Re: New SCJM poster



"Steve Goldfarb" <slg@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

In <m3r6en3goa.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Don Levey <Don_SCJM@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

I understand what you're saying, but disagree. As has been
said, all Evil needs to flourish is for Good to do nothing.
While they certainly enjoy arguing with their targets, they
most desire using our words against us. "If even the Jews
agree," they start, "that they are a separate racial group,
then clearly they can't argue that their racial differences
make them unsuitable for <thing>." "But," someone might
argue, "they *don't* agree with that. The Holocaust was
about that sort of thing, wasn't it?" Anti-Semite continues:
"But of course they agree! Here's where they said it, on
their exclusive Jew-only newsgroup no less!"

They aren't "using our words against us." They don't have the power. All
they're doing is talking amongst themselves and having a good old time
insulting each other.

I forgot, they're just words, and words are impotent.

When I'm teaching children, what matters is what goes on in the
classroom. But sometimes what happens outside the classroom is
relevant in evaluating and handling in-class problems. Little
Yussel (sorry, Joel) is acting up: is it because he doesn't under-
stand the material, or perhaps his parents' impending divorce is
impacting the behaviour. The misbehaviour is the same in either
case, but what I do about it is different

When you're teaching children, those children are your responsibility.
We're not your children, Don. We're not your responsibility. I appreciate
your motives but they're misplaced.

We are all responsible for each other. I remember hearing that
somewhere.

True, that's looking for causes rather than general background.
But if someone is bent on taking my words and bending them to
their purposes, I think I should know about it. "Doesn't change
anything" doesn't wash here. One could make that same argument
supporting people who secretly videotape people in the changing
rooms of clothing stores. If they don't know about it, then
how are they being harmed?

If you want to know about it, then you're free to search via Google Groups
and check. I do that from time to time. It's easy enough if you care.
Then, you'll know. Fine. And if you wish, you can deal with it there, or
via email, or whatever you want. All I'm saying is don't bring it back
here.

What do you mean by "bringing it back"? I might perhaps agree that
bringing those actual posts into this forum would possibly be wrong,
but I don't agree that telling people here that it's happening is
wrong.

Look, I choose not to go to Basra. However, I do read news accounts
of what goes on there. Just because I choose not to put myself through
that risk, and I choose not to bring that fighting into my own home,
is no reason why I should demand that the news programs, newspapers,
and internet news sites stop reporting what is going on there.

Those in charge DO evaluate what they're saying here. If the moderators
wish to consider external sources, they're free to do so and we'd be none
the wiser, would we?

True, but don't you think that this should be a little more transparent?
There have been complaints about moderation for quite a while, and though
it's quite possible that they're doing it "right" (for varying definitions
of "right") behind the scened I know that some people would be more
comfortable knowing that this is happening and that it's more of a policy.

Actually, no - generally I'm pro-transparency but in this particular case
I think it's better to keep for them to keep silent.

I think it should be transparent for two reasons:
1) It becomes more of a deterrent if it's known that this is done, and
2) It becomes less likely that moderators will be accused of abusing
their privilege.

Bringing it here keeps the rest of us in the loop. As some are
prone to saying, you can always skip the threads. Were there
a regular policy about this, then someone who notices something
like it and brings it to the attention of the group would be doing
a service. The mods can't be everywhere and do everything, but
such help could assist them in the decision-making process.

"The loop" is the problem. Most of us don't want to be in the loop. If
people stop bringing it back here, then there IS NO LOOP.

Remember that you're not obligated to read those threads, just
as I'm not obligated to watch the TV news, read the papers, or
go to certain internet sites.

THat's not quite what I'm saying. I should have stressed:
We are concerned with *content* here. When the content is
questionable, I don't believe it unreasonable to consider
other content the poster has made elsewhere to better judge
the nature of the content posted here.

No, I disagree. If you can't tell then it doesn't matter. They're
moderators not our mothers - when in doubt let it through, and if it
doesn't smell right then we ought not respond.

Again, I disagree. Here's an extreme example:
Someone comes here as a new poster, and asks for suggestions on how
to set up a Jewish childcare center. Based upon what you're suggesting,
the mods wouldn't be seeing the posts that same user made to the NAMBLA
support group, and people would be offering all sorts of helpful
suggestions ('cause that's what we do) for how to set up the child-prey
center.

Those are the risks we take in a free society.

So you're opposed to background and CORI checks on childcare
workers? After all, it's a risk that we take, and when in doubt
let them through...

Or, if you simply look at the group that they posted to, but not
the *content*, you'd be banning them because they posted their
_anti_-NAMBLA rant to that group. Neither works.

If we feel the need to protect ourselves against such people, then the
criterion of "posted to group x" is as good as any and better than most.

Again, I disagree. It is exactly like saying "visited country X,
nt allowed in here." But, for example, we have many people who
have visited Iraq and Afganistan - and even engaged in military
activity - should we not let them into the US?

I disagree. I think he thinks he wins when he can "pull one over"
on us. I think he thinks he wins when he can gather info from
"enemy territory" to bring home to his little friends to laugh over
in a self-congratulatory circle-jerk.

Who cares?

If so, you're contributing significantly to it by speculating on
his motives. And by opposing Susan and Cindy, which he also seems
to want.

Who cares?

Clearly, you do. You're spending a lot of time and energy telling
everyone else why they shouldn't be spending a lot of time and energy
discussing the matter. I'm sorry, Steve, but you're reminding me
of my 5-year-old right now, carrying around a book or toy and making
a point of telling everyone he sees that he doesn't like it. OK, so
put it down. If we want to read that book in this house, let us read it;
it doesn't mean you have to. There's no requirement to read every thread
or every post.

We now know how to respond. Those of us who choose not to visit that
sewer are none the wiser when one of its denizens comes here. And we,
who are prone to giving the benefit of the doubt, fall right into the
snare when presented with a question or post which is ambiguous and
could go either way.

If we choose not to visit the sewer, then we don't want to know. If we
want to know, we should scan the sewer. I don't need any self-imposed list
moms or troll baiters - whatever their motiviation - bringing the circle
jerk here.

You're taking two extremes in a situation which clearly isn't black and
white; see my discussion of Basra above. And remember that you're being
as much of a list mom as anyone, trying to tell others how to behave.
If you don't like it, drop it, but don't complain when others here happen
to disagree and feel that it's a legitimate topic of discussion.

--
Don Levey If knowledge is power,
Framingham, MA and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: email server uses spam filters; mail sent to salearn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
will be used to tune the blocking lists.
.