wondercafe2adm's picture

wondercafe2adm

image

WC2 - Oh, behave! - Community Code of Conduct draft discussion

We have put a first draft (well, first public draft, it's been drafted a few times among ourselves) of a Code of Conduct, including proposed sanctions and appeals process, for Wondercafe 2. There will not be a vote on it at this time. We are merely putting it out for discussion so you can have at it and propose changes, alternatives, new ideas, etc. If you think you can do it better, put your idea up on your blog and link to it from the thread. If you just want to change a clause or section, put your proposed change up in the thread. Nothing is cast in stone yet. What we want is your input on this code.

 

After this discussion, we will wait until the moderators are nominated and chosen and we will have a more specific discussion of it from a moderation standpoint with them, then bring a final draft back for a final public discussion and vote.

 

One thing we would ask is that, while the discussion can be a bit more freewheeling here than on other WC2 threads, we stay focussed on things like what rules we want, how we want them enforced, and such. Financial issues, governance issues, technical questions (other than related to moderation) should be in other threads.

 

http://www.wondercafe.ca/blogs/wondercafe2adm/wondercafe-2-community-code-conduct-first-discussion-draft

 

For comparison, the current Guidelines of Conduct for this site:

 

http://www.wondercafe.ca/guidelines

 

Mendalla has copies of the guidelines/rules from other sites he is on as well if people wish to see them.

 

Wondercafe2 Admins: Mendalla, Pinga, chansen

Share this

Comments

Saul_now_Paul's picture

Saul_now_Paul

image

proselytizing is not welcome?

 

That is all anyone does in R&F Including athiests.

Mendalla's picture

Mendalla

image

I didn't put that in but left it there for discussion. To my mind, too much depends on how you define "proselytizing". I wouldn't be sad to see it go or at least defined clearly. For me, it's only an issue when someone simply posts something "Follow Jesus or go to Hell" or a simple plug for their church (which I have been guilty of at times) which really does not contribute to anything in the discussion. However, a well-reasoned promotion of an idea definitely has a place and could still be seen by some as "proselytizing". I'll be interested to see what others say.

 

Mendalla

 

revjohn's picture

revjohn

image

Hi Wondercafe2admins

 

Saul_now_Paul wrote:

proselytizing is not welcome?

 

That is all anyone does in R&F Including athiests.

 

If this is true then proselytizm is a non-threat at WonderCafe.ca because we all suck so bad at it.  Including the athiests.

 

That said, I think that if we are going to rule out specific behaviours we should define what we mean by those behaviours.

 

Proselytism is an attempt to convert others.  It doesn't distinguish between individuals who openly share about their personal experience and individuals who employ threats.

 

Apart from the threat of proselytizm (which again is such a non-threat at WonderCafe.ca and not likely to become much of an actual threat at Wondercafe2) is the portion of the code of conduct which warns against ad hominems.

 

Is this more of an ideal than an actual enforceable offence and if the latter we should define exactly what we mean by that because while WonderCafe.ca is one of the most ineffectual proselytism forums in existence what it lacks in the ability to convert others it more than makes up for in reasoning why others cannot be converted.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

Alex's picture

Alex

image

I am not sure this needs to be dealt with all at once. It should be an ongoing thing as well. 

 

For example I do not support barring racist, homophobic and sexist comments. In some ways it's too broad, while it exist without context.   Many of us hold racist, sexist, homophobic and other objectionable beliefs because that what the society we live  teaches us.

 

Thus such statements can be challenged and the discussion may result in raising people's awareness.

 

Howver what I have zero tolerance for are poster who repeatedly  post such messages. They may be just trolls trying to get a reaction, or they may be racists or male chauvinists etc. 

 

I believ that the rule should reflect what is healthy for the WC2 community.  I believe a site where evry third discussion is about how God hates queers, does not do any thing but scare people away, while taking space for more productive and healthy discussion.  

 

Thus the rules around racism, and hate speech should reflect context, intent, and effect of such speech.

 

 

Alex's picture

Alex

image

proselytizing can also be dealt with using the same conditions as hate speech, and should reflect context, intent, and effect of such proselytizing on the community.

.

 
chansen's picture

chansen

image

Now that I see it again, the problem with not tolerating racist, sexist and homophobic speech, is you can arguably find all three in the bible and other religious texts.

 

So, how do you respect religions, yet not condone defensible positions of those religions?

 

If it can be derived from a religious text, I'd say anything goes.

 

chansen's picture

chansen

image

John's right, in that I can only recall a couple of people who's actual beliefs changed dramatically on this site. We all truly suck at changing the opinions of others.

 

But maybe there's a better word than "proselytizing" for what we're trying to say?

 

redhead's picture

redhead

image

It would be good to support the argument that racist, sexist and homophobic issues written in the Old and New testaments of the Bible, be backed up with references to specific quotes and narratives within written text.

 

Also to note:  there are various translations of the Xian Bible.

 

Also to note: nowhere, in Old or New Testamente is there a a clear, explicit prohibition of homosexuality.  Nor is the word homsexual used. 

 

How leaders within Xian communities interpret Biblical passages falls clearly upon humanity.

 

As does racism and gender bias.

 

It is not about the Bible as text, a collection of historical information, anedotes, poetry, and metaphors - it is about how the Bible is used well, or misused, in the hands, minds and hearts of humans.

 

Since WC2 is going to have an ongoing relationship with UCCan, and possibly other faith groups, it is probably a good idea not to be intolerant of religious perspectives.  In a similar way, many who hold faith respect the rights of people to proclaim and be atheists. 

 

It is called tolerance.

 

 

 

revjohn's picture

revjohn

image

Hi chansen,

 

chansen wrote:

But maybe there's a better word than "proselytizing" for what we're trying to say?

 

I might be wrong.  I think what we are wanting to avoid is less the open sharing/dialogue and more the actual or implied threat.

 

For example,

 

If somebody asks me how I am able to do such and such it would not be outrageous or unthinkable for me to relate such and such to my belief as a Christian.  That isn't me saying only Christians can do such and such nor is it me saying because you don't do such and such you cannot be a Christian.

 

Folk are free to disagree with the connection I make between ability and faith.  They can't deny that I made the statement and apparently believe it a fair one to make.

 

This differs from the stereotypical coversion/threat we associate with proselytism.

 

For example,

 

Member A says I was just diagnosed with cancer and I am afraid of dying.

Member B replies, You are afraid of dying because you don't want to go to hell and you aren't a believer.  So if you don't want to go to hell you need to do the following . . .

 

That is predatory behaviour and it uses an individual's fear against them as a threat.  The obvious threatening statement is "because you aren't a believer you are going to hell."

 

And yet, while there is a difference both could potentially sway an individual from one belief system to another.

 

I think it would actually require more than one online discussion to make that persuasive difference and lead to any kind of conversion.  My point is that both could be means to the proselyte's ends but both are not the same.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

Saul_now_Paul's picture

Saul_now_Paul

image

Yes,

Maybe it should read:

If you name is stephenbooth, all other members of the community are allowed to break every rule of the code of conduct until you are banned for life.

I think that's the intent.

chansen's picture

chansen

image

Implied threats abound on this forum. I don't have a problem with them, but that may be because I can't take them seriously, and I find them useful to illustrate my points about Christianity.

 

I personally don't want to see them disallowed. And, if they are common Christian positions, I don't see how we can or should.

 

I lack the perspective of a believer who could actually be concerned about and offended by these threats. Maybe that should trump my bemusement when I see such a threat.

 

redhead's picture

redhead

image

I suspect that many understand proselytize = recruiting - seeking members. 

 

Well, if UCCan sought members, then WC was a means by which members were collected.

 

WC2 shall do the same.  With a liaison to UCCan of course, but in its essence, be clearly secular, except if other religious groups, at Council's selection and discretion, become involved and linked to WC2.

 

So, is WC2 clearly secular?

 

 

revjohn's picture

revjohn

image

Hi chansen,

 

chansen wrote:

I can't take them seriously,

 

Which is probably one reason why proselytism around here sucks.  The lack of threats that give folk pause.

 

chansen wrote:

and I find them useful to illustrate my points about Christianity.

 

Well, it is easier to pick low-hanging fruit and Christians who attempt to advance the notion of a God who loves the world by employing threats qualify as low-hanging fruit.

 

chansen wrote:

if they are common Christian positions, I don't see how we can or should.

 

Common would depend upon the context.  While there is no doubt that there are elements of Christianity which are quite comfortable and earnest with threat based evangelism it is hard to find a time when such means flourished and actually grew the Christian tradition.

 

If it was about increasing the reach of Christendom then threats have worked wonderfully in the past and could still be applied in the present.

 

chansen wrote:

I lack the perspective of a believer who could actually be concerned about and offended by these threats. Maybe that should trump my bemusement when I see such a threat.

 

It isn't the threats per se that cause the problem.  It is the atmosphere from which the threats arise that is.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

chansen's picture

chansen

image

Saul_now_Paul wrote:

Yes, Maybe it should read: If you name is stephenbooth, all other members of the community are allowed to break every rule of the code of conduct until you are banned for life. I think that's the intent.

Stephen is a different kettle of fish altogether. He is incapable of conversation, in that he never even considers what others have written, he dominates the forum with new threads, he posts reems of scripture that have nothing to do with the subject at hand, and he is an Internet stalker. Within a few hours, he'll be reading this and quite possibly complaining to many people within the UCCan who have told him his emails are not welcome, using a brand new GMail account, because all his other dozens of email accounts are blocked. Which is exactly the sort of thing an obsessed Internet stalker would do.

 

As an anti-theist, I like having him around. Every time people complain that Christians don't really say or believe something, I can just quote him, or a few others, I suppose. It's handy as hell to have his posts for reference when I'm arguing against faith. As a forum admin, he's a massive disruption and causes other people to leave, so he won't be welcome at Wondercafe2.ca. That has been communicated to Stephen on UnitedFuture.ca, just a few weeks ago when he replied to GeoFee's post promoting the new site. Those posts have since been removed, but he knows our position.

 

If you like Stephen and wish to communicate with him, I think he created a Facebook group with "United Church" in the title. Or, just get an official United Church email address and have it listed somewhere. He'll find you.

 

That's our position on Stephen Booth (interspersed with my opinion, granted). Let's get back to the Code of Conduct.

 

chansen's picture

chansen

image

redhead wrote:

I suspect that many understand proselytize = recruiting - seeking members. 

 

Well, if UCCan sought members, then WC was a means by which members were collected.

 

WC2 shall do the same.  With a liaison to UCCan of course, but in its essence, be clearly secular, except if other religious groups, at Council's selection and discretion, become involved and linked to WC2.

 

So, is WC2 clearly secular?

WC2 will be a forum of people. It does not exist to reinforce a specific faith or belief. By definition, I suppose that is secular. Most the members are not.

 

My understanding is that WC1 was not created as a proselytization vehicle for the UCCan. WC2 certainly is not, though we can certainly expect people to defend their beliefs. It's the type of promotion that will be allowed that is being discussed.

 

Rev. Steven Davis's picture

Rev. Steven Davis

image
Thanks for your work on preparing this, Pinga, Mendalla and chansen. Some of my thoughts, having read the document:
 
We will generally not censure opinions made respectfully.
I suggest this should read that "We will generally not censure opinions presented or expressed respectfully."
 
Proselytizing is not welcomed – we all have a right to our own decisions.
The fact that one proselytizes does not mean that they don't respect the right of someone else to make their own decisions. It means they think the other person's decision is "wrong" and that it's important to bring them around to the "right" way of thinking. Even that can be done respectfully. I would suggest that in a site of the kind WC2 wants to be a certain amount of proselytism is unavoidable, and in fact can make the site more interesting. Proselytism is not by definition disrespectful. I don't think this statement is necessary at all. What you want to avoid is already covered by the requirement for the general requirement to show respect - although even that's a fine line and will likely lead to arbitrary decisions.
 
Racist, sexist, homophobic and otherwise discriminatory, defamatory or offensive language will not be tolerated.   
I understand and agree with the intent, but it might be a bit difficult to define all of the the above.
 
... or use names representative of divine figures of any religion.   
But what if it's my real name? For example, what if I'm from Spain or Mexico and my name is "Jesus." Or if I'm an Arab and my name is "Muhammad." And using the name "Muhammad" even if I'm not Arab wouldn't technically violate this rule anyway, since "Muhammad" is not a "divine name" even to Moslems. Just pointing out some potential issues here.
 
... the laws of the Dominion of Canada ...
The Constitution Act (1867) states that the country is "one dominion under the name of Canada." Thus, the name of the country is Canada. Not sure why the need to say "Dominion of Canada." It seems unnecessarily verbose. "Canada" would surely suffice. There's only one that I know of.
Saul_now_Paul's picture

Saul_now_Paul

image

Rev. Steven Davis wrote:

 
Racist, sexist, homophobic and otherwise discriminatory, defamatory or offensive language will not be tolerated.   
I understand and agree with the intent, but it might be a bit difficult to define all of the the above.
 

 

The word homophobic is different than racist or sexist. It is in itself a discriminatory and offensive word. It implies that if you don't follow the party line, you are suffering from a mental disorder. Not much different from calling somebody a retard.

mrs.anteater's picture

mrs.anteater

image

 

Assuming that suspensions and bans are not going to be happening very often, I would suggest that they are decided by two people rather than one (with the option of two). Everybody is subjective in some way and having two making a decision like that just helps to ensure it isn't about personal dislikes.

chemgal's picture

chemgal

image

Rev. Steven Davis wrote:

 
... the laws of the Dominion of Canada ...
The Constitution Act (1867) states that the country is "one dominion under the name of Canada." Thus, the name of the country is Canada. Not sure why the need to say "Dominion of Canada." It seems unnecessarily verbose. "Canada" would surely suffice. There's only one that I know of.

I was wondering about that choice of wording too.

 

While I agree about the personal information about others, I wonder if that should be taken out, as it's pretty broad.  I think that falls under being respectful as well.

Pinga's picture

Pinga

image

Bans definitely would be decided by more than one person.   an immediate suspension of an account coudl be required when no one else is online, ie a spam account.  at this point, there is a trust element to the moderators

Mendalla's picture

Mendalla

image

chemgal wrote:

Rev. Steven Davis wrote:

 
... the laws of the Dominion of Canada ...
The Constitution Act (1867) states that the country is "one dominion under the name of Canada." Thus, the name of the country is Canada. Not sure why the need to say "Dominion of Canada." It seems unnecessarily verbose. "Canada" would surely suffice. There's only one that I know of.

I was wondering about that choice of wording too.

 

While I agree about the personal information about others, I wonder if that should be taken out, as it's pretty broad.  I think that falls under being respectful as well.

 

I think it needs to be there explicitly. Personal privacy is a big issue on the Internet and we need to be seen to be protecting it.

 

I'll change that Dominion wording. Don't know where I picked it up from.

 

Mendalla

 

Mendalla's picture

Mendalla

image

Rev. Steven Davis wrote:

Thanks for your work on preparing this, Pinga, Mendalla and chansen. Some of my thoughts, having read the document:
 
We will generally not censure opinions made respectfully.
I suggest this should read that "We will generally not censure opinions presented or expressed respectfully."
 
Proselytizing is not welcomed – we all have a right to our own decisions.
The fact that one proselytizes does not mean that they don't respect the right of someone else to make their own decisions. It means they think the other person's decision is "wrong" and that it's important to bring them around to the "right" way of thinking. Even that can be done respectfully. I would suggest that in a site of the kind WC2 wants to be a certain amount of proselytism is unavoidable, and in fact can make the site more interesting. Proselytism is not by definition disrespectful. I don't think this statement is necessary at all. What you want to avoid is already covered by the requirement for the general requirement to show respect - although even that's a fine line and will likely lead to arbitrary decisions.
 
Racist, sexist, homophobic and otherwise discriminatory, defamatory or offensive language will not be tolerated.   
I understand and agree with the intent, but it might be a bit difficult to define all of the the above.
 
... or use names representative of divine figures of any religion.   
But what if it's my real name? For example, what if I'm from Spain or Mexico and my name is "Jesus." Or if I'm an Arab and my name is "Muhammad." And using the name "Muhammad" even if I'm not Arab wouldn't technically violate this rule anyway, since "Muhammad" is not a "divine name" even to Moslems. Just pointing out some potential issues here.
 
... the laws of the Dominion of Canada ...
The Constitution Act (1867) states that the country is "one dominion under the name of Canada." Thus, the name of the country is Canada. Not sure why the need to say "Dominion of Canada." It seems unnecessarily verbose. "Canada" would surely suffice. There's only one that I know of.

 

All good thoughts. And nice presentation, too. Thanks, Steven. Your first and last will definitely be fixed. The one about names of divine figures can be fixed with some language. I have an idea already which I will post once I've wordsmithed it.

 

As for the provisions around racist, etc. speech, almost every board code of conduct we've reviewed has something like it. For example, this is from a board where I am a user and do some modding:

 

"Any post that insults people based on their race, gender, sex, sexual preference, religion, culture, or country of origin, or threatens them explicitly or implicitly is not allowed and may result in an immediate ban. This includes both fellow forum members and your fellow human beings in general."

 

Actually, this one addresses it a bit better in that it does not talk about racism or homophobia in general terms but more specifically in the context of using them against others.

 

It also addresses the "making threats" idea differently.

 

Mendalla

 

Mendalla's picture

Mendalla

image

One thing I want to make clear. I, personally, am not going to defend this code (not sure how chansen and Pinga feel on this). It is a draft, not something that is ready for primetime. I posted it so we can pick it apart, put it back together, and make it work for us. The final product may be very different from this depending on your input and that's okay.

 

A sample from another site that you can peruse for ideas:

 

http://www.wondercafe.ca/blogs/mendalla/sample-board-rules

 

Mendalla

 

chemgal's picture

chemgal

image

Mendalla wrote:

 

I think it needs to be there explicitly. Personal privacy is a big issue on the Internet and we need to be seen to be protecting it.

 

 

I feel pretty strongly about privacy, and will think about the wording.  Sticking it here as a reminder:

 

Respect the privacy of others by not posting personal information or images of another person without their consent.

 

With the current wording quite a few of the images posted here wouldn't be allowed.

 

Rev. Steven Davis's picture

Rev. Steven Davis

image

Mendalla wrote:

As for the provisions around racist, etc. speech, almost every board code of conduct we've reviewed has something like it. For example, this is from a board where I am a user and do some modding:

 

"Any post that insults people based on their race, gender, sex, sexual preference, religion, culture, or country of origin, or threatens them explicitly or implicitly is not allowed and may result in an immediate ban. This includes both fellow forum members and your fellow human beings in general."

 

Actually, this one addresses it a bit better in that it does not talk about racism or homophobia in general terms but more specifically in the context of using them against others.

 

It also addresses the "making threats" idea differently.

 

Mendalla

 

 

I agree. I think what you quoted above is an improvement over what's been put in the document.

crazyheart's picture

crazyheart

image

When the three churches formed the United Church of Canada, it had to be okayed through Parliament (right?) . Would that have anything to do with the wording?

Mendalla's picture

Mendalla

image

crazyheart wrote:

When the three churches formed the United Church of Canada, it had to be okayed through Parliament (right?) . Would that have anything to do with the wording?

 

Nope. Nothing whatsoever. It's just a miswording. Remember, WC2 isn't part of the UCCan.

 

Mendalla

 

ninjafaery's picture

ninjafaery

image

Sorry - been out of the loop for awhile since I'm without wireless at home. Could someone pls send me a wondermail and direct me to wondercafe 2? I haven't been following the nuts and bolts, but I don't want to lose track of you guys either!  Thanks

Mendalla's picture

Mendalla

image

It's not up yet. We're still developing and testing it, ninjafaery. Meanwhile, we're getting the community to give input into various aspects of running the site like this code of conduct.

 

Mendalla

 

chemgal's picture

chemgal

image

I've PMed ninjafaery and have offered to wondermail her once WC2 is up, I'm not sure if she's seeing the reponses in posts or not.

carolla's picture

carolla

image

Re Sanctions - with regard to repeat offenses - is there any timeline in mind?  Eg - "receiving 3 warnings" - I'm guessing this would be within a relatively brief period of time or related to similar infraction.  If I inadvertently goof up 3 separate times, months apart, would a suspension still occur?    

 

This may also benefit from clarification - "material that violates the Code shall be removed from the post at the same time with a note added in red text to show what was removed."     I assume the "red text" would just indicate "profanity removed" or "words deleted" or "edited by moderator"- not actually show the text/content that had been deleted.  

carolla's picture

carolla

image

very minor edit in second introductory paragraph - 

"However, we recognize that there needs to be some minimum standards to, and this Community Code"

delete "to,"

Mendalla's picture

Mendalla

image

carolla wrote:

Re Sanctions - with regard to repeat offenses - is there any timeline in mind?  Eg - "receiving 3 warnings" - I'm guessing this would be within a relatively brief period of time or related to similar infraction.  If I inadvertently goof up 3 separate times, months apart, would a suspension still occur?

 

I haven't figured out what would be reasonable "reset" interval. Thoughts?

 

Also, there is a warning point system in the software but I haven't investigated it enough yet to change this to use it. It allows you set an expiry on a warning when it is given.

 

 

carolla wrote:

 This may also benefit from clarification - "material that violates the Code shall be removed from the post at the same time with a note added in red text to show what was removed."     I assume the "red text" would just indicate "profanity removed" or "words deleted" or "edited by moderator"- not actually show the text/content that had been deleted.  

 

That is the intention. I would reword it as "material that violates the Code shall be removed from the post at the same time with a note added in red text to show why the post was edited" or something like that. How does that sound?

 

Mendalla

 

carolla's picture

carolla

image

That sounds good Mendalla. 

 

Interesting to hear about the 'warning point system' in the softward - so much capacity these days to do stuff like this!  I'm not sure either re reasonable reset time - I'm guessing from past occurances here, that these behaviours usually cluster in a rather short time frame - I wonder if Aaron could make a suggestion based on his experience? 

Maybe quarterly? Wondering what others think?

crazyheart's picture

crazyheart

image

redhead wrote:

Since WC2 is going to have an ongoing relationship with UCCan, and possibly other faith groups, it is probably a good idea not to be intolerant of religious perspectives.  In a similar way, many who hold faith respect the rights of people to proclaim and be atheists. 

 

It is called tolerance.

 

 

 

 

Mandella, what does Redhead mean then by using the words ONGOING RELATIONSHIP?

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

Free speech is important. It should be upheld more strongly than our right not to be offended. I think you should use hate speech definitions around sexism, racism and homophobia- not just "politically correct" definitions- because, not that it happens often, but we want to have open conversation to discuss why someone holds those views. It's more likely to lead a person thinking about their prejudices, and possibly to a change of mind than immediately banning someone because they said something that wasn't politically correct.

Mendalla's picture

Mendalla

image

crazyheart wrote:

redhead wrote:

Since WC2 is going to have an ongoing relationship with UCCan, and possibly other faith groups, it is probably a good idea not to be intolerant of religious perspectives.  In a similar way, many who hold faith respect the rights of people to proclaim and be atheists. 

 

It is called tolerance.

 

 

 

 

Mandella, what does Redhead mean then by using the words ONGOING RELATIONSHIP?

 

Aaron will be a liaison to the United Church, we will have permission to use some of their intellectual property (e.g. our logo will be based off of the current WC logo), there will be links (as in web links) between us and them. There may be some other ties. Pinga is the expert since she's been working with Aaron on this part of it. The difference with the current site is that they are not funding or controlling the site, only lending assistance and IP.

 

All religious perspectives will, of course, be tolerated and people will be encouraged to express their beliefs openly and to ask questions of each other about their beliefs. It should be just as tolerant as the current WC, hopefully even more so.

 

Mendalla

 

Mendalla's picture

Mendalla

image

Kimmio wrote:
Free speech is important. I think you should use hate speech definitions around sexism, racism and homophobia- not just "politically correct" definitions- because, not that it happens often, but we want to have open conversation to discuss why someone holds those views. It's more likely to lead a person thinking about their prejudices, and possibly to a change of mind than immediately banning someone because they said something that wasn't politically correct.

 

Agreed. Definitions can be tricky. Even hate speech as legally defined can be further refined and interpreted by the courts so simply quoting the law is not always enough. If someone can find such definitions, we would love to see them.

 

Mendalla

 

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

...disability was excluded, btw. For example, "lame" and "crippled" are used in the Bible. They're not appropriate words to describe people with disabilities, nor is 'handicapped', in the politically correct sense, but those words needn't be cause for banning. Same with "the poor" vs. "people living in poverty". Nor would a statement like "the poor expect too many handouts". It's definately prejudiced (and it's not my view just using it as an example- one that's not uncommon) but to ban someone rather than discussing it would not help to change their mind.

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

I'd rather we discuss and debate someone's prejudice than see them banned for it, is what I'm trying to say.

Mendalla's picture

Mendalla

image

Kimmio wrote:
I'd rather we discuss and debate someone's prejudice than see them banned for it, is what I'm trying to say.

 

Largely agreed, but we have to be mindful that there comes a point where such speech transgresses the law and want to be able to reign things before it goes that far (not that it is likely to with this group but we have no idea who will join down the road). If we allow speech that is legally recognized as hate speech on the board, we could be seen as aiding and abetting the spread of that speech. The other thing we want to control is use of such speech to denigrate other members or their views (e.g. "well of course you'd say that, you're a xxxx") but that can be covered under personal attacks. That is why I like the one I quoted from my other board. It specifically focusses on using such language against other people. Scroll up and read it or go to my blog where I've posted the whole set of rules from that site.

 

Mendalla

 

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

I agree what is defined as hate speech shouldn't be allowed. Your statement isn't bad above. I'd rather point out, when someone is unaware, though, than see them banned. My grandma, for example, sometimes used outdated words that made me cringe. Someone like her would need to have it explained why the words she used were considered prejudice. She really didn't know or hadn't been paying attention. Stereotypes- sexist and racist and ableist, were more common in her generation of peers and went unchallenged with her peers, maybe? But she was not a hateful person. It was better to point it out and talk about it than get angry with her.

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

But I do agree we can't let it get out of hand or break the law.

Mendalla's picture

Mendalla

image

Kimmio wrote:
I'd rather point out, when someone is unaware, though, than see them banned. My grandma, for example, sometimes used outdated words that made me cringe. Someone like her would need to have it explained why the words she used were considered prejudice. She really didn't know or hadn't been paying attention. Stereotypes- sexist and racist and ableist, were more common in her generation of peers and went unchallenged with her peers, maybe? But she was not a hateful person. It was better to point it out and talk about it than get angry with her.

 

Right, but those ones are rarely going to transgress hate speech laws. You don't generally get charged with hate speech for calling someone an outmoded, derogatory word for their race or class, though you may lose a job or a multi-million dollar endorsement deal over it.

 

We would likely issue a warning at most for something like that which does exactly what you say, points it out and calls them out for it. If they do not heed the first couple warnings, though, then they risk tougher sanctions. You can only plead ignorance or bad habit so many times before you have to be called out on it.

 

Mendalla

 

Dcn. Jae's picture

Dcn. Jae

image

Mendalla wrote:

 

 

All religious perspectives will, of course, be tolerated and people will be encouraged to express their beliefs openly and to ask questions of each other about their beliefs. It should be just as tolerant as the current WC, hopefully even more so.

 

Mendalla

 

 

And what if a person expresses their religious belief that homosexual behaviour is shameful, or that women should not be in church leadership. Will they be encouraged to express their belief openly, or will such views quickly be labeled as hate speech?

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

Rather than "this is a warning" tough talk, depending on the situation, I'd like to see "your statement could be deemed offensive by ___ group, and this is why. Do you understand why?... Please try to watch what you say." but you can make that call.

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

Dcn. Jae wrote:

Mendalla wrote:

 

 

All religious perspectives will, of course, be tolerated and people will be encouraged to express their beliefs openly and to ask questions of each other about their beliefs. It should be just as tolerant as the current WC, hopefully even more so.

 

Mendalla

 

 

And what if a person expresses their religious belief that homosexual behaviour is shameful, or that women should not be in church leadership. Will they be encouraged to express their belief openly, or will such views quickly be labeled as hate speech?

See my post above.

Mendalla's picture

Mendalla

image

Dcn. Jae wrote:

And what if a person expresses their religious belief that homosexual behaviour is shameful, or that women should not be in church leadership. Will they be encouraged to express their belief openly, or will such views quickly be labeled as hate speech?

 

It depends on how they express it. If you direct it at a member as a way of denigrating them or what they are saying, expect to be sanctioned (as I expressed above) for a personal attack. If you are expressing an opinion on an issue, we should be letting it stand and have the community deal with it in the discussion. Those views are still generally not regarded as hate speech in a legal sense.

 

In essence, Jae, if you can say it here without getting banned or warned, then you can say it there without getting banned or warned. But others who disagree with you are also not going to be banned or warned when they criticize your opinion. Just as happens here.

 

Mendalla

 

chansen's picture

chansen

image

Dcn. Jae wrote:

Mendalla wrote:

 

 

All religious perspectives will, of course, be tolerated and people will be encouraged to express their beliefs openly and to ask questions of each other about their beliefs. It should be just as tolerant as the current WC, hopefully even more so.

 

Mendalla

 

 

And what if a person expresses their religious belief that homosexual behaviour is shameful, or that women should not be in church leadership. Will they be encouraged to express their belief openly, or will such views quickly be labeled as hate speech?

 

I'm exceptionally eager to have you express your view that your religious conviction trumps the happiness of others. I will always argue that a Christian who wants to argue against homsexual sex and gay marriage be allowed to do so.

 

Not that you actually believe it, Jae, but I'm happy to play along.

 

 

chansen's picture

chansen

image

Here's a question: How much are we going to care about the feelings of deities, messiahs and prophets? Arguments that God is an ethnic cleanser, for example, or blaspeming the Holy Spirit, calling Joseph Smith a con artist, or images of Muhammad? With us no longer owned by a denomination, how does that change things?

 

Back to Church Life topics
cafe