Consensus: "deleting posts in the GLBT forum"

[Behind the Aegis]

From the I think it's time to talk about some ideas... thread, Skinner asked us to come to a consensus about three items. I read the thread many times, and I am not sure I could even gather a consensus. Therefore, I thought, well, put it in a more direct form. I am creating three threads for each of the three points. What will be different about this thread is this one will be divided into a "pro" and "con" sub-thread. After, let's say a week, then I suggest we put it to a vote in a poll, with the "pro/con" thread as a reference point. Confused?

This thread will have two posts by me as #1 and #2 (hopefully) which will say "pro" and "con". Under those subthreads, people will present arguments for or against the particular topic. I feel it might be easier to create a bullet list if people wrote their post and ended it with a bullet point summary.

Example:

I am for deleting posts in this forum because it will just add to the animosity. I have seen too many examples of hateful remarks (examples). It really just makes this place a sad place to read and the topic is lost and becomes a flamefest.

• contributes to animosity
  
• flamefests

After people have had their say, then I suggest creating a poll to vote on the topic, with the list of pros and cons. Once this is done, then we can present something to Skinner.

Let's see how it goes....

1. Should Democratic Underground be deleting posts in the GLBT forum that you perceive to be homophobic, or should they remain on the forum so you can respond to them? (Note: DU would continue to delete posts that violate other rules, including our civility rules, no matter who posts them.)

See also: Consensus: "forum where GLBT DUers and African-American DUers can have a dialogue"

See also: Consensus: "create a new "forum liaison" position for the GLBT forum "

[Behind the Aegis]

1. Pro: "deleting posts in the GLBT forum"

[William769]

5. Pro.

I nor anyone else has to see it. The subconscious mind is very powerful, even though you may not think it bothers you, guess again.

[closeupready]

7. Pro, because it's like threads where people post fascist

propaganda from other websites - WHO CARES?! I already KNOW many people hate me because I'm gay. I don't need to come here and be demoralized by my own side, whether or not it's intentional. I'm generally in favor of deleting, with exceptions made on a case-by-case basis. No I can't think of any exceptions to that, but I don't believe in absolutes, so FWIW.

[Lyric]

11. Strongly Pro

There are many people who want GLBT to be a safe place, free of that kind of poison. There's plenty of opportunity for confronting homophobia out in the "big" forums, and frankly, that's a MUCH bigger audience. If the point of confrontation is for uninvolved parties to see, read, and be educated by it, then the most effective avenue for that sort of debate is out THERE...not in here. Meanwhile, the GLBT members who come here to get away from that sort of ugliness should have a place that's clean and safe.

I strongly vote for this.

[yardwork]

13. Pro - but only because the rules should be applied equally all over DU.

Personally, I am not much in favor of deleting things or banning people unless they are so over the top obvious that they've got to go. We see where a decade's worth of efforts to run DU by applying ever-more-stringent rules has gotten us. The sad truth is that misunderstood minorities usually suffer the most even when people attempt to apply rules fairly. With the best will in the world, many moderators and admins aren't going to recognize the insidious forms of homophobia, including taunting and devaluing gay posters, but they sure can tell when a gay poster finally loses it after enduring years of bullying. For that reason alone I would prefer that DU stop trying to enforce a bunch of rules and just let the fur fly.

We can take care of a homophobe - especially an insidious, sneaky, under the radar homophobe - better than any group of mods or admins. The best way to ensure that DU be relatively free of homophobia would be to let the members here speak freely. Let the homophobes' posts stand, but also let the responses stand. It's very educational for everybody. And the bullies won't last long when they're no longer protected by misguided moderation that protects them and bans their critics.

However, unless this rule is applied all over DU, there's no reason to allow homophobic posts to stand while deleting all other kinds of uncivil posts. That will guarantee that our responses are deleted while the homophobes' posts remain untouched. That would be the worst approach.

[stevenleser]

24. How about having the subject and body replaced with a moderator description of what was written

The offensive post is replaced, but there is no guesswork of what was said and there is backup when references need to be made to offensive posts.

[Behind the Aegis]

2. Con: "deleting posts in the GLBT forum"

[William769]

6. Con.

None.

[Smarmie Doofus]

12. Con: 1. We already have a "safe haven" It's Called the GLBT Activists..

... Forum. No one goes there. ( Or so I hear. I don't go there either.)

2. There is and always will be disagreement over what constitutes an objectionable post. DU rules already place should be enforced to ban *blatant* homophobia.

3. There aren't enough non-glbt posts in the forum as a whole to justify a special policy that pertains only to this forum.

4. Banning speech by people who don't agree with the prevailing view here that full-scale implementation of complete GLBT equality must NEVER, *EVER* be deferred or back-burnered even temporarily no matter what the larger repercussions might be, sets a horrible free speech precedent.

In summary:

1; "safe haven" - we have it already;

2: not clear-cut what posts are "deletable";

3: there isn't much non-glbt activity in the forum to begin with;

4: bad free speech precedent.

[davidinalameda]

18. I've never even heard of it

and I like to think I'm fairly well informed since I've been here for freaking ever

[Smarmie Doofus]

20. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=412

[Creideiki]

16. It seems that too many of the deleted posts aren't the attacks on LGBT people

but the posts that the attacks draw. It makes it too easy for people to gay-bait.

[Creideiki]

17. On the rare occasion an actual homophobic post is removed,

it becomes yet another instance of, "What homophobia? There's no homophobia here!"

The dog whistle posts remain, but most straight people are too tone deaf to recognize the insults. (Like the post elsewhere that elevates civil rights for LGBT people once again to the level of "pony".)

[Very_Boring_Name]

19. The problem with letting posts remains becomes "how do we know this user was punished"

I heard an idea where homophobic posts can remain, with a red moderator note saying something like "This post is remaining to demonstrate what is not acceptable behaviour on DU"

[RKP5637]

22. That's an interesting idea!!! n/t

[ThomCat]

23. I like that idea.

As an alternative to outright deleting a post, put a "watermark" or some other obvious mark on the post from the moderator that permanently indicates that it is left up only as a visible bad example of how not to act.

That would serve a positive purpose.

[stevenleser]

25. I prefer bigoted remarks against anyone removed with a moderator description like:

"So and so used the n/f/s word and that is considered bigoted by the moderators and DU community"

or

"So and so advocated for less than equal rights for gays thus his remarks were removed"

or

"So and so used typical stereotypes against jews/gays/african americans/hispanics by saying something along the lines of..."

[Cronus Protagonist]

3. Other: Whatever else you think about this issue

I can see instances where deleting or not deleting would be appropriate and inappropriate and a broad brush approach that begins with a false dichotomy is sure to be disliked by all.

Can't we all just get along, and let the moderators decide which ones cross over the boundary?

[William769]

4. Like the last time?

[Cronus Protagonist]

8. I don't see anything wrong here

It's not a free speech forum. It has limits that are set by the site owners. Moderators work under their guidelines and it seems to work ok most of the time. I see no need to fix it. Is DU biased against gay folk? Of course not.

[mitchtv]

9. well just continue to not pay attention

and no one will miss your opinion

[William769]

10. Search feature is a persons best friend.

Busted!

[Smarmie Doofus]

14. Kick

[TriMera]

15. Pro. n/t

[Smarmie Doofus]

21. kick

[beyurslf]

26. Con.

No, the DU should not "be deleting posts in the GLBT forum that you perceive to be homophobic" because that is a pretty broadly brushed stroke there. Is that every post that anyone on the DU finds homophobic? Is there a vote? Do you need a certain post count in order for your opinion to matter? Is there a test to prove your gayness?

Many of my friends are offended by "queer" but my son uses it all the time to describe himself and his friends. Is he homophobic?

I think if someone is going off on a rant and calling someone names, it is obviously wrong and should be deleted. But, the DU already has rules for this so why make a new one?

I tell my kids that the world has lots of mean people in it and sometimes those people will do or say something mean. We can't run around all upset about it every time it happens though or we would never stop complaining about all the meanies out there. While we whined about it, we would miss all the good folks all around us though. This is even more true on an online forum where people are nameless, faceless posts. We can choose to find the good folks on here or we can choose to focus on the small minority of bad folks. I have been lurking around on here for a long time. The GLBT forum is always my first stop. I appreciate so much all of the information and support and positive feelings on this forum. Yeah, I see the bad apples out there too, disrupting, being mean. I just choose to move onto someone more uplifting most of the time.

I know I don't post on here a lot. I do read here most every day. Maybe my vote shouldn't count or should weigh less heavily in deciding what to do. That's okay too, I suppose. Chances are, either decision won't change what I do on here much every day.

Again: Con.
1. Rules in place already
2. Choose something more positive
3. Undefined perceptions used to make rule