Posted by so on July 18, 2005, at 12:01:22
In reply to Re: Bigotry defined » so, posted by SLS on July 18, 2005, at 7:45:30
> > Consideration of the question of whether creationism should be treated equally with prevailing scientific theories of evolution might not be instructive in this cirumstance.
>
> Why not?Because in this forum, education is provided by members. If students of public schools provided education, school boards would have no need to decide what carriculum they teach and would instead spend their time creating a functional environment to foster mutual education. If patterned after this site, the board's doctrine would be that the group will effectively sort out useful information from less useful.
> I do not yet understand the justification of the moderator to allow the "creepy" post remain unsanctioned,
Don't bust a neural network trying. We have yet no evidence he has a reason for the tendency, and circumstantial evidence would suggest he has chosen selective enforcement that excludes on group from the concept of "others", a position which, linguisticly, fails to include that group among a generalized reference to humanity. On face value, the interpretation would fail a test for linguistic coherence, because in his usage, the commonly understood meaning would not cohere to the term "others".
>
> > -- we are talking about a private web site,
>
> Of what import is the difference between public institutions and private websites?
>Public institutions are governed by constitutionally established systems. Private sites are governed by individuals, or companies in some cases. In this case, it is an individual whose only commitment is to his own word and to the group. If he decides to create a micro-language where "others" includes members of Al Queda but not Scientologists, there is no Supreme Court to correct him. Scientologists could certainly make hay of it, in Freedom magazine, which has exposed the prominant role of psychiatrists in the leadership of Al Queda. But locally, it comes down to the tenacity of vigilant members of the group versus his will and his underlying moods.
How 'bout that current picture? Lens paralax gives it an artsy look, but his pictures usuually reveal more tonus in his facial musclature.
> > where the primary risk would be harm to individuals who might be vulnerable due to the nature of the site to attract emotionally vulnerable guests.
>
> There are many different reasons why an individual would be vulnerable to suggestion. Ignorance and lack of experience leaves people vulnerable. I believe this is why so many young people find themselves indoctrinated into various cults. Scientology is often described as a cult, regardless of what the US court system has adjudicated so far. Law and Truth are very often in conflict, right?>Yup.
> Is scientology a cult or is it a religion? I don't know. At the moment, I don't much care. What does it matter? Calling a group of people creepy is either civil or it is not.I can handle the cult or religion question, but your conclusion tends to render the question moot. But I would take a different position. Calling a group of people creepy is either consistent with the terms of service of this site or its not. The administrator has represented terms of service as a local definition of civility. But think about a community where deeply entrenched prejudices prevail. Compliance with local rules might be deemed civil by local leaders, but is it? What about if the prejudices are codified as law? That's where the concept of civil disobedience arose. Codes and administration of codes don't always define civility, at least not according to the widely appreciated understandings of what is civil.
>
> > In public administration, consistency is usually a preferred approach. Inconsistent administration of policies erodes confidence in policy.
>
> Agreed.
>
> This is not a public administration, remember? Erode away, Dr. Bob!But the understanding of how people react to public policy developed from experience with group administration. Purposes of groups vary, but group perceptions of administration are likely to be consistent among private and public collectivities.
>
> When attempting to assess consistency, it is necessary to compare two examples that are treated differently by the moderator. To what degree are these two samples similar? To what degree is there a consistency of moderation when treating these two posts when there differencies are considered?If we had any other post where anything other than a spider or snake was called creepy, we could address that question. Centipedes are creepy. Scientologists are different and sometimes controversial, but most walk on two legs, so the term tends to compare them with things unappreciated by most people. But we all know that.
>
> Again, should the moderator's protocol for judging civility differentiate between groups that are considered religions versus those that are not.>This gets back to the secret rules thing. Careful readers might know the secrets, but we can find occassions where the administrator has touted consistency of enforcement over private understandings between familiar members because he says readers could reach faulty conclusions about private understandings. His doctrine of public sanctions is touted in a professional journal as a means of informing the group about policy. If his notion is that the group should know and understand policies, and if he publishes a FAQ explaining the policies, for the sake of mental stability among members of the group, and to resolve potential dissonance among the group, he would do best to pattern his administrative behavior after policies he has published. Others is others unless someone has a unique definition of humanity.
>Perhaps the moderator does differentiate and adjudicates so. If the moderator does differentiate, and does not recognize scientology as a religion, your arguments remain moot. As you so eloquently reminded us, this is a private website.
Well, no the arguments are not moot. As I stated above, the FAQ is the published corpus of policy for this site. The FAQ makes no policy regarding the establishment of a religion, but clearly refers to how members treat others. If the administrator chooses to exclude a group from the classification of "others" because of their race, creed or religion, he needs to review his assessment of humanity, perhaps with some expansive attention toward inclusiveness. Or revise his written policy to declare open season on members of selected religions. Whereupon, I can still protest, and if he shows no concern for my protest, I can review other venues.
> > Am I creepy?
>
> I haven't yet decided. However, you are smarter than the average bear, even when polar bears are introduced into the equation.Some people don't like smart bears. Other smart bears can be especially wary of another smart bear when it encroaches on their territory.
>
>
> - Scott
poster:so
thread:529057
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050716/msgs/529516.html