Discource on racial monikkers will be moved to Heated Debate.Reopened.

I'm in agreement with your position . I suggest that you moderate any resulting shitstorm yourself . Hopefully your more moderate approach will keep things in check .

Lol, i will moderate, but with everybody's understanding that on weekday's in particular, my window for moderating is limited to a few evening hours. Generally, i will log on from 5 ish to 9 or so during the week. The weekends are more open of course generally.

I like the word hillbilly.

This is as good a place as any to hash it out. While i dont favor deletions, and have never actually done so in my capacity as a moderator, i do think that on rare occasions, some sort of line needs to be drawn. Realistically, i can think of fifty different ways without devoting any real effort to say "fuck you" or describe what i think is wrong with somebody without coming even close to violating out COC. If the offending members got a little more creative, this whole thing could have been avoided in my opinion. However, that also denies a basic premise, which is that members should attack ideas, not members. Sadly, that respect has been lacking.

When I said to moderate , I mean this thread .

I know. That's what i meant also.

As I'm sure you already know, repeated intentional violation will definitely result in removal of your privileges here. If you care that little, then i see it as a foregone conclusion. I would hope there would be a level of respect for this site and the people participating, yourself included, that would preclude that type of activity on your part, but at the end of the day, if you feel a need to cut off your nose to spite your face, then that is 100% on you. I hope you decide to do the right thing rather than take a meaningless and incorrect stand.

It should also be a place where people dont indulge in grudges, whether passive aggressively like you tend towards or in your face like Bruce tends towards. What i dont see from you is a willingness to even consider that you may have been wrong, and complicit in Bruce's reactions to you, even as he also is complicit in how you have been toying with him. My own observation is you both are wrong.

Do you deny that you know he isnt, and that perhaps you are writing certain posts knowing the reaction will be there?

Personally, i would rather you used teabagger, lol. As a political moniker, there is no real room for legitimate offense.

My personal opinion, with no offense intended, is that you dont generally defend your positions with facts, which initiates these conflicts oftentimes. That being said, i think that Bruce also looks for reasons to be offended when it comes to your posts. I also think you know you are goading him passively and that he wants to be goaded.I do know that the term redneck does carries quite a few connotations, and I know that many people who are self proclaimed rednecks, Shelly included, dont like being lumped in with the KKK style stereotype that has become par for the course with the term these days.

I hope Bruce posts here as well. I dont want this to be about you or about Bruce, but rather about moving on past this. It's tiresome in such a small group to have such a hostile scenario. Especially when a few small things can bring about large change.

Perrie is okay, but i know she is also disappointed in the way conflict has escalated on this site. It is hard to bring in new members when the old ones habitually get bogged down in petty conflict. At the end of the day, while some of us might be real life friends, this site, and the internet in general is really not a good place to get so emotionally invested that this type of bickering (and not just between you and Bruce) occur. It strips down the enjoyment factor and the capacity for actual intellectual debate, and replaces it with swirling chaos.

Unfortunately Bruce is apparently bummed out enough that he has stayed off of all threads .

"It's tiresome in such a small group to have such a hostile scenario. "

Indeed . Iarn in particular seems to be playing to a wide audience which is not here . He doesn't get it that this is just a small community and that's it's time to lighten up .

I don't know any rule that applies in every situation as to a word like redneck . But in general it is acceptable within a group of kinfolk who are establishing some common identity . However , when you use it in a public forum there is no telling who might be offended by it . And that is where the problem comes in .

I will give your post some more thought tonight, but my initial thought is that, as a rule, how something is used defines what it is and how it is perceived. As i have said many times in the past, i am no stranger to slurs. I have used them often over the years to provoke people who i felt needed some personal attention, but who were hesitant to have at it. I only feel words have as much power as they are given.

Here, i have noticed a trend of action and reaction without consideration to consequence. I would personally be willing to dismiss my own judgement, but i feel it is time for members here to own up to their own b.s. rather than the constant recriminations and refusal to acknowledge their complicity in these situations. Were that to happen, there would be no real reason for moderation, a task that is wholly un-fun and unsatisfying.

Anyways, as i said, i will chew on your post until i get back tomorrow, and see where things fall then. Maybe people will have sorted the b.s. out by then anyway.

So far, as it pertains to the specific use of redneck, the majority seems to be in favor of no censorship. There needs to be some resolution on how and when something goes overboard, and moderation becomes viewed as necessary.

Anyways, i am out for the evening. I'll be back tomorrow. Peace.

Wepreferthe term Appalachian Americans, thank you very much !

LOL!

Before I start, I would like to thank Peter for putting up this article and Mac and Rich for moderating in myabsence. I can see,it has not been an easy job.

I have just come back from a very long ride home from Baltimore. I could read the articles, but couldn't respond... and this gave me a lot of time to think. The first thing that comes to mind, is that I am almost shocked by how badly these articles have played out. When I started this group with Dana, we had in mind a dinner party. That people would discuss topics and act if they were at a dinner party,and they would use their best manners ... at least that was how I was raised.

Maybefamiliaritybreeds contempt... I had hoped that it would bring a level of friendship or at least respect for one another. That is what I thought we had all craved, when many of us made thevoluntarilymove to this site. We also welcomed those that had a less than satisfactory experience else where. We held out our hand as a sign of that commitment to possible friendship...

And yet... as I read these last two articles... I had to wonder when the dinner party turned into a bar room brawl.

And it seems to come down to words... but is it really about words or is it that we have lost the premise of the site? Go to the front page and read the mission statement... it's there on the upper left hand corner and it's been the same one since the start of the site, sans Dana's name, and tell me, if we are meeting those standards. I would say no. Not even close.

My head isn't into a long meta discussion tonight. That is because my mind is wondering if this is all worth it. Calvin had once told me, that he wondered if theaggravationhe got on NV was worth it... I guess we know his answer, as he now scuba dives around the world. BTW, Calvin was a great guy.

I will deal with this tomorrow. I will think some more. I am making this post to so that Mac, Peter and Rich a heads up that I was back.

Good night.

LMAO ! I get it . The problem we had all along is we didn't have you you to tell us what to do ! How did we ever get along without you ? Your megalomania is showing ...

I think it all comes down totoleranceand respect. And with the meaning of words it's the intent behind how it is being used. If people skirt the COC, well that's their choice after a while others get tired of it and avoid their posts, so in the long run they blackball themselves. I like this site because on the most part everyone is friendly with one another. I like to see more articles that bring us together and show us our commoninterests.

"Aintry this river don't go to Aintry."

My position on this issue is quite simple, moderating is a pain in the ass, and I respect and thank those that take on the job and will do what they tell me, adhere to their rulings, even if I disagree with it/them as I sure as hell don't want to take on the job!

So thanks, and moderate away!

"But some people are just not cut out for moderating a site....but some moderate out of threats and attempts to instill fear."

I think you're talking about me . I accept that criticism . However , I seem to end up with the task of dealing with the heavy flame wars whenever Perrie is away . I more or less did squelch that war except for the fact that your hero kept trying to reignite it .
How would you have dealt with that ?

Let me try to tackle each issue as we go. I'll take the easy one first.

The blacking out of words: Rich came up with it, since he isn't allowed to remove content. Only Mac and I can. And removing content and holding the spot, in case we try to restore, is a tricky thing to do. I actually thought it was rather cleaver. Kind of like NV collapsed comments. The comments are there and yet not. The choice to peak is yours.

Vision of this site: That was mine and Dana's vision of the site. When things went sour between us over moderation and bannings...she and RC opened up "Stew & Brew"... the bar next door. I remained hosting the dinner party. Now I have been to a lot of parties and I have never had toseparatemy guests overpoliticaldisagreements before. They might have gotten a bit heated... but come on. We all know it, that face to face, we behave in a totally different way. These words in a box some can let run off their backs and carry on, but for other's they are just as insulting as if you were talking directly to them. To dismiss that, is to dismiss the variety of human interactions. So yes, I do expect a certain level of decorum on the site, without me or the other mods having to step in all the time. That is what the site was designed for, and if you don't like it, go find a bar.

Word usage and the CoC: First, I am a bigproponentof freedom of speech, but just like all freedoms, they come with responsibilities. So let's go over a few things in my absence. We'll start with the easy ones first. No, it's not OK to say "FU Randy" and I do believe that they were all removed from the activity feed. It's a clear violation of the CoC. But this had been coming on for quite a while, not that I am giving Bruce a pass for saying it, either, just anexplanation.

And no, I am not interested in making a list of words that are forbidden. I would expect common sense and common decency would rule the day. But there is always some one who will try to push theboundaries, and hence we have issues like this one.

The term "Teabagger" is a done deal. It won't be used on the site, because of it's sexual connotations. I don't know a single person in my real life, who uses it. They might bad mouth the "Tea Party", but they don't use that term. Case closed.

"Redneck", not a racist word, but one that connotes, poor, ignorant southern people, always white. It is disparaging and meant to be, by outsiders. Here is where it get's tricky. Just like the "N" word, people who are members of that group, seem to mess with each other and use it between them. But let a white person say that word, and that is a whole different thing. And just like some old school northerners call themselves "Yankees", I know when a southerner calls me that, it's nocompliment. Still, as George Carlin would have pointed out, words are tricky things. It is the intent of the word that matters, and intent is what is at the heart of this matter.

Now personally, I can't remember when I've heard someone in real life, use the word "Redneck", but I am sure that it's used. It's never meant by anyone out of the south, as a compliment. The intent is to insult. Yet we do have southerners on the site, and that is what makes it a tricky word. When they use it, it's that kinship thing. When an outsider uses it... we run into problems. So we, as a community have to decide, how we want to handle that word. It's not an easy call... since every time it's used, we have to read into the comment what was the intent of the writer.

But here is the phrase that is what is at issue... and Peter was spot on about calling BS on this: It was about a group of qualifiers that together are directed to only one member of this group, Bruce and that is "gun toting rednecks" (which you often add a rightwingqualifierto). Sorry Randy, that phrase is yours and yours alone, and it is meant to skirt the "spirit" of the CoC. This is a relativelysmall community, and while we have many members who own guns, and members who are from the south, and members who are conservative, only Bruce fits thatdescription and you darn well know that. No amount of you saying otherwise will convince otherwise. It leaves the realm of just a political term, since there are a lot of other people who are conservative/GOP/ Republicans/Tea Partiers and are not gun totting or rednecks. So, no, that phrase will not be used here. I wouldn't let Bruce call you West Coast libtard woos either. And if your come back is that you don't care... that is your decision to be insulted. But if you do, the CoC covers that.

I think that pretty much covers it.

Thanks Terry! I am sure that Mac, Peter, Rich and Bruce will thank you, too.

Just a point I would like to make to that.Almost everyone on the site wants perfection from me, and I try... and I am sorry if I don't meet expectations... and I am getting very burnt out. It really sucks that I can't leave the site for 2 days and not have to worry something is going to go terribly wrong. I mean I am on a tour of the college, checking my phone constantly to see how bad the mess is... and that is pretty messed up. I am getting emails about issues and emailing back. I could just turn off the phone... and maybe I should, but I take myresponsibilitiesseriously, so I don't. Now I could just close down the site, when I go away... but that would be bad for everyone. This group is going to have to decide if they can behave, or have me close it down when I am away. It's not fair that I dump the entire moderation onvolunteers.

See this post for the right way to do it, if you're intending to continue down this path. And for the reasons expressed in that post, I'd suggest not going down that path, but if you do, you should set some guidelines on what types of comment warrant deletion, rather than blacking out.

I agree that your coding for the blacking out is better than Rich's, but then again, I don't think he has any coding skills at all. Most of us learned them ourselves, or from Mal. Normally, deletion is the way to go, but since real life presents with a whole pile of unforeseeable situations, they are not always comfortable with just a deletion, and this allows me to go back and restore. Still, I will discuss the matter with them, as I don't love big black stripesacrossthe page.

I'll say, once again, telling someone "fuck you, go to hell" shouldn't ever be allowed to stand. That it took as long as it took, and the effort it took, to get that comment removed is a problem.

Once again, I will say that I agree. I am not sure why they were allowed to stand for as long as they did ( although I am not sure how long that was), and it could have been as simple as one mod waiting for another to delete it.

That Rich can't let it go is a different problem, and need not be sorted out here, unless he wants to continue the public spectacle.

Whoa... where did that come from? Frankly, I feel that you and Rich need to work it out in the chatroom privately.... You are both bright adult men, so I am sure that you guys can come to some sort of agreement... and I won't even suggest what that should be, other than you both contact me with the agreement, and stick with it. I will take any agreement as binding between the both of you, and will enforce it.

What are you trying to prove ?

Randy,

You seemed to miss what I said. It was the whole phrase that was the point. It was meant to get to Bruce. It was meant to skirt the CoC. Frankly, I don't like list of no go words... It does lead to a slippery slope. But when a phrase is used in this small confines, that defines only one member... well that is a no brainer.

The word redneck is problematic... as Peter pointed out... but more at issue, too ME, is indirectly insulting a group member. If you had just said "gun toting right wingnuts", I would say it was a generic comment... but remember... as I mentioned in my comment, words have intent... This one was clear.

First off, great article Peter.

Also,every timeI open this site I feel like I am stepping into someone else'sparlor, very familiar, but also as a guest.

Third, every (I mean every) site has this same issue...we aren't unique in that regard; however, we are different in that Perrie has given us the opportunity to make this site what we will. It's up to us.

Do we want a civil place for discussion or not? Do we want to discuss topics or each other? Do we really think that slapping each other around is good for our site or ourselves? Do we want to end up as just another site for flaming and banning?

C'mon folks this ain't brain surgery...it's plain and simple courtesy.

So your entire purpose here on NT is to prove that I'm not fit to be a moderator ?

My stepping in at this point may very well inflame a tense situation .

But Randy , you should be aware that this site has a large variety of members . You need to recognize that when you use words that might be construed as having negative interpretations .

I am sincere when I say that I'll give up redneck and start saying gun-toting hillbillies instead. It's highly doubtful there are any hillbillies in the group, so even Bruce can't pretend to be offended by that word (and that's what he is doing about redneck, pretending). It sounds like a good solution to me.

I'm fine with that, if the group if fine with that. As for pretending, how would you know? Are you in his head? Like I said, the word "Redneck" can mean nothing or something... it's all in the intent and the context.

But more important than that I really wish you would read this comment. Larry couldn't have said it any better!

thenewstalkers

Thanks Larry for the perfect post! You said everything that was trying to say, without getting bogged down in the details. Bravo!

Randy , that's the kinship use of the word "redneck" . That is good bonding within your own family group .
Unfortunately , when you use it in a more general context like NT it is likely to be construed as something negative . Since I was an engineering major in college I don't see myself as being the one to come up with a way to phrase things so as to avoid that problem . Maybe someone else can suggest a way around this ?

The problem is really with generalizations. Here is how i predict hillbilly goes: "Obama has presented us with "...", but I'm sure gun toting hillbillies will be opposed to it."

How would a comment like that be of any value, especially when a person could instead use something real like "I believe Obama's new "..." will have this effect, but those opposing it seem to believe it will actually do this instead, and i furhter believe some will be opposed for no other reason than partisan politics"....for example? All generalizations tend to do is denigrate one group or another, and minimize their beliefs without substantiation. It reduces discussion or debate to just flat out dismissal, which is kind of in opposition to having any intellectual discussion or debate to begin with. Might as well just begin and end each discussion with, "anybody who believes different than I is a pitiful wretch unworthy of my attention".

Alright, back to work...I'll be back later.

Once again, spot on Peter. There really is no need for suchdescriptivesin an intellectual discussion.

But the comment was meant as an insult... which is exactly what we are discussing here, so why bring it up at all here?

As I said, I think you and Rich need to work this out somewhere else. Please do so, and don't make any further comments of this type in Peter's article. They are only destructive.

Oh, bullshit, just shows your desire to skirt the edge. Frankly, that's childish.

Bingo!

It's all in the folks that use the word, IMO. Clearly Randy means it in a derogatory manner, as do many effete, allegedly educated, "blue" folks.

As noted above, however, I'm with the moderator. Unless one wishes to be a moderator (one who will actually moderate. Ie, those that WANT to be a moderator should not be allowed to be one, LOL), then one should just do what one is told by the moderator.

Hmmmmmm, seems to me a bit odd coming from you Randy. You have, quite often, decried the use of generalized, group designations. I guess it's just the ones you don't like that are bad, right?

That would be correct.

Thanks for making my point Randy. It is absurdly easy, frankly, to have certain folks, in a certain group, to show their certain colors.

LOL

Exactly... which is where I would like this to go, and have said this before.

Randy. Does there really need to be a word to describe a subset? Can you not simply define your position or the position you believe to be opposed to such without stereotyping any subset?

Yep.

and thanks.

Randy. Does there really need to be a word to describe a subset? Can you not simply define your position or the position you believe to be opposed to such without stereotyping any subset?

Randy, I see that you have not answered Peter's question.

They're usually extremely conservative and even religious in their politics and have a very low level of education and/or are not considered too bright or sophisticated.

Nothing. I just say what you said above. But since you can be a conservative and religious and have a totally normal IQ and even be college educated, I try not to bundle people into neat little packages. It's a great way not to havestereotypes, which you as aliberal, should be against.

Okay, so what should the monikker for the subset of Americans who suffer from severe depression be? Or bi-polarism? Because when we get into stereotyping subsets, nothing is sacred.

So seriously Randy. What should we call people who suffer from bi-polarism? Because it is definitely going to be all or nothing with regards to stereotyping subsets, as far as i am personally concerned.

LOL Randy... why can't I tell you what a liberal means to me? You constantly tell me what yourstereotypeof an independent is... you have cute little names for us too, like INNO's...

Liberal by definition:

broad-minded ; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy , or traditional forms

a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

Stereotyping is a form of bigotry.

hmmm, b-plar. I dont know if i like "ex wife", although i do remember reading about that on NV. I have more of a mind for "personal twins".

What you don't understand and in fact have never understood, is that I don't care about your opinion about anything, Bruce. That's why when I referred to teabaggers or rednecks I wasn't talking about you because you're simply not worth my time and effort to think about.

Randy,

The reason that the word TB word was dropped was because we lost 2 female members who found it offensive, due to the sexualconnotation. And I think the word redneck has been talked to death.

But I will say this to the both of you...if it's out here it better stay within the CoC.

BTW I am about to watch Fringe and Grimm...