The Soapbox Rules
-
IF this gets me banned from here, or even CP in general, so be it – but I cannot let you get away with this:
Quote:
there are legitimate facts and opinions on both sides [of the Holocaust argument]
No. There. Are. Not. As has been said, this is not the place to discuss it, so I won’t. I’m not going to discuss it – I am simply telling you: you are wrong. There is first hand evidence of thousands of people, including non-Jewish Germans, and corroborative evidence from thousands more – again including Germans, and also allied soldiers who liberated the camps. There are no legitimate reasons for denying the narrative. Although, obviously, exact numbers can’t be determined, that it ran into the millions is beyond all reasonable doubt. Reply if you want, but as I said - I am not doing to discuss this particular topic further. I'd sooner argue with an anti-vaxxer, flat-earth creationist about the moon landings. ------ As for the argument about deniers and various other conspiracy theorists being shut out of debate and then whinging “this isn’t how science should be – we demand our right to free and open discussion!”, the pint is simple: you’ve had it, and your arguments found wanting. Unless you then have new evidence to the contrary, you need to get out the way and let people move on. Imagine a science (or academic) convention on .. anything. Curing cancer, say. But before it can get underway, a bunch of flat-Earthers demand to have a debate on the grounds that if they can prove their case it‘d throw the validity of the entire scientific community out the window. No-one would get anywhere like that. The point comes when you have to say to people” No – you can’t have this debate here.” It’s not denying them their rights to free speech, it’s simply saying go away and talk about it elsewhere (if you must) and come back if you have any new evidence to support your claim – but you can’t keep on regurgitating the same old stuff and demand we talk about it. (Yes, I know free speech on the Holocaust is denied in some countries – right or wrong, it is at least understandable in such a case, but the same argument applies: the debate has been had. It happened.)
-
IF this gets me banned from here, or even CP in general, so be it – but I cannot let you get away with this:
Quote:
there are legitimate facts and opinions on both sides [of the Holocaust argument]
No. There. Are. Not. As has been said, this is not the place to discuss it, so I won’t. I’m not going to discuss it – I am simply telling you: you are wrong. There is first hand evidence of thousands of people, including non-Jewish Germans, and corroborative evidence from thousands more – again including Germans, and also allied soldiers who liberated the camps. There are no legitimate reasons for denying the narrative. Although, obviously, exact numbers can’t be determined, that it ran into the millions is beyond all reasonable doubt. Reply if you want, but as I said - I am not doing to discuss this particular topic further. I'd sooner argue with an anti-vaxxer, flat-earth creationist about the moon landings. ------ As for the argument about deniers and various other conspiracy theorists being shut out of debate and then whinging “this isn’t how science should be – we demand our right to free and open discussion!”, the pint is simple: you’ve had it, and your arguments found wanting. Unless you then have new evidence to the contrary, you need to get out the way and let people move on. Imagine a science (or academic) convention on .. anything. Curing cancer, say. But before it can get underway, a bunch of flat-Earthers demand to have a debate on the grounds that if they can prove their case it‘d throw the validity of the entire scientific community out the window. No-one would get anywhere like that. The point comes when you have to say to people” No – you can’t have this debate here.” It’s not denying them their rights to free speech, it’s simply saying go away and talk about it elsewhere (if you must) and come back if you have any new evidence to support your claim – but you can’t keep on regurgitating the same old stuff and demand we talk about it. (Yes, I know free speech on the Holocaust is denied in some countries – right or wrong, it is at least understandable in such a case, but the same argument applies: the debate has been had. It happened.)
When I was student I used to make some side cash as a tourist guide because I knew languages. One of the sites was KZ Buchenwald. Every time it gave me chills. The guy has never visited one of those places. There is no second side in this.
throughout my life, my two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart.
-
IF this gets me banned from here, or even CP in general, so be it – but I cannot let you get away with this:
Quote:
there are legitimate facts and opinions on both sides [of the Holocaust argument]
No. There. Are. Not. As has been said, this is not the place to discuss it, so I won’t. I’m not going to discuss it – I am simply telling you: you are wrong. There is first hand evidence of thousands of people, including non-Jewish Germans, and corroborative evidence from thousands more – again including Germans, and also allied soldiers who liberated the camps. There are no legitimate reasons for denying the narrative. Although, obviously, exact numbers can’t be determined, that it ran into the millions is beyond all reasonable doubt. Reply if you want, but as I said - I am not doing to discuss this particular topic further. I'd sooner argue with an anti-vaxxer, flat-earth creationist about the moon landings. ------ As for the argument about deniers and various other conspiracy theorists being shut out of debate and then whinging “this isn’t how science should be – we demand our right to free and open discussion!”, the pint is simple: you’ve had it, and your arguments found wanting. Unless you then have new evidence to the contrary, you need to get out the way and let people move on. Imagine a science (or academic) convention on .. anything. Curing cancer, say. But before it can get underway, a bunch of flat-Earthers demand to have a debate on the grounds that if they can prove their case it‘d throw the validity of the entire scientific community out the window. No-one would get anywhere like that. The point comes when you have to say to people” No – you can’t have this debate here.” It’s not denying them their rights to free speech, it’s simply saying go away and talk about it elsewhere (if you must) and come back if you have any new evidence to support your claim – but you can’t keep on regurgitating the same old stuff and demand we talk about it. (Yes, I know free speech on the Holocaust is denied in some countries – right or wrong, it is at least understandable in such a case, but the same argument applies: the debate has been had. It happened.)
-
I would not describe my response to Matt as going ballistic. Please see my comment to 011111100010 and let me know if there is anything in it you wish to follow up on. Regarding politics, while I have tried to reason with a few, for the most part, I do not engage in these discussions and have even tried discouraging a few of them. You raise a good point about the Holocaust part I recently added to my signature. I am fully aware it is contentious topic and that there are legitimate facts and opinions on both sides. As you say, it truly is a topic that needs to be openly discussed. But CP is NOT the place to have that discussion. I intentionally did not make the Holocaust a subject topic but instead relegated it to the signature. In being consistent with the behavior I have observed in the SoapBox, I chose to push the boundaries and see what happens. To my surprise, not a single member said anything, over several days. Instead, it was left to Chris to deftly ask me to change the signature. My opinion is there is no place here for discussion of the Holocaust, climate change and other such topics. Chris made it clear that the SB was never intended to be used as it currently is. I am baffled why some will try to argue and do otherwise.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
that there are legitimate facts and opinions on both sides.
Well, if people were not clear about you before, they certainly should be now. :wtf: :wtf:
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Do you know he did that?
No, I have no proof that he did. I strongly suspect this, and still do.
I take Chris' word on this. There is another reason for it.
-
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
I thoroughly enjoy 'controversial topics'. But, as I pointed out, Chris has made it clear that this is not the intent of the SoapBox
Where did I say "no controversial topics"? I said:
Quote:
1. No personal attacks. 2. No trolling. No deliberating picking something you know will upset others just for entertainment. 3. No hate talk, racism, sexism, anything that's just outright unpleasant. 4. Threads that seem designed to inflame pointlessly will get locked
As an aside: I love that when discussing pretty much anything with a developer even the simplest statements will get debugged. This is the Soapbox. Controversy is fine. Deliberately picking fights isn't. Hate speech isn't. Racism isn't. There's a LOT of room left to have a roof shaking debate about whatever you want. Just keep it civil and have the debate for the sake of the topic, not for the sake of seeing how far you can push someone's boundaries. To your other point: Yes, the Soapbox was designed to provide a place where members could have a good old rant about stuff that affects their daily programming lives. That and a couple of other reasons, too. Things evolve. "Things that affect my daily programming life" is very, very broad and I'm not going to police that because how am I to judge whether your expletive-laden diatribe against cucumbers and the letter "E" isn't due to something between you and your manager. So are we all going to take a common-sense approach to this and just move on or are we going to have big debates about the rules?
cheers Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote:
how am I to judge whether your expletive-laden diatribe against cucumbers and the letter "E"
One of the requirements of a diatribe is that it be expletive laden. A diatribe without expletives is a rant, and rants are the vehicle of the lazy and uninspired, and shows an almost disturbing lack of commitment. You know a diatribe is really good when it appears as if the author used the word "f*ck" as form of punctuation.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
I take Chris' word on this. There is another reason for it.
Ok.
-
I would not describe my response to Matt as going ballistic. Please see my comment to 011111100010 and let me know if there is anything in it you wish to follow up on. Regarding politics, while I have tried to reason with a few, for the most part, I do not engage in these discussions and have even tried discouraging a few of them. You raise a good point about the Holocaust part I recently added to my signature. I am fully aware it is contentious topic and that there are legitimate facts and opinions on both sides. As you say, it truly is a topic that needs to be openly discussed. But CP is NOT the place to have that discussion. I intentionally did not make the Holocaust a subject topic but instead relegated it to the signature. In being consistent with the behavior I have observed in the SoapBox, I chose to push the boundaries and see what happens. To my surprise, not a single member said anything, over several days. Instead, it was left to Chris to deftly ask me to change the signature. My opinion is there is no place here for discussion of the Holocaust, climate change and other such topics. Chris made it clear that the SB was never intended to be used as it currently is. I am baffled why some will try to argue and do otherwise.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
"The Jewish Holocaust is unlike any other holocaust. There are no bodies, no murder weapons, no forensic/scientific investigations " Then what the fuck are these: holocaust bodies - Google Search[^] You are a sick little puppy you know.
-
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
My opinion is that the SoapBox needs to be cleaned up
Save us, Jebus!
:)
-
IF this gets me banned from here, or even CP in general, so be it – but I cannot let you get away with this:
Quote:
there are legitimate facts and opinions on both sides [of the Holocaust argument]
No. There. Are. Not. As has been said, this is not the place to discuss it, so I won’t. I’m not going to discuss it – I am simply telling you: you are wrong. There is first hand evidence of thousands of people, including non-Jewish Germans, and corroborative evidence from thousands more – again including Germans, and also allied soldiers who liberated the camps. There are no legitimate reasons for denying the narrative. Although, obviously, exact numbers can’t be determined, that it ran into the millions is beyond all reasonable doubt. Reply if you want, but as I said - I am not doing to discuss this particular topic further. I'd sooner argue with an anti-vaxxer, flat-earth creationist about the moon landings. ------ As for the argument about deniers and various other conspiracy theorists being shut out of debate and then whinging “this isn’t how science should be – we demand our right to free and open discussion!”, the pint is simple: you’ve had it, and your arguments found wanting. Unless you then have new evidence to the contrary, you need to get out the way and let people move on. Imagine a science (or academic) convention on .. anything. Curing cancer, say. But before it can get underway, a bunch of flat-Earthers demand to have a debate on the grounds that if they can prove their case it‘d throw the validity of the entire scientific community out the window. No-one would get anywhere like that. The point comes when you have to say to people” No – you can’t have this debate here.” It’s not denying them their rights to free speech, it’s simply saying go away and talk about it elsewhere (if you must) and come back if you have any new evidence to support your claim – but you can’t keep on regurgitating the same old stuff and demand we talk about it. (Yes, I know free speech on the Holocaust is denied in some countries – right or wrong, it is at least understandable in such a case, but the same argument applies: the debate has been had. It happened.)
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
how am I to judge whether your expletive-laden diatribe against cucumbers and the letter "E"
One of the requirements of a diatribe is that it be expletive laden. A diatribe without expletives is a rant, and rants are the vehicle of the lazy and uninspired, and shows an almost disturbing lack of commitment. You know a diatribe is really good when it appears as if the author used the word "f*ck" as form of punctuation.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
I would not describe my response to Matt as going ballistic. Please see my comment to 011111100010 and let me know if there is anything in it you wish to follow up on. Regarding politics, while I have tried to reason with a few, for the most part, I do not engage in these discussions and have even tried discouraging a few of them. You raise a good point about the Holocaust part I recently added to my signature. I am fully aware it is contentious topic and that there are legitimate facts and opinions on both sides. As you say, it truly is a topic that needs to be openly discussed. But CP is NOT the place to have that discussion. I intentionally did not make the Holocaust a subject topic but instead relegated it to the signature. In being consistent with the behavior I have observed in the SoapBox, I chose to push the boundaries and see what happens. To my surprise, not a single member said anything, over several days. Instead, it was left to Chris to deftly ask me to change the signature. My opinion is there is no place here for discussion of the Holocaust, climate change and other such topics. Chris made it clear that the SB was never intended to be used as it currently is. I am baffled why some will try to argue and do otherwise.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
I am baffled why some will try to argue and do otherwise.
It's human nature to push back against (any kind of) authority. Some do it to establish what the sometimes arbitrary limits really are. Some do it because of their birth sign, and they see it as their "special purpose". There are as many reasons as there are people.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
Chris Maunder wrote:
how am I to judge whether your expletive-laden diatribe against cucumbers and the letter "E"
One of the requirements of a diatribe is that it be expletive laden. A diatribe without expletives is a rant, and rants are the vehicle of the lazy and uninspired, and shows an almost disturbing lack of commitment. You know a diatribe is really good when it appears as if the author used the word "f*ck" as form of punctuation.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013Your wisdom belies your years.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
Your wisdom belies your years.
cheers Chris Maunder
I'm older than a lot of people think.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
Also, a diatribe fits nicely between a rant and a manifesto (where the expletives are necessarily removed to give it an air of self-righteous authority). It's been a long time since we've seen a manifesto on CP. :((
Mike Mullikin wrote:
It's been a long time since we've seen a manifesto on CP
Manifestos require a lot of planning and forethought, not to mention several (dozen?) edits. A lot of folks simply lose interest before they've completed the process, or they realize that they won't get enough/any return on their time/effort investment to make it worth it. They also risk the possibility that they won't be able to hold the reader's interest long enough for the reader to see the point of the manifesto. This is often the point at which a manifesto is transformed into a diatribe, or worse, a mere rant.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
I'm older than a lot of people think.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I'm older than a lot of people think.
I think you are 156. Am I close?
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
If you ask my wife, she'll tell you I often act like a 12-year old... :)
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
Ian Bell, #2 wrote:
I thoroughly enjoy 'controversial topics'. But, as I pointed out, Chris has made it clear that this is not the intent of the SoapBox
Where did I say "no controversial topics"? I said:
Quote:
1. No personal attacks. 2. No trolling. No deliberating picking something you know will upset others just for entertainment. 3. No hate talk, racism, sexism, anything that's just outright unpleasant. 4. Threads that seem designed to inflame pointlessly will get locked
As an aside: I love that when discussing pretty much anything with a developer even the simplest statements will get debugged. This is the Soapbox. Controversy is fine. Deliberately picking fights isn't. Hate speech isn't. Racism isn't. There's a LOT of room left to have a roof shaking debate about whatever you want. Just keep it civil and have the debate for the sake of the topic, not for the sake of seeing how far you can push someone's boundaries. To your other point: Yes, the Soapbox was designed to provide a place where members could have a good old rant about stuff that affects their daily programming lives. That and a couple of other reasons, too. Things evolve. "Things that affect my daily programming life" is very, very broad and I'm not going to police that because how am I to judge whether your expletive-laden diatribe against cucumbers and the letter "E" isn't due to something between you and your manager. So are we all going to take a common-sense approach to this and just move on or are we going to have big debates about the rules?
cheers Chris Maunder
We are not going to see eye to eye here Chris. I will make my points and then say no more. I have read the Soapbox for quite a long time and I have observed the behavior in it is often at complete odds with the rules (open to interpretation though they be) as well as the spirit of CP. The behavior of a number of members in the SB is noticeably different from their behavior in the other forums. There is a fair amount of poor behavior and more than a little outright bad behavior. My opinion is that the SB has long been overdue for a cleanup. Did you say, "no controversial topics"? Of course not, nor did I say this. What I did say is, "CodeProject is not about controversy and providing you with entertainment so you don't get bored". I also wrote, "Chris has made it clear that this (i.e. controversial topics) is not the intent of the SoapBox". There is a big difference between having a rant and intentionally picking controversial topics for the sake of entertainment. You wrote, "There's a LOT of room left to have a roof shaking debate about whatever you want. Just keep it civil and have the debate for the sake of the topic.". I tested the boundaries in December by creating a signature that included a statement about the Jewish Holocaust. My opinion is there is no place at CP to have this discussion or any other such contentious topics. The point being this was consistent with the poor behavior of other members. I cannot find your responses and so the following is what I recall. Correct me if I am wrong. You asked me to change my signature precisely because it was about a controversial topic. I wrote a rather lengthy response to test if it was open for discussion. Having posted my response, my hunch was this was not going to go well and I quickly edited it. You said something to the effect that you appreciated the changes. You were good natured but your message was clear. There are limits to what can be addressed. You read Matt the riot act the other day and updated the SB rules. I actually thought you were attempting to close pandoras box when you specifically wrote, "The goal was to provide a place where members could have a good old rant about stuff that affects their daily programming lives". I was wrong. There is nothing in Matts posting history that warrants giving him the benefit of the doubt that something about "dark skinned immigrants who crossed at Calais affected his daily programming life. So while there is not
-
IF this gets me banned from here, or even CP in general, so be it – but I cannot let you get away with this:
Quote:
there are legitimate facts and opinions on both sides [of the Holocaust argument]
No. There. Are. Not. As has been said, this is not the place to discuss it, so I won’t. I’m not going to discuss it – I am simply telling you: you are wrong. There is first hand evidence of thousands of people, including non-Jewish Germans, and corroborative evidence from thousands more – again including Germans, and also allied soldiers who liberated the camps. There are no legitimate reasons for denying the narrative. Although, obviously, exact numbers can’t be determined, that it ran into the millions is beyond all reasonable doubt. Reply if you want, but as I said - I am not doing to discuss this particular topic further. I'd sooner argue with an anti-vaxxer, flat-earth creationist about the moon landings. ------ As for the argument about deniers and various other conspiracy theorists being shut out of debate and then whinging “this isn’t how science should be – we demand our right to free and open discussion!”, the pint is simple: you’ve had it, and your arguments found wanting. Unless you then have new evidence to the contrary, you need to get out the way and let people move on. Imagine a science (or academic) convention on .. anything. Curing cancer, say. But before it can get underway, a bunch of flat-Earthers demand to have a debate on the grounds that if they can prove their case it‘d throw the validity of the entire scientific community out the window. No-one would get anywhere like that. The point comes when you have to say to people” No – you can’t have this debate here.” It’s not denying them their rights to free speech, it’s simply saying go away and talk about it elsewhere (if you must) and come back if you have any new evidence to support your claim – but you can’t keep on regurgitating the same old stuff and demand we talk about it. (Yes, I know free speech on the Holocaust is denied in some countries – right or wrong, it is at least understandable in such a case, but the same argument applies: the debate has been had. It happened.)
My opinion is such topics have no place at CodeProject. You appear to agree but then go on to make your points. You have no clue what my opinion is on this topic but you are nevertheless quick to judge. See my response to Chris.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
-
We are not going to see eye to eye here Chris. I will make my points and then say no more. I have read the Soapbox for quite a long time and I have observed the behavior in it is often at complete odds with the rules (open to interpretation though they be) as well as the spirit of CP. The behavior of a number of members in the SB is noticeably different from their behavior in the other forums. There is a fair amount of poor behavior and more than a little outright bad behavior. My opinion is that the SB has long been overdue for a cleanup. Did you say, "no controversial topics"? Of course not, nor did I say this. What I did say is, "CodeProject is not about controversy and providing you with entertainment so you don't get bored". I also wrote, "Chris has made it clear that this (i.e. controversial topics) is not the intent of the SoapBox". There is a big difference between having a rant and intentionally picking controversial topics for the sake of entertainment. You wrote, "There's a LOT of room left to have a roof shaking debate about whatever you want. Just keep it civil and have the debate for the sake of the topic.". I tested the boundaries in December by creating a signature that included a statement about the Jewish Holocaust. My opinion is there is no place at CP to have this discussion or any other such contentious topics. The point being this was consistent with the poor behavior of other members. I cannot find your responses and so the following is what I recall. Correct me if I am wrong. You asked me to change my signature precisely because it was about a controversial topic. I wrote a rather lengthy response to test if it was open for discussion. Having posted my response, my hunch was this was not going to go well and I quickly edited it. You said something to the effect that you appreciated the changes. You were good natured but your message was clear. There are limits to what can be addressed. You read Matt the riot act the other day and updated the SB rules. I actually thought you were attempting to close pandoras box when you specifically wrote, "The goal was to provide a place where members could have a good old rant about stuff that affects their daily programming lives". I was wrong. There is nothing in Matts posting history that warrants giving him the benefit of the doubt that something about "dark skinned immigrants who crossed at Calais affected his daily programming life. So while there is not
I wrote:
So are we all going to take a common-sense approach to this and just move on or are we going to have big debates about the rules?
cheers Chris Maunder
