Posted by Lou PIlder on January 26, 2007, at 7:02:31
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of this thread- » Fallen4MyT, posted by Lou PIlder on January 26, 2007, at 6:08:00
> > I like how you worded this Lou. You did it really well and I could not do as good a job or getting this point across.
> >
> > When I see favoritism I see it as a form of discrimination when all are not treated the same and the rules not applied equally in any situation.
> >
> > Lou states<<Is favoritism having two standards? Is favoritism another word for being flexible, or for discrimination?
> > I guess that undertsnding this could be better seen by if it can be seen if that there are >two standards< here for different members or not, who those members could be if there are those members, and are there particular members posting statements that the administration does not apply their rules to, equally to them, as to some others that are held to a higher standard by the nature that those same rules are applied to them but not some others.
>
> Friends,
> There is a concern here about {favoritism} which could also be referred to as >discrimination< as to if the criteria to distimguish between the two, are evident.
> In determining as to if discrimination is being practiced in a community, one could ask:
> A. is there an atmosphere of intimidation toward one group or even one member of a group?
> B.Is there {indoctrination} by disallowing the {inclusion} of the perspective of the group in question?
> C. Is there failure of the administration to apply their own rules to those that attack a group or one person of that group?
> D. Are there special rules made that have the effect of stifiling dissent by a group or one member of that group?
> E. And does the administration fail to apply their own rule to others while the group in question, or one member of the group, is held to that standard?
> F.Does the administration delegitimize one group's perspective in their rules?
> G. Does the administration fail to enforce their own standards to those that taunt and/or mock a group or one member of that group?
> H. Are psychological tactics such as, but not limited to ,{stalling} and {evasion} used by the administartion to allow others in the group to go unsanctioned from what would be sanctioned to the group in question or one member of that group?
> K. Can what is known as a {well -thought -out- plan} be seen that could show that the administration's attitude and actions are not as a result of simple negligence that results in mistreatment to a group or one member of that group?
> L. Are there features in the community that a group or one member of that group are denied to use equally as the other members are?
> M.Does the administration refuse to remedy what could be thought by some to be discrimination?
> N. Does the administration foster defamation toward one group or one member of that group by failing to apply their own rules {in degree} to those that defame the group in question?
> P. Does the administration >coach< others to shelter them from the sanctions imposed on the group in question, or one member of that group,that the member is posting what is defaming to the group in question?
> R. Does the administration change their own rules to accommodate defamation toward the group in question or to one member of that group?
> I am unsure as to if I can post links here due to the nature of the new rules made here when I rejoined the forum. If you are interested in making your own determination concerning the criteria here and would like to email me, then I could offer some aditional criteria for you to use to make your own determination.
> Lou
> lpilder_1188@fuse.net
>
> Friends,
Could there be warning signs that could indicate that there is the potential for discrimination to be fostered in a group, wheras if these warning signs were not evident, the potential for discrimination could be less possible?
Is there an objective method to evaluate a group in this respect? I ask you to ask yourself the following and then make your own determination as to if the following signs that are evident in a group could or could not be indicators that there is a greater potential for the group that has the following signs to be a group that could foster defamation and promote discrimination toward a group or one menber of that group or not.
A. Does the group tend to be {totalitarian} in its control of the member's participation as likely to dictate what members believe?
B. Does the group have an ethical {double standard}?
C. Is the leader regarded as the supreme authority and delegates certain powers to a few subordinates for the purpose of seeing that members adhere to the leader's wishes?
D. Also, does the leader deny any appeal{outside his system} to a greater system of justice?
E. Does the leader claim to have the {final} rulling on matters?
F. Is there a veneration promoted to the leader of the group by having some focus of devotion or allegiance to himself?
Some of the above comes from a very well -researched project concerning groups that I could share with you by email if you like.
I am unsure as to what links I can post here due to the nature of the new rules that were made here when I rejoined the forum such as showing how state-sponsored defamation was historically fostered in a community and the research for the above by the research group which I could share with you via email if you like.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
poster:Lou PIlder
thread:725328
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070123/msgs/726615.html