# On hate



## ElaineG

I want it to be clear that I am speaking as a forera and not as a moderator.

More than one of you has contacted me about the hateful comments about homosexuals that were made some time ago and recently quoted in the thread on nicknames. For me this is a very difficult issue. I hate that one member of our community called other members of our community "evil deviants", apparently with impunity. I do not feel that we should be silent in the face of hate. The question is whether the cure for ignorance is administrative action or more speech. What follows is my response to one forero who contacted me:

Dear X, if you've read my posts in the thread on "gay culture", you'll know that no one is a more passionate defender of gay humanity, I was going to say rights, but it goes beyond that, than I am. It is probably the issue I feel strongest about in the world. 

And it goes beyond me, the hateful view has been roundly criticized amongst the WRF community. You say that it is a greater degree of hate than that directed against immigrants -- well, everything is contextual, and I have felt and lived -- through friends -- the pain of the teenager you conjecture, but let's face it, hate is hate. I don't want to be put in the position of saying that the person who hates gays is worse than the person who hates the most helpless members of our society. It's true that the chances that a gay teenager will log on here and read that hate are greater, but it's also true that anyone who has the ability to log on here has more resources at their disposal than the illiterate immigrant who is hated without ever fuly comprehending the reasons why.

The question is still not answered for me. It goes far beyond WRF. My best friend was recently the victim of an anti-gay graffiti attack at the college where he teaches in South Florida. Is the answer draconian sentences? Or is it more speech? I don't know. I want to protect that vulnerable gay teenager as much as you do. I have loved him and her, and I know how very much strength it takes to survive to adulthood and beyond. But I have also believed for as long as I can remember that the truth will set you free. 

If we say that certain people cannot be members of our community, they will never change their minds. Only through knowing and talking can minds be changed. Do you know that my very own father told me when I was 20 years old that homosexuality was a mental disease? I told him that he was wrong and I defied him to know and love the people that I knew. After a struggle, he accepted my challenge and looked to the wider world. Today, literally, two of his three best friends are gay and there is no stronger advocate for the cause than he is. Education works; I'm not sure that censorship does. It might make this a safer space but I don't know that it serves truth in the long run.

As I said, I'm undecided -- really. And I'm not about most things. But I think you are too. It's easy to ban, and harder to convince, or at least show the wrongness of active hatred, but I'd like to think our mission is the latter.

With love,

E.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

ElaineG said:
			
		

> As I said, I'm undecided -- really. And I'm not about most things. But I think you are too. It's easy to ban, and harder to convince, or at least show the wrongness of active hatred, but I'd like to think our mission is the latter.
> 
> With love,
> 
> E.


I think it's more about why do you ban X and not Y? In other words, if a push is a foul then it should always be a foul. But the truth is, the referee doesn't see all pushes in the same way (or all pushes period). It's part of the game. Sometimes they call it and sometimes they don't. As I understand it, the mods here have to make decisions on the spot, and make judgment calls, and sometimes they don't make sense to all of us but just like in Sports, you have to deal with it. I don't think there's a sport in the world where people don't argue about calls.

I think the mods do a decent job. Some of my posts get erased for far less worse things but that's how the ball bounces. I guess if/when I get sick of it I'll find better things to do.


----------



## moodywop

_I had decided not to post again on the matter. But since I am the X that Elaine's PM was addressed to I now feel the need to copy part of my reply here, to clarify my position. I edited out some personal details which do not belong here but which would have accounted for the strength of my feelings on this topic:_

...I'm now addressing your response to my PM to you both as a friend and as a moderator, so feel free to share my views with other mods. I'm going to be tough, but there is no acrimony here(sadness, rather)...

...Now - my objections to your PM, which I would appreciate if you responded to one by one, reading my words carefully(I feel you misquoted me) when you have the time.

1) I never said that hate towards gays is more serious than hate against immigrants. What I did say is that describing a group of fellow humans as *evil deviants *is not even remotely comparable to saying that *some *immigrants are too lazy to learn English. 

2) In the nicknames thread you argued that there are teenage members and that was one of the reasons for banning the "pimp" ID. Again, I'm convinced that F's remark was far more damaging to a gay teenager who may read it. It might even encourage suicide. You may *choose *to see pimps as "cool". Being gay is part of your make-up, of who you are, inescapably. 

3) It was actually your remark on the legitimacy of restricting free expression in a privately-owned forum(as opposed to restricting free speech in *society at large*) that inspired my post.
There is no rule in Western democracies that you can't denigrate etc(WR rule 26) a group of people. 
There is such a rule at WR, though. Not deleting F's remark is an implicit admission that calling gays evil deviants does not amount to denigrating a group. It's a dangerous precedent. Try replacing "homosexuality" with "being Jewish/Black/mixed-race/mentally ill etc" in F's remark. Because WR failed to act now all such statements are permissible at WR.
...You yourself deleted S's post on male/female roles in gay couples because of the stereotype. F's remark was a million times worse!

4)You say that "It's easy to ban, and harder to convince". I *never *suggested banning F. It's well-known at WR that I'm against banning(except in cases of sexual harassment, vulgar PMs etc). I only suggested deleting *one *of his 3000 posts in compliance with rule 26. Nothing more, nothing less.

5) You say that "Education works; I'm not sure that censorship does. It might make this a safer space but I don't know that it serves truth in the long run". And that "it's...harder to convince, or at least show the wrongness of, but I'd like to think our mission is the latter".
To educate you need to argue against intolerance and prejudice. In the thread on immigrants B's views were attacked strongly, what's more by mods like you and C(I know you were speaking as foreros, but still, seeing mods joining the fray makes a difference), with powerful arguments. He actually complained about being ganged up on! I doubt you changed his views one bit, but at least counter-arguments were allowed and his views were shown to be unpopular at WR.
In the homosexuality thread only one lone gay guy was able to respond to F's offensive remark. The thread was closed after F's scornful, sarcastic response suggesting the gay forero was not very intelligent if he was hurt by his remark. F got the last word. It would have made the hell of a difference if you, C and others had responded even half as strongly as you responded to B's remarks.

6) I would like to get a clear reply as to whether F's remark is or is not in violation of rule 26. If it is not then at least I will save myself the trouble of reporting similar remarks in future.


----------



## ElaineG

Carlo, you were one of several people that contacted me about this issue.  I want to perfectly clear: In dealing with it, I'm a forero like you are.  I don't moderate the forum the remark appeared in, I didn't even see the post in question, or read the thread until it was brought to my attention long after the fact. 

I asked questions about the best approach to take.  It's clear you think the post should be deleted.  I guess you are right and it is that simple and I have thought it was a larger and more complicated issue when it was not.  So, you and I, at least, agree on what would have been the best course of action.


----------



## geve

moodywop said:
			
		

> There is no rule in Western democracies that you can't denigrate etc(WR rule 26) a group of people.


There's one in France:


_LOI du 29 juillet 1881_, modified _21 juin 2004_ to add second pragraphCeux qui, par l'un des moyens énoncés à l'article 23, auront *provoqué à la discrimination, à la haine ou à la violence à l'égard d'une personne ou d'un groupe de personnes à raison de leur origine ou de leur appartenance ou de leur non-appartenance à une ethnie, une nation, une race ou une religion déterminée,* seront punis d'un an d'emprisonnement et de 45000 euros d'amende ou de l'une de ces deux peines seulement. 

Seront punis des peines prévues à l'alinéa précédent ceux qui, par ces mêmes moyens, auront *provoqué à la haine ou à la violence à l'égard d'une personne ou d'un groupe de personnes à raison de leur sexe, de leur orientation sexuelle ou de leur handicap* ou auront provoqué, à l'égard des mêmes personnes, aux discriminations prévues par les articles 225-2 et 432-7 du code pénal.

​Source

_To sum up: Instigating discrimation, hatred or violence towards a group of people because of their ethnic, nationality, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, handicap, can get one a 1-year prison sentence and/or a 45.000 euros fine._
_It's in the law referring to the freedom of the press; but it applies to anything publicly stated, including on the internet._

But that's not really the point here... It is about the very difficult task of administration and moderating crew here, to determine what attitude they should adopt when faced with tendentious or openly agressive statements. 
Yes it happens that we disagree with someone on this forum, and I find the Cultural discussions quite revealing, sometimes I stumble on a post and think "oh, ok, he/she is that kind of person, well I didn't know that from the linguistic discussions that we might have had, this is good to know". I try not to draw conclusions too hastily since there can be misunderstanding due to language; but some posts are unmistakably explicit (and usually, such posts are reiterated by their posters too, so it's easy to see their point).

I don't think that banning is the universal answer either. I can think of three possible ways of dealing with such things:

- Not allowing such threads - a sort of "preventive closing", but how to tell if a topic can stray off to hatred and discrimination? Of course, there are topics that are more likely to generate such posts; but should we just avoid some topics just to remain on the safe side? I think that people who have such strong spiteful beliefs will find a place to express them, in any case.

- Answering systematically posts that bear discriminative notions, in order to show the audience of this forum that the people here don't all agree with that kind of behaviour/thinking. Eventually the thread will be closed, and it's less than likely that the controversial poster will have changed his/her mind at all; but at least no one will read that and think "and I thought that WRF was a nice place!" 
I have read (and participated in) the other thread you mention, moodywop, and at that time I thought that the person who would be coming here for the first time might find this kind of discussion strange, and possibly frightening. Or it might show that this place is open-minded enough to allow anyone to express their opinions, only there will be people (mods and members) who will counterbalance it quickly and brilliantly as they usually do.

- The third would be, to delete the specific controversial post each time there is one... Well at least it would probably stop the poster eventually... But it won't make anyone change their mind, for sure.

I have no idea what the correct answer should be, and I think that for the moment, I have seen all three solutions used by the moderating crew.


----------



## Alice_in_Wonderland

geve said:
			
		

> - The third would be, to delete the specific controversial post each time there is one... Well at least it would probably stop the poster eventually... But it won't make anyone change their mind, for sure.


 
I don't think the function of the moderators here is to save our souls by making us change our minds, but simply to ensure order and maintain discipline.  

Märta


----------



## geve

Alice_in_Wonderland said:
			
		

> I don't think the function of the moderators here is to save our souls by making us change our minds, but simply to ensure order and maintain discipline.
> 
> Märta


I know, and that's not what I'm trying to say.  I'm just concerned that systematically erasing controversial posts might not show explicitly enough the tolerance spirit we want to promote.

And I've always seen the mods' as the GO's (gentils organisateurs/gracious organizers) of this place, more than just the order and discipline enforcement team (which they also are, of course)


----------



## Alice_in_Wonderland

geve said:
			
		

> I know, and that's not what I'm trying to say.  I'm just concerned that systematically erasing controversial posts might not show explicitly enough the tolerance spirit we want to promote.
> 
> And I've always seen the mods' as the GO's (gentils organisateurs/gracious organizers) of this place, more than just the order and discipline enforcement team (which they also are, of course)


 
 Ok, I see your point. I just can't help thinking that this "spirit of tolerance" is a gentle euphemism for "respect of certain rules." In my view, moderators don't promote anything. They only act after the fact and in relation to a specific rule violation, and they always intervene in order to enforce a rule, never in general, just to promote a certain spirit. 

Sometimes being gentle doesn't hurt, though: You are right!....  

[EDIT] I agree with you about the systematic deletion of posts: It has pros and cons.

Märta


----------



## geve

Alice_in_Wonderland said:
			
		

> In my view, moderators don't promote anything. They only act after the fact and in relation to a specific rule violation, and they always intervene in order to enforce a rule, never in general, just to promote a certain spirit.


In my view, moderators do "promote learning and maintain an atmosphere that is serious, academic and collaborative, with a respectful, helpful and cordial tone" (WRF guidelines) -and they can be good fun, too (I hope I am not infriging any rule by revealing this!!) 
Moderators are forer@s too - and human beings (or so I was told )


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

> Rule 26.
> Any post that disparages, denigrates, or degrades other members, groups of people, cultures or nations will be deleted.



This is pretty cut and dried.  It doesn't leave much room for "I believe that" or "In my religion, we see these people as ....."

Edit:  I'd like to make it clear that I am speaking about interpretation of future threads, and not criticizing the mods for actions in the past.


----------



## Alice_in_Wonderland

geve said:
			
		

> In my view, moderators do "promote learning and maintain an atmosphere that is serious, academic and collaborative, with a respectful, helpful and cordial tone" (WRF guidelines) -and they can be good fun, too (I hope I am not infriging any rule by revealing this!!)
> Moderators are forer@s too - and human beings (or so I was told )


 
And how do they promote it, exactly? (And I don't mean _how they enforce it,_ careful! Promoting and enforcing are obviously not the same thing.) Do you have some examples? Becuse so far I have only seen them enforce rules as a result of a specific violation, and never actively promote any generic values, spirit etc. Which, I think, is good.

Marta  

PS: And this word "academic".... doesn't it sound strage? How many people are academics (i.e. linguistics professors or researchers) here? Like... 5%? 10%? This is not an academic forum, or at least not entirely. (90-95% of WRF users are amateur linguists, I would say. Or teachers or translators, which are *not* academics)


----------



## geve

Alice_in_Wonderland said:
			
		

> And how do they promote it, exactly?


By contributing in the forums and being their tolerant, cordial, friendly, helpful selves while doing so, I believe. But I fear we're straying a bit off-topic here!


----------



## Saoul

Alice_in_Wonderland said:
			
		

> And how do they promote it, exactly? (And I don't mean _how they enforce it,_ careful! Promoting and enforcing are obviously not the same thing.) Do you have some examples? Becuse so far I have only seen them enforce rules as a result of a specific violation, and never actively promote any generic values, spirit etc. Which, I think, is good.
> 
> Marta
> 
> PS: And this word "academic".... doesn't it sound strage? How many people are academics (i.e. linguistics professors or researchers) here? Like... 5%? 10%? This is not an academic forum, or at least not entirely. (90-95% of WRF users are amateur linguists, I would say. Or teachers or translators, which are *not* academics)


 
Marta, this very thread you are taking part of, is through and through promoting a respectful cordial tone. Just to make an example!
We can debate about how harsh reactions sometimes are/may be/should be/must be and whatever, forever...
In my opinion, I feel frustrating that in 2006 we still have to discuss and discuss again about the one thing I would like to take for granted once and for all: RESPECT.
The definition of homosexuals as "evil deviants" is disrepectful. Period.
Moderators are here to moderate. This is their task. 
They can be kind, funny, business-like, unbearable, unpleasant, they can be whatever you like, but they have to moderate.
Elaine was even too kind putting her concerns on the table, and to have a confrontation with us all about this. 
I wouldn't have, should I be in her position. And I think many of us wouldn't have, too. 
Respectful OK post.
Unrespectful. You're out.

This is it. Other considerations (this is a business, we are not accademics and whatever else) only weaken the seriousness of the problem, here.

Oh, to gay people outthere... Don't you worry pals! God said he loves all His children. Every one of them!


----------



## Alice_in_Wonderland

Saoul said:
			
		

> Marta, this very thread you are taking part of, is through and through promoting a respectful cordial tone. Just to make an example!
> We can debate about how harsh reactions sometimes are/may be/should be/must be and whatever, forever...
> In my opinion, I feel frustrating that in 2006 we still have to discuss and discuss again about the one thing I would like to take for granted once and for all: RESPECT.
> [...]
> Oh, to gay people outthere... Don't you worry pals! God said he loves all His children. Every one of them!


 
Dear Saoul,

Thank you for your reply. I will speak from personal experience: My father is gay. He came out after getting married and all. If society at large wasn't so prejudiced, he could have lived a better life from the start, instead of having to live a lie for twenty years and of getting a divorce with all its implications for him, my mother and me. I totally agree with you. Thank you on behalf of my dad.

But in this commendable thread Elaine spoke as a forera, not as a moderator. She wrote this herself. Moderators as such enforce rules. We agree on this point, it looks like!  You wrote:



> Moderators are here to moderate. This is their task.
> They can be kind, funny, business-like, unbearable, unpleasant, they can be whatever you like, but they have moderate.


 
I just like calling things by their name, that's all. _Enforcing_ is not _promoting_, but you can sugar the pill by calling it something else. Personally I dislike that.


----------



## Jana337

I do not share Fernando's views of homosexuality, neither do I appreciate the remark of his to which some of you refer.

However, I feel compelled to say something on his behalf: I consider him one of the most open-minded and tolerant people here in the forums. 

Jana


----------



## Saoul

Alice_in_Wonderland said:
			
		

> Dear Saoul,
> 
> Thank you for your reply. I will speak from personal experience: My father is gay. He came out after getting married and all. If society at large wasn't so prejudiced, he could have lived a better life from the start, instead of having to live a lie for twenty years and of getting a divorce with all its implications for him, my mother and me. I totally agree with you. Thank you on behalf of my dad.


 
Alice this is your life. I will never assume the right to comment/speak about/discuss it. I'm simply glad you agree with me, about the Respect issue.



			
				Alice_in_Wonderland said:
			
		

> But in this commendable thread Elaine spoke as a forera, not as a moderator. She wrote this herself. Moderators as such enforce rules. We agree on this point, it looks like!
> 
> I just like calling things by their name, that's all. _Enforcing_ is not _promoting_, but you can sugar the pill by calling it something else. Personally I dislike that.


 
It doesn't look like to me, unfortunately. Maybe is my poor English, but it does not. 
I like to call things and persons by their proper names, too. 
Elaine. 
She can speak as a forera, mod, US woman, panda lover, whatever. It's always Elaine asking for our opinions. She's promoting... oh yes! She is! 

This may be off topic, but how would you promote respect, in this specific situation?


----------



## Alice_in_Wonderland

Saoul said:
			
		

> Alice this is your life.


 
Yes, but it is closely related to what you wrote. It was actually an example intended to strengthen and reinforce your point.



			
				Saoul said:
			
		

> It doesn't look like to me, unfortunately. Maybe is my poor English, but it does not.
> I like to call things and persons by their proper names, too.
> Elaine.
> She can speak as a forera, mod, US woman, panda lover, whatever. It's always Elaine asking for our opinions. She's promoting... oh yes! She is!


 
I think we are having a misunderstanding here. I just don't think a moderator could and should promote anything. I think they are right in not promoting anything. They are (rightfully) limiting themselves to the enforcement of rules.

Elaine wrote a good post as a forera. I agree.



			
				Saoul said:
			
		

> This may be off topic, but how would you promote respect, in this specific situation?


 
I wouldn't do anything in particular, or maybe repeat what is morally right just like Elaine did in post #1 of this thread.


----------



## geve

I think the disagreement might be on the word "promote" here... Would you be more comfortable with "encourage"?


----------



## Alice_in_Wonderland

geve said:
			
		

> I think the disagreement might be on the word "promote" here... Would you be more comfortable with "encourage"?


 
You just got to the core of the matter.

"Encourage" is much more appropriate! Thank you.


----------



## You little ripper!

Jana337 said:
			
		

> I do not share Fernando's views of homosexuality, neither do I appreciate the remark of his to which some of you refer.
> 
> However, I feel compelled to say something on his behalf: I consider him one of the most open-minded and tolerant people here in the forums.
> 
> Jana


Fernando may be open-minded and tolerant in many areas Jana, but it would appear that he isn't when it comes to homosexuality.



> I would like to get a clear reply as to whether F's remark is or is not in violation of rule 26. If it is not then at least I will save myself the trouble of reporting similar remarks in future.


I'm intrigued as to why no moderator except for Elaine has commented on this.


----------



## timpeac

Charles Costante said:
			
		

> I'm intrigued as to why no moderator except for Elaine has commented on this.


Well no one, moderators included, are obliged to post in any thread.

I think we need to cut the culture forum moderators a bit of slack here. That forum is incredibly difficult to moderate - I'm sure you've all seen how very easily threads can go off topic, turn nasty or turn into meaningless lists of people's favourite wedding hat design. So first off - well done to them for keeping the culture forum the fascinating, open-minded and well-ordered place that it is.

Now, to be quite clear - the moderators do not simply enforce the rules, black and white. The rules are helpful reminders for as all as foreros as to the sort of behaviour that is expected. They are of course also useful to the moderators to guide how they should be moderating. If there is a problem then there are many avenues open to the moderators to try to deal with it. One option is indeed deleting an offending post. In my personal opinion should Fernando's post have been deleted? Yes, I believe it should. It does seem to break rule 26 (and leads me to wonder if perhaps the wording of that should be changed to "risks being deleted").

However, what might be considered a clear violation to me might not have appeared so at the time to the culture mods. Maybe the great offence caused to some was not anticipated by them - they are only human after all. As I have made clear above they have the most difficult moderation decisions of all mods (in my opinion) and in enforcing such a rule they need to know what people are thinking. I've looked through the list of reported posts, and forgive me if I have missed it, but it looks to me that *no single person* reported that homosexuality post at the time. Many opinions offend some people - when they become "denigrated" is clearly not an exact science - and in order to have a lively culture forum we have to walk that line sometimes. Help the mods by making your feelings known at the time - we do take peoples opinions on board and talk amongst ourselves constantly. Do not believe that because this particular post wasn't deleted (although we can debate all day if it should have been) it wasn't noted by the mod team and decisions taken.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

timpeac said:
			
		

> However, what might be considered a clear violation to me might not have appeared so at the time to the culture mods. Maybe the great offence caused to some was not anticipated by them - they are only human after all. As I have made clear above they have the most difficult moderation decisions of all mods (in my opinion) and in enforcing such a rule they need to know what people are thinking. I've looked through the list of reported posts, and forgive me if I have missed it, but it looks to me that *no single person* reported that homosexuality post at the time. Many opinions offend some people - when they become "denigrated" is clearly not an exact science - and in order to have a lively culture forum we have to walk that line sometimes.


Maybe some people were disgusted and* just left*. Not everybody complains. I feel one of my posts have been deleted, by you, for less of a reason and have seen other posts, which essentially say the thing I said, not moderated. So what? I don't care that much about that one post so I didn't complain to anyone. It's not easy figuring out intent and you mods can't catch everything. I felt you were picking on me but you don't like me. You don't have to.

That being said...

I didn't see that Fernando "gays are evil deviants" post at the time. I think I would have stopped coming if I did. I can appreciate how difficult moderating is since I do it on a forum I run. However, if there is a pattern of allowing "some people" to say things while "other people" cannot say the same thing, if some animals are more equal than others, then many people will just pick up and go and consider it a waste of their time even letting you know they are leaving and why.

Sometimes you don't send the food back, you just eat at another restaurant.


----------



## timpeac

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> Maybe some people were disgusted and* just left*. Not everybody complains. I feel one of my posts have been deleted, by you, for less of a reason and have seen other posts, which essentially say the thing I said, not moderated. So what? I don't care that much about that one post so I didn't complain to anyone. It's not easy figuring out intent and you mods can't catch everything. I felt you were picking on me but you don't like me. You don't have to.


Well, I'm glad you were able to get over it. After all you did run the risk by not complaining at the time that you would be unable to prevent yourself bringing it up later at a less appropriate time, in someone else's thread on another subject, for example.


			
				Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> That being said...
> 
> I didn't see that Fernando "gays are evil deviants" post at the time. I think I would have stopped coming if I did. I can appreciate how difficult moderating is since I do it on a forum I run. However, if there is a pattern of allowing "some people" to say things while "other people" cannot say the same thing, if some animals are more equal than others, then many people will just pick up and go and consider it a waste of their time even letting you know they are leaving and why.
> 
> Sometimes you don't send the food back, you just eat at another restaurant.


No one is advocating one rule for some one for others, so I'm not quite clear on your point here. I think everyone has said that, yes, that post probably should have been deleted. I don't think that the moderating team could do more than to ask for feedback (report a post) and take that feedback on board (all reported posts are discussed). People aren't usually backward in coming forward - and that's great because we can learn and adapt. As you say above, moderating can sometimes be very difficult.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

timpeac said:
			
		

> No one is advocating one rule for some one for others, so I'm not quite clear on your point here.


I'm not saying anyone is advocating it but the impression it leaves, on _*my *_mind, is that since Fernando has developped a reputation here (there is even a post here by a moderator, Jana, who calls him "one of the most open-minded and tolerant people here in the forums. ") that he somehow got preferential treatment. That's not always bad. If my first message on this forum had been something like "I believe Jews are evil degenerates" I think I would have been at least reprimanded if not expelled and with good reason.

I moderate a forum and, yes, I do look at the people attached to the messages. If someone has a history I take that into account (on the positive and negative side). And I may be more harsh than usual with people who popped out of nowhere. And shouldn't people who are constantly pushing the envelope be scrutinized more carefully? However, I think people are very sensitive to mods playing favorites and it irks them when rule X somehow is over-looked when foreror Y violates it or when rule A is applied more harshly on forero B because he or she is not as likeable.

If a mod doesn't like you here, he or she can make your stay here very unpleasant. If the mods like you, then you can get away with "going for the man not the ball" without getting a yellow card. I think mods need to think more about that.

I, personally, find that one of the very, very, few things I don't like about WR.


----------



## GenJen54

Speaking as a mod who oversees the Forum in which the offending words were posted, I have a few words.

#1. No one, not *one single person*, reported that post (thank you Tim for also pointing that out);

#2. The thread was _immediately_ closed when said discussion became heated to the point of personal vitriol. Should the offending post have been deleted at the same time? Perhaps, and probably. It was not at the time. It has been now.  Amazing how no one made a point to mention that the thread had been closed.  

At the time this thread was running, rules and guidelines in the Cultural Discussions forum were ambiguous at best. They have been clarified, which I believe has greatly added to the overall tone of that forum, and has resulted in less need for moderating. (Not that we still don't read _everything_ everyone has to say ).

#3.  Forer@s who have complaints about moderator actions are always welcome to contact any mod via PM to discuss the issue.  No one contacted me, or my fellow Culture mods about that thread, or post.

#4.  This is a place where we each have to be *tolerant* of one another, even those whose viewpoints do not agree with our own.  This does not mean that attacks and disparaging comments should be allowed by anyone.   This does mean that WR welcomes all viewpoints, even those not shared by the majority here. 

Just a few cents while I go put my brain back together!


----------



## Residente Calle 13

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> #1. No one, not *one single person*, reported that post (thank you Tim for also pointing that out);


Does that mean you don't address offensive material unless someone complains?

That's a sincere question. I'm not trying to be flippant here. Maybe my posts are being deleted because my violations are reported.


----------



## timpeac

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> If a mod doesn't like you here, he or she can make your stay here very unpleasant. If the mods like you, then you can get away with "going for the man not the ball" without getting a yellow card. I think mods need to think more about that.
> 
> I, personally, find that one of the very, very, few things I don't like about WR.


Thanks for clarifying - I see your point now. It is a very interesting one, I will mull it over.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

timpeac said:
			
		

> Thanks for clarifying - I see your point now. It is a very interesting one, I will mull it over.



You're quite welcome. I sincerely appreciate that, timpeac.


----------



## timpeac

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> Does that mean you don't address offensive material unless someone complains?
> 
> That's a sincere question. I'm not trying to be flippant here. Maybe my posts are being deleted because my violations are reported.


No, no, absolutely not. Or rather absolutely not necessarily. If someone does complain of course the offending post will get much closer attention that it might otherwise have received, but if a mod spots a post without a complaint that they think needs action they will act anyway. I think the point is that the culture forum is notoriously hard to moderate, allowing interesting discussion on potentially inflammatory subjects. As Genjen says, they try to keep the forum debates open to a range of views. When those views become too... personal, hateful, whatever... is always going to be at least a slightly grey area. A decision was made, or rather it is not even as proactive as that, the decision to delete the post was not made. A moderating decision on the thread as a whole was taken (closing it). I think it is clear that perhaps in this instance the best decision was not made. However, mods are only human and we provide the report a post service for this very reason. My original point was not that it hadn't been reported and therefore not thought serious enough, necessarily, to delete but rather that for all the upset it caused (I have also received PMs of complaint about this post) no one used the bespoke tool we have to deal with such an issue.


----------



## GenJen54

Resident Calle 13 said:
			
		

> Does that mean you don't address offensive material unless someone complains?


 
Absolutely not. I guess in this case I felt at the time that *closing the thread* was sufficient. 

Several months later, I see that it was not the best decision. However, I find it ironic that people are, in May 2006, complaining about an action that was taken (or in this case, not taken) in December, 2005, almost six months ago.

No one reported that post, even after the thread had been closed. No one (including other mods) contacted me personally, nor am I aware of their contacting any other moderator about the offending post, or my actions in closing the thread.

Not to only defend Cultura, but I would have to guess that out of any of the forums, we as Culture mods encounter the most "gray" issues when it comes to moderating. Not everything is cut and dry.

As hard as we try to be consistent, sometimes consistency just doesn't happen. Sometimes I am online during working hours when my attention is carried by matters more immediate to me. Sometimes I am online at home when my attention can be more fully vested in WR issues. 

I know other mods have similar circumstances. Believe me, we do the best we can, when we can, as we can, on a volunteer basis. Again, members who feel otherwise are always welcome to contact us.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Speaking for only myself, of course, I find both your replies satisfactory. I don't think it's the end of the world and I can see how it might have happened. Anybody who expect mods to be perfect is being unfair. I most certainly don't perhaps because I have walked a mile or two in your shoes.


----------



## emma42

I think it has been made clear that several Mods agree that the post in question was not dealt with as well as it should have been.  

I was not an active member when the post was made.  If I had been, then I would most certainly have pm'd a Mod or reported a post.  I think I would also have thought that the Mods would just deal with the post anyway, as it was so obviously offensive (to say the least).  The post was unquestionably in  breach of the Rules as they stand now.

However, I still cannot consolidate my opinion on the free speech issue.  It is an incredibly complex matter, and I know that Moodywop agrees with me.

I must say that I am not envious of the Mods' job on the Cultural Forum and I want to say that I really really appreciate the efforts of *all *Mods.  They* are *only human and, all in all, they do an excellent job.  I would venture to say that I am well in the majority with that opinion.

Having said that, I am agog at Jana's remark.

Whatever the answer to the "free speech" question, one thing is for sure.  Fernando has lost the respect of many, many people and has engendered disgust at his views.  That is the result of his exercising his right to free speech.


----------



## ElaineG

> I must say that I am not envious of the Mods' job on the Cultural Forum


 
Frankly, I don't know how they do it. I don't think I could stay calm - and they do wrestle with the thorniest issues of all of us. I mean, "Is this thread multi-topic?" just isn't the same as "Is it better to leave an offensive post and let people shout down the offender or is it better to risk the inevitable accusations of censorship and heavyhandness and take the post down?"

I still have not made up my mind (and probably never will) about the right approach in general that lead me to start this thread in the first place. As Carlo rightly pointed out to me, once that particular thread was closed, and debate was no longer an option, the balance I would hope to strike is no longer possible.

I think Gen has shown tremendous integrity by discussing the decision making process and recognizing that things could have been done differently. As a forera, I deeply appreciate that and as mod, I hope to learn from her graciousness. Thank you.


----------



## emma42

"Gen has shown tremendous integrity..."

I could not agree more.


----------



## moodywop

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> The thread was _immediately_ closed when said discussion became heated to the point of personal vitriol...Amazing how no one made a point to mention that the thread had been closed.


 
GenJen

Actually I did mention that the thread was closed in post #3:



> In the homosexuality thread only one lone gay guy was able to respond to F's offensive remark. *The thread was closed* after F's scornful, sarcastic response suggesting the gay forero was not very intelligent if he was hurt by his remark


 
Although no one reported the post I feel that the gay forero's heartfelt response in which he said he had been deeply hurt by the remark spoke louder than any formal report.



			
				GenJen54 said:
			
		

> However, I find it ironic that people are, in May 2006, complaining about an action that was taken (or in this case, not taken) in December, 2005, almost six months ago


 
Many new members(or old ones, for that matter) read old threads after using the search function to find a topic they find interesting or to check that a subject hasn't been discussed previously before opening a new thread.

I completely sympathize with the difficulty of moderating a cultural forum. I agree about the "gray issues" and "not everything being cut and dry", as you say. However I think that in this case there was no "gray issue". I agree about respecting different viewpoints, but quite frankly calling someone "evil" based on their sexual orientation does not even qualify as a "viewpoint", in my opinion. We are all language lovers here and therefore only too aware of the power of words.

At the end of the day it's not a question of rules but of respect for other human beings' feelings and dignity. It may be evidence of a low IQ but I, too, was deeply hurt and offended by the remark, like the forero who first responded to it. I have no private agenda. I enjoy this forum very much. My only motive was expressing my feelings.


----------



## cuchuflete

I beg to differ.  I think the title of this thread is way off base and unsubstantiated by a single word Fernando or anyone else wrote in that thread.  

It's an emotional topic, so it's easy to go from strenuous disagreement to tossing off words like 'hate'.  I participated in that thread, as a forero, and debated some of the points at issue.  Fernando and I hold opposing viewpoints.  

Two other foreros in that thread called homosexuality things like (I paraphrase...go read it yourself if you want it letter for letter.) "unnatural", "immoral", "against God's law" and other such things.  I have disagreed with that sort of rot before in these pages, and will, I'm afraid, have future opportunities to do so.

I've heard that most of the so-called "major" religions are anti-homosexual.  Shall we take that as hatred, or as ignorance and narrow-minded thinking?




			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> I do not know how hard the word "evil" is in English, but if the inclination for homosexual conduct is half of my inclination for laziness, both of us have an evil inclination.



If you take the writer's words literally when it pleases you, then note that he has called himself 'evil', and expressed some doubt about the strength of the word in English.

 I disagree with those who think that homosexuality is either voluntary or bad.  I also disagree with those who use labels like "hate" to tar and feather their opponents, when there was no such thing visible in the statement made.  

I had planned to stay out of this thread, because I am in total and complete accord with Elaine's feelings, and while I think her thread title is mistaken, I didn't want to run the risk that anyone would attempt to use my statements as a defense of
an anti-homosexuality viewpoint.  But now I've seen another forero unfairly pilloried for statements he made and those he didn't make.  I don't share his viewpoint, but I cannot remain silent while the attacks go on and on.

We have had many threads in these forums in which homosexuality was both attacked and defended.  I've been more than a little vocal on the topic.  I don't think the post should have been deleted.  It should have been rebutted. It was.  

There have been attacks on Muslims.  I have counter-attacked, with facts.  There have been attacks on Mexicans.  I have counter-attacked with facts.  We will learn nothing from one another by taking statements that we find
unsettling and disagreeable, putting a negative label on them, and sweeping them under the rug.  

Please, let's not fall into the trap of hating those who hold views contrary to our own.  It's hard work to be open-minded, and harder still to try to get another person to be open-minded.  It's worth the effort, even when we don't succeed.


----------



## timpeac

Ok, here is the thread back. I would like to firstly remind us all of the core question -

I hate that one member of our community called other members of our community "evil deviants", apparently with impunity. I do not feel that we should be silent in the face of hate. The question is whether the cure for ignorance is administrative action or more speech.

This can be broken down further into two concerns
- What constitutes hate?
- What action should we take either as a collective group or from an administrative point of view?

Personal attacks of any description will not be tolerated. Any deviations from the precise theme of the thread will be deleted. Thanks for your understanding and let's play nicely and constructively.

Thank you 

Tim (Moderator)


----------

