ATTENTION! Petition to Introduce Guidelines Against Slander

Agustino

Unfortunately, we have seen the deleterious effects that public slander can have in creating divisions in this community twice already. The first time was when TimeLine accused me publicly of being the same person as "DP Brah" based on some private PMs she had received from him/her . When I pressed her to release those PMs, she refused and still maintained her accusation until intervention from other members in the community, leading to many posts having to be deleted. Then she finally apologised.

The second time has been just recently with @Mongrel's sudden, vicious, calumnious and violent accusations towards myself, which came out of nowhere. These were very hateful remarks, and incredibly false. Let's see a bunch:

Historically his sexist comments have been over the top, so I doubt that will be an issue. — Mongrel

I had it all up on twitter at one point. I took it down. His sexism is principled. He would like to see changes (I suppose throughout the world) wherein women lose everything they've gained in last century or so. He associates these views with religion. — Mongrel

This is an example of how it works, actually. Agustino is sexist. If he had his way, people like me would be disenfranchised and peripheralized. The people who moderate this forum know that, but they don't care. Every time I see his posts, it just sinks in deeper and deeper with me: the moderators of this forum are just as sexist as he is. They have to be. Why else would they leave his nasty comments up? — Mongrel

Now Mongrel said I am a sexist. She also said everyone thinks I am a sexist in a PM. She said my sexist comments have been over the top. She said I want to see changes where women lose everything they've gained in the last century! So presumably, I want to see changes where women lose things like the right to vote in many countries. I would like to see some evidence to back up this extraordinary claim. She also said if I had my way, people like her would be disenfranchised and peripheralized - again, where the hell is this crap even coming from?! How does she know this? And if she doesn't, how come she dares to accuse someone of it?!

These are very vicious, disgusting and contemptible accusations that I wouldn't wish anyone to face. To tell you the truth, it seems to me like we're dealing with a person that has a serious problem with truth. A very vicious, resentful and hateful person, who likes to spread lies about other people and create a ruckus. And I find this unacceptable. This slanderous attempt to start a failed witch hunt should be condemned as harmful and unwelcome in a community like ours.

If someone has a concern they can state it without slander - without making disgustingly false statements in a repeated manner. This can be done respectfully and with dignity. She could have very easily said Agustino has made some comments that I find sexist (or even very sexist, depending on how she finds them). Let's look into them. But she didn't. She self-righteously proclaims that she is right, all the while slandering another member and making outrageous statements that have no bearing on reality whatsoever.

So let us define slander as "the action of making a series of false written statements damaging to a person's reputation".

The first time I was slandered, I reported it to the moderators and nothing was done. It seems like this is now becoming a pattern, which as I said before is very destructive. That is why this time I am posting this publicly instead of PMing a moderator. I think we should place slander amongst the guidelines to prevent any such future occurrence and to encourage people to behave decently and respectfully with each other.

I don't want Mongrel to be punished by the moderators in any way shape or form. I am absolutely fine with forgiving Mongrel for her rudeness and quite frankly for blatantly lying about me - with the condition that she apologises for it, or otherwise presents evidence to back up those outrageous claims. But to prevent such future instances, I think we must have guidelines against it. Thank you for your time reading this.

PLEASE NOTE THAT SINCE THE SEXISM THREAD WAS LOCKED BY THE MODERATORS THIS THREAD WILL NOT BE USED AS A PLACE TO DISCUSS SEXISM. Please use this thread just to discuss the introduction of slander guidelines.

Beebert

↪Agustino

What is the point with this?

Agustino

What is the point with this? — Beebert

introduction of slander guidelines. — Agustino

John Harris

↪Agustino

Sorry, we can't discuss slander without discussing your horridly sexist posts, that even the moderators thought were sexist. So, you can't accuse Mongrel of being slanderous, since she was right to call you sexist.

Agustino

So, you can't accuse Mongrel of being slanderous, since she was right to call you sexist. — John Harris

First most of the statements she cited weren't deemed sexist, even by the moderators. There were only 2 that were under discussion.

Second of all, even if they were sexist, these statements are disgusting, slandarous and absolutely false:

He would like to see changes (I suppose throughout the world) wherein women lose everything they've gained in last century or so. — Mongrel

If he had his way, people like me would be disenfranchised and peripheralized. — Mongrel

John Harris

↪Agustino

So, you can't accuse Mongrel of being slanderous, since she was right to call you sexist.
— John Harris
First most of the statements she cited weren't deemed sexist, even by the moderators. There were only 2 that were under discussion.

Yes they were. Baden and one other moderator considered them sexist. Go ask him.

John Harris

↪Agustino

Second of all, even if they were sexist, these statements are disgusting, slandarous and absolutely false:
He would like to see changes (I suppose throughout the world) wherein women lose everything they've gained in last century or so.
— Mongrel
If he had his way, people like me would be disenfranchised and peripheralized.
— Mongrel

No, based on your sexist statements, Mongrel's statements were very legitimate presumptions, not slanderous at all.

Agustino

Mongrel's statements were very legitimate presumptions, not slanderous at all. — John Harris

Were they true statements? I want you to show me my sexist statements which show that:

He would like to see changes (I suppose throughout the world) wherein women lose everything they've gained in last century or so — Mongrel

Please. Where have I suggested women should lose the right to vote in many countries of the world? Where do my sexist comments suggest that this is what I intend?

Yes they were. Baden and one other moderator considered them sexist. Go ask him. — John Harris

I'm pretty sure that when Mongrel linked about five of my statements, Baden said he considered it sexist only "towards the end". But this is besides the point. This thread isn't for discussing this. If you can't discuss slander guidelines without discussing sexism, then out you go, you have no business in this thread.

John Harris

↪Agustino

Yes they were. Baden and one other moderator considered them sexist. Go ask him.
— John Harris
I'm pretty sure that when Mongrel linked about five of my statements, Baden said he considered it sexist only "towards the end". But this is besides the point.

No, it's not beside the point; it backs up my point Baden did find your statements to be sexist. And I'm going anywhere. If you accuse Mongrel of slander, I'm going to rightly defend her by referring to your sexist statements because that's what her statements--you erroneously call slander--were about.

Agustino

↪John Harris

This thread isn't for accusing Mongrel, sorry. It's for discussing the introduction of slander guidelines. I will warn you that if you don't respect the OP you risk getting a warning from the moderators. This is the second time that I, as the starter of the OP, have to ask you this. Please take note. If you wish to discuss Mongrel, sexism, etc. start your own thread.

Noble Dust

then out you go, you have no business in this thread. — Agustino

Maybe you should just not read any more of his posts in this thread. >:O

John Harris

↪Agustino

↪John Harris This thread isn't for accusing Mongrel, sorry. It's for discussing the introduction of slander guidelines.

Sorry, you made it about Mongrel and sexism by bringing her up and wrongly using her as your main example.

I will warn you that if you don't respect the OP you risk getting a warning from the moderators. This is the second time that I, as the starter of the OP, have to ask you this. Please take note.

Sorry, the OP doesn't get to censor or boss around other posters on the thread, and that includes you. Show me one place in the rules where it says you can do that. You can't.

Agustino

↪John Harris

Okay, I clarify once again - for the THIRD time - that this isn't about Mongrel. Please accept it.

Sorry, the OP doesn't get to censor or boss around other posters on the thread, and that includes you. Show me one place in the rules where it says you can do that. You can't. — John Harris

As the OP I can decide what is and isn't the topic of the thread. At the moment you're disrespecting my thread, and it's the third time I've asked you to stop.

John Harris

↪Agustino

↪John Harris Okay, I clarify once again - for the THIRD time - that this isn't about Mongrel. Please accept it.

Sorry, you, yourself, made if very clear it's about Mongrel and what she said in your massive passage below:

The second time has been just recently with @Mongrel's sudden, vicious, calumnious and violent accusations towards myself, which came out of nowhere. These were very hateful remarks, and incredibly false. Let's see a bunch:

Historically his sexist comments have been over the top, so I doubt that will be an issue.
— Mongrel
I had it all up on twitter at one point. I took it down. His sexism is principled. He would like to see changes (I suppose throughout the world) wherein women lose everything they've gained in last century or so. He associates these views with religion.
— Mongrel
This is an example of how it works, actually. Agustino is sexist. If he had his way, people like me would be disenfranchised and peripheralized. The people who moderate this forum know that, but they don't care. Every time I see his posts, it just sinks in deeper and deeper with me: the moderators of this forum are just as sexist as he is. They have to be. Why else would they leave his nasty comments up?
— Mongrel

Now Mongrel said I am a sexist. She also said everyone thinks I am a sexist in a PM. She said my sexist comments have been over the top. She said I want to see changes where women lose everything they've gained in the last century! So presumably, I want to see changes where women lose things like the right to vote in many countries. I would like to see some evidence to back up this extraordinary claim. She also said if I had my way, people like her would be disenfranchised and peripheralized - again, where the hell is this crap even coming from?! How does she know this? And if she doesn't, how come she dares to accuse someone of it?!]

You can't write all that and then say it's not about Mongrel. That's dishonest.

Agustino

Sorry, you, yourself, made if very clear it's about Mongrel and what she said in your massive passage below: — John Harris

Yes, and I now clarify that it's not about Mongrel. This is the fourth time. If you will not accept it, I can almost guarantee you that you will be punished (because it happened to me once). So please take note of this. You MUST respect the topic of the thread. As the OP, I decide what the topic is. You misunderstood my first post, the topic isn't Mongrel, it's slander guidelines. It says it very clearly actually:

PLEASE NOTE THAT SINCE THE SEXISM THREAD WAS LOCKED BY THE MODERATORS THIS THREAD WILL NOT BE USED AS A PLACE TO DISCUSS SEXISM. Please use this thread just to discuss the introduction of slander guidelines. — Agustino

John Harris

↪Agustino

Sorry, the OP doesn't get to censor or boss around other posters on the thread, and that includes you. Show me one place in the rules where it says you can do that. You can't.
— John Harris
As the OP I can decide what is and isn't the topic of the thread. At the moment you're disrespecting my thread, and it's the third time I've asked you to stop.

You can decide the topic of the thread, but you can't stop people from addressing what you yourself brought up, and you brought up Mongrel and accused her of slander. Sorry, you opened that door yourself.

Agustino

You can decide the topic of the thread, but you can't stop people from addressing what you yourself brought up, and you brought up Mongrel and accused her of slander. Sorry, you opened that door yourself. — John Harris

This isn't a place to discuss Mongrel. If you want to discuss that, open your own thread please. This is the fifth time.

John Harris

↪Agustino

Sorry, you, yourself, made if very clear it's about Mongrel and what she said in your massive passage below:
— John Harris
Yes, and I now clarify that it's not about Mongrel.

Sorry, until you take down what you said about Mongrel, it still is about her. So, take down what you said about her and I will stop talking about her.

Agustino

Sorry, until you take down what you said about Mongrel, it still is about her. So, take down what you said about her and I will stop talking about her. — John Harris

It's now quite clear that you will belligerently ignore the topic of the thread. Fine.

Agustino

For those interested in this thread please ignore John Harris and post your thoughts about whether or not you think slander guidelines should be introduced for the future. Thanks!

Deleted User

Yes, I think slander guidelines should be in place.

Beebert

↪Agustino

Why did you bring up mongrel Though? Dont you at least have to admit that you either were looking for revenge or proving yourself good and right or something, or you made a catastrophic mistake by letting 90 percent of the OP be about her and how insane she was in "accusing" you. And then you End with "Please use this thread just to discuss the introduction of slander guidelines."... Sure, but seriously, what did you expect?

Anyway, yes; I think slander guidlines would be fitting.

Buxtebuddha

I'd be on board with slander guidelines, as I think they'd help this forum be more amiable and friendly.

I don't think it's constructive for one member to accuse another of being this or that without properly defending their assertion. There's been a lot of, "you're a sexist", and not a lot of, "here's why." This is supposed to be a forum where extensive discussion flourishes, not a place where discussion gets replaced by insults.

I might add that if a poster takes issue with another on the grounds of apparent sexism or racism, then that's where the block/ignore function comes into effective play. Unless it's clear and obvious that a poster is a troll, is a sexist, is a racist, is a Nazi, etc., then I think the offended member ought to keep it to him or herself. Personally speaking, I don't have anyone blocked or ignored, but there are a few posters on here that I don't like and so don't read anything they write anymore. Although I'm guilty of not living up to this, I think it's better to say nothing instead of accusing someone of being such and such - even if you think it's true. Again, unless it's obvious, members can always message a moderator to get them to look at something.

Agustino

Why did you bring up mongrel Though? Dont you at least have to admit that you either were looking for revenge or proving yourself good and right or something, or you made a catastrophic mistake by letting 90 percent of the OP be about her and how insane she was in "accusing" you. — Beebert

To explain why I was motivated to bring up a petition to introduce guidelines against slander. The topic isn't about whether you agree that Mongrel slandered me or not, since that's irrelevant to whether you think we should have slander guidelines. Is that now more clear hopefully? The only reason why I had to give examples, not only Mongrel but also TimeLine is because this is a repeated thing, and it can get very ugly. So that makes me think we need slander guidelines.

Anyway, yes; I think slander guidlines would be fitting. — Beebert

Thank you, if possible let's focus on discussing slander guidelines. Even for people who disagree that Mongrel slandered me, because deciding that is not the point of this thread.

John Harris

↪Buxtebuddha

I'd be on board with slander guidelines, as I think they'd help this forum be more amiable and friendly.

I don't think it's constructive for one member to accuse another of being this or that without properly defending their assertion. There's been a lot of, "you're a sexist", and not a lot of, "here's why."

Actually, when Mongrel was asked to show one of Agustino's racist posts, she did just that, and I provided another, and Baden thought both were sexist. So, that was not the case in her and Agustino's situation.

Agustino

Please everyone who posts in this thread:

For those interested in this thread please ignore John Harris and post your thoughts about whether or not you think slander guidelines should be introduced for the future. Thanks! — Agustino

This is important because this member has 6 times in a row refused to discuss the topic of the thread, and it's important. Don't derail the thread. You can start your own if you want to discuss surrounding issues.

John Harris

↪Agustino

I'd be on board with slander guidelines, as I think they'd help this forum be more amiable and friendly.

I don't think it's constructive for one member to accuse another of being this or that without properly defending their assertion. There's been a lot of, "you're a sexist", and not a lot of, "here's why."

Actually, when Mongrel was asked to show one of Agustino's racist posts, she did just that, and I provided another, and Baden thought both were sexist. So, that was not the case in her and Agustino's situation. ]

No, I addressed the topic (as I always have) as I was addressing Buddha's post. Stop being hysterical.

Agustino

I've added a poll about it as well, please vote.

John Harris

↪Agustino

And it's ironic and disgusting that you slandered Mongrel on your own "slander" thread:

I don't want Mongrel to be punished by the moderators in any way shape or form. I am absolutely fine with forgiving Mongrel for her rudeness and quite frankly for blatantly lying about me - with the condition that she apologises for it, or otherwise presents evidence to back up those outrageous claims. But to prevent such future instances, I think we must have guidelines against it. Thank you for your time reading this.

Beebert

↪Agustino

I dont think Mongrel slandered you more than I think you made a sexist comment. In other words, I think this is all based on prejudices and misunderstandings combined with a tendency to get excited when one gets the oppurtunity to be part of a conflict that isnt dangerous. You are not a sexist I believe, but she took it as if you were. Her intention might not have been to slander, but you took it as slander.

Agustino

↪Beebert

Okay I see what you mean! As I said I'm fine to just forgive her, I don't care much about it, but this shouldn't happen in the future.

Don't forget to vote on the poll on the first page, even though you've already voiced your opinion here, but it may be easier for the moderators to see all the data summed up there!

ATTENTION! Petition to Introduce Guidelines Against Slander

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions