Proposal - Ignorance as bannable offense

I see a lot of this in the forums these days, namely in the JCC. Would it be possible to make ignorance, intolerance, and the practice of each a bannable offense?

GK: Going nowhere since being upped.

 

I don't know if this is a reasonable request.

 

And what are your proposed indicators for ignorance? If someone wants to argue that the sky is purple, do we ban them?

 

There's a difference between ignorance and idiocy.

 

Well I think this one is likely going to result in a resounding 'no'. I don't know if you're serious with this or not, but if you are then it's an impossible policy. Deeming someone to be ignorant is an opinion and doesn't mean it's necessarily true.

 

It makes about as much sense as half of the other rules in this place. I say go for it.

 

This could be so badly abused in a forum like the Arena.

Actually, that really applies anywhere.

 

One of the boards that I post at has a 15/15 rule - you're supposed to either read 15 pages back, or 15 days back, whichever is shortest. If you post something where you obviously haven't read 15/15, your post will be edited out completely by a mod.

I say we institute that rule.

 

I think Dashy is getting at people who post hate-speech, like the ones who said Ted Kennedy should die, etc.

 

I post at another board that has a rule that states that you must have read the last 15 days or 15 pages of a thread, to cut down on redundancy and streamline conversation. I think that might be a good rule to implement here.

 

I like it.

Two issues--
1--If Chirs is mentioning hate speech, then I think the policy does need to be evaluated. Some of the recent posts (and the Ted Kennedy ones spring to mind) should not be tolerated on the boards. The amount of hatred and violent anger was unacceptable.
2--On a lighter side, ignorance must be banned. We should redefine ignorance on a case to case basis...always subject to change depending on circumstances. There shouldn't be any coherent definition of what ignorance entails...leave it wide open.

-Seldon

 

Is ignorance really considered an 'offense'? Does it offend people? And if so, how are we supposed to put ourselves in a position to judge opinion? If someone wants to say, "Oh yeah, that Ted Kennedy, he deserves that tumor because of all those things he's done" or "You guys have heard Obama is a Muslim, right?", are we to now judge that? Are we to say that your opinion is below ours because it's ignorant and we're therefore going to ban you?

Flaming is banable. That's easy to pick up on. Flaming is a direct, concentrated, deliberate attack on someone. What's ignorance's offense? People might be offended by it, but in a "I'm going to take that how I want to take it" manner. It's not direct or with purpose. The definition of ignorance is a lack of knowledge, education and/or awareness. It's not a purposeful attempt to get a rise out of people. If it was, then that we would be baiting, which we do ban for. So I would argue that we do ban certain types of ignorance based on the defined points we have set through years of shaping the current rules.

 

Nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights does it say that we have a right to walk around and never be offended. What is ignorant and intolerant to you is not to another person. Things that are ignorant and intolerant to me might not be so to you. What you are proposing is unfair and impossible to enforce.

 

Yeah, but nowhere in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights does it say we can't post a picture of a cartoon bee standing next to the letter S either. The Constitution isn't really the issue here

 

Epic sisterly fail!

 

ELLYBEANJAY: http://boards.theforce.net/communications/b10006/28514405
ELLYBEANJAY: post about twop's 15/15 rule
ELLYBEANJAY: it'll be funny, cuz it means you haven't read
mangojellytoast: eh
mangojellytoast: I bet someone stupid like *[censored]* doesn't get it


et tu, dp?

 

Lol ironic dp4m fail.

 

No, I "got" it, thanks. I just felt like being the one to comment on the epic failness of the post. Plus, this is Comms, so now with your coordinated trolling you and Carmen will be gone forever... mwahahahahahahaha...

 

My comment was directed more at the people in this country who are offended by anything and everything. It was a broad and general "big picture" commentary on the state of our society. I did not intend to apply the Constitution directly to this issue.

 

My original motivation for posting this thread was in response to several posters in JCC who seemed to condone using the Qur'an for target practice. I'm not Muslim, but obviously people should give respect to others and their viewpoints even if they do not share them. Obviously the percentage of Muslim posters on these boards is small, if non-existent but respect should still be given to their religion.


The idea that some people took this thread outside of its satirical nature is amusing in itself.

 

Satire? In Comms?

Hmph.

And some people expect to be taken seriously here.

 

It's true, but what the hell's the point?

I would no sooner condone advocating the usage of a Qu'ran as a sniper practice target than I would a Torah or Bible (or any other religious text) and, personally would find it disrespectful.

But there's nothing ILLEGAL or, really, even IMMORAL about it. It just shows poor judgment, especially where it was done, but if we can burn the US flag, a copy of the Constitution/Declaration of Independence/etc. or anything else of that nature as both entertainment and satire as well as it being EXPRESSLY legal to do so... then what's the point?

 

Why do people believe that US law is the ONLY law in the world? The incident in question happened in a country where the act is EXPRESSLY ILLEGAL according to both the local and international law.

 

Because, and I admit I may be wrong about this, the US-held zones are considered "US soil" at the moment.

But, honestly, the comments in the thread were "I don't understand why you don't think it's wrong," not "It's illegal where it took place."

 

That's not entirely true - I know that soldiers in Iraq aren't allowed to drink.

As a side note, I think that we already had the ignorance discussion. See: Mormon Garments.