Tiny tweak to the rules?

Doctroid said:

True, but look at the last sentence of the rules:



As it stands, moderators arguably can't take these actions against someone posting homophobic remarks. The other rules might cover the situation... might not. Putting the suggested tweak in place would establish the mods' right to lock or ban in these cases, if necessary.

I support the suggestion.

Click to expand...

sure i see your point. nothing wrong with being specific right? i'm just saying the golden rule seems to cover a lot of things. if we're being nit-picky, the list could go on for a long time. no racism, no homophobia, no ageism, no sexism, no religious intolerance, no hating on peoples' mammas, etc.

just playing devil's advocate here. not trying to promote any hate. i just think it's plain and simple. "don't be a jerk" is a great rule of thumb.

russ_buss said:

sure i see your point. nothing wrong with being specific right? i'm just saying the golden rule seems to cover a lot of things. if we're being nit-picky, the list could go on for a long time. no racism, no homophobia, no ageism, no sexism, no religious intolerance, no hating on peoples' mammas, etc.

just playing devil's advocate here. not trying to promote any hate. i just think it's plain and simple. "don't be a jerk" is a great rule of thumb.

Click to expand...

Russell_Bussell: +1. I agree with you completely.

Thanks to everyone - those who support the proposal and those who have contributed perspective on how the current rules are intended to try to do a general-purpose catch of jerky behaviour.

Russ said:

sure i see your point. nothing wrong with being specific right? i'm just saying the golden rule seems to cover a lot of things. if we're being nit-picky, the list could go on for a long time. no racism, no homophobia, no ageism, no sexism, no religious intolerance, no hating on peoples' mammas, etc.

just playing devil's advocate here. not trying to promote any hate. i just think it's plain and simple. "don't be a jerk" is a great rule of thumb.

Click to expand...

Devil's advocate is fine. You raise fair points.

In reply, I'd suggest we consider adding specifics as they become relevant. After all, we do have the specific "no racism" clause, so there is a precedent for spelling some of the stuff out. So long as there is no hint of a problem, there is probably no need for a rule. I'd suggest that is the case with the ageism and sexism things. As far as the homophobia is concerned, the situation is very similar, but with just a couple of very minor signs from some members that they have a personal outlook that sees gay people as an enjoyable target for mockery.

There's nothing wrong with a bit of "ribbing" between friends. That kind of mock two-way abuse is part of friendship. Kind of a mark of trust. However, some people, as a matter of tedious daily routine, have to take a lot of sh... nonsense that is not intended in that friendly, trusting context.

It's really not a big deal at all at the moment. Not an emergency or a drama, just something that I noticed enough to prompt me to make the suggestion.

I'm grateful that anyone has taken the suggestion seriously enough to discuss it.

HaileISela said:

One love, one heart, one people!

Click to expand...

Good man. That's what I'm talking about. :shaka:

I'm not going to drone on any more. The suggestion is there for consideration and adoption or rejection as appropriate. Whichever way the mods decide is fine by me. Just asking that it gets some thought.

Thanks.

I agree Buddhu, it was obviously necessary for the no racisim rule to be brought forward and if something regarding homophobia has come up maybe it would be a good time for a rule to come in and say we don't stand for this kind of predjudice. If something then came up regarding say, sexism then that rule could be added accordingly.

buddhuu said:

Whichever way the mods decide is fine by me. Just asking that it gets some thought.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the mods really don't have the final decision. We try to ensure the basic guidelines are followed. The final authority rests with admin should they deem it necessary to impose a rule. For now, I think any posts in question should be assessed on a case by case basis. Just my $.02 . . .

Russbuss stole my thunder. The don't be a jerk rule covers this topic. As a teacher I always have my students come up with a set of rules and the list can get very long. I then give a quiz over the rules. No one ever remembers all of them so I whip out the golden rule- Treat others the way you want to be treated. My rule list is quickly replaced with one rule.
If the rules start becoming specific then our forum becomes legalistic and where is the line drawn? Russ already mentioned other areas and I am personally offended by foul language but I tolerate it b/c we are adults. I trust our mods to step in if need be.

I do agree that homophobia should fall under the "don't be a jerk" rule, but sometimes it is important to remind folks what kind of jerks we shouldn't be.

And let me just say this: homophobia is abominable, and blaming it on God even more so.

Loretta Devine said:

The fact that a person loves one particular person is what is important; the life lesson, whether you are homosexual or heterosexual, is that you not be promiscuous, and true to one person.

Click to expand...

A rule to live by.

I haven't actually noticed anything here disparaging against gays.

But what's your criteria? Would saying "That's so gay" be homophobic? Because that's a phrase that's crept into the vernacular and I think a lot of people use it without being intentionally homophobic.

itsme said:

I haven't actually noticed anything here disparaging against gays.

But what's your criteria? Would saying "That's so gay" be homophobic? Because that's a phrase that's crept into the vernacular and I think a lot of people use it without being intentionally homophobic.

Click to expand...

good point.

you can also you "gay" in a happy sense, since it literally means "happy".

but to really avoid any arguments, i would just use a different word, such as "jubilee" or "bliss"

but all in all......LETS STICK TO THE :rulez:

Mahalo

Originally Posted by Loretta Devine
The fact that a person loves one particular person is what is important; the life lesson, whether you are homosexual or heterosexual, is that you not be promiscuous, and true to one person.

specialmike said:

A rule to live by.

Click to expand...

Odd comments, given the nature of the thread. Since when was this a monogamy-only group?

And the term "douche bag" from an earlier post in this thread isn't exactly nonjudgmental, either.

It's so easy to pass one's values off as the norm. Remember, there's a whole world of differentness out there. Let's try and be accepting on as many levels as we can.

uke5417 said:

[...]
It's so easy to pass one's values off as the norm. Remember, there's a whole world of differentness out there. Let's try and be accepting on as many levels as we can.

Click to expand...

This is very true.

The only differentness I can't accept, personally, is ignorant, archaic bigotry. IMHO there is neither excuse, nor rational reason for racism or homophobia. All "justifications" I've ever heard are invalid.

Try as I might to keep an open mind, I can't help viewing with suspicion any refusal on the part of anyone to unequivocably condemn both those brands of prejudice.

I'm neither gay nor a member of a minority ethnic group, so people often find it odd that this should be the one political/social/ethical area about which I get most emotionally engaged. It's a long story, but suffice to say that I find it a difficult topic to remain objective about.

If anything I have said in this thread has been inappropriate I invite the moderators to edit or delete as they deem fit. It is not my intention to cause irritation or controversy.

you tell em Rick, what's with the extra U?

:agree: I Agree!!!:agree:

For what it's worth, I think the additional rule should be adopted.

Whist I agree that the Rule' "Don't be a jerk" shopuld be a cover-all, it relies on everyone having the same definition of "jerk". The 10 commandments could be replaced with one saying, "be nice" but it is too open to interpretation.

Some people are anti-gay in a casual, matter-of-fact, and ingrained way and would not recognise that making a disparaging comment about homosexuality could be described as jerkish behaviour.

This is a ukulele forum and so the issue of sexuality should not need to arise, but as it has, let's ensure that people are not persecuted, humiliated or criticised for it.

UkuEroll said:

you tell em Rick, what's with the extra U?

Click to expand...

See PM, Leroy. LOL

uke5417 said:

Originally Posted by Loretta Devine
The fact that a person loves one particular person is what is important; the life lesson, whether you are homosexual or heterosexual, is that you not be promiscuous, and true to one person.



Odd comments, given the nature of the thread. Since when was this a monogamy-only group?

And the term "douche bag" from an earlier post in this thread isn't exactly nonjudgmental, either.

It's so easy to pass one's values off as the norm. Remember, there's a whole world of differentness out there. Let's try and be accepting on as many levels as we can.

Click to expand...

Very good point. The douchebag tangent this thread took used the assumption that we all consider a certain type of person to be a douchebag. Assumptions are dangerous - and often erroneous - things to make, particularly when they are negatively slanted. A thread promoting love and acceptance is at odds with condemning a group of people who look a certain way, isn't it?

But a bigger problem with micro-regulating the forum is that you're starting to get into beliefs, not just behavior. Hateful homophobia expressed publicly is indeed offensive. But isn't it a person's right to feel homophobic? Or agrophobic? Whether you like it or not, you have to accept the fact that some people are violently offended by the notion of homosexuality, which goes against their deeply held beliefs. Similarly, some people are violently offended by non-monogamous sex. Or by drug use. Or by certain political parties. I submit they have a right to those beliefs. It's how they choose to express those beliefs here that we're really talking about. Bottom line: we're not all going to believe the same things, and it's wrong and unrealistic to expect us to.

But regardless of what we believe, we can all agree on how we behave. And the "don't be a jerk" rule seems to cover it. You know there are gay people on this forum. So, following the "don't be a jerk" concept, you know not to say anti-gay things here. You know there are Christians here. And Hawaiians. And women. And old people. And young people. And left-handed people. And so on. Bearing that in mind, it's not hard to determine what would or would not be offensive, if you give your posts a little thought.

But avoid assumptions. Assuming that we all hate muscular orange-skinned people is one such assumption. But assuming that we all share the same attitude towards orange muscular people with moussed hair, monogamy, gender preference, or mimes is not realistic.

I offer you a four-step plan:
1) Hold true to your own beliefs.
2) Be open to changing those beliefs.
3) Respect the beliefs of others.
4) Be nice.

It ain't so hard.

Thumper said:

But isn't it a person's right to feel homophobic?

Click to expand...

Your post made me feel so uncomfortable, But then I knew there would be some people that couldn't refrain from having their say...

Oh and agrophobia and homophobia are two different things... homophobia is plain and simply ignorance!

I agree that the jerk-rule completely covers homophopic behaviour as much as it covers any other act of discrimination. :agree: I also learned around here, that the accurate moderation of this forum is accompanied by a highly responsible community, that rewards common sense and also strikes quickly if someone behaves in an unacceptable manner. So I don´t really see the need for a catalogue of jerkiness. On the other hand: It doesn´t hurt.

But please keep in mind, that a forum that answers jerky behaviour with instant discussion about policies, new formal rules and the complete arsenal of the "empire strikes back", is pretty rewarding to trolls.

Thumper said:

[...] Hateful homophobia expressed publicly is indeed offensive. But isn't it a person's right to feel homophobic? Or agrophobic? [...]

Click to expand...

With respect, I find the concept of having the right to having a disorder, social or medical, a difficult one to grasp. Recognising a right to feel homophobic is like recognising a right to feel racist. Why would anyone want to feel either? And if it is an involuntary, conditioned attitude of which they are ashamed and which they wish they could change, then I would support their quest for change rather than support their right to suffer from the unwanted prejudice.

Thumper said:

[...]Whether you like it or not, you have to accept the fact that some people are violently offended by the notion of homosexuality, which goes against their deeply held beliefs. [...]

Click to expand...

I accept it as a fact QED, but I do not accept it as a situation, nor as an excuse.

I do not want to offend anyone, or get the thread locked down, so I have to decline to discuss the issue of belief beyond saying that I would hope that even the most fervent follower of a belief system that demonises some people's kind of love would be able to accept that there are places where the majority would like them to hold their tongues on the subject.

Thumper said:

[...]It's how they choose to express those beliefs here that we're really talking about.

Click to expand...

And that's all the rule would address.

The proscription I seek is against expressed homophobia on the board. As far as I am aware, no one is proposing any kind of telepathic surveillance of people's private attitudes, no matter how hateful they may be.

I guess my own ethical framework tells me that it is wrong to discriminate against someone because of what they are (white, black, gay, straight, tall, short). On the other hand, it is valid to question attitudes, behaviours, political affiliations, beliefs - things which are learned or adopted, because they are constructs, not part of our intrinsic natures.