Author Topic: One-Strike System for Intolerant Posts [Updated 4/20]  (Read 5431 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Angelnypr

  • Pink Rican Gay Tayra/Hutia
  • Orange Level
  • *
  • Posts: 167
  • Candies: 22
  • League of Legends and Female Rappers 8)
  • Fursona Species: Tayra/Hutia Hybrid
Re: Poll: One-Strike System for Intolerant Posts
« Reply #20 on: September 24, 2015, 05:00:33 pm »
But it still doesn't make sense to me that it isn't being with everyone, even though 'cis hate' is rare as you say. I'm not sure why the ruling has to be explicitly for minorities when it's just so much simpler to say " Hey don't be a dick to people for what they are. "
Clarified: EX: if a someone calls a white person a slur for their race, thats not right and they'd probs get the penalty lmao

But if someone is talking about how theyre persecuted by a majority group, or are talking about issues they have with that majority group and their oppressive behaviors is not bashing. Majority groups often try to find ways to make conversations about themselves, like the fallacies of reverse racism, and white women being 100% oppressed thinking they dont have privilege for being white, or even the most ridiculous things ive heard like people having straight pride in compensation for gay pride?? Or if a conversation by a minority is criticizing the majority group and their oppressive behaviors, majority groups often get defensive and take it as if its an offensive like the "not all white people, not all cis people, not all straight people, not all men" "omg your generalizing don't generalize if you don't wanna be generalized, thats so offensive" like no. . Unless someone is coming at you personally with a bunch of slurs or is being prejudice to a majority group in a derogatory fashion it isnt bashing. People who do, do that should be penalized and probs banned if it keeps going.
  • Pronouns: He/Him/His

"No Tea. No Shade"

Offline copb.phoenix

  • So long and goodnight
  • Purple Level
  • *
  • Posts: 2229
  • Candies: 114
    • FurAffinity - copb_phoenix
Re: Poll: One-Strike System for Intolerant Posts
« Reply #21 on: September 24, 2015, 05:03:45 pm »
On one paw, the tendency of LGBT people to become disenfranchised with religion (and really any "traditional" model of ... thought? spirituality? life?) because that's a fairly common theme is a point I can give without much reservation. That would be pretty much the entire reason that you're not going to hear someone from that community cite the Bible in such arguments - why you're not likely to hear "you're going to hell because you're straight". Similar points are not at all in dispute.

On the other paw... should someone be degraded because they're cisgender, straight, white, male, whatever majority or "power group" you want to select... It has to be treated exactly the same as bashing minorities. If it isn't treated the same way then the situation is unfair and the playing field is uneven here the opposite direction of everyday life for most of us.

I'm all for balancing the playing field. I fall into the net of people that would presumably be covered by this as someone who's not exactly the same sex and gender. I implore you to consider it being applied with perfect equality if you're going to put this in place. We cannot claim to be any better than the people who constantly beat us down if we take any opportunity to beat them down any lower than we are.

I believe you are correct in saying minority groups face a harder time in far too many ways; regardless, if this is the case, this rule should protect minority groups more by default if it's written to be equally applied because those will be the ones that are generally attacked more. Over time the number should bend itself towards equal application to both minority and majority groups if it's successful. If it's not, well, at least it will catch problem people quickly.
  • Flag - turing
  • Award - Beta Tester
Isn't this where...?

Offline ArtificialSweetener

  • "... follow out the happiest story—
  • Blue Level
  • *
  • Posts: 1223
  • Candies: 166
  • It closes with a tomb!”
    • DeviantArt - I-Eat-Elves
    • FurAffinity - ArtificialSweetener
    • Twitter - CarcinogenSugar
  • Fursona Species: Dog Mutt
Re: Poll: One-Strike System for Intolerant Posts
« Reply #22 on: September 24, 2015, 05:04:27 pm »
At first I voted yes because I do think the one strike policy is a good idea since I can remember an instance where someone repeatedly made homophobic comments and it took them months to get banned. However, I changed my vote because I have to agree I don't think hate of any kind should be allowed. Maybe it's just the way it's phrased but it really does make it sound like it's okay to be rude to non lgbt+ people, and that lgbt+ people can't insult or hurt cis gender or straight people.

This for example.
Ranting/posting about personal experiences will be allowed, as always; but attacking someone because of their religion will not.
I understand facing religious persecution and wanting to rant about it and I agree that should be allowed and can be done without being insulting. However this statement needs to go both ways! I have been mistreated by lgbt+ people, for my gender, sexuality, and other things. A minority group shouldn't be completely immune to criticism as they can still make mistakes. Though I understand why someone wouldn't be allowed to say directly homophobic comments. But you can criticize the lgbt+ community without hating it.

I can actually think of a specific instance on this site where someone posted about their personal experience with lgbt+ people mistreating others. That post was removed even though it didn't insult the community. Meanwhile lgbt+ people are allowed to criticize? It should at least go both ways. You should be able to talk about personal experience and not be censored as long as you aren't being offensive.

It does sound like it might create a bit of a hostile environment against people who aren't in the lgbt+ community and it might make them uncomfortable on this site.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2015, 05:10:24 pm by Wild Animal »
  • Pronouns: She/Her/Hers
“Stanzas” by Emily Brontë
My Skype is on my profile with other contact info. Don't hesitate to message me.

Offline Angelnypr

  • Pink Rican Gay Tayra/Hutia
  • Orange Level
  • *
  • Posts: 167
  • Candies: 22
  • League of Legends and Female Rappers 8)
  • Fursona Species: Tayra/Hutia Hybrid
Re: Poll: One-Strike System for Intolerant Posts
« Reply #23 on: September 24, 2015, 05:21:21 pm »
I think that people of minority groups can be criticized but it depends on what the criticism is. If your criticism is a rehashed stereotype that people are conditioned to believe already(because everyone has internalized biases believe it or not, whether you realize and choose to unlearn them is your issue) being reaffirmed, especially by a majority group, is just ignorant and damaging, regardless of whether it was written nicely with flowers everywhere. Otherwise go on. The "everything needs to be checked on a contextual basis" is for the fact that there are things majority groups find offensive, which are not, and are forms of silencing conversation. Doesn't mean a minority can bash a majority group and get away with it. Also many people saying cis hate, straight hate but no examples of what would be.
  • Pronouns: He/Him/His

"No Tea. No Shade"

Offline Meadow Whisper (Natasha)

  • ᎣᏏᏲ! I'm a horse now! ^.^
  • FT Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 4409
  • Candies: 397
  • Avatar by Fawn! :D
    • DeviantArt - lupiniastudios
    • FurAffinity - softpaw
    • Twitter - lupinia
    • Weasyl - softpaw
    • Lupinia Studios
  • Fursona Species: Chincoteague Pony
Re: Poll: One-Strike System for Intolerant Posts
« Reply #24 on: September 24, 2015, 05:22:07 pm »
This proposal is based on an idea/suggestion of mine.  And this is a very watered-down version of what I proposed.  So if you don't like this idea and want to blame someone for it, you can blame me.  The person who created the site, solely pays for it to exist, and wrote the existing rules.

This policy change can be summed up in one sentence: 

Furry Teens will prioritize marginalized people’s safety and mental health over privileged people’s comfort.

This site was first created to be a hands-off hangout spot, but it hasn't been that for over 10 years.  It's primary purpose is to be a place of support and safety for those who need it.  However, the original rules I wrote allow for a small number of people, who generally enjoy societally-privileged statuses, to disrupt that supportive, safe, comfortable atmosphere for a lot of members.  It happened slowly, but it happened nonetheless.

So, this is a site for all young furries, yes.  It's also a site where people who have the greatest need for support should feel as safe and supported as they need to.  And sure, that extends to people in majority/privileged positions in society.  However, when two peoples' need for support are in conflict, the less-privileged person will win.  Examples:  If an LGBT person vents about persecution from Christians, and a Christian feels offended, well, tough cookies.  If a Christian remarks about how they don't believe in same-sex marriage, however, or tries to "criticize" LGBT people as a group, they will definitely be penalized.

In a vacuum, that's not fair.  But this is not a vacuum, this is real life.  We live in real societies where inequality, persecution, and discrimination are shockingly rampant.  We've had members who were utterly terrified of being kicked out of their homes because of who they are; if they then have to hear the same offensive words on this site that they hear at home, because of "equality", then we have failed at our mission, and that's not equality.

So, yes; directly attacking someone will never be ok.  And we primarily want to support everyone.  But, treating all speech as "equal", in practice, means that the most privileged feel the most comfortable.  If this shift makes those who are more privileged feel uncomfortable, well, now you know how the rest of us feel on sites that don't specifically tip the scales in our favor.  AKA almost every other website on the planet.
  • Award - Beta Tester
  • Site Donor
  • Pride Flag - transgender
  • Pride Flag - gay
  • Pronouns: She/Her/Hers
Here is a horse I have made for you:
        |,\_/,\_
 ,-__/,   ,       )kk
.                     \,kkk
 \    ,___....--     \kkkk
           \               \kkkkk
             \               \kkkkk

Note:  I'm no longer actively involved in running this site, so while I welcome any personal messages, please do not contact me about account issues.  Please direct all such inquiries to Panda.  Thanks for all the years of awesome memories and friendship!  <3

Offline copb.phoenix

  • So long and goodnight
  • Purple Level
  • *
  • Posts: 2229
  • Candies: 114
    • FurAffinity - copb_phoenix
Re: Poll: One-Strike System for Intolerant Posts
« Reply #25 on: September 24, 2015, 05:39:03 pm »
This post exists chiefly to acknowledge that I read the preceding.

I hope that things go well; however, this move pulls us closer to a polarized stance on issues as opposed to sitting in the middle and trying to gravitate things to the middle. We cannot claim to be a haven for everyone if we favor one side over another.

Pretty well any other argument I'd bother to make has already been made relatively eloquently even for me early in the thread.
  • Flag - turing
  • Award - Beta Tester
Isn't this where...?

Offline Meadow Whisper (Natasha)

  • ᎣᏏᏲ! I'm a horse now! ^.^
  • FT Founder
  • *
  • Posts: 4409
  • Candies: 397
  • Avatar by Fawn! :D
    • DeviantArt - lupiniastudios
    • FurAffinity - softpaw
    • Twitter - lupinia
    • Weasyl - softpaw
    • Lupinia Studios
  • Fursona Species: Chincoteague Pony
Re: Poll: One-Strike System for Intolerant Posts
« Reply #26 on: September 24, 2015, 05:40:43 pm »
This post exists chiefly to acknowledge that I read the preceding.

I hope that things go well; however, this move pulls us closer to a polarized stance on issues as opposed to sitting in the middle and trying to gravitate things to the middle. We cannot claim to be a haven for everyone if we favor one side over another.

Pretty well any other argument I'd bother to make has already been made relatively eloquently even for me early in the thread.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html
  • Award - Beta Tester
  • Site Donor
  • Pride Flag - transgender
  • Pride Flag - gay
  • Pronouns: She/Her/Hers
Here is a horse I have made for you:
        |,\_/,\_
 ,-__/,   ,       )kk
.                     \,kkk
 \    ,___....--     \kkkk
           \               \kkkkk
             \               \kkkkk

Note:  I'm no longer actively involved in running this site, so while I welcome any personal messages, please do not contact me about account issues.  Please direct all such inquiries to Panda.  Thanks for all the years of awesome memories and friendship!  <3

Offline Oliver, the Icy Dragon

  • Yeet
  • Green Level
  • *
  • Posts: 920
  • Candies: 113
  • One Boot Club
  • Fursona Species: Furred Dragon
Re: Poll: One-Strike System for Intolerant Posts
« Reply #27 on: September 24, 2015, 05:43:25 pm »
This proposal is based on an idea/suggestion of mine.  And this is a very watered-down version of what I proposed.  So if you don't like this idea and want to blame someone for it, you can blame me.  The person who created the site, solely pays for it to exist, and wrote the existing rules.

This policy change can be summed up in one sentence: 

Furry Teens will prioritize marginalized people’s safety and mental health over privileged people’s comfort.

This site was first created to be a hands-off hangout spot, but it hasn't been that for over 10 years.  It's primary purpose is to be a place of support and safety for those who need it.  However, the original rules I wrote allow for a small number of people, who generally enjoy societally-privileged statuses, to disrupt that supportive, safe, comfortable atmosphere for a lot of members.  It happened slowly, but it happened nonetheless.

So, this is a site for all young furries, yes.  It's also a site where people who have the greatest need for support should feel as safe and supported as they need to.  And sure, that extends to people in majority/privileged positions in society.  However, when two peoples' need for support are in conflict, the less-privileged person will win.  Examples:  If an LGBT person vents about persecution from Christians, and a Christian feels offended, well, tough cookies.  If a Christian remarks about how they don't believe in same-sex marriage, however, or tries to "criticize" LGBT people as a group, they will definitely be penalized.

In a vacuum, that's not fair.  But this is not a vacuum, this is real life.  We live in real societies where inequality, persecution, and discrimination are shockingly rampant.  We've had members who were utterly terrified of being kicked out of their homes because of who they are; if they then have to hear the same offensive words on this site that they hear at home, because of "equality", then we have failed at our mission, and that's not equality.

So, yes; directly attacking someone will never be ok.  And we primarily want to support everyone.  But, treating all speech as "equal", in practice, means that the most privileged feel the most comfortable.  If this shift makes those who are more privileged feel uncomfortable, well, now you know how the rest of us feel on sites that don't specifically tip the scales in our favor.  AKA almost every other website on the planet.

I'm sorry but this argument is absurd. I'm essentially gay, gender fluid, so I'm pretty much in the minority here. I've gotten tons of flak for what I am, But I'm still going to say this is unreasonable. I will agree, spouting out religious, and hateful stuff towards people is absolutely absurd and should not be allowed, but what is being asked of here is completely biased. I'm fine with this going in to place as long as it's also stated that generalizing cis people is also forbidden. There's nothing wrong with doing that at all, It doesn't matter how "Privileged" people are, a generalization is a generalization is a generalization, and it's wrong.
  • Pronouns: He/Him/His
Avatar art by Casino!

Offline lucien

  • i sold my hands for food
  • Purple Level
  • *
  • Posts: 2274
  • Candies: 204
  • so please feed me.
    • DeviantArt - m0rtuum
    • FurAffinity - spazzeh
    • Twitter - onlygxdforgives
  • Fursona Species: african lion
Re: Poll: One-Strike System for Intolerant Posts
« Reply #28 on: September 24, 2015, 05:46:51 pm »
i think this is definitely something that would be helpful on the forum. i havent seen a lot of whats been going on here lately, but from past experiences, there are for sure times that this couldve been a great asset.
i encourage it.
  • Award - Beta Tester
  • Pride Flag - transgender
  • Pride Flag - gay
  • Pronouns: he/him

Offline copb.phoenix

  • So long and goodnight
  • Purple Level
  • *
  • Posts: 2229
  • Candies: 114
    • FurAffinity - copb_phoenix
Re: Poll: One-Strike System for Intolerant Posts
« Reply #29 on: September 24, 2015, 06:00:10 pm »
-snip-

Fallacy Fallacy.*

If we're to be a place for everyone, then we cannot be a place that specifically shelters one group over another. I appreciate the need for marginalized groups to have policies to tip things in their favor, but I neither feel that this is such a policy or that this is likely to win any allies so much as aggravate the mutual general mistrust between pro-LGBT and anti-LGBT camps; and this is the danger of taking a side, is that it's inherently going to encourage that line to draw itself in the sand.

You want to be pro-LGBT and go ahead and sweep other minorities and vulnerable groups up into that, and I've not the slightest problem against that at a personal level. I can fire off the myriad of personal reasons you and I both have to support such a move without blinking. That doesn't mean that it stands in line with what I believed to be your mission in founding this place.

And so your problem is a mission statement - you seemed to want to found a place for all young furs, not just those in vulnerable circumstances or from vulnerable backgrounds. And you're opening up an avenue that would make it a place for really the minorities. Where not everyone is equal. I'm sure minorities will be happy - and you can have that! That's admirable and great! They need a place to go and be themselves without fear of persecution! ... It's just not what I was under the impression we were here to do.

You think that because I want to keep us as a place that stands the middle ground my argument is fallacious? I think you may have failed to consider the argument at all, or perhaps that I simply failed to indicate my underlying drives.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2015, 06:05:31 pm by copb.phoenix »
  • Flag - turing
  • Award - Beta Tester
Isn't this where...?

Offline Alfred Alfer

  • We've shielded you from the painful truth!
  • Red Level
  • *
  • Posts: 53
  • Candies: 9
    • FurAffinity - corruptcanine
  • Fursona Species: Fangtooth Eel
Re: Poll: One-Strike System for Intolerant Posts
« Reply #30 on: September 24, 2015, 06:01:33 pm »
I think everyone should just be nice to each other and everyone deserves the same amount of respect. I'm a very strong believer in this, but I will say one thing.

The entire world caters to heterosexuals/cisgenders. The world is beginning to accept other sexualities and genders, and what I see happening is a lot of het/cis people are beginning to think that this means we are "taking over". Privileged people have the whole world for them, LGBT (and other groups including certain religions) really have limited places. There are definitely more than there were 10 years ago, by far.

On this:

Quote
Furry Teens will prioritize marginalized people’s safety and mental health over privileged people’s comfort.

I think some of you are reading it as "we value LGBT/mentally ill/ect more than cis/het/whatever" when that's just not true? Though, I don't believe it's the nicest way to put it...

We need a safe place for the oppressed people. The rest of the world is a safe place for cis/het/mentally sound/ect people. Cis/het/ect people have MANY other places to go, people that don't fall into this category really don't have much.

So if you're spouting homophobic stuff in a place that's considered a 'safe place' for the oppressed factions, then go somewhere else.

I can't tell if I'm explaining my thoughts very well, my mind is very jumbled right now, but I think I got the gist of it.
  • Pronouns: He/Him They/Them It/Its
We fight to serve YOU... The common man.

Offline Lance

  • Let's go!
  • Administrator
  • *
  • Posts: 1076
  • Candies: 100
  • A' suh dudes!
    • DeviantArt - Spartan329
    • FurAffinity - LanceThyla
    • Twitter - Lancifur
    • Weasyl - Lance
    • My Tumblr.
  • Fursona Species: Thylacine
Re: Poll: One-Strike System for Intolerant Posts
« Reply #31 on: September 24, 2015, 06:08:14 pm »
I feel like it keeps being suggested that LGBT+ persons are going to be getting a special status as the gods of the forum, and this is not the case. While the health and safety are going to prioritise them over majority groups, it's more like this.

Imagine a kid is getting bullied at school for being gay despite school rules saying that any bullying will result in a detention. Bully continues bullying and gets a detention or two, but continues their behavior. School comes out and says that any homophobic behavior will result in a out of school suspension. Well, the bully's friends start asking, "Well what if the gay kid starts talking back and bullying the bully? It's not fair."

It comes down to, the rules that say that you cannot be an asshole to other people on the site are already in place, but occasionally we have a situation that arises where someone isn't being directly hateful but still making vague anti-LGBT remarks. This now allows us to have extra precedence in place to make decisions and act more resolutely.

As stated before if someone is being rude, no matter who towards, they are still in trouble. But try and realise that cis, White, straight, or male persons are not being murdered on a near daily basis for being who they are. So that is why we have created this rule, so that way teenagers of these minority groups can always have a safe space to talk with people of majority groups with 0 fear of hatred being allowed.

No I'm not calling any of you bullies, or a bully's friend, it was merely an example.
  • Award - Beta Tester
  • Flag - usa
  • Site Donor
  • Pride Flag - pansexual
  • Pride Flag - pansexual
  • Pronouns: He/Him/His

Offline ArtificialSweetener

  • "... follow out the happiest story—
  • Blue Level
  • *
  • Posts: 1223
  • Candies: 166
  • It closes with a tomb!”
    • DeviantArt - I-Eat-Elves
    • FurAffinity - ArtificialSweetener
    • Twitter - CarcinogenSugar
  • Fursona Species: Dog Mutt
Re: Poll: One-Strike System for Intolerant Posts
« Reply #32 on: September 24, 2015, 06:21:02 pm »
^
While I agree with the above and I think that all sounds well and good it really does make it sound like lgbt+ people can't be criticized at all. And no I don't mean saying you don't like gay people, that your religion is against it, or using "criticism" as a guise for an insult, because I don't think that should be allowed. I already thought it wasn't allowed which is why this rule change is confusing.

However it really does make it sound like lgbt+ people can't be criticized at all even if it is legitimate and not an insult pretending to be friendly criticism. Again I can think of a specific instance where a post was removed that was merely talking about someone's own experience with certain lgbt+ people criticizing straight cis people. It wasn't generalizing everyone yet it was still removed. I think it's unfair that lgbt+ people can rant about religion oppressing them and not vice versa, IF it is a legitimate complaint.
I am a member of the lgbt+ community and I have personally had problems with members of the community being hurtful to others and insulting me! I've complained about it, that doesn't mean I'm anti lgbt+
There needs to be room for friendly criticism  and personal rants I don't mean direct outspoken "My religion says being gay is wrong."

Edit: tried to clear some stuff up
« Last Edit: September 24, 2015, 06:29:49 pm by Wild Animal »
  • Pronouns: She/Her/Hers
“Stanzas” by Emily Brontë
My Skype is on my profile with other contact info. Don't hesitate to message me.

Offline copb.phoenix

  • So long and goodnight
  • Purple Level
  • *
  • Posts: 2229
  • Candies: 114
    • FurAffinity - copb_phoenix
Re: Poll: One-Strike System for Intolerant Posts
« Reply #33 on: September 24, 2015, 06:25:26 pm »
Peridot, this is pretty much the longest standing and most prominent place for furry teenagers; cis, white, male, etc people do indeed have plenty of places to go but when you factor in "furry" and "teenager" things narrow down in a hurry.



Lance, there's diametric messages being sent across the table here.

...
However, when two peoples' need for support are in conflict, the less-privileged person will win.  Examples:  If an LGBT person vents about persecution from Christians, and a Christian feels offended, well, tough cookies.  If a Christian remarks about how they don't believe in same-sex marriage, however, or tries to "criticize" LGBT people as a group, they will definitely be penalized.
...

This is a trivial example that we might expect to see and shows in veiled context that it's okay to show aggression towards Christians but not LGBT people. And granting this is in the context of persecution as we generally understand it, it's still a very clear line in the sand. A lot of Christians seem to misunderstand that the legal ruling had nothing to do with faith at the end of the day; when they say that they don't believe in same-sex marriage, they're speaking in their honest beliefs from a religious context. We're supposed to respect everyone's beliefs and yet we're going to say that can't be said here because it hurts LGBT people - in effect, we're supposed to respect everyone's beliefs... until they tread on LGBT people.

Honestly, I hate American Christianity. I really, REALLY hate it. I wake up, I go outside, I have to hear hurtful things between when I leave and when I get home. And I know this is why Natasha wants to put such a policy in place. I understand it.

But I don't believe we can say we're for everyone if this is how it's going to be. If it's okay to complain about one group and not another. While it's not an explicit religious bias, it shows up indirectly in terms of "you're an enemy of something I'm allied to, so you're definitely not something I'm going to choose to be friendly towards".

Yes, LGBT people look a lot like they're being given a special status.
  • Flag - turing
  • Award - Beta Tester
Isn't this where...?

Offline Kailyn

  • Yellow Level
  • *
  • Posts: 265
  • Candies: 16
    • DeviantArt - victobious
    • FurAffinity - victobious
    • Twitter - victobious
    • Weasyl - victobious
    • A Light in the Night
  • Fursona Species: Thylacine
Re: Poll: One-Strike System for Intolerant Posts
« Reply #34 on: September 24, 2015, 06:32:02 pm »
I haven't posted on here in... forever and I'm having a hard time articulating my thoughts on what some people are saying about this rule. I do want to say, though, that I am in favor of the rule and that there is a difference between criticizing someone who happens to be in the LGBT+ community and criticizing someone for being LGBT+.
  • Pride Flag - pansexual
  • Pronouns: they/them/their
♥Lancifur♥

Offline lucien

  • i sold my hands for food
  • Purple Level
  • *
  • Posts: 2274
  • Candies: 204
  • so please feed me.
    • DeviantArt - m0rtuum
    • FurAffinity - spazzeh
    • Twitter - onlygxdforgives
  • Fursona Species: african lion
Re: Poll: One-Strike System for Intolerant Posts
« Reply #35 on: September 24, 2015, 06:41:30 pm »
Peridot, this is pretty much the longest standing and most prominent place for furry teenagers; cis, white, male, etc people do indeed have plenty of places to go but when you factor in "furry" and "teenager" things narrow down in a hurry.



Lance, there's diametric messages being sent across the table here.

...
However, when two peoples' need for support are in conflict, the less-privileged person will win.  Examples:  If an LGBT person vents about persecution from Christians, and a Christian feels offended, well, tough cookies.  If a Christian remarks about how they don't believe in same-sex marriage, however, or tries to "criticize" LGBT people as a group, they will definitely be penalized.
...

This is a trivial example that we might expect to see and shows in veiled context that it's okay to show aggression towards Christians but not LGBT people. And granting this is in the context of persecution as we generally understand it, it's still a very clear line in the sand. A lot of Christians seem to misunderstand that the legal ruling had nothing to do with faith at the end of the day; when they say that they don't believe in same-sex marriage, they're speaking in their honest beliefs from a religious context. We're supposed to respect everyone's beliefs and yet we're going to say that can't be said here because it hurts LGBT people - in effect, we're supposed to respect everyone's beliefs... until they tread on LGBT people.

Honestly, I hate American Christianity. I really, REALLY hate it. I wake up, I go outside, I have to hear hurtful things between when I leave and when I get home. And I know this is why Natasha wants to put such a policy in place. I understand it.

But I don't believe we can say we're for everyone if this is how it's going to be. If it's okay to complain about one group and not another. While it's not an explicit religious bias, it shows up indirectly in terms of "you're an enemy of something I'm allied to, so you're definitely not something I'm going to choose to be friendly towards".

Yes, LGBT people look a lot like they're being given a special status.

theres nothing wrong with wanting to keep LGBT+ members of the forum safe. thats what the rule is trying to do. they get enough shit from the world as it is; they should be allowed to be safe on the forum. that includes being able to openly vent their frustrations with cis/het people.

really... who cares if LGBT+ are being given special status? they deserve more of a protection than the others do. society isnt always nice to them, especially growing up and trying to find themselves. i fail to see why keeping them safe, and keeping bigots quiet, is a bad thing.
  • Award - Beta Tester
  • Pride Flag - transgender
  • Pride Flag - gay
  • Pronouns: he/him

Offline guapo

  • we can start and finish wars
  • Blue Level
  • *
  • Posts: 1906
  • Candies: 289
  • we're what killed the dinosaurs
    • DeviantArt - teethpunk
    • FurAffinity - benzos
    • Twitter - mcfreaking
    • nice aesthetic!
  • Fursona Species: conepatus semistriatus
Re: Poll: One-Strike System for Intolerant Posts
« Reply #36 on: September 24, 2015, 06:44:34 pm »
in all honesty, i really like this rule.

it was stated pretty clearly in the header that this goes for all people, and bashing based on any sexuality/gender identity/religion is not okay. this has been a rule for a long time. i've said some not-so-nice things about cishet people, and i've been punished for it. i get my posts removed like anyone else would for saying the same about mogai people. there isn't special treatment going on here.

a couple months ago there were a handful of users who regularly posted homophobic, transphobic, and racist comments. however, as what they said were based on their religious and personal beliefs, many of these posts were allowed to stay up. this rule is so these events do not happen anymore. some people left the site (temporarily and for good) due to these posts being allowed.

as of now, this place is a safe spot for many different people of varying identities! however, as the rules currently are, the site is lacking in many resources for mogai members. if the feelings/comfort of non-marginalized people have to be compromised to make this a safe place for mogai members, so be it.
  • Award - Beta Tester
  • Pronouns: they/them/their
the dinosaurs choked on the dust
they died because we say they must

maybe i'll come back later
see ya

Offline ArtificialSweetener

  • "... follow out the happiest story—
  • Blue Level
  • *
  • Posts: 1223
  • Candies: 166
  • It closes with a tomb!”
    • DeviantArt - I-Eat-Elves
    • FurAffinity - ArtificialSweetener
    • Twitter - CarcinogenSugar
  • Fursona Species: Dog Mutt
Re: Poll: One-Strike System for Intolerant Posts
« Reply #37 on: September 24, 2015, 06:46:17 pm »
Also one example that was used was lgbt+ people being allowed to rant about oppression by religious groups. Would religious individuals be able to rant about being insulted by lgbt+ members? (while not insulting them)
Because honestly I'm not religious but some members of the lgbt+ community do bash religion which is just as unfair as religious people bashing lgbt+ people. Maybe it's just the way it's been phrased but it really does sound like it could be used to misconstrue any comments against lgbt+ individuals as comments against lgbt+ as a whole.

basically I agree with this
there is a difference between criticizing someone who happens to be in the LGBT+ community and criticizing someone for being LGBT+.
but I think these rules don't sound like they differentiate between the two.
  • Pronouns: She/Her/Hers
“Stanzas” by Emily Brontë
My Skype is on my profile with other contact info. Don't hesitate to message me.

Offline copb.phoenix

  • So long and goodnight
  • Purple Level
  • *
  • Posts: 2229
  • Candies: 114
    • FurAffinity - copb_phoenix
Re: Poll: One-Strike System for Intolerant Posts
« Reply #38 on: September 24, 2015, 06:47:41 pm »
-snip-

theres nothing wrong with wanting to keep LGBT+ members of the forum safe. thats what the rule is trying to do. they get enough shit from the world as it is; they should be allowed to be safe on the forum. that includes being able to openly vent their frustrations with cis/het people.

really... who cares if LGBT+ are being given special status? they deserve more of a protection than the others do. society isnt always nice to them, especially growing up and trying to find themselves. i fail to see why keeping them safe, and keeping bigots quiet, is a bad thing.

Because there are racists who aren't white, sexists who are neither men nor straight, etcetera. Because bigots exist on all sides and just because they're from a marginalized side shouldn't make it okay.

I have absolutely nothing against keeping LGBT members of the community safe. But when you arrange the deck stacked so that the things LGBT people can say can't be returned in kind by non-LGBT people, you have created a community not for furry teens but for LGBT furry teens.

PS, I'm surprised how many of us are coming out of the woodwork right here today.
  • Flag - turing
  • Award - Beta Tester
Isn't this where...?

Offline Oliver, the Icy Dragon

  • Yeet
  • Green Level
  • *
  • Posts: 920
  • Candies: 113
  • One Boot Club
  • Fursona Species: Furred Dragon
Re: Poll: One-Strike System for Intolerant Posts
« Reply #39 on: September 24, 2015, 07:13:29 pm »
I've calmed down a bit. I'm pretty much going to go with what Phoenix is saying here, What I find strange is that the simple fix of making it to where cis/het are also protected under this rule, which will only change just that and not harm any other parties, is dodged like a bullet. The staff seems to just restate how it's simply giving LGBT more protection, and I'm totally fine with that, 100%. It's just odd how almost the entire question if that will be added into the ruling is avoided.

So I'm going to plainly ask this to the staff. Will cis/het generalizations and criticisms also be regarded the same as other minority groups?
  • Pronouns: He/Him/His
Avatar art by Casino!