Ban Pro-death/Pro-Abortion, Anti-Choice,

RDM_83 again

Ok I'm setting this idea forward without much hope of it being implemented for obvious reasons as a site wide ban on phrases is unlikely.

However I propose that there is an automatic ban on the use of the terms of

Pro-Abortion and Anti-Choice.

Both these terms are fairly offensive and serve to pigeonhole others view points into a narrow box and do not add anything to discussion, boards.ie is a discussion forum rather than an advocacy site for either side not matter what the majority opinion on any particular forum is itself and more coherint and civil debate is better for the site in general (and a much more interesting read)

People may wonder what good banning two or three phrases would actually serve in an already highly polarized debate, my view point would be that these two terms are simply used in a 'fire and forget' manner to misrepresent other view points creating an environment where reasoned discusion is not the goal, now I'm not saying this will prevent the tench warfare/heated debate that characterises many of the threads on this subject but I do feel there is still a point in doing this.
In the politics forum there is quite a few banned words, these words such as scumbags, beards and teabaggers were banned because they do not add anything to the discusion, I would consider saying pro-abortion or anti-choice is similarly flamey, obviously one cannot ban the insulting of opposing sides however if a poster is forced at least to think for a second to think of an alternative at least that will be beneficial.

the fact that nearly all the mainstream media refers to the two camps as pro-choice or pro-life has a relevance in that these two catergories are though no means perfect (I personally drawing on my own views don't think the two opposing camps view is really that valid) are both positive descriptions of the viewpoints

I'm sure some people may argue that both these terms are valid (in particular the term anti-choice which is why I am devoting more time to it) so I will give a brief explanation of why i think these phrases are invalid.

Pro-Abortion is a misrepresentation for obvious reasons, those that are pro-choice are not in favour of abortion over birth.

Anti-Choice is also a misreprestation for a number of reasons, firstly nearly every person is in fact "anti-choice" to a certain degree unless one believes in on demand abotion without time limits, in nearly every country abortion access is at least lightly controlled by doctors (e.g as is the case in Canada a country without legal time limits extremely late term abortions do not occur)
Secondly to refer to some one as anti-choice implies that they consider the removal of reproductive rights as their goal as they are effectively removing choice, rather than the reality where the fetal right to life is considered of higher importance than the right to choice while still regarding the restriction of choice as a negative.

If placing different levels of priority on two mutual exclusive rights allows allows for this type of labelling then one must also consider Pro-Choice as being also validly described as being Pro-Abortion in that they consider the right to choice (to have an abortion) of greater importance than fetal life.

Please Note that my point is that neither of the labels are valid, and even if they were theoretically valid I would still put forward the idea that they should not be used on this site.

I am putting forwards not as a method seeking to restrict any harsh criticism users may want to make of either viewpoint, and the examples of why i believe the two terms to be invalid are not included to start a (another) argument about the issue. Rather to increase the potential for civilized debate on this site.

Elmidena

I disagree; the labels are only offensive if you choose to perceive them in that light. I find nothing wrong with them at all myself and dislike needless dictatorial censorship like your suggestions. The privately owned site could be more 1984ish but isn't and I for one am glad there's so much freedom to discuss almost anything.

Insect Overlord

Elmidena wrote: »

I disagree; the labels are only offensive if you choose to perceive them in that light. I find nothing wrong with them at all myself and dislike needless dictatorial censorship like your suggestions. The privately owned site could be more 1984ish but isn't and I for one am glad there's so much freedom to discuss almost anything.

Nothing at all? Really?

RDM_83 again

Elmidena wrote: »

I disagree; the labels are only offensive if you choose to perceive them in that light. I find nothing wrong with them at all myself and dislike needless dictatorial censorship like your suggestions. The privately owned site could be more 1984ish but isn't and I for one am glad there's so much freedom to discuss almost anything.

I'm not actual arguing for any greater censorship than already exists on a number of forums on boards.ie anyway (these threads are scattered around a fair number of forums which is why I've put this topic in feedback rather than being sub-forum specific)

Also I don't think my suggestion makes insulting or mocking the opposing much harder if one so wishes, what I do think is that it would make one quick and easy misrepresentation unavailable, in no way am I trying to restrict discussion but to me discussion and debate involve at least a small amount of awareness of the others position even if one strongly disagrees with it.

Elmidena

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Nothing at all? Really?

Honestly, yes. At least in the context where one describes themselves as such, and not being called it. But being called something you're not is trollish whether that's minor or major, and so it's the mods job.

The phrases don't jump out at me as something that is likely to flare up a reaction; yes there are misconceptions about the titles but I wouldn't dream of eradicating them. They're just the means to describe yourself or a mindset, and no, I don't think it's worth doing anything about. This might very well go against the general consensus but hey, it's my 2c for feedback

RDM_83 again

Elmidena wrote: »

Honestly, yes. At least in the context where one describes themselves as such, and not being called it. But being called something you're not is trollish whether that's minor or major, and so it's the mods job.

The phrases don't jump out at me as something that is likely to flare up a reaction; yes there are misconceptions about the titles but I wouldn't dream of eradicating them. They're just the means to describe yourself or a mindset, and no, I don't think it's worth doing anything about. This might very well go against the general consensus but hey, it's my 2c for feedback

You see the issue these terms are never actually used by either "side" to ones self, or at least as far as I am aware. I'd be surprised if any one uses them as a self descriptive

In relation to being Trollish I think moderator action is not taken because these terms are not used in general against specific users but rather simply to describe the other side.

Earthhorse

They are no worse than the standard terms: Pro Life and Pro Choice, both of which imply that the opposition are Anti Life and Anti Choice. The abortion debate is rife with propaganda tactics on both sides and it's best to leave it to the reader to see that for themselves.

ShooterSF

But all it would do is have me replace which ever term I use for pro-life with putting it in inverted commas because I don't believe the label is fitting so I'm not going to use it. If youth defence started releasing articles on stuff like free universal health care etc. then maybe then but for now I think pro-birth is the best label I've heard to date.

RDM_83 again

Earthhorse wrote: »

They are no worse than the standard terms: Pro Life and Pro Choice, both of which imply that the opposition are Anti Life and Anti Choice. The abortion debate is rife with propaganda tactics on both sides and it's best to leave it to the reader to see that for themselves.

Personally in my belief they are not do you disagree with my reasoning of why they are invalid terms?

To me there its better that something is only implied indirectly rather than stated outright!

The debate is rife with propaganda but is that a good thing that should just be accepted. Also I think the point that there is already banned lists should not be avoided.

Earthhorse

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Personally in my belief they are not do you disagree with my reasoning of why they are invalid terms?

That's a very confusing sentence, tbh.

I see the logic in your argument but ultimately I do not agree that they are any more invalid than the existing terms, just not as accepted.

To me there its better that something is only implied indirectly rather than stated outright!

I disagree and prefer a frank approach to debating.

The problem, as pointed out already, is that labeling someone with a label they do not apply to themselves is already enflaming behavior (for example, I prefer the term anti-abortion to describe my stance as I do not wish to be associated with the Pro Life movement, so by extension I am being branded in an unfair manner by the existing nomenclature) and that anyone could easily circumvent the measure using inverted commas, which is not the case with other banned terms.

P_1

It makes no sense to ban descriptive terms just because some people might get offended by them.

Let's apply another example to your suggestion, the Loyalist/Republican conflict in Northern Irish politics.

Should we ban the use of the descriptive term 'Loyalist' because some people might get offended by the use of this term to describe the group that are categorised as such?

Silly idea that will cause too much hassle for the mods with not much benefit that I can see IMO.

oscarBravo

P_1 wrote: »

Should we ban the use of the descriptive term 'Loyalist' because some people might get offended by the use of this term to describe the group that are categorised as such?

I'm pretty sure Loyalists self-describe as Loyalists. I'm equally sure nobody who self-describes as "pro-life" would be pleased with the label "anti-choice", and equally most "pro-choice" people won't be impressed with being described as "pro-abortion".

On the thread topic, I'm not sure whether blanket rules are the best approach, but the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are at least widely accepted and not generally considered derogatory. Using other terms could easily be seen as provocative and deliberately offensive, and I'm not sure I'd have a problem with a moderator sanctioning the use of the terms on that basis.

P_1

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm pretty sure Loyalists self-describe as Loyalists. I'm equally sure nobody who self-describes as "pro-life" would be pleased with the label "anti-choice", and equally most "pro-choice" people won't be impressed with being described as "pro-abortion".

On the thread topic, I'm not sure whether blanket rules are the best approach, but the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are at least widely accepted and not generally considered derogatory. Using other terms could easily be seen as provocative and deliberately offensive, and I'm not sure I'd have a problem with a moderator sanctioning the use of the terms on that basis.

I get you now (and minus points to me for not fully understanding the OP's point before replying to it).

So the positive descriptive terms are ok (i.e. Pro Life, Pro Choice)
But the negative descriptive terms are the ones that cause trouble (i.e. Pro Abortion/Pro Death, Anti Choice).

I still think it would be too much hassle if the terms were to be blanket banned, there's too much grey for a simple black/white rule to be applied and applied fairly IMO.

RDM_83 again

Earthhorse wrote: »

They are no worse than the standard terms: Pro Life and Pro Choice, both of which imply that the opposition are Anti Life and Anti Choice. The abortion debate is rife with propaganda tactics on both sides and it's best to leave it to the reader to see that for themselves.

Ok we will agree to disagree on this point but I honestly can't see how a term that describes your view choice as a positive is as acceptable as a term that frames it as viewing abortion as a positive (and vice versa for anti-choice)

Earthhorse wrote: »

The problem, as pointed out already, is that labeling someone with a label they do not apply to themselves is already enflaming behavior (for example, I prefer the term anti-abortion to describe my stance as I do not wish to be associated with the Pro Life movement, so by extension I am being branded in an unfair manner by the existing nomenclature) and that anyone could easily circumvent the measure using inverted commas, which is not the case with other banned terms.

I think this post illustrates why you might hold that view seeing as pro-life is associated with reactionary Christianity (or at least by some commentators and posters) and I agree that anti-abortion is probably a clearer term, this does not change the underlying issue in rational for banning these terms (there use to marginilse opposing view points). I was not suggesting the banning of the use of any other descriptives (apart from maybe some other shortened versions of them like probort etc)

If an outright ban isn;t applicable (and I suggested an out right ban simply because these terms fly under the radar), would other users and mods consider that the use of these terms is trollish or are they acceptable for use on the forums. (I would single out a particular forum but these threads pop up in different places)

P_1

RDM_83 again wrote: »

If an outright ban isn;t applicable (and I suggested an out right ban simply because these terms fly under the radar), would other users and mods consider that the use of these terms is trollish or are they acceptable for use on the forums. (I would single out a particular forum but these threads pop up in different places)

Interesting idea, I believe there's a similar system in place on the Politics forum.

Politics forum Charter wrote:

Keep your language civil, particularly when referring to other posters and people in the public eye. Using unsavoury language does not add to your argument. The following words are not permitted specifically by this charter:
Scumbag (or a variant)
Beard(s)
Crusties
Teabagger(s)
Unwashed hippies (or a variant)
Zanu-FF
sheeple
zionazis

This has the potential to be applied to the Abortion debates. OP I'm guessing that the forums that you'd like to see this applied to are the Politics and Spirituality forums, or would you rather see it applied site-wide?

RDM_83 again

Well the reason I put it in here rather than on a sub forum is exactly that reason, of the top of my head there's threads, apart from in the two you mentioned (which include the numerous sub forums in each), in AH and TGC (maybe not active now) TLL, Humanities occasionally as well as other forums I'm sure I'm not aware of.
Politics is where I actually got the idea from as the AH banned list is mainly meme's.

Obviously this creates a problem as each forum has different moderation styles, whats acceptable in AH is not on other forums for example (which is why i consider this being applied is unlikely as stated in my OP), however unlike other issues where a certain view point or interest is an accepted fact of participating in said forum to an extent, I can't think of a forum where this issue has a "natural" default viewpoint (even I would argue the Christianity forum) which is probably why these threads pop up everywhere (this issue could be solved by having an abortion forum but I'm sure there wouldn't be many people happy to mod it!)

P_1

Interesting, so if I get you right, you'd be against a site wide blanket ban but rather each individual forum having a take on it.

Seeing as you've got the question open here then perhaps it might be worthwhile getting the opinion of say the mods of Politics/AH/Spirituality et al as to how the idea may or may not work in their specific fora

RDM_83 again

P_1 wrote: »

Interesting, so if I get you right, you'd be against a site wide blanket ban but rather each individual forum having a take on it.

Seeing as you've got the question open here then perhaps it might be worthwhile getting the opinion of say the mods of Politics/AH/Spirituality et al as to how the idea may or may not work in their specific fora

I'd personally like a site wide ban but I understand it most likely won't happen.

In relation to the other suggestion not to disparage moderation here unduly there is a (natural) tendency for certain forums to follow certain majority view points for each forum (not so much an issue for AH and politics IMO, but the case, again only In my opinion, in the more "specialised" forums as to what is and isn;t acceptable may be rather different).

Aside from that (possibly inflammatory!) opinion there's a practical matter in that I'm not sure if most forums actually have a feedback/ discusion on the rules section, but I'l look over that later.

Earthhorse

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Ok we will agree to disagree on this point but I honestly can't see how a term that describes your view choice as a positive is as acceptable as a term that frames it as viewing abortion as a positive (and vice versa for anti-choice)

They are opposite sides of the same coin.

...this does not change the underlying issue in rational for banning these terms (there use to marginilse opposing view points)...

If an outright ban isn;t applicable (and I suggested an out right ban simply because these terms fly under the radar), would other users and mods consider that the use of these terms is trollish or are they acceptable for use on the forums. (I would single out a particular forum but these threads pop up in different places)

They possibly are trollish or, as I said earlier, propaganda. The whole debate is rife with them. I think it's better to let mods look at a user's contribution on the whole debate though in order to decide whether they're trolling.

P_1

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I'd personally like a site wide ban but I understand it most likely won't happen.

In relation to the other suggestion not to disparage moderation here unduly there is a (natural) tendency for certain forums to follow certain majority view points for each forum (not so much an issue for AH and politics IMO, but the case, again only In my opinion, in the more "specialised" forums as to what is and isn;t acceptable may be rather different).

Aside from that (possibly inflammatory!) opinion there's a practical matter in that I'm not sure if most forums actually have a feedback/ discusion on the rules section, but I'l look over that later.

That's fair enough, personally I don't think it's enough of a black/white issue to merit a site wide ban but I can certainly see the logic in having it as a forum specific ban.

K-9

Politics Charter wrote:

Keep your language civil, particularly when referring to other posters and people in the public eye. Using unsavoury language does not add to your argument. The following words are not permitted specifically by this charter:
Scumbag (or a variant)
Beard(s)
Crusties
Teabagger(s)
Unwashed hippies (or a variant)
Zanu-FF
sheeple
zionazis

I think nearly all those terms are there because of over use, not adding to the discussion and are usually slurs. The only one we had issues with in my time modding was scumbags, we tend to take a zero tolerance stance on it, though if used as part of a reasoned post it might be let go.

Some people do see opponents as pro-abortion or anti-choice, generally because they are black & white on the issue so therefore just see it that way. Personally, if I thought somebody was over using the term solely as a slur and derailing the discussion, I'd act, an on thread warning to desist, something like that, similar to other threads getting side tracked.

We don't tend to get many abortion debate threads on politics thank God! If we do we'd take a hard enough line on them, we've enough divisive issues without adding repeated threads on it. I think it's a reflection that it isn't seen as a big issue in politics which probably explains the inaction on it.

Dubhlinner

Pro-Abortion is a misrepresentation for obvious reasons, those that are pro-choice are not in favour of abortion over birth.

I say pro abortion & anti abortion because I feel pro choice & pro life are massively loaded terms ie the implication being if you disagree you are anti-choice or pro death

describe myself as pro abortion meaning in favour of those who want it having access. have never felt it means id prefer everyone to have abortions

the terms pro-death & anti choice should be banned though

Dades

Mods of forums that host threads about abortion shouldn't need dictates from above to keep threads in order. If someone is throwing those phrases and it's causing disruption, then they should be dealt with accordingly.

I'm happy to add we have a 4,000+ post thread on Abortion in A&A that has maintained some level of decorum (will lots of disagreement) without the need for censorship.

RDM_83 again

Dades wrote: »

Mods of forums that host threads about abortion shouldn't need dictates from above to keep threads in order. If someone is throwing those phrases and it's causing disruption, then they should be dealt with accordingly.

I'm happy to add we have a 4,000+ post thread on Abortion in A&A that has maintained some level of decorum (will lots of disagreement) without the need for censorship.

Ok firstly that threads actually a great example of what I'm talking about actually, the use of terms to misrepresent and marginalize those with opposing views.
I can count 7+ usages of the term anti-choice by various different posters even in the last week (and that was a quick search so probably more)

in comparison I checked for pro-abortion and pro-death and didn;t come up with any examples in the last 3 weeks as far back as I checked.

I would hold that the usage of the term is only uncontroversial and non disruptive because though there is disagreement on the thread as far as I can see from it its mainly between different facets of pro-choice.

In addition I consider that you are being rather hypocritical in that you consider this post to represent your views (if you thanked it but they do not represent your views sorry)

Earthhorse wrote: »

They are no worse than the standard terms: Pro Life and Pro Choice, both of which imply that the opposition are Anti Life and Anti Choice. The abortion debate is rife with propaganda tactics on both sides and it's best to leave it to the reader to see that for themselves.[/QUOTE

Whereas your actual views on the words are:

"I can't for the life of me imagine why you'd think the term "pro-abortion" is more fitting. That implies someone would actively encourage abortions, rather then simply want the choice to be with those in the position.

Of course if you are in the pro-life/anti-abortion camp, then perhaps this is image of the other side that one wants to propagate."

This is an interesting one in the context of the thread. "

and a second post saying

"What I see here is people using one term over another - not because it correctly identifies the others position - rather that it paints the other in a negative light.

"Pro-choice" is correct in that the choice of whether to have an abortion or not, in places where it is legal, lies with the mother. And it is with the mother that pro-choice people want the decision to be.

"Pro-abortion", while a handy label, suggests incorrectly that people see abortions as a positive thing. For example if I say I am pro-Europe, it suggests that I believe being part of the European Community is a good thing, and that memberhship should be encouraged.

Hence I believe that the term pro-abortion is somewhat disingenuously used."

both these posts are taken from this thread
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=62314131
post 11 and 13

Dades

I think you missed my point.

Whereas I feel those (and other terms) can be disingenuously used, I don't see the need to censure certain words as a result. A thread can allow those terms and (strongly) discuss them without resorting to declaring what people can and cannot say.

What you have posted above is an example of such discussion.

I suggested here that where certain terms continue to cause disruption, it is the poster that should be dealt with as potentially flaming.

RDM_83 again

Dades wrote: »

I think you missed my point.

Whereas I feel those (and other terms) can be disingenuously used, I don't see the need to censure certain words as a result. A thread can allow those terms and (strongly) discuss them without resorting to declaring what people can and cannot say.

What you have posted above is an example of such discussion.

I suggested here that where certain terms continue to cause disruption, it is the poster that should be dealt with as potentially flaming.

Well I think your actual words speak for themselves

So your argument is that these words are not harmful in and off themselves and their regular usage in that thread is fine because people are not reacting to them. Thats a bit like saying its ok to say "Orange Bastards" because your in the Bogside Inn and nobody ever reacts to it there :rolleyes:

Could you please tell me what the likely reaction to me taking either of these approaches in that thread would be from moderators


A) If I reported each of those comments that use these would they be considered an issue and disruptive.

If I engaged in an argument each and every single time these phrases are used explaining why they are disingenuous propaganda, would the phrases be considered disruptive or would I simply be banned for dragging the thread of topic repeatedly?

C) If I posted each time some one used these phrases on thread with a mirroring reply would these terms themselves be considered disruptive or would I as a minority poster be considered to be flaming and so be banned?So that the status quo could return on with only one side of these terms being used.



I personally think the like reaction would be either B or C and me being banned, which is why I consider that the thread example you give is isn't a shining example of debate when one "side" is absent and the regular users continually misrepresent that "side"

P_1

It's up to the mods of the forum to rule if a certain phrase is problematic. A site wide diktat banning the use of the phrases is too black/white and IMO would also be a slap in the face to the mods

Dades

RDM_83 again wrote: »

So your argument is that these words are not harmful in and off themselves and their regular usage in that thread is fine because people are not reacting to them.

Not really, no.

Also, I've just realised the quotes you pulled up were from a 4 year old thread in Humanities (which I don't mod) that was closed after three pages because it was becoming a debate on semantics and not a Humanities issue.

Do you have a more cogent example?

RDM_83 again

Dades wrote: »

Not really, no.

But my point would be that you do consider them fine from a practical (mod) point of view as long as there is not disruption because of them, otherwise why would they be so commonly used in that thread (7+ times in one week is a significant usage!)

Do you see my point that if objected to their usage on thread regularly (or used the reverse phrases) I would probably be branded a problem poster.

Dades wrote: »

Also, I've just realised the quotes you pulled up were from a 4 year old thread in Humanities (which I don't mod) that was closed after three pages because it was becoming a debate on semantics and not a Humanities issue.

Do you have a more cogent example?

I'd be highly surprised if your views have changed as this debate has got more controversial and heated in the last few years, if I'm misrepresenting your views and they have changed I apologies.

Dades

RDM_83 again wrote: »

But my point would be that you do consider them fine from a practical (mod) point of view as long as there is not disruption because of them, otherwise why would they be so commonly used in that thread (7+ times in one week is a significant usage!)

Are you really suggesting that that zombie three-page thread suggests the terms you have difficulty with represents "significant usage? Or are commonly used?

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Do you see my point that if objected to their usage on thread regularly (or used the reverse phrases) I would probably be branded a problem poster.

By who? Certainly if you think you'd be banned in A&A you clearly don't post there much. A *potential* problem poster, imo, might be one who uses these phrases repeatedly in an attempt to flame.

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I'd be highly surprised if your views have changed as this debate has got more controversial and heated in the last few years, if I'm misrepresenting your views and they have changed I apologies.

My views haven't changed a jot! They're just as irrelevant to this notion of censuring certain terms as that thread you keep referencing.

RDM_83 again

Dades wrote: »

Are you really suggesting that that zombie three-page thread suggests the terms you have difficulty with represents "significant usage? Or are commonly used?

I was refering to the abortion thread in A + A which you mentioned in you first post on this thread, which I believe is a prime example of how these terms are used

Dades wrote: »

By who? Certainly if you think you'd be banned in A&A you clearly don't post there much. A *potential* problem poster, imo, might be one who uses these phrases repeatedly in an attempt to flame.

How do you define flaming? thats why I asked this question in my previous post

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Could you please tell me what the likely reaction to me taking either of these approaches in that thread would be from moderators


A) If I reported each of those comments that use these would they be considered an issue and disruptive.

If I engaged in an argument each and every single time these phrases are used explaining why they are disingenuous propaganda, would the phrases be considered disruptive or would I simply be banned for dragging the thread of topic repeatedly?

C) If I posted each time some one used these phrases on thread with a mirroring reply would these terms themselves be considered disruptive or would I as a minority poster be considered to be flaming and so be banned?So that the status quo could return on with only one side of these terms being used.

If I took options C above would I be considered as trying to flame if I did it everytime the phrase is used, note this would be me as a user reply to the usage of the term not initiating it, however since the term (anti-choice in this case) is used highly regularly in the thread (7+ times in last week) how would you as a moderator handle it, I would be a poster responding to what I consider a slur with a similar term and it would be grossely unfair to be penalised for flaming as I didn't initiate.

If I took option B and had a standard reply to its usage would that be considered thread derailing, considering again the very common usage of the phrase on the thread.

If you do consider all these options valid responses that would not result in moderation I respect your position in having a less restrictive moderation position, however this

Dades wrote: »

A *potential* problem poster, imo, might be one who uses these phrases repeatedly in an attempt to flame.

raises the issue of how do you tell if its simply a poster with stongly held views or a flamer, especially valid as a brief look at the thread shows that certain posters use the phase extremely regularly

This is why I consider these terms as valid for banning as disruptive and not adding anything to debate or discusion. I also think its key to consider I'm arguing for this on boards.ie, on a site like politics.ie or even reddit (though I am less familiar with it) there is much less active moderation in relation to all areas, and the idea of banning words and phrases or having a very strict line on certain issues is already practice on many of the forums on here.

And though I have got quite specific here, please note I did not initiate this feedback with that thread in mind, but I do consider it a good example.