risbolle wrote:There is nothing safe about knowledge let alone the exploration of ideas. There is also nothing safe about genuine human interaction. You will feel uncomfortable and offended, that much is guaranteed. Despite your best intentions, you are going to put people off or cause someone pain. Being disrespected is neither necessary nor sufficient for being offended.
Now, you can aim at building a platform for a free and respectful (as in "no attacking the person") exchange of information and ideas; or you can build a safe and comfortable space.
Being easily offended is different from what I was living in the confict. Speakeasy falsely accused me of racism and hate crime (it started in a thread, where I criticised the anglophones' decision to stay monolingual, nothing about race, no hate or anything, criticism of an action and decision, not of any person or group of people), and was waving around how I could be criminally charged for that. Can you imagine how such a defamation could have affected my life, if they took the time and effort and spread such a defamation on any other platform, more closely connected to my real life? I have never done anything remotely connected to something like that, but nobody would care. Once you get such a label, it sticks. Especially in my field.
chove wrote:Have they asked for an olive branch?
It doesn't matter. In the post-C19 world in which we find ourselves, the precedent has been set that the most vulnerable and senior citizens of society are a protected class. Other people have used expletives in this forum but were not banned. Why was a grouchy grandpa singled out?
Oh, and does this unfortunate attitude apply only to online harassment, or would you let the "vulnerable senior citizens" also steal and drive drunk? Where is the line?
Nobody should be alowed to go beyond certain limits, no matter their age, money, or social standing. I don't buy the "the old ones need to be protected at all costs" thing, because I still see them as human beings, not as objects not responsible for anything they do. If somebody is not responsible for their acts (for example an old patient with dementia physically attacking someone), they have both the responsibility and some of their rights taken away. The two go together.
There is, and never should be, a free pass like "you are old, so we will all be nice to you, and you can harm anyone you like". Not even in the covid world. Covid is no different than other diseases. Or should we let children with leucemia kill others? There is no difference.
Either this old man is responsible for his actions, in which case he'd need to prove they've changed, or they are not. But if they are really just a poor old covid scared thing, as you suggest, then they should have no means to do harm, which is in this case the forum access.
Cavesa wrote: And even if you cannot see the hidden threads, the person can for example talk about you, which is a huge problem in case of defamation.
Cavesa, this is paranoia. People talk about each other all the time! How many times have you ever been involved in a defamation lawsuit after people <gulp> talked behind your back?
That's not paranoia, that's experience. Yes, some gossip is totally normal. But vast majority of gossip is rather harmless. Not accusations of crime, threats of lawsuits (that was Speakeasy), baseless demands of thousands of euros (that's what I am victim of now).
Such things happen from time to time and yes, covid is certainly making it more likely. But in any case, it should be even more of a reason to protect the victims, not the agressors. And defense against defamation is always hard, as you need to basically prove your innocence in something totally weird.
Cavesa wrote: Yes. Based on my experience, a motivated person anywhere can cause you a lot of damage, if they connect the dots from one platform to another, and if they use a strong enough accusation that is extremely hard to disprove. It is always harder to prove you haven't done something, than the opposite (I am living something similar right now).
This is seriously flawed logic, Cavesa! Unless you are telepathic, you cannot assume that your current situation reflects your interaction with Speakeasy. Projecting onto someone else is extremely unfair!
I still have the messages, talking about how my supposed crimes (which were totally imagined) could have consequences, such as criminal prosecution. And it is well known, how you can easily track people from one platform to another. They could have easily done that, spread their lies, and complicated my life.
Cavesa wrote: It was a moment, in which I was considering erasing all my presence here, and on several other places,
I am surprised that this is how you felt and will just chalk it up to last year being 2020 and extremely tough. Looking at this as a party who wasn't privy to the exchange between the two of you, I struggle to believe that these feelings were not brought about by external factors, namely last year's chaos.
You cannot blame everything on Covid. And even if Speakeasy was really so stressed about covid that their mind couldn't handle it, it doesn't take away the harm they've done to me. Because on top of my job (including end of life care of some covid patients, handling the urgent respiratory failures of other, etc), I was also experiencing threats on my offline life and career on this forum for a few weeks.
An old man deserves protection because of Covid, and a young female doctor doesn't?
Cavesa wrote: The sacrifice of being falsely accused of something that is even a crime in many countries, that's too much. The sacrifice of verbal harassment and feeling very unsafe, that is not acceptable. Age should never be a reason for discrimination, but neither it should be a right to treat others badly.
Let me reiterate what I said before: I don't justify what he said to you or anyone else. I am just in awe that people are still raw about mean comments on an anonymous digital platform after A YEAR. That to me is a level of pettiness that is beyond my ability to reason.
Have you noticed that I was not the only target? And it was not one mean comment?
Based on your logic, patients threatening doctors should never be considered violent and transfered to the more secure but less comfortable units. Until the day they set a nurse on fire. I am not petty, I am prudent.
That was the day that I realised that Commandment 7 was alive and well here: All animals are equals but some animals are more equal than others.
So, in your eyes, an older person should have more rights than a young one?
If we are objective, we'd EASILY see that Speakeasy's good deeds outweighed his bad deeds. If someone had a bad day (or even week, for that matter) we should always look at their character and contributions to the forum. Panglossian views don't work in the real world: people mess up and we have to let go of grudges and move on.
WHAT???!!! So, posting lists of resources is easily more important that WEEKS of harassment?
I have no problem with forgiving a person excusing themselves, and trying hard to behave better. No problem at all. But there was not a single drop of remorse. I have never had any excuse. There was no sign, that Speakeasy understood how badly he crossed the line.
If I post a few long lists of resources, will you defend me half as fiercely as him? Or do I have to become an old man?
This is why I have always had a tremendous level of respect for you: you were always the one who'd diffuse tricky situations.
Sometimes, the only way to diffuse a tricky situation is to prevent the agressor from causing more tricky situations.
iguanamon wrote: It's up to speakeasy himself to ask to return and the moderators to decide whether or not they would find his return acceptable.
If I can find his contact information, I will personally ask him to contact the mods and get reinstated.
If he asks and gives very strong signs of having changed their behaviour, , I will not be against that. (if he is really just a fragile old person incapable of responsibility for their actions, as you suggest, I'd expect him to take the appropriate medication). But if he comes back just to harass people not disagreeing with him, there is no reason to want him back.
Do you see how biased this is?
Do you see how biased are you? You are on his side against several people, and against the fact that he commited repeated offenses, he was not banned for one bad day.Really, do you want those very nice and long lists of resources so much, that you value this profit more than the experience of people harassed by that person?
aokoye wrote: Heck I'm pretty sure he's PM'd me harassing comments at times (it's been a while).
If you are basing your (highly biased) opinion on evidence that you can't even remember, your claims are invalid. Don't damage someone's reputation based on something that may end up being a flight of fancy.
Oh, so if Aokoye remembered precisely, he'd be holding a petty grudge, like me. If he cannot, he's just damaging someone's reputation. Awesome. There is no pleasing you.
If members of the hive mind were allowed to disparage a certain member of this forum for expressing his views about the handling of the coronavirus saga last year, why can Speakeasy not be reinstated if we've already shown that mean words don't warrant an instant permanent ban? If mean words warrant a ban, then such a ban must be issued retroactively to every single person who used expletives in the discussion about the handling of the pandemic. I am only asking that we have a standard that doesn't just single out grouchy grandpas but is applies to everyone by UniComp.
Repeated verbal harassment is not just words, it is an action. And there is a huge difference between expletives and threats.
Only those, that repeatedly break the rules of a community they are willingly part of. Only those, that attack others and show no signs of good will to improve their behaviour.
The fact that you are writing a treatise on the matter shows that you were offended enough to even retain this in your memory. People get offended: it's what humans do. Should we ban them all?