Posting polls with the intention of directing rebuke at groups of people on SOH ought to be viewed as just as insidious as posting polls with the intention of directing rebuke at individuals.
rode, can you message me
So, does agreeing with this poll equate to indicting this poll?
No, unless it's actual hate speech against an individual. I dislike polls that are abusive or mocking toward any group of people, but they're really not the same as attacks or mocking of specific users. Both hate speech toward groups and abusive
treatment of other users are specifically prohibited by SOH rules.
I don't understand why the community describes a poll that references another user's openly expressed views as an unacceptable attack poll, while the daily polls that openly, antagonistically deride groups represented on SOH are tacitly accepted.
A poll question that accurately quotes a user doesn't seem nearly as bad as one that misquotes them, or is just downright abusive. But often it's done in the *spirit* of making that user look bad because of disagreement with the quoted opinion. And
then denigration and mocking of that user often ensues in the comments - often with the specified user not being present or able to explain or defend themselves. There's utterly no reason why the *opinion*, anonymized, couldn't be used as the poll
question, without the user's name being mentioned at all - either in the question or in the comments.
(Although I've seen even that degenerate into abuse, when it happened to me - my name wasn't mentioned in the question, but it was in the comments
and it was one of the most spectacularly unpleasant experiences for me in my time here. So personally I avoid using an opinion that I dislike as "bait" for a poll; I will not do that to someone else.)
As far as why it's different when a group is being denigrated rather than an individual, I'm sure it's solely because it *isn't* an individual. I don't think I can explain it better than that. Calling all liberals libtards, saying all they want is
free stuff, the destruction of the Constitution, and to "grab" everybody's guns - well, that's despicable (as are similar comments about other groups), but it's not a personal attack. We're not kindergarteners; we can't be protected from every
unkind or untrue word about a *group* we may belong to (and I can't even imagine trying to moderate that anyway), but if SOH wants to draw the line at *personal* attacks, that's fine with me.
I think it's different if it pertains to a group of people, especially a broad group of people like "liberals" or "conservatives."
But no user should really ever be singled out in a poll.
You should be able to poll on whatever you want. If you consistently find a person's polls distasteful, unfollow.
Who do you think you are? You think this platform is for "rational" debate? Nuh uh. It's a cage for the monkeys to fling poo at one another.
Oh! Sorry. That's Reddit. You're good.
The other day DrReid posted a poll that expressed one of Tlaney's views on homosexuality. To my knowledge, the views described were accurate. This was labeled an attack poll by a lot of folks. Everyday I see polls rebuking "liberals" or more
specifically "liberal atheists" with broadly inaccurate claims. These however, generally, do not receive community outrage, even when they are both outright lies and antagonistic.
I didn't see the poll or the comments. But I will say that in general it seems that there is a group of users that are off limits to "attack" polls while other less popular users are fair game. The same seems to be true for who is "allowed" to post
those kinds of polls.
But soap box aside, I agree that it shouldn't be done whether directed at a person or veiled as a group of people when the person is clearly the target.
So there was NO POSSIBLE WAY to phrase that without mentioning either user by name?
Go back and retake Freshman Composition. And this time stay awake.
It was very possible, I decided not to. And there's no condescension necessary Tlaney, though it's always expected. In this case I felt both users involved were pertinent to how the community responded, and therefore it was necessary in discussing
that response to mention the users' names.
Interesting how so many longstanding pillars of the SoH community like Susanr disagree with that view.
Lol, the point of having a discussion isn't unanimity. I agree with a lot of what Susan said, but I don't think accurately referencing openly held views inherently denotes any form of attack. While expressly attacking groups solely achieves that.
So you're upset because I posted a 100% true exposé of Planned Parenthood officials openly and nonchalantly discussing the sale of harvested human body parts, some of which were harvested from infants born alive "by mistake" in botched abortions?
No, Tlaney, it's not all about you. You were the subject of the first poll, but not the author of the second.
But I was the author of the type of "attack on a group (PP) poll" that you condemned in your poll question. That's why I asked.
No, like I said, you weren't. You were referenced in that first poll, but the second that inspired this used "liberal atheists", as alluded in the OPs.