The pope resigns

 

 

 

No agenda there eh.  

 

 

 

Oh it's both more then just suggested in the historical record past and present. The allegations and facts are there for analysis. And even moral judgement not to mention legal. And as such....subject to criticism.

 

 

However the fact also remains that in keeping with the Coc. That same criticism is expected to be objective and in avoidance of rudeness and deliberate attempts at offending the sensibilities of not only the subject in question. But the membership, who might be offended at large, as well.

 

 

 

Why.... should be obvious.

 

 

 

 

There is a great deal of difference between honest attempts to analyze and criticism reference performance versus attempted characterization that's offensive; which often occurs as a result of attempts at what's termed sardonic or cynical humor. What makes it complex, is the inborn desire, or lack thereof, and legal acknowledgement and recognition of the actual purpose of the 1st Amendment or equivalent expressions of free speech. Versus deliberate or even possibly bigoted mis-representations, that can cause harm. And hence can be objected to as libel or slander and or offensive to a portion of the body at large no matter the minority-majority status. Even on a history forum.

Hate speech, while defendable under free speech, is still hate speech..... for example. And the associated consequences recognisable.

 

 

 

 

Iowa. in the case of a forum it's left to the staff to determine this. Assuming their attempting an honest effort to consistently enforce it. There will be always differences in how they arrive at that due to the subjective nature of their enforcement authority and their backgrounds and experience and even inherent bigotries involved. Ntl. it's expected.... that they remain as consistently objective, as possible, on the good ones. And avoid those expressions of inherent bigotries and postures and or needless attempts at characterizations that might be deliberately offensive and might or possibly be recognised by others. Staff and member at large alike. Not to say we all dont 'slip' because we do. But that's a desired exception not a pattern.

 

 

Why?

 

 

Makes for good order and a consistent non contentious environment.

 

 

And that provides for not just a objective environment but a historically accurate one as well. Not to mention one that promotes civility in discourse.

 

 

 

 

 

In the case above, I view the original intent of the thread as cynical humor. Because frankly I cant prove otherwise. If I could...I would then comment appropriately. But.... if I accept the proposition I have just announced then I also have accepted the acknowledgement of the 1st Amd which protects cynical humor. And that no violation of our Coc occurred at this point.

 

 

 

When and where and how, I might have found it in violation of the coc, is another matter.

 

 

 

 

But lets take you and I for a final example. Lets presume, in a hypothetical sense, there has been an undercurrent of expressed or even verbalized propositions you and I are anti-Semites or anti-religious. Ie. Jew haters and Catholic bashers etc....iow. pick you complaint. Doesn't matter. Tho those will suffice. Lets even say that complaints have been made; that not only are we anti-Semites etc. but that a preponderance of our posts have been identified by others, as being anti-nationalistic and covertly or overtly bombastic and inflammatory in nature, as well.

 

 

What is our redress?

 

 

The answer?

 

 

Again.

 

 

Obvious.

 

 

Individually, first and foremost; having been advised of the complaints (presumably by staff or other members), in house or out, we would probably have toned down that which has proven offensive to others and avoided doing it again. Or at least not deliberately doing it again. Or we would have learned how to better express ourselves in such a manner to avoid interpretations and potential conflict.

 

 

 

If not?

 

 

 

Then presuming the standard actions of a history blog-forum...... the staff would be required (Assuming their not supporters of the same behavior and capable of  what's recognized as consistent enforcement on that blog-forum) to intervene.

 

 

The BL?

 

Up top.

 

I've told you before...criticise all you like. But remain wary of the verbalization and the effect it might have on those who would disagree. And do it as per the Coc. More importantly when they ask and or expect it, avoid the verbalizations that are offensive. We would hope that you or I do this out of respect for the other's experience or personal convictions that you or I might in turn would desire. Not because we endorse censorship. If you or anyone else is capable..there is indeed a way to do this.

If you want the opposite...an environment where consideration of others is of no importance and flaming and bashing and un-necessary ridicule is in vogue. And or constant rudeness and hyperbolic ranting in defense of an agenda is expected and encouraged...go elsewhere.

 

 

The only requirement here, as far as I'm concerned as a Mod and member, is..... that you and I etc. think...before engaging mouth or key stroke.

 

 

Because like it or not there is no totality of democracy in representation on a history blog-forum.

 

 

And if you or anyone else needs a refresher on that then see this:

 

 

 

Because while it addressed a different issuse...it also inherently addresses the actions of individual members that required it in the first place. Which is to say.....remember the Coc.

 

 

And....again.....think...before engaging mouth or key stroke. I have to do this often myself.

 

It will not only enhance the aforementioned civility in discourse and debate but it will also enhance the aforementioned objectivty of the accurate historical analysis and reporting as well.