...I've never "alerted" on anyone, and I've only voted once to "hide" a comment. It was a nasty racial slur against President Obama. But I was ambivalent about "hiding" even that because I WANT TO KNOW what people are posting, and get the whole picture of their views, biases, level of nastiness, level of brilliance or whatever. That is the point of "free speech," it seems to me. You've got to hear a wide range of political opinions--even including vitriol and name-calling--to reach your own conclusions about what is good public policy and who to support for pubic office. In the old "Enlightenment" argument, free speech permits the good ideas to rise to the top and elevate the discussion and are eventually accepted by the majority; the bad ideas can be seen for what they are, in a free discussion, and will drift downward and be rejected.
Yeah, it's an ideal, but it's worth thinking about when someone says something that you strongly disagree with, or that you hate, or that you consider a lie. Isn't it better to answer them than to put them on "ignore" or vote to "hide" their remarks, or get trigger happy with "alerts"?
I made an exception for overt and quite nasty racism, because I think that racial hatred is the bane of our society. Aside from stealing all this land from the Native Americans with bloody wars, the ONLY issue that has brought us to civil war as a society has been race, specifically whites using blacks as slaves. Racism is an affliction that is still very much with us. The legacy of slavery is still very much with us. We've had many bloody conflicts--for instance, the bosses and owners against the workers and labor unions, or the KKK violence against blacks in the post-civil war era through the era of official segregation (and on into the present)--but it never brought about all out civil war, with vast armies slaughtering each other. So racial slurs have a particularly ominous resonance.
But I STILL half regret that jury vote, because the racial slur told us SO MUCH about the poster who made it.
I wish there was a better way to regulate DU--to keep it civil and to disallow items like racial slurs--without "hiding" things. For instance, remember from history what a "pillory" is, or a "stock":
The pillory was a device made of a wooden or metal framework erected on a post, with holes for securing the head and hands, formerly used for punishment by public humiliation and often further physical abuse. The pillory is related to the stocks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillory
Stocks are devices used internationally, in medieval, Renaissance and colonial American times as a form of physical punishment involving public humiliation. The stocks partially immobilized its victims and they were often exposed in a public place such as the site of a market to the scorn of those who passed by. Also, people threw food that was mainly rotten at the accused.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stocks
We could have a pillory or stock ICON that people could "throw" rotten fruit at, metaphorically. Leave the bad post or comment as is, but have a jury decide whether or not to place a pillory or stock icon next to the post, and have a counter for the number of people who agree that the comment or post should be pilloried.
This way you wouldn't have to dig out what was said that a jury found bad, and you ALSO give the one whose comment has been voted a "pillory" the chance, within the thread, to defend themselves. We can then judge for ourselves whether or not the jury was unfair.
Or maybe even have a counter and an un-counter. If enough people hit the un-counter, the "pillory" goes away.
One problem with the jury system as it is, is that injustice DOES occur, and there is no recourse. Also, the "hides" can result in getting a "ban," even a permanent "tombstoning."
I recognize that this is a private web site, and that the owners desire civil discourse. I prefer civil discourse myself but I also value uncivil discourse because of what it teaches us about the character and views of the uncivil one.
= new reply since forum marked as read
