State of the Discussion

The posts in play...

Avatar
Un-Ravelry
(38)
+
Teri Peters
The Other Victims of the Opioid Crisis
(51)
+
Avatar
A Camp By Any Other Name Would Smell as Foul
(162)
+
Clare Briggs
There’s A Trivia Buff In Every Office
(No Comments Yet)
+
 

The comments...

AvatarNorth in reply to fillyjonk

My dear lady, comments like that are half the reason people come here and read stuff.

AvatarMegan
+ I've been suffering for 5 years. Each year worse than the last. My dose is capped at the 90mme and this prevents me from switching [. . .]
+ I think the problem also is that individuals who choose not to follow the stated rules/social contract/whatever are sometimes much more difficult to deal with [. . .]

FWIW, you have to register and agree to a ToS to post on the forums. I think anyone can see patterns/projects.

AvatarChip Daniels in reply to George Turner

Gotta say, I'm diggin' this woke, Cornel West/ Black Lives Matter turn your comments have taken.

AvatarChip Daniels in reply to dragonfrog
+ Right, which is why I expanded it to "lets imagine"; My point being, that the boundaries of speech aren't obvious and easy to find. As much schadenfreude [. . .]
AvatarDoctor Jay
+ I suspect that the site might have done a bit better by identifying the problem behavior as behavior (doxxing and harassment) and banning individuals it [. . .]
AvatarJay L Gischer in reply to fillyjonk
+ I really love this comment. It serves to remind me that online communities MUST be moderated in some way, or things will get out [. . .]
AvatarGeorge Turner in reply to veronica d
+ It depends how much of a role the government played in creating the conditions for inner-city crime to thrive. In some cases, it was [. . .]
Avatardragonfrog

So, will there soon be a sort of "Gab but for knitting"? I'm sure it will be delightful.

AvatarGeorge Turner in reply to DensityDuck
+ Very true. Regarding my above observation, perhaps a lawyer here can comment on whether the Supreme Court wouldn't fully weigh whether someone else's rights [. . .]
Avatardragonfrog in reply to Chip Daniels
+ That's not at all like what's happening here. They're not banning "registered Republicans" or "registered Democrats". This is more like banning T-shirts that read "registered Republican" or [. . .]
AvatarPinky in reply to DensityDuck
+ I find it frustrating the way our own OT deletes certain comments. There's a Stepford quality to it. This appears to be a [. . .]
Avatardragonfrog in reply to George Turner
+ That's... not at all what it sounds like is happening at Ravelry. They're not demanding to know how each person voted so they can know whether [. . .]
Avatardragonfrog in reply to DensityDuck
+ That's the problem though - you can set up rules like you describe that are inherently subjective and rules-lawyer-able, so people can play stupid dog [. . .]
Avatarveronica d in reply to Morat20
+ Of course you're both right. Crime rates are lower than they were, but they're still too high, particularly homicide rates. That said, there is a stark [. . .]
AvatarChip Daniels in reply to DensityDuck
+ To be Excruciatingly Fair, though, lets imagine Amazon or Google banned anyone who was a registered Democrat, or Republican. As was one of the issues raised [. . .]
AvatarMorat20 in reply to Mike Dwyer
+ Inner city crime rates? You mean the ones that are half the rate they were in the 90s? https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45236.pdf is pretty clear on the matter (Figures [. . .]
AvatarDensityDuck in reply to Chip Daniels
+ I don't have a problem with websites banning things; all the things, or even a certain flavor of things. I mean, I actually prefer Ravelry's action [. . .]
AvatarDensityDuck in reply to George Turner
+ I don't think it's especially tricky if the users whose commentary is now banned had to register. If that's the case then it's simple [. . .]
AvatarChip Daniels
+ The precise legal answer to this question is, as always, "It's complicated", with a corollary of "It depends". The boundaries of free speech and property have [. . .]

I think that we're going to find that Freedom of Speech had "ease of use" as a hidden feature.

+ Elsewhere there was some discussion about the various laws and rules in different nations 'round the world, and would they have to conform to them. [. . .]
AvatarGeorge Turner in reply to Em Carpenter
+ I could see that as a tricky decision if rights are regarded as slicing up a pie, so that making one slice bigger necessarily makes [. . .]
AvatarGeorge Turner in reply to Saul Degraw
+ I think its the aftermath of the 1968 student movement, where all things had to be political to raise people's consciousness and bring about a [. . .]
AvatarGeorge Turner in reply to fillyjonk
+ That was nicely stated. I read an interesting book on eating written by a woman who'd gone through just about every phase and fad. You [. . .]
+ I wasn't arguing about "rights". Of course people have the right to oppose Apartheid (only racists would argue that they don't). I was asking if we've reached [. . .]
+ I suppose the question then comes "where is Ravelry?" Is Ravelry where its servers are? Is Ravelry where it's readers are? If we have discovered that The [. . .]
+ There is nothing in that to apologize for. Your comment about the small team that runs it getting tired of playing wackamole is exactly the [. . .]
AvatarEm Carpenter in reply to Jaybird
+ Setting aside jurisdictional questions, I'm going to opine that no, it doesn't. Pruneyard was specific to California's own constitution, not the US Constitution. Ravelry, not [. . .]
AvatarSaul Degraw in reply to Jaybird

I think BDS has a right to do what they are doing. Why did you think otherwise?

Dude. That was an *AWESOME* comment.

So, like BDS but for Republicans?

AvatarPinky in reply to fillyjonk
+ That was a good comment. I wouldn't have minded if it were longer. I know that the job of moderator is thankless, but [. . .]
AvatarDensityDuck in reply to fillyjonk
+ The thing is, you can do "we're banning all shit-starting emotionally-charged posting because shit-starting emotional arguments are not what this site is here for", and [. . .]
AvatarMike Dwyer in reply to Chip Daniels
+ Chip, Inner city crime has been a problem that Democrats have ignored for decades. You all have been in a tizzy about this detainment issue for [. . .]
AvatarSaul Degraw
+ I support this decision. An rpg site made a similar one. The truth is we are well beyond simple R and D disagreement those days [. . .]

oh crap, that was really long. I'm sorry. Take it down if you want.

AvatarGeorge Turner in reply to Jaybird
+ Pretty much every issue is more important than the southern border, at least according to Democrats. "a fake crisis at the border." - Nancy Pelosi "a crisis [. . .]
+ Warning: this is very personal and probably not very illuminating. I'm on Ravelry. I consider myself....well, kinda purple. I don't fit in any political camp right [. . .]
AvatarPinky

It's simple: you bar all political conversation, because that would strike anyone but the most self-righteous as fair.

+ No we get to see every Trumpist dumbass on Twitter[*] arguing that section 230 applies because Ravelry is a monopoly. * But I repeat myself. [. . .]

Not just Fiber Art but High-Fiber Art: https://www.moma.org/collection/works/283373 .

+ Who knew what when is a question that will probably never be resolved completely. Certainly the Americans who liberated them were completely unprepared for [. . .]
AvatarDensityDuck

I guess this attitude makes sense. I mean, it's not like they refused to bake a cake for someone.

Hey, lawyer types! I have a question about whether this case applies.

Does it?

AvatarChip Daniels in reply to Mike Dwyer

So we should also address crime in addition to the camps.

I'm on board.