HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » New policy discussion reg...

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 01:54 PM

New policy discussion regarding individual and group insults

There are several terms that have historically been thrown around in the Guns discussion forums on DU. Until DU3, however, the moderators were able to clamp down on them when alerted on because these terms were recognized as group smears.

However, with the retirement of the moderator system and the deployment of the jury system, it has become de facto policy that terms that would have been deleted by mods all too often stand the test of the jury system, which largely seems to regard this group as a lost cause for civility and/or a festering pit of right-wing trolls.

As the Group Host, I can lock original posts, but I can do nothing for replies that contain such terms.

However, one thing I can do is ban and un-ban members from the Group.

The question for Group regulars is this: should we produce a list of offensive terms to be banned from use in Gun Control & RKBA, and should I suspend offenders for periods of time as punishment for using those terms?


This would require members to send DU mails identifying the locations of such language use.

This would also likely require at least one more Host, in order to be able to respond in a timely manner.


I would like to open the floor to discussion, including a list of terms that would be disallowed and degrees of punishment.

Regards,
Krispos42, Gun Control & RKBA Group Host

108 replies, 10687 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 108 replies Author Time Post
Reply New policy discussion regarding individual and group insults (Original post)
krispos42 Aug 2012 OP
glacierbay Aug 2012 #1
mike_c Aug 2012 #2
Remmah2 Aug 2012 #16
ileus Aug 2012 #38
AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2012 #78
slackmaster Sep 2012 #99
Missycim Sep 2012 #104
ileus Aug 2012 #3
gejohnston Aug 2012 #4
DanTex Aug 2012 #5
ellisonz Aug 2012 #6
DanTex Aug 2012 #8
Atypical Liberal Aug 2012 #45
DanTex Aug 2012 #62
Atypical Liberal Aug 2012 #63
spin Aug 2012 #75
glacierbay Aug 2012 #11
DanTex Aug 2012 #17
glacierbay Aug 2012 #22
gejohnston Aug 2012 #23
DanTex Aug 2012 #25
glacierbay Aug 2012 #28
DanTex Aug 2012 #31
glacierbay Aug 2012 #34
TPaine7 Aug 2012 #60
Remmah2 Aug 2012 #14
gejohnston Aug 2012 #15
Reasonable_Argument Aug 2012 #27
DanTex Aug 2012 #39
rDigital Aug 2012 #53
DanTex Aug 2012 #57
rDigital Aug 2012 #65
DanTex Aug 2012 #69
Clames Aug 2012 #59
spin Aug 2012 #74
DanTex Aug 2012 #86
gejohnston Aug 2012 #87
DanTex Aug 2012 #88
gejohnston Aug 2012 #89
spin Aug 2012 #91
spin Sep 2012 #97
slackmaster Sep 2012 #100
Missycim Sep 2012 #105
SecularMotion Aug 2012 #7
Remmah2 Aug 2012 #10
rl6214 Aug 2012 #18
SecularMotion Aug 2012 #20
DanTex Aug 2012 #26
shadowrider Aug 2012 #51
ellisonz Aug 2012 #76
rDigital Aug 2012 #81
ellisonz Aug 2012 #82
rDigital Aug 2012 #83
rl6214 Aug 2012 #72
rDigital Aug 2012 #24
SecularMotion Aug 2012 #33
rDigital Aug 2012 #67
krispos42 Aug 2012 #41
SecularMotion Aug 2012 #44
krispos42 Aug 2012 #71
rl6214 Aug 2012 #73
shadowrider Sep 2012 #107
spin Aug 2012 #92
Kolesar Aug 2012 #9
krispos42 Aug 2012 #42
shadowrider Aug 2012 #50
rDigital Aug 2012 #68
Kolesar Aug 2012 #85
holdencaufield Sep 2012 #96
petronius Aug 2012 #12
PavePusher Aug 2012 #66
krispos42 Aug 2012 #90
oneshooter Aug 2012 #94
Remmah2 Aug 2012 #13
rrneck Aug 2012 #19
SecularMotion Aug 2012 #29
rDigital Aug 2012 #30
gejohnston Aug 2012 #32
Jenoch Aug 2012 #49
rrneck Aug 2012 #35
Union Scribe Aug 2012 #80
Starboard Tack Aug 2012 #93
rDigital Aug 2012 #21
GreenStormCloud Aug 2012 #36
krispos42 Aug 2012 #43
slackmaster Sep 2012 #102
MicaelS Aug 2012 #37
Callisto32 Aug 2012 #40
DWC Aug 2012 #46
Atypical Liberal Aug 2012 #47
appal_jack Aug 2012 #48
Dinsdale Piranha Aug 2012 #61
shadowrider Aug 2012 #52
rDigital Aug 2012 #54
SecularMotion Aug 2012 #56
DanTex Aug 2012 #58
Hoyt Aug 2012 #55
krispos42 Aug 2012 #70
Straw Man Aug 2012 #77
slackmaster Sep 2012 #103
Union Scribe Aug 2012 #79
holdencaufield Aug 2012 #64
JustABozoOnThisBus Aug 2012 #84
slackmaster Sep 2012 #101
jbgood1977 Sep 2012 #95
DWC Sep 2012 #98
jody Sep 2012 #106
Euromutt Sep 2012 #108

Response to krispos42 (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 01:59 PM

1. I hate to be the first to respond

 

as I am new here, but here goes, yes there should be a list of offensive terms, pro and con. I would love to participate but some of the vitriol I see kind of makes me reluctant to really post here for fear of getting called names.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 02:03 PM

2. I nominate the term "home invasion" for banning from discussion in this forum....

It's inflammatory and meaningless except to those who wish to justify their use of excessive force to soothe their wounded pride.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #2)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 02:36 PM

16. "home invasion" is a term commonly used in most of the media outlets. nt

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #2)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 04:00 PM

38. Usually home invasion is reserved for an occupied home, B&E for unoccupied.

Use of force or lack of doesn't change the term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #2)

Fri Aug 24, 2012, 02:47 AM

78. The term "home invasion" is a term used by the courts, by the various state legislators, by the FBI

 

which compiles statistics of such crimes, by the police which seek to enforce the law, by those who report such criminal activity in print and on the web, and by ordinary people.

It is a term of art which provides a short-hand description of a commonly understood criminal activity.

As explained by Wikipedia,
Home invasion is the act of illegally entering a private and occupied dwelling with violent intent for the purpose of committing a crime against the occupants such as robbery, assault, rape, murder, or kidnapping. Home invasion is generally an unauthorized and forceful entry into a dwelling. In some jurisdictions there is a defined crime of home invasion; in others there is no crime defined as home invasion, but events that accompany the invasion are criminal. Where it is defined, the definition and punishments vary by jurisdiction. It is not a legally defined federal offense throughout the United States, but is in several states, such as Michigan, Connecticut, Illinois, Florida, Louisiana, and in Las Vegas, Nevada. Home invasion laws also have been introduced in the South Carolina General Assembly and in the State of Maryland. On March 15, 2011, a bill making home invasion deaths a capital crime in New Hampshire passed the New Hampshire House without debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_invasion

Home invasions are a fact of life which, according to FBI statistics, affect a great many people. As one example, the AP reported earlier this year that Justice Stephen Breyer, his wife, and their guests were victims of a vacation home invasion in the island of Nevis when a machete-armed man broke into the 73-year-old's vacation home and obtained money.
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/297907/20120213/stephen-breyer-robbed-intruder.htm

The law recognizes that law-abiding and peaceful people in their homes may engage in self-defense and lawfully use firearms for self-defense.

The fact that some persons are opposed to the private ownership of firearms does not mean that the term "home invasion" is "meaningless except to those who wish to justify their use of excessive force to soothe their wounded pride." It also does not mean that the term "home invasion" is "inflammatory and meaningless."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 8, 2012, 10:12 AM

99. mike_c, that term describes an action rather than a person

 

I think the topic here is argumentum ad hominem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mike_c (Reply #2)

Sat Sep 8, 2012, 01:23 PM

104. So you compare wounded pride with armed thugs sticking weapons

 

into your face or the face of your family members?


Do you like think posts like yours out before you post them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 02:07 PM

3. How about locking intentional bait threads also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 02:12 PM

4. misuse of the term troll

many describe it as someone they disagree with. The actual definition is:

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, , or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Troll

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 02:13 PM

5. I say anyone who links to right-wing sources should be suspended or banned.

As long as we're talking about extra-judicial disciplinary actions by the group host, I think this is a much bigger problem. It gets directly at one of the problems you noted: that the rest of DU thinks it's a festering pit of right-wing trolls. And why wouldn't they, given that people continually post right-wing editorials from FOX, WashingtonTimes, TownHall, etc.

The pro-gun people keep insisting it's not right-wing to support the NRA's agenda. Well, if that's the case, y'all should have no trouble finding progressives or even "centrists" to write editorial pieces supporting the pro-gun point of view. And if there's an opinion that you strongly agree with, but the only place you see it in print is WorldNetDaily, well that's probably a sign that it doesn't belong on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #5)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 02:16 PM

6. +1

Also, the term "hoplophobia" has no place on DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #6)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 02:19 PM

8. And, support for the NRA, which is a right-wing organization, headed...

...by the likes of Wayne LaPierre, Grover Norquist, and Ted Nugent, doesn't belong here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #8)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 05:36 PM

45. Why?

 

In the last election, every single Democratic candidate except one had high marks from the NRA. Additionally, three of them were the NRA-endorsed candidate!.

To claim that the NRA is a right-wing organization is bullshit.

Yes, most of the politicians they support are right-wing, because more right-wing politicians respect the second amendment.

This would and could change overnight completely by the choice of anti-gun politicians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #45)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 07:34 PM

62. Just look at their board.

Grover Norquist. Wayne LaPierre. Ollie North. Larry Craig. Ted Nugent. John Bolton. Etc.

If you think these guys are going to turn Dem-friendly anytime soon, you are dreaming. Just look at how they are treating Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #62)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 08:25 PM

63. Why are they treating Obama this way?

 

Just look at their board. Grover Norquist. Wayne LaPierre. Ollie North. Larry Craig. Ted Nugent. John Bolton. Etc.

Sure - because the second amendment is most respected by the right-leaning demographic. If it were mostly left-leaning, you'd see an entirely different board make-up. This isn't the fault of the NRA, it's the fault of people who are on the wrong side of the issue.

If you think these guys are going to turn Dem-friendly anytime soon, you are dreaming. Just look at how they are treating Obama.

Obama has a mixed background for firearms. Most people, myself included, don't think he has had a real change of heart concerning them, but rather has found it politically expedient not to do anything anti-gun.

The NRA is very Dem-friendly in my district. Why? Because Democrats around here support the second amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Atypical Liberal (Reply #63)

Fri Aug 24, 2012, 01:24 AM

75. And the NRA often gives Democrats in my area of Florida high ratings. ...

Of course such Democrats are strong supporters of gun rights.

Just about everyone I know in this area has firearms in his home and some have carry permits. In reality it would be political suicide for a politician from this area to support draconian gun control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #5)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 02:29 PM

11. Will this do?

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?pagewanted=all



Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard, said he had come to believe that the Second Amendment protected an individual right.

“My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise,” Professor Tribe said. “I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control.”

The first two editions of Professor Tribe’s influential treatise on constitutional law, in 1978 and 1988, endorsed the collective rights view. The latest, published in 2000, sets out his current interpretation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #11)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 02:37 PM

17. Yes Tribe is fine.

Tribe, of course, disagreed with the right-wingers on the Heller decision, and felt that DC's handgun ban was constitutional.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #17)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 02:48 PM

22. To me that doesn't make any sense at all

 

How can he support the second amendment as an individual right and yet say that DC's handgun ban is constitutional?
Isn't that a contradiction?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #22)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 02:50 PM

23. basically Tribe said a ban all guns would be

not just handguns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #22)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 02:53 PM

25. In his words:

But nothing I have discovered or written supports an absolute right to possess the weapons of one’s choice. The lower court’s decision in this case — the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found the District’s ban on concealable handguns in a densely populated area to be unconstitutional — went overboard. Under any plausible standard of review, a legislature’s choice to limit the citizenry to rifles, shotguns and other weapons less likely to augment urban violence need not, and should not, be viewed as an unconstitutional abridgment of the right of the people to keep or bear arms.


There were two dissents to Heller. Stevens argued that 2A only protected RKBA connected with militia service. Breyer argued that even if we accept that 2A protects and individual right, it's still OK to ban handguns and limit RKBA to long guns due to concerns about gun violence in a dense urban area. Apparently Tribe agrees with the Breyer dissent and not the Stevens dissent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #25)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 03:00 PM

28. OK, thanks.

 

I guess I disagree with Stevens and Breyer.
I need to do more studying on this, any good sources you could point me to would be appreciated, pro and con?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #28)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 03:05 PM

31. Here's the Heller opinion (Scalia) and the two dissents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #31)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 03:11 PM

34. Thanks

 

I'll read this and try to find all I can on pro and con court decisions about the second amendment.
If you know of any good articles or books, lay them on me please.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #34)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 07:08 PM

60. If you're looking for good scholarship about the Second Amendment (and the Fourteenth) I would start

 

with this ( http://www.amazon.com/The-Bill-Rights-Creation-Reconstruction/dp/0300082770/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1345761452&sr=8-2&keywords=Akil+Amar ).

Another book, which gathers all of the Supreme Court gun cases (up until 2003) is this one (http://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Court-Cases-David-Kopel/dp/1889632058/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1345761627&sr=8-1&keywords=supreme+court+gun+cases ).

To be fair, the authors of this second book could be considered activists and have a definite position on the Second Amendment, some would say bias. I suggest checking the veracity of their summaries by looking up the full opinions on findlaw.com or an academic site (for the opinions they don't quote in full).

I quote a little of the history of gun rights and cite those books as well as original sources in this post (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=300206&mesg_id=300331 ).

See also ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/117255387#post32 ) and ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/117255387#post38 ).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #5)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 02:34 PM

14. Everything is right wing from some people's perspective.

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #5)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 02:34 PM

15. since when has anyone

posted editorials from any of those places? How about providing examples of your "continually postings"?
While we are at it, how about anti gunners posting opeds from right wing Brit papers like the Daily Mail and the Telegraph?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=63546
Chris Ruddy used to work there before he jumped on the White Water gravy train.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117261474


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #5)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 02:57 PM

27. Basically you want a one sided argument and your opinions unchallenged?

 

As a liberal, an NRA member, and a supporter of the 2nd amendment this is one issue where most on the left are wrong and need their opinion challenged. The discussion needs examples and hard numbers but sadly this is one issue where the left tends to adopt the right's tactics of distortion and emotional arguments. That forces us to post things that otherwise wouldn't fit on this site.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Reasonable_Argument (Reply #27)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 04:01 PM

39. I figure if there's a legitimate point to be made, you can find it from a legitimate source.

It's funny that you bring up "hard numbers", because one point I make over and over is that there actually is a decent body of peer-reviewed statistical studies on gun violence and gun control, and the findings are not very friendly to the NRA crowd. In fact, one recent OP here is about how the NRA is actually fighting to suppress funding for gun violence studies. And this is perfectly in line with what right-wing and industry lobbies have done on numerous other issues: climate, tobacco, stem cells, etc.

I have no idea whether you are actually a liberal or not -- statically speaking, based on the fact that you are new here, you basically just stick to posting about guns, and you have an affinity for right-wing sources, I think it's pretty unlikely. We've had a large number of right-wing trolls pass through here fitting that exact description. But, giving you the benefit of the doubt, if you actually are a liberal, you might want to think for a second why the people you would usually agree with -- progressive voices in the media, scientific experts from academia, etc. -- are supposedly wrong about this one issue, but the likes of Grover Norquist, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin have got it all figured out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #39)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 06:27 PM

53. Too bad that "study" you post is full of garbage pseudo-science and hoopla. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #53)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 06:43 PM

57. Whenever you come up with a substantive criticism, please let me know.

Until then, you are in the same boat as the creationists and global warming deniers, unable to challenge the facts on scientific terms, and instead attacking the scientific establishment, peer review, "liberal bias" etc. Is it any wonder you guys shy away from peer reviewed studies and instead go for editorials by non-scientists "published" in gun blogs or right-wing journals?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #57)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 08:47 PM

65. When the peers are fellow anti-gun extremists, I call their impartiality into question.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #65)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 09:00 PM

69. So the mainstream scientific establishment is now "anti-gun extremists". Hmm....

I'm starting to understand you a little better now. Out of curiosity, how do you feel about global warming? Do you think it's a conspiracy against capitalism?

PS. I'm still waiting for you to come up with a substantive criticism of those studies that you called pseudoscience...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #5)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 06:48 PM

59. I say anyone who advocates the deletion of this group...

 

...flame baits, and deliberately attempts to corner members in order to paint them as "RW trolls" with no substantiation aside from their own self-conviction should also be banned from this group. Uses the terms: gun nuts, gun trolls, gun religionists, gun extremists, or in any way, shape, or form insinuates a DU gun owner as someone who supports, advocates, or desires to murder another person should also be banned. Such persons do nothing to facilitate discussion and generally try make this part of DU suck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #5)

Fri Aug 24, 2012, 01:12 AM

74. Which would give your side of the argument an unfair advantage.

I always try my best to avoid linking to a ring-wing source, consequently I spend a LOT of my time searching for the same info I could post from a conservative site that also appears on a more unbiased web page. However sometimes there is no other choice. An editorial or information from a right wing site might well make an important point.

Many liberal sites can be just as biased as conservative sites and often publish false and misleading propaganda against firearm ownership.

In simple terms conservative sites often publish bullshit against gun control but many liberal sites publish bullshit in favor of gun control.

In order to develop an informed view on any topic it is important to carefully consider both sides of the argument.

If your suggestion was implemented, soon only articles from very liberal sites could be posted in the Gungeon. I believe that some here feel the MSNBC is the only honest cable network and even CNN is far too conservative.

I suspect that you really don't have any interest in debate and feel that anyone who might disagree with your viewpoint on gun control is a right-winger. Let me assure you that many liberal Democrats own firearms and firmly support RKBA and concealed carry. Would you wish to stifle their voices? I hope not. The Democratic party is and should be a BIG tent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #74)

Fri Aug 24, 2012, 07:54 AM

86. If by "my side" you mean "Democrats", then yes.

If you are one of those "both sides do it" centrists, maybe you don't really belong on DU after all. I happen to believe that there is a big difference between, for example, the people who publish global warming research in science journals, and the right-wingers who write for the National Review about how it's all a hoax. Along those lines, there's also a big difference between people who publish gun violence research in science journals, and right-wingers who blog about how it's all a hoax.

I would love to have a debate with an intelligent and progressive pro-gunner, if there is such a thing, but presumably this hypothetical pro-gun progressive would be able to make his or her case without resorting to links to FOXNews or WashingtonTimes or WorldNetDaily. This is supposed to be a message board for Democrats and liberals, where we don't have to pretend that maybe the idiots who talk about "legitimate rape", or want to teach creationism in schools have a valid point. I don't see why we should tolerate right-wing gun propaganda either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #86)

Fri Aug 24, 2012, 10:03 AM

87. actually there isn't

If you are one of those "both sides do it" centrists, maybe you don't really belong on DU after all. I happen to believe that there is a big difference between, for example, the people who publish global warming research in science journals, and the right-wingers who write for the National Review about how it's all a hoax. Along those lines, there's also a big difference between people who publish gun violence research in science journals, and right-wingers who blog about how it's all a hoax.

Actually that is a false equivalence. You ignore the peer reviewed research published in criminology publications, but then they don't send out press releases.

I would love to have a debate with an intelligent and progressive pro-gunner, if there is such a thing, but presumably this hypothetical pro-gun progressive would be able to make his or her case without resorting to links to FOXNews or WashingtonTimes or WorldNetDaily.
Does that include anti gunners who link to right wing Brit sources like the Daily Mail? Actually, there are couple of progressive pro gunners that have intelligent debates, and are a lot smarter than you. There is little intelligent debate coming from your side. Hoyt and bongbong are the norm. At least you attempt it once in awhile. The problem is trying to act superior and pretending to be expert at stuff you actually have no clue about (investigative reporting and how they get access to documents for example) does not help your cause.
Political bias exists equally. Any anti gun screed, no matter how poorly written or absurd, is going to make Think Progress as fact. Last year's "Al Qaida says you can buy machine guns at gun shows so it must be true" was a perfect example. Some magazine writer writes an article that shows all the signs of whistleblower retaliation, yet some progressives actually takes it seriously because it happens to be the ATF.

This is supposed to be a message board for Democrats and liberals, where we don't have to pretend that maybe the idiots who talk about "legitimate rape", or want to teach creationism in schools have a valid point. I don't see why we should tolerate right-wing gun propaganda either.
That doesn't have a fucking thing to do with anything. I will say that some of that crap comes from Rhodes Scholars like Bobby Jindal and David Vitter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #87)

Fri Aug 24, 2012, 10:20 AM

88. Hey look, ma! I have a stalker!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #88)

Fri Aug 24, 2012, 10:30 AM

89. no, I just happened to read it

I take it you don't know what that word means either, just like you don't know what the word troll means.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #86)

Fri Aug 24, 2012, 03:18 PM

91. Do you define a Democrat as only a member of the party that agrees with your personal views? ...

Remember that a significant percentage of Democrats own firearms and many are strongly supportive of RKBA and the Second Amendment.



Many Democrats live in large urban areas that have restrictive gun laws. This is gradually changing and firearm ownership will become far more common in such areas. For example in the urban areas of Florida, which has what some would call lenient gun laws, firearm ownership is very common. I knew a number of Democrats in the Tampa Bay area of Florida who not only owned firearms but had concealed carry permits.

In the 2008 election, Obama won in the Tampa Bay area.


In the Tampa Bay region, Obama carried Hillsborough County, home to Tampa, by a 7-point margin. Obama also won Pinellas County, home to St. Petersburg, by a 53%-45% margin. Bush had narrowly carried the county by about 0.1% in 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida,_2008



The most Democratic region of the state is South Florida, which contains the large cities of Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, and West Palm Beach. The Tampa Bay region is also relatively Democratic, although it has become much more competitive in recent electoral cycles. Leon County, which contains the state capitol of Tallahassee, and Alachua County, home to the city of Gainesville and the University of Florida, are also strong Democratic areas. North Florida and the panhandle are also very Democratic on the local level, although those two regions are solid Republican strongholds in presidential elections.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Democratic_Party


Florida with its 29 electoral votes is an important state in any Presidential election. Attempting to push the Democratic Party into supporting gun control laws such as another assault weapons ban is foolish. The Democratic Party has wisely avoided stepping into this trap in recent years.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 8, 2012, 09:26 AM

97. It is often extremely difficult to find an acceptable "liberal" source that supports RKBA ...

Your idea, if implemented, would be like requiring one boxer in a match to compete with his right hand tied behind his back.

I will agree that an editorial from WorldNetDaily is inappropriate. Perhaps we need to come up with a list of acceptable sites to link to but we should also be fair in that approach. A straight news story from Fox News that describes a shooting incident in a factual manner should be acceptable while a commentary piece that unfairly accuses Obama as planning to implement draconian gun laws in his second term would not be.

Obviously the NRA is a strong voice supporting RKBA. I feel that the NRA can be a valuable source for factual information about firearms but I do disagree with many of the political views of the organization. Many other gun owners must feel the same as the NRA has only 4.3 members out of 80 million gun owners in our nation. A yearly membership in the NRA is fairly cheap, perhaps the cost of two boxes of ammo. The NRA also does support many Democrats who are pro-RKBA. There are far more right-wing gun rights groups than the NRA, for example the GOA (Gun Owners of America).

Our object in the Gungeon should be to promote a rational and factual discussion about gun control. Obviously insulting another poster doesn't contribute to such a discussion and all too often both sides engage in such tactics.

If you are faced with a valid factual argument that is stronger than your position you should reconsider your stance on the issue. I have changed my views over the years that I have been posting here in support of RKBA. There are good points on the gun control issue that can be made by both sides and they deserve fair consideration.

I suspect that you believe that no "good" Democrat would ever support RKBA. If so, you should realize that the Democratic Party is a very large tent. Many Democrats own handguns for target shooting, hunting and self defense. They often have a considerable amount of money invested in their hobby and they see absolutely no reason to support draconian gun control laws. That in no way means that they are right-wingers. I come from a long line of Democrats who stood on union lines to fight for worker rights against the management of the steel and iron mills in Pennsylvania. and also were strong supporters of civil rights. But most also owned firearms and used them for target shooting and self defense. I don't believe any enjoyed hunting.

I feel that the true right-wing trolls in the Gungeon get weeded out fairly quickly and that is entirely fair. Surely you do not believe that all those who support RKBA and have posted here for years are all trolls. Democrats often disagree on many issues and it's hard to define who is actually a Democrat. Perhaps Will Rogers summed it up best when he said, "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat."

I suggest that we should work together to promote a fair and honest discussion on the issue of gun control. I understand that emotional arguments that are largely used by your side are valid but you should also realize that facts and statistics from those who support RKBA also carry considerable weight.

If we are ever to be able to make any headway on the issue of firearm violence in our nation, both sides have to treat each other in a respectful manner. We may even have to be willing to compromise which unfortunately is a lost art in our nation.

DU is one of the few places on the net that allows a fair discussion on gun control. Let's try to improve the level of the debate but to give both sides a fair chance.



















Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 8, 2012, 10:13 AM

100. The problem with that is that it's not always crystal clear what constitutes a right-wing source

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 8, 2012, 01:24 PM

105. That goes double for grabbers that love

 

to use right wing info to suit their purposes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 02:17 PM

7. No, I don't think any terms should be banned from use

nor any members "punished" for use of language.

Censorship is a tool for cowards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #7)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 02:29 PM

10. +1 I'll agree with that one.

 

Finally, agreement with a second amendment impaired individual.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #7)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 02:40 PM

18. So are the constant google dumps with no commentary added by the poster

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #18)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 02:46 PM

20. Hi Stalker



I do think stalkers should be banned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #20)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 02:54 PM

26. Without stalkers, the gun nut population here would be cut in half...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #26)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 06:15 PM

51. Without google dumps, the anti-gun nut population here would be cut in half

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shadowrider (Reply #51)

Fri Aug 24, 2012, 01:54 AM

76. Why do you hate reading? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #76)

Fri Aug 24, 2012, 03:19 AM

81. If you hate this forum so much, why do you post in it as much as you do? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #81)

Fri Aug 24, 2012, 03:22 AM

82. To express my thoughts regarding such subject matter...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellisonz (Reply #82)

Fri Aug 24, 2012, 03:37 AM

83. Well then, thank you for single handedly providing so much low hanging fruit for the pro gunners.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #20)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 11:56 PM

72. You think I was commenting on you?

 

Talk about stalker, you didn't have to respond to me BUT you do post on an open forum, don't want to be responded to, don't post. Or put me on ignore, or go into the corner, whine and suck your thumb.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #18)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 02:52 PM

24. The google dumps with no individual comment are getting obnoxious. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #24)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 03:10 PM

33. Group and individual smears and insults are on ongoing problem

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #33)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 08:58 PM

67. +1 My thoughts exactly.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #7)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 04:47 PM

41. Insulting terms should be allowed?

That's your position? That posts should not be deleted because of language?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #41)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 05:27 PM

44. Insulting terms or insults?

Insults or personal attacks should be handled by juries.

"Insulting terms" is too vague, kind of like "assault weapons"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #44)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 11:44 PM

71. Mental note: SecularMotion admits "assault weapons" is too vague.

The problem is that juries aren't handling it, you irrational gun-hating zealot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #71)

Fri Aug 24, 2012, 12:00 AM

73. "you irrational gun-hating zealot"

 




Funny...truthful but funny

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #71)

Sat Sep 8, 2012, 02:30 PM

107. The problem is, the juries are handling it, when it's a pro-gun post in question.

It's almost always hidden. One of our pro-gun posters has had posts hidden simply for identifying regional bigotry. If it's anti-gun, it's almost always allowed to stand regardless of the terms or language used.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #7)

Fri Aug 24, 2012, 03:22 PM

92. That's fine with me ....

I sometimes get insulted in this group but it doesn't bother me in the least. It merely proves that I am winning the argument. Of course I always try to reply in a polite manner. Simply trading insults with another poster is largely a waste of time and does nothing to further the debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 02:27 PM

9. That is quite vague

You don't iterate the terms and you don't describe how these words you don't like have been playing out in this "group".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #9)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 04:49 PM

42. Hence, the discussion thread...

I'm thinking terms like "gun-hater" or "gun worshipper" or "2nd Amendment fetishist", etc.


This stuff was not allowed by the DU2 mods.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #42)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 06:07 PM

50. gun nut

gun fetishist, worshiper, religionist, precious worshiper. Those are just a few off the top of my head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #42)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 09:00 PM

68. The jury system does no justice in the Gungeon. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #42)

Fri Aug 24, 2012, 07:05 AM

85. There are somebodies who don't fit in at this highly-leftist website

The jury is system is blowing a hole in the smarmy mode of abuse that has been wrought by the gungeoneers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #42)

Sat Sep 8, 2012, 01:38 AM

96. Gun "Religionist"

 

Which attack not only the 2A -- but the 1A as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 02:30 PM

12. I vote "No" - no list of unacceptable terms, and no in-group punishment system

Last edited Thu Aug 23, 2012, 03:37 PM - Edit history (1)

Also, no rules on 'acceptable' OPs, and a very loose interpretation of the SoP in terms of what should be locked. It seems like too many Groups on DU have devolved into chaos when they try to write rules and hold elections and so on - we're doing just fine the way we are, and there's always Ignore, Trash Thread, and Alert if someone feels the need. Other than that, lets keep it open and rely on each other as DUers to behave like grown-ups.

I think you've done a fine job as a hands-off Host and I don't want to give you more work - after all, you should be focusing on the DUzys!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #12)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 08:51 PM

66. +10^1,000,000 Congrats, you have won Teh Interwebs!!!! n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #12)

Fri Aug 24, 2012, 02:39 PM

90. It's about insults terms and group smears

Which is not about defining the terms used in the debate (which affects how the debate is run, particularly if the person who defines the terms is biased), it's about controlling insults and keeping things civil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #90)

Sat Aug 25, 2012, 11:58 PM

94. You mean insults like this one?

Star Member Kolesar (27,208 posts)
85. There are somebodies who don't fit in at this highly-leftist website

View profile
The jury is system is blowing a hole in the smarmy mode of abuse that has been wrought by the gungeoneers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 02:32 PM

13. I don't think banning someone on a permanant basis is needed either.

 

Suspension or time out would allow people to cool off and return.

Parole in the Gungeon. A CAPITAL OFFENSE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 02:45 PM

19. I don't worry so much about terminology

as the overall attitude that anyone who owns a gun is an NRA/right wing troll. Bringing such an attitude here should get you a "time out".

I understand that guns are unpopular here, and that's just fine. And I realize that jury decisions will overwhelmingly favor the self appointed scolds and zampolits hereabouts. But I hate to see a few petty, egotistical mandarins use this group as a whipping boy to build partisan cred for use elsewhere on this site. Let them build their posse elsewhere.

On balance, if the hosts can use the blocking feature to enforce civility here (without making a career of it), that would be fine. But if the number of blocked members starts to look like HoF, it's not worth it. The truth is that the gungeon is probably unpopular for three reasons: 1) Lots of members here are gun owners and don't feel like fighting about it. 2) Lots of members here are agnostic on the subject and don't want to fight about it. 3) Some members have tried to fight about it and got tired of having their asses handed to them. For the most part the only anti gun members left willing to post here are whining scolds, preening attention whores, political neophytes, amateur social dominators, and the occasional left wing troll.

If you block someone from using the wrong word they'll just find another word. The real problem is that this group is a prime target for chickenshit left wing trolling Because it's an easy target on a progressive site. And blocking them could turn it into an echo chamber, which I think would be worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #19)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 03:01 PM

29. You don't understand much

Guns are not unpopular here. This "attitude that anyone who owns a gun is an NRA/right wing troll" is a strawman.

Myself and many Democrats support individual gun ownership and the "well-regulated" interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

What is unpopular here is the NRA/right wing "robust" interpretation of the 2nd amendment and the trolls who support it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #29)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 03:05 PM

30. You don't have to be a troll to recognize the original intent of the 2A.

 

Another thinly veiled smear against those who have a differing viewpoint than yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #29)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 03:06 PM

32. You do?

support individual gun ownership? Wow, I didn't know that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #32)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 06:02 PM

49. Nobody knew it.

I believe this is the first or second opinion posted here by SecularMotion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #29)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 03:32 PM

35. Having seen precious little commentary from you on the issue

your opinion about what I understand carries little weight.

The gun issue is far from settled in the political center or on the left, even though conventional wisdom here would lead us to believe otherwise. Having conceded the field to the right on firearms policy even the most rudementary information about guns or gun policy is likely to sound like a"right wing talking point". Most of the anti gun contributions to this group betray a breathtaking ignorance about the simple reality of firearms; what they can and cannot do, how they work, or how to use them. Given such dependence on disembodied ideology rather than practical experience, is it any wonder so much of what should be common knowledge about guns is viewed as suspicious political witchery. Every DU poll I have seen indicates there are a lot of gun owning members here. Since they own guns, I doubt they share your interpretation of the Second Amendment. And even if they do, what makes them right? Or do you just accept an ideology whole cloth without any consideration at all?

Perhaps if you spent more time searching for information about guns rather than anti gun hyperbole, and actually attempt to discuss the material you post, there won't be such an information deficit around here. Let's see how much you understand.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #29)

Fri Aug 24, 2012, 03:09 AM

80. How would any of us know your positions?

Google dumps don't lend much understanding of the mind of a poster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #29)

Sat Aug 25, 2012, 02:21 PM

93. +1. You summed it up pretty well.

As much as the pro-carry extremists like to call everyone else an "anti", most Dems do not oppose individual gun ownership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 02:47 PM

21. Group and individual smears and insults are on ongoing problem

 

While most of us in the Gungeon have a thick skin, many do not. Especially newcomers, they feel slighted and are scared to participate in the conversation for fear of being called names or smeared in some other way.

The lack of civility in these forums should not be ignored, but no view point should be censored either. The insults and smears need to come to an end. The obvious trolls should be dealt with as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 03:33 PM

36. How about banning members who consistently insult?

A list of prohibited words and phrases would be of little use. They would simply invent new ones. Instead I would like to see behaviors banned. There are certain regular posters here who almost never engage in civil discussion but only engage in insults, smears, and baiting. They never engage in civil discussion but instead respond to all attempts towards discussion with them by spewing more venom. They do not contribute to the group but tend to make the group "sucky" and they should be shown the door.

Also, the repeated behavior of google-dumping should be lead to being banned.

Give them a warning first and if they don't clean up their act then a time-out, then a longer time-out, then a permanent ban.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #36)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 04:51 PM

43. I was not looking for a specific list per say...

...but getting a general feel for what should and should not be allowed.

For example: any term that implies one's belief on this topic is a mental illness defect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #43)

Sat Sep 8, 2012, 10:25 AM

102. The issue seems incredibly simple to me, krispos42. It's argumentum ad hominem.

 

This forum often sees attempts to pass off blatant individual or group smears by couching the terms in not so subtle ways.

I can name one classic from several years ago by a prolific contributor who ultimately got banned from DU for a chronic pattern of bad behavior and harsh comments on certain issues not related to firearms.

The person in question was called out by the mods for referring to people as "lunatic asswipes."

I believe one post with that term was deleted. But the next day he started accusing people of "lunatic asswipe behavior," "lunatic asswipe talking points," etc. Switching from noun to adjective or adverb does not remove the core insult.

To me, that is obviously still an argumentum ad hominem. The term became a source of a great deal of discussion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=80724&mesg_id=80724

I say zero tolerance for brinksmanship in the use of ad hominems. If you can't make a point without insulting someone or associating the person with an undesirable group such as the KKK, then maybe you don't have a point.

And for the record I am not an NRA member, but I have no problem with anyone using technical information provided by the NRA or presenting any actual published opinion of the NRA for discussion. But trying to put down a PERSONAL opinion with which you disagree as an "NRA talking point" (or "right-wing talking point") without a reference to a verifiable source, to me is an ad hominem attack and should not be tolerated.

In other words, don't accuse people of using NRA talking points unless you can prove that what the person wrote actually is from published NRA political opinion. Not technical information provided by the NRA, not something you think the NRA might have said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 03:37 PM

37. Rather than worry about specific terminology...

Just lock the OP or ban those guilty of continuous egregious behavior. And number one continuous egregious behavior would be posting what some call "Google dumps" and what I simply call Spam.

If I were a Host, I would lock any OP with nothing but a link and a quote from an article. And after 10 or so locks from said OP, that person gets banned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 04:16 PM

40. After reading the threads...I think this is a shitty idea.

In fact, I say its extra-shitty now that I think about it, because isn't it better to let the ideas of people on every side stand on their own. If someone is a prick, they should have either thought more carefully about what they posted, in which case the party in the wrong should apologize, and if the poster thought that it was mean and didn't care it was mean, leave it to the posterity of the internet.

Since a number of folks seem to be interested in banning use of things they just don't like to have to deal with, how about we ban nothing and make it like television, if you don't like it, don't watch. We have ignore lists and the like if individuals find specific others' posts to be "undesirable".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 05:39 PM

46. Thank you for handling this very tough job

 

I think the jury system is the best approach. We submit to the decision of our peers on a case-by-case basis.

I oppose banning as censorship.

Sometime the 1st amendment must be used to defend the 2nd and sometime the 2nd amendment must be used to defend the 1sr.

Semper Fi,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 05:40 PM

47. I say do nothing.

 

The admins decided to let this jury system take over for the mods, probably to offload the workload and requirement for mods.

So be it.

If the juries decide that "hoplophobia" is cool beans, so be it. If the juries decide that "gun nuts" is cool beans, so be it.

Let the people decide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 06:02 PM

48. Let's cultivate thick skins & open debate

While i think that the intent is laudable, krispos42, I'm for keeping things more open here.

While I'm not shy about alerting on personal attacks now and then when I think someone has crossed the line, and even discussing the slippery standards that seem to be in play among juries when it comes to GC & RKBA posts (others see http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240133602 , a post which krispos42 kindly weighed-in on), I also think that creating a list of banned words will be counterproductive to healthy debate in this forum.

-app

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to appal_jack (Reply #48)


Response to krispos42 (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 06:18 PM

52. Just an observation.

Seems to me the most vehement opposer's of the suggested system are on the anti side.

Maybe they sense their rein of insults without repercussion is coming to an end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shadowrider (Reply #52)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 06:32 PM

54. They feel free to shit on the RKBA forum because the juries rarely hide posts from antis.

 

The jury system here is mob rule, not justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shadowrider (Reply #52)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 06:37 PM

56. "Rein of insults"



You are a delicate flower.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Reply #56)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 06:46 PM

58. And then there's "the most vehement opposer's"

What is it about apostrophes that is so confusing to gun fanatics?
(or should I say, apostrophe's)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 06:32 PM

55. Censorship mostly unnecessary. But if you must, use of term "Responsible" for public carriers

should be disallowed. There is nothing "responsible" about walking around in public with a gun.

And cheering every time some gun owner shoots someone -- especially when unarmed -- should be discouraged as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #55)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 11:40 PM

70. I'm not going down this path

I'm not trying to get viewpoints suppressed.


It's about civility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #55)

Fri Aug 24, 2012, 02:21 AM

77. How do you feel about Scotsmen?

Are they allowed to call themselves "true" even when they are anything but?

There is nothing "responsible" about walking around in public with a gun.

And yet the police do it all the time. Those irresponsible little rascals ...

And cheering every time some gun owner shoots someone -- especially when unarmed -- should be discouraged as well.

Yeah, that happens here all the time. Very distasteful. It puts the unicorns off their feed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #77)

Sat Sep 8, 2012, 10:35 AM

103. No True Scotsman puts beans in his haggis!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #55)

Fri Aug 24, 2012, 02:57 AM

79. Don't worry, Hoyt

You'll still be allowed to insinuate that posters here are bloodthirsty murderers-in-waiting hoping for their chance to blow away unarmed teens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Original post)

Thu Aug 23, 2012, 08:25 PM

64. For what it's worth ...

 

... this is a contentious issue amongst liberals.

Unlike a woman's right to choose, which is nearly unanimously supported by Democrats, the right to keep and bear arms, and how to bear those arms in public has yet to find it's place in the Democratic pantheon of ideas and no one position can be truly labeled liberal or conservative.

Rights and personal freedoms hold a sacred place in liberal thought as does the idea that the weak must be protected from the strong. In this case, there is legitimate argument that the ideals are sometimes in conflict. Some see the infringement of rights as the primary issue, others the imposition of physical force (the threat of having a gun used on them) as the only issue at hand. Either position is likely to be aggressively opposed by other people, all of whom can legitimately be called liberal Democrats.

Having one opinion doesn't make you a "gun-worshiping tea party member" just as having the other doesn't make you a "Hoplophobic gun-grabber with no regard to the US Constitution".

There is no obvious solution to this dilemma as it is a zero-sum game -- victory for one side means a loss for the other -- so emotions and rhetoric run high.

In practical terms, I propose letting this work it out for itself. Let people express their opinions / arguments without let or hindrance -- it's not like any of this is going to be solved by us in here. If someone is offended by the words expressed, they have the right to appeal to the Jury, or they can offend right back (within the boundaries of decency), or they can choose not to participate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Original post)

Fri Aug 24, 2012, 05:28 AM

84. A list of banned terms should be fun. I'd add "You people"

punishment should probably be a few warnings, followed by banning, then appealing to the hosts, finally whining on Meta.

"You people" is so Ann Romney.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustABozoOnThisBus (Reply #84)

Sat Sep 8, 2012, 10:15 AM

101. You guys always come up with the strangest ideas

 

So do you folks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Original post)

Sat Sep 8, 2012, 01:22 AM

95. As a noob here I am amazed at the group

 

insults and slander that are allowed to to be used. I find it VERY telling that those that slander and name call the most are the ones apposed to such a proposal. I think you can can come up with an appropriate list of terms that should not be used.

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Original post)

Sat Sep 8, 2012, 10:09 AM

98. Vulgarity has no place in civil discussion or debate. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Original post)

Sat Sep 8, 2012, 01:46 PM

106. I've been here longer than most and seen ad hominem attacks from both side. IMO if a person offends

 

you, then just use the "Ignore" feature.

DU in bygone days allowed one to not only ignore a designated person but to block that person from reading your posts.

Perhaps DU could reactivate that special feature of "Ignore", i.e. block someone from viewing one's posts, just for the Gun Control & RKBA (Group) as an alternative to censorship with its administrative burden?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Original post)

Sun Sep 9, 2012, 05:28 AM

108. If rules cannot be enforced fairly, better they not be enforced at all

Sure, we could try going back to a DU2-style list of banned terms, but honestly, all too often that resulted in posters using terms that meant the same thing as certain banned, but weren't subject to sanction because they weren't on the list in the specific form. If juries seem to think this sub-forum is not only beyond salvation as a venue for discussion of ideas rather than mud-slinging, but deserves to be, then I say to hell with juries; we accept the use of "gun nut" and "gun grabber" alike; and anyone who wants to dish out the abuse had better be prepared to take it in return.

Not my preferred outcome, but better no rules than lopsidedly enforced ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread