: "We have to avoid religion and some political discussions. We tend to insulate ourselves and often folks think everyone thinks like them. The topic of abortion (this is not an invitation) comes up. There are no rights and wrongs and you can really create a firestorm if you bring up your personal beliefs. I have long learned that religion and politics are best reserved for at-home discussions."

My statement is 100% valid and is also a warning to avoid Politics and Religion on this forum and in public. When you bring up 3rd rail discussions you offend a large group of this forum because their beliefs are so strong and they insulate themselves from the other side so much that they cannot see the other side's view. Anyone who thinks this is not what is going on in our society needs to open their eyes.