Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Does this offend?

By the way, in case anyone is wondering...I don't feel censored. I really do appreciate the feedback.

I admit I sometimes need help with social "niceties" and will likely come off sounding snooty or idiotic more than my fair share.

None. They look at the darn thing once, and the lightbulb just goes on.

LOL us too!

i personally get really annoyed when i see "my kid beat up your honor student" type bumper stickers. it makes me crazy on so many levels!

i propose we make a car ribbon magnet thingy for Gifted Awareness, or at least a retaliation bumper sticker!

You didn't ofend me. Could't read the yellow. My child was the elephant that could tap dance in 98% nationally at 13, and in VMI score at 10 yrs. was in 99% nationally. Creative genuis. Read NAGC new Position Statement on Gifted Children and Education. Twice Exceptional! FYI, read NASP information on Resiliency and how all people who are sucessful in life have this quality. All parents who support and encourage their children deserve praise and admiration as parent involvement is key factor in your childs success! Did enjoy your elephant comment, always made me smile really big. (Question? How do you know the elephant can't tap dance if he never tries?)

Love your new sig line! Glad to hear you aren't feeling censored. To me there is always more to learn about communication.

Smiles,
Grinity

I have to respectfully disagree. I don't think the OP learned anything about communication; she knew the ideas that her signature line was communicating, and desired to communicate them. She has simply bowed to pressure from a vocal minority of users. Regardless of what she says to be polite, she has been censored, and apparently not by a group that represents how most people here use and view this board.

There's an important free speech aspect of discussion boards like this one. Not in the constitutional sense, but in the sense that people need to feel free to speak their minds within reason, or the basic purpose of the forum is thwarted.

The standard simply can't be whether one or a few people are worried that a statement made by another user might offend a third party who hasn't happened along yet. There has to be a limitation of reasonableness.

In addition, I doubt that more than one person in this case originally viewed the OP's signature line as potentially, theoretically offensive. A few people agreed after being directly, publicly asked that the signature might theoretically offend-- but in the context of the forum guidelines thread, I read those people's comments more as votes for a softer, more "considerate" forum.

A goal here is to avoid (needless) offense (by a reasonable person), but the main goal is to discuss. Otherwise this board is worthless.

Lucounu, in what sense is this situation different from your earlier remarks to the person who was putting her links everywhere?

Genuinely asking, not sarcastically,
DeeDee

DeeDee, I could probably sit here for quite some time pointing out differences, but I have to leave for work soon. I'm guessing that you are asking about the speech itself, not so much the context. Some differences that jump out at me:

The other person was engaged in self-promotion in the body of her posts, while the OP was communicating a concept in a pithy way in her signature line. Using the board for self-promotion was seen by me and some others as misuse of the board itself, while communicating an idea, where the idea itself is not offensive, cannot be. I attempted to censor use of the board for self-promotion, which directly offended me and some others; this thread discusses censorship of an idea that didn't actually offend anyone, and which a majority agree shouldn't.

I would like to add that on this board we have a spectrum of ideas about what should be allowed to be discussed here. At one end I would probably place Grinity (as an example, not suggesting that she is alone). I believe that she has a goal of avoiding offense to anyone, and sometimes even avoiding disagreements in discussions, in order to make this as welcoming a place as possible. At the other end are people who err on the side of absolute freedom in speech (I might be seen as an example of this, when I would see myself as someone who is not at the extreme in the context of a discussion board, while still leaning towards free speech, but is perhaps prone to an occasional faux pas).

I'm a person who believes in fairness and rules, but unfortunately, with speech it's hard to draw hard-and-fast rules about what is offensive, so ruling on borderline cases takes judgment. The thing that bothers me about this thread is that, in my opinion, what's happened is that the OP has bowed to pressure to change from one side of the spectrum, even though I really think her statement was quite innocuous.

This sets a bad precedent, in my opinion. This thread is regrettable for multiple reasons: not just that one user morality-policed another, but also the fact that many here then engaged in a thought exercise to search for theoretically offended future people. The whole focus is wrong.

I think that the upcoming rule/guidelines changes will be a great addition to the forum. I also think that everyone's concerns have a place: we need to avoid offense and make this a welcoming place, but we also need to have a reasonable amount of freedom. We need a happy medium so that everyone can use the forum peacefully and productively. In my opinion, this thread isn't close to that happy medium, even though the OP willingly changed her signature after some public pressure. If the climate were a bit different, she would have felt free to leave her signature in place, after double-checking that it wasn't unreasonable.

The rule simply can't be that the soft end of the spectrum (whom I will lovingly call the Softies) can veto the speech of the others (whom I will appeasingly call the Nasties) at will. That means that the Softies can make everyone else into Softies, taking us far away from the happy medium. The Nasties might occasionally say things that make the Softies worry, but the Nasties often say many useful and interesting things in the balance.

I can't speak for Mark or Julie, but I don't think most moderators of discussion boards would have asked the OP to change her signature line. Maybe at mothering.com, but probably not even there.

Iucounu, I disagree completely. If the OP doesn't feel censored, you don't get to say that she has been! That's patronising of you at the least. She had the option, after all, of telling whoever PMed her that she disagreed, and leaving it at that. As you say, it's unlikely the moderators would have taken action, and if they had, we'd have had a different position. She chose instead, as was her right, to ask what people thought. She chose, on hearing a variety of points of view, to change her signature; there too, she could have respectfully disagreed and kept it as it was. You disagree with her choice, but that doesn't make her coerced.

You lay great stress on the idea that we have no evidence that anyone was in fact offended. That's true, but neither do we have evidence that nobody was. We don't know. [Incidentally, you hypothesise that it hadn't occurred to anyone that the signature might be a problem until this thread. That's not true: it had occurred to me on multiple occasions, although I hadn't felt so strongly as to say anything about it until I was directly asked.]

The trouble with a signature, in general, is that it lacks context, and is too short to provide its own context. There's clearly an art in choosing signatures that add value to one's posts.

I strongly want this forum to remain a place where people can say what they think, thoughtfully and politely, even if many others will vehemently disagree. I think discussion about whether what someone says is really what they mean goes along with that, rather than contradicting it. Discussions in which people may change their minds tend to be the interesting ones.