Intolerance of difference

iWolf231 · **Posted:** Sat Jan 24, 2009 8:57 am

I agree as well. Everyone has a different opinion, and just because someone else disagrees with you, it doesn't mean you have to go on an all out flame war.

This problem is everywhere and is as old as the internet itself.

Jake Razor · **Posted:** Sun Jan 25, 2009 12:50 pm

I had the most ridiculous experience recently. I was in the shoutbox, and a friend of mine (I won't mention her name for her sake) told about some problems she was having. I told her I would pray for her, which she appreciated, and then another site member, who also has the right to remian nameless (and I wouldn't at all mind if he remained silent, too), started yelling at me about it, getting on my case because he doesn't believe in God.
Now first of all, I stayed within the rules of the site. I never specified any given religion in my statement; nearly all religions have some form of prayer. Moreover, let's think about this reasonably. As I explained to this person, if he's right and there is no God, there is still no harm in telling a friend in need that you will pray for them. No one, to my knowledge, has ever been killed by the words, "I'll pray for you." On the other hand, still going with the assumption that there is no God, what does that promise say? I can't account for all perspectives, but here are a few things it says to me:
"I sympathize with your problem."
"I am concerned with your well-being."
"I can't do anything to help you directly, but I do care what you're going through and I hope it gets better."
Now tell me if we're not in a strange situation when we get yelled at for saying those things to a friend, and we're the ones who get labeled "intolerant."

Jake Razor · **Posted:** Sun Jan 25, 2009 4:58 pm

JerseyCaptain wrote:

That was a strange situation, and that kid should have been reported and scolded by the mods. You didn't do anything wrong there, DT. Nor did you break any rules. However, there are many on this site who act like "little Hitlers", and think they can dictate what people can and cannot do (even though they are not mods). And yet, when there are others among us who complain about that behavior, WE get in trouble. :roll:

Exactly. And not only that, but then she (I checked since last post and stand corrected about her gender) went and made it not only personal, but religiously specific by saying, in effect, that she was directly opposed to my particular religion (I'm re-phrasing this, mind, so as not to stand at risk of breaking the rules myself).
Your analogy is all too appropriate; if the Nazis would scold a mother for taking special care of her sick child, I doubt they would have liked any other display of personal concern either.

Jake Razor · **Posted:** Sun Jan 25, 2009 6:37 pm

JerseyCaptain wrote:

Dragon Tamer wrote:

Exactly. And not only that, but then she (I checked since last post and stand corrected about her gender) went and made it not only personal, but religiously specific by saying, in effect, that she was directly opposed to my particular religion (I'm re-phrasing this, mind, so as not to stand at risk of breaking the rules myself).
Your analogy is all too appropriate; if the Nazis would scold a mother for taking special care of her sick child, I doubt they would have liked any other display of personal concern either.

Well, I wasn't drawing references to World War II, the Nazi party (or its war machine), Neo-Nazis, or even to ol' Schicklgruber himself (Mr. Goofy Moustache). The term "Little Hitler" is a slang expression. As defined by the website "Urban Dictionary" (http://www.urbandictionary.com):

"A little hitler is a self-important [fool] who thinks he's in charge. Someone who makes up arbitrary and/or self-serving rules and has a tantrum if they aren't obeyed. They tend to have a park-keeper/traffic-warden mentality; rules are Law and rules come first. They can't handle people who threaten their authority."

And that describes many shoutbox participants (even a small handful of staffers, in fact) to the proverbial "T". And I'll just leave it at that...this could get ugly if it drags on too far. And I think we'd all agree there's no good in that.

Funny, a lot of people insist I have that mentality - as if I made any of the rules around here.
I think I know who you mean, but yes, let's say no more.

Anayu · **Posted:** Sun Jan 25, 2009 9:27 pm

JerseyCaptain wrote:

Dragon Tamer wrote:

Exactly. And not only that, but then she (I checked since last post and stand corrected about her gender) went and made it not only personal, but religiously specific by saying, in effect, that she was directly opposed to my particular religion (I'm re-phrasing this, mind, so as not to stand at risk of breaking the rules myself).
Your analogy is all too appropriate; if the Nazis would scold a mother for taking special care of her sick child, I doubt they would have liked any other display of personal concern either.

Well, I wasn't drawing references to World War II, the Nazi party (or its war machine), Neo-Nazis, or even to ol' Schicklgruber himself (Mr. Goofy Moustache). The term "Little Hitler" is a slang expression. As defined by the website "Urban Dictionary" (http://www.urbandictionary.com):

"A little hitler is a self-important [fool] who thinks he's in charge. Someone who makes up arbitrary and/or self-serving rules and has a tantrum if they aren't obeyed. They tend to have a park-keeper/traffic-warden mentality; rules are Law and rules come first. They can't handle people who threaten their authority."

And that describes many shoutbox participants (even a small handful of staffers, in fact) to the proverbial "T". And I'll just leave it at that...this could get ugly if it drags on too far. And I think we'd all agree there's no good in that.

I agree with most of what you are saying. And, as always, if someone isn't showing you (and this "you" refers to any person reading this) respect, or even common decency, then report said person. People need to learn two things to survive here, as well as anywhere else in the world:

1.) Sometimes it's better to agree to disagree

2.) Your rights end where another person's begin. You can't just shoot your mouth off and expect other people to take it because of "Freedom of Speech". They have rights too, and those rights include not having to listen to you or accept your opinion just because you think it's right.

Jake Razor · **Posted:** Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:20 am

Aniu Caelestis wrote:

I agree with most of what you are saying. And, as always, if someone isn't showing you (and this "you" refers to any person reading this) respect, or even common decency, then report said person. People need to learn two things to survive here, as well as anywhere else in the world:

1.) Sometimes it's better to agree to disagree

2.) Your rights end where another person's begin. You can't just shoot your mouth off and expect other people to take it because of "Freedom of Speech". They have rights too, and those rights include not having to listen to you or accept your opinion just because you think it's right.

Yet these "soldiers of tolerance" do it every day. Show me the justice in that.
And for the, I'm not looking to spark a debate this time. Consider this a rhetorical question.

Sora-Kun · **Posted:** Sun Feb 08, 2009 8:09 pm

Ghost-Unit wrote:

Recently on this forum, I have been noticing that people are showing an intolerance of difference. It seems like when someone disagrees, the person being disagreed with is taking offense, as if the other person is out to get them. There are a couple different scenarios of this in which I'll identify below.

Discussion topics: These topics usually hold a multitude of different viewpoints. Yet when one person starts to take another person's opinion and try to counter it, they get accused of flaming and whatnot.

Rant topics: This problem is present in many rants. If someone replies to a rant saying something along the lines of "I don't think this is a big deal, for this reason", the person saying that starts getting accused of flaming. If the person who said that provides a reason, a conceivable reason, then the other shouldn't be acting the way they are.

The thing that irritates me the most about this is, the person who decides to take another viewpoint and prove/say why they think it's wrong, is looked upon negatively by select group as if they were flaming, bullying, etc. And it creates an atmosphere of oppression, really. If people start piling negative replies on the person challenging a point, it makes the challenger look like they are breaking the rules. And the challenger seems to be blamed if the topic gets locked, but in truth, it's the others' faults, because they can't accept their opinions being countered/challenged.

Essentially mob rule, mob rule of immaturity.

That's the beauty of the internet. You can pretend that everyone is wrong except you.

I've gotten this a lot on anime websites. It's less of a problem here. Just to give an example.

Poster: OMG YAOI IS THE BEST
Sora-kun: Oh, I don't really like it.
Poster: OMGWTF UR HOMOPHOBIC
Sora-kun: ... wait, what?

I hate the Freedom of Speech argument. It doesn't work. Why? Like you're free to say what you want, I'm free to say that you're wrong. It's a two-way street. Hint; once someone brings up Freedom of Speech into a discussion, it's a sign the discussion is over. (assuming it isn't an academic debate.)

Kinda off-topic, but what is with Ghost-Unit's inhuman debating skills and intelligent posts? Seriously, it's mindblowingly awesome.

Lux - The Guardian · **Posted:** Mon Feb 09, 2009 1:35 am

I read all the new posts and I've got nothing more to add.

However, thankfully, the freedom of speech argument is null here on BaltoSource.

For two reasons:
1) Freedom of Speech can be used to get away with breaking the "no political/religious debates"-rule and other harrassment rules (<insert flames toward member here><insert moderator message here><"omg i just voice my opinions on the guy!">).
2) BaltoSource/Animation Source/TLK Source is a monarchy/dictatorship. Freedom of speech does not apply here if it means you're going to break the rules exercising it. Here, freedom of speech is a privilege.

Anayu · **Posted:** Mon Feb 09, 2009 7:25 am

Lux, The Janitor wrote:

I read all the new posts and I've got nothing more to add.

However, thankfully, the freedom of speech argument is null here on BaltoSource.

For two reasons:
1) Freedom of Speech can be used to get away with breaking the "no political/religious debates"-rule and other harrassment rules (<insert flames toward member here><insert moderator message here><"omg i just voice my opinions on the guy!">).
2) BaltoSource/Animation Source/TLK Source is a monarchy/dictatorship. Freedom of speech does not apply here if it means you're going to break the rules exercising it. Here, freedom of speech is a privilege.

Hmm, I disagree with you a little on point one...as far as flames go, I've never let them slide under the argument of free speech because, as I said before, one person's rights end where everyone else's begin. That, and flaming is just pointless and rude.

On point two though, I do agree, very much so. This is Steet's website/forum. He is the owner, what he says goes. Sure, he can ask other people for their thoughts and opinions (and he often does, because he's a great guy) but ultimately, it's his say. As the owner, he has the right to do whatever he wishes with the site and the forums. He makes the rules, we have to follow them, or simply go somewhere else. If he made the rule that everyone had to have a Spongebob Squarepants avatar on the forums, then we'd either have to comply, leave, or face being banned/deleted from the site (a silly illustration, but it gets the point across).

Animation Source Forums

Intolerance of difference