And wasn't that at least part of Baden's clandestine agenda, — Hanover

Jesus. I wake up from a nice sleep and the second thing I see is someone accusing me of a clandestine agenda. How...Anyway, I'll probably go into more detail later but for now on the security thing. Suppose the framers of the UN article were referring to individual security in the way you suggest. Why then stop (or even start) at guns? A gun may not make you very secure if everyone else has one. Why not bazookas? But then if everyone else has one why not tanks? And so on. There's never any absolute individual security unless you want to lock yourself away in a nuclear bunker. And no one particular weapon from your fists to bombs holds any special decontextualized connection to the concept of "security". So, either the proposed right is incoherent or something more collective and government provided was meant.

Yes, I have the right to security of person. So, thankfully my government doesn't allow dangerous weapons to be widely available. In other words, when your right to security impinges on mine there's a conflict. And in my view, having less weapons on the streets increases security rather than diminishes it. And no, the UN document isn't the last word on human rights but they are at least debatably human rights.

I hear them saying that it is not even a human right and never was a right of any kind in the first place. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

That's because it's not. These are:

www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html

PR stunt. He is trying to get them off his case so that he can continue with his life. Would you not do the same and try to calm the waters before another 30 women show up. — Sir2u

You might be right. My impression is he's not on the HW level at all and is probably just a bit of a minor perve. But who knows?

*Shug* You can leave your echo chamber without jumping on the chamber pot. Or if you do, use The Sun to wipe your ass rather than read it.

@Sapientia (N) Everyone else (Y)

Serves you right for picking up The Sun, fella. :P

I don't think it's a criminal act in this case, more a form of abuse of power for which he deserves his humiliation in the court of public opinion. A pity it didn't come earlier. But, yes, that's the objective standpoint when it doesn't involve a loved one of mine. I would make no apologies for not being so objective if it did.

Well, he was there and he did it and he says he did have power over them and what he did was wrong. I presume he knows more about the situation than you do. I don't consider it a sexual assault either by the way but he put them in one hell of a shitty position, and in the end humiliated them. And if he did that to a woman I cared about, I'd want to break his fucking neck. Of course, being the law abiding citizen I am I would do no such thing. O:)

Recruiting casual acquaintances as an audience for masturbation is not criminal, and if you agree to watch, it isn't an assault either. It isn't an exercise over the audiences career. It's a fetish; a personal kink. — Bitter Crank

What is a fetish or a personal kink is his desire to do that, which is fine, but you don't drag others into it unless you're pretty sure they're interested. The context in which you get agreement is important. C.K. realizes that hence the apology. Why you think you know more than him about what he himself did is a mystery to me.

Who one can recruit will depend on how attractive (fame, body, money...) one is. This is all in bad taste as far as polite society is concerned, but then polite society has found even non-missionary-position sex in bad taste. — Bitter Crank

Yes, wanking off in front of women may be considered in bad taste by some, but who cares? Wanking off in front of women who don't want you to do that, however, and only agree because they are intimidated by you in some way is a form of sexual harassment if not sexual assault. Get used to it. C.K. has.

(I like his apology by the way and I don't think this should end his career. There's a world of difference between him and rats like HW.)

The Sun's appreciation of a large pair of tits has never been in question, but it is not my go-to source for an understanding of sexual politics. — unenlightened

That's a nicer ad hom than I could think up, and I was sorely tempted. (Y)

I beg to differ... — unenlightened

I never said anyone had to resist potential harassment alone only that it was their judgement about what steps to take. It's up to society to make sure the systems are in place to facilitate a choice concerning reporting and that there is no stigma attached to doing so. But people have different views about what's acceptable and what's not. If someone thinks the appropriate thing to do in the face of a particular comment is to fire back verbally rather than to make an official complaint, that's their business as far as I'm concerned as long as they don't feel the latter option is unavailable or stigmatized. And sure, society has it's part to play though #metoo campaigns and so on in transforming the zeitgeist.

It's up to the woman (or man) in question what to do about inappropriate sexual comments in the workplace. If they're comfortable ignoring it and firing back, fine, but there's no point telling them it's all good fun if it's not for them, is it? Obviously, it wasn't for Leadsom and Fallon sounds like a creep. Are we supposed to feel sorry for him or something?

(Y)

Hmm, I may also have to put your fake news test through the fake news test. If Trump says that Trump says it's fake news then Trump didn't say it's fake news therefore it is fake news.

Or fake news? You decide!

The true story of the thing that pissed me off by me (in lieu of posting on my blog because I can't, which also pisses me off).

Bouncing heap of spastic junk with pea-brained maniac behind wheel accelerates towards crosswalk on which I have innocently claimed asylum under the auspices of the friendly green man beckoning from the other side. Here I choose to stand firm, graveyard of brave perigrinators. Briefly. Before drawing back in horror at the realization that peabrained spastic junk driver would sooner convert me to road pancake than cease, desist or even slightly slow down his sputtering lump of malicious metal. By a matter of inches and only by an almost impossible reverse maneuvre do I manage to retain bodily integrity. (At least I remember to spit at the bastard though sadly I miss the windshield and almost certainly the attention of said peabrained homicidal nutter - i.e. typical local driver - when doing so.)

Your mother in law, hopefully. (jrob told me to say that :D)

You mean "cross".

So, what you are saying is I need a gun. (Y)

It's the "control" bit that's missing here methinks.

It's all an act. Relax. I was just attempting to clean their little car windowies really.

Ok, these things are crosswalks. Still painted on the ground though...

Ha, exactly what I tell my students. High five!

@TimeLine Oh, you mean the spitting. That's not the worst of it believe me. Anyway, yes, I will calm down, sir. *Salutes, genuflects*

Oh yeah, I'm just trying to get in the mood here. We're supposed to be pissed off, right?



Yeah, where do you yanks paint your crosswalks? *Mulls alternatives, comes up blank* :)

Oh, and the internet over here. Loads of stuff doesn't work. Right now I can't update my blog as my vpn is being blocked. Anyway, couple of more months and I'm out of here.

China. Lights that cars can still go through (they can turn into a crossing even when you've got a green man. They're supposed to stop but they usually don't). Great system for encouraging GBH.

Cars trying to kill me at zebra crossings. Green man over here means you're fair game if you want to try. I spat at one of the bastards today. I need to leave this country quick before I get in trouble.

Cheers, Pierre. (Y)

So, I hope the conversation here will lead in a positive direction and for me that would involve a greater understanding of respective grievances and no one leaving or permanently breaking a friendship. — Baden

Well that didn't last long...OK, I need a break. Food for thought all.

Well, as I said before, I am making a personal effort in that direction. And I think the moderating team in general are concerned about their behavior. As for @Sapientia, he's been with us since the start of TPF and though he's always been very frank and blunt he has not been the subject of complaints up until recently and has done his fair share of carrying the moderating load. I would ask that moderators be judged in the context of their entire contribution here. Also, we've, many of us, on and off the mod team, been friends for, what, close to ten years now? More? There is a personal element of wanting to maintain and repair relationships without breaking them irreparably, that's true. I don't see that as "huddling in a fold", I see that as being human. So, I hope the conversation here will lead in a positive direction, and for me that would involve a greater understanding of respective grievances and no one leaving or permanently breaking a friendship.

There is a difference between saying something is "OK" and simply not legislating against it. Society doesn't consider it's "OK" to cheat on your partner, for example, but there's no law against it either. Because we don't legislate against condescension doesn't mean we think it's a good thing. What is your suggestion? Can you give us something concrete to work with?

I've been following the spat between @Sapientia and @ArguingWAristotleTiff for quite a while and have spoken to them both about it by PM. I see it mainly as a personal issue between two people who have known each other for a long time. As a moderating team moderating ourselves, we could disallow that type of thing when it involves a moderator or we could make it clear that a moderator is subject to the same guidelines as other posters and not step in unless the guidelines are breached. We've taken the latter approach with the hope that moderators would of their own accord be as productive as possible in their relationships with other posters (knowing that not one of us has lived up to that all of the time). I'd still like to hear a more focused argument from you about where we are going wrong and what exactly you think we should do about it.

You can examine his actions as an absurd tactic, but you are wrong with the effect it is having. — TimeLine

? Are we in an episode of "House of Cards" now? We need to talk about Kevin (Spacey). Actually, we do need to talk about him. But not here. Carry on.

I've added the following, based on an earlier comment of mine, to the guidelines, which I hope will clarify things a bit. It won't satisfy un, I'm sure, but we're not going to satisfy everyone here. So, consider this official.

"Moderator conduct:

In discussions, a moderator is subject to the same guidelines as everyone else, and shouldn't, under normal circumstances*, moderate their interlocutors. You can report a moderator or ask that a moderator be moderated in the same way as you would any other poster: by flagging their posts or by sending a private message to another moderator. In other words, moderators, as posters, don't have a special set of guidelines to operate under. So, in this capacity, they should be treated like other posters. When it comes to moderating decisions, however, they are not like other posters, because they have powers other posters don't have. In these cases, the Feedback category, or, again, a private message, can be used to complain about moderators' actions in their capacity as moderators.

(*Exceptional circumstances may include instances of racism, extreme flaming, etc. When the decision is very obvious, the action needs to be taken quickly, and there may be no one else on duty to do it.)"

I don't think it's desirable for a mod to be involved in an exchange of insults with fellow posters. I don't condone it. But in our capacity as posters, we mods do sometimes get into conflicts with other posters. I don't think any of us are immune from that. The difficulty is sorting out where to draw the line, and it might take some time for us to work out what to do on that. Anyway, the "fuck you" part is fine. It's feedback. I'd appreciate some patience though.

Maths is not on the menu either. More like Red Hot Chilli Peppers - Blood Sugar Sex(ism) Magik. 8-)

@Benkei

Fair to an unspecified degree which may or may not be enough — Sapientia

It's fair enough to offer advice on effective communication. And it's fair enough to disregard it. I'm all for people getting along but I'm also all for people being themselves. Even Kevin, as long as he doesn't kill anyone (or piss them off so much that they kill him). We may even need Kevins - as long as they're not racist, sexist or trolling Kevins or some-other-way-obviously-unsuited-to-the-forum Kevins - to keep us on our toes. Maybe a verbal dance with a Kevin helps us to perfect our tango. Maybe, though we do wish Kevin would check himself sometimes, we recognize he may bring out as much of the best as the worst in us and if he were absent in every way in all of us, there would be a little less spark in our engines, a little less juice in our marrow. Don't get me wrong, I'm not glorifying Kevin, Kevin can be a right pain in the ass, just putting the lad in context, just staring into a bubbling cauldron and wondering if what makes it toil and trouble is also what makes it potent and keeps the magic alive.

I'm also all for listening to complaints, the complainants have their place in the mix too, but rather than simply stir, suggest us a new recipe that we can cook.

Anyway, as you can probably tell, I'm hungry. Time for breakfast. And Kevin is not on the menu.

That's fair enough.

I tend to agree with the sentiment, so I don't really want to argue about it, but you have to admit you can be pretty frank yourself: e.g.

I thought we were going with the "won’t happen, but we can always wish". — Michael
A day later and in a fluke accident at an NRA rally, every rabid gun-toting redneck dies horribly of self-inflicted gun wounds. — Benkei

If @Sapientia had said that, he may very well have caught flak for it. Maybe my point is only that we all have a bit of Kevin in us that we need to be aware of.

@ArguingWAristotleTiff @unenlightened @Sapientia I respect and like all of you and as far as I'm concerned you are all entitled to speak your mind as you are doing. Not to say I agree with either the content or the tone of everything being said but I understand some of the frustrations on both sides. I'm trying from my own point of view to be a bit more restrained in dealing with contentious topics and a bit more understanding of my interlocutors, but I don't feel it's my role, or the role of the moderating team in general, to try to legislate the personality of others, moderator or not, if the guidelines are not being breached.

As far as sexism is concerned, I think we have made some progress but I accept not to everyone's satisfaction. Some would probably consider the self-referential faux flirtation theme in the Shout box sexist, for example. Maybe they're right, but not clearly so in my view. I see it as more of a parody of sexual behaviour, and though it may have a fairly short shelf life, generally harmless. All of this is open to discussion anytime, of course. I only ask for specifics and suggestions of how to deal with them.

Moderators facilitate discussion, they don’t lead discussion. — praxis

I agree. Furthermore, in discussions a moderator is subject to the same guidelines as everyone else and shouldn't under normal circumstances* moderate their interlocutors. You can report a moderator or ask that a moderator be moderated in the same way as you would any other poster by flagging their posts or by sending a PM to another mod. In other words, moderators as posters, are not leaders in any important way, and they don't have a special set of guidelines to operate under. So, in this capacity they should be treated like other posters. When it comes to moderating decisions, they obviously can't be because they have powers other posters don't have. In these cases, the feedback category, or again a PM, can be used to complain about moderators' actions in their capacity as moderators. Of course, the feedback category can be used for just about any complaint anyway - we leave it fairly open, but the more specific the complaint is, the more easy it is to understand and deal with.

Obviously, the above won't fully satisfy those who feel the moderating team is biased towards itself, but the ultimate arbiter of disputes that any member feels are not being dealt with fairly is @jamalrob. So, if all else fails, members can appeal to him directly.

(*Exceptional circumstances may include instances of racism, extreme flaming etc when the decision is very obvious, the action needs to be taken quickly, and there may be no-one else on duty to do it.)