I have come to the conclusion that there are some people who should simply not be on ProU.
How can I presume to decide such a thing, you may ask? Well, for starters - I can't decide such a thing. I'm not on staff. These are merely my opinions. However, if you take a quick look at ProU's Editional Policy (http://progressiveu.org/editorialpolicy) you'll discover that ProU is not, in fact, a general blogging site like LiveJournal - rather, there are quite a few rules/guidelines about what you can and cannot post about.
So here's who shouldn't be blogging here, in my most humble opinion:
1. Close-minded people. Here I define "close-minded" as people who are unwilling to consider others opinions as possibly being correct and their own as possibly being wrong. In other words, someone who is unwilling to change their mind. If your purpose being here is only to preach at others and convert them to your beliefs, go away. It's fine if you're very strong in your beliefs and very unlikely to change them.... but if you're not willing to question those beliefs and to take others opinions seriously, you shouldn't be here.
2. People unwilling to argue their point. If you're going to post about it, then you'd better be prepared to respond to people with a bit more than, "Well, let's just agree to disagree." If it's important enough for you to be posting about here, it should be important enough for you to argue about. It's one thing to leave an argument if you feel like it's going nowhere (though that's still pretty impolite), but don't make a habit of it.
3. People who refuse to back up their arguments with evidence. You believe the earth is flat? Great, post all about it - but you'd better post some evidence, too. If you make a claim that is controversial or not considered general knowledge - EVIDENCE. And by "evidence" I mean valid sources. If you claim that marijuana lowers IQ, don't show me some study from The Coalition Against Marijuana Use. Find something a little more objective and unbiased. For that matter, your personal experiences are NOT evidence. Get that?
4. People who refuse to use correct English. Hey, some mispellings and typos are fine, but don't start posting everything in caps and then arguing as to why that's okay. No, it's not okay. If I can't read it easily, it's not okay. That also means no chatspeak, by the way. Oh, and paragraphs? They're really nice.
5. People who think this is LiveJournal. Don't get me wrong - I love LJ, I have a couple thousand posts there, I'm a total LJ addict since age 13. But ProU is NOT the place to angst about your boyfriend. I am SICK of reading more posts about your boyfriend. I DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOUR BOYFRIEND. It's okay to write about yourself, as long as it's not just... "Omg I love my boyfriend" for ten paragraphs and then a little "Isn't love nice? Everyone should love each other" in an attempt to somehow make it appropriate for ProU.
There, that's all I can think of now. :p Feel free to comment with your own suggestions!
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I agree with pretty much everything here. I like chatspeak tho lol (no pun intended... is that a pun?) except for close-minded people. People like that give me someone to not only argue against, but usually they are not very strong in arguing, but will stick to their beliefs so its entertaining arguing against them
.
I completely agree with absolutely everything you said. Except that I think it IS okay to post about abortion, etc, as long as your opinion is at least a bit original, and that your post isn't coming after TWENTY OTHER POSTS ABOUT THE SAME FUCKING SUBJECT. I'm going to write about abortion, but I'm going to wait till people stop talking about it 24/7. x.x
And, will fix.
No, talking about abortion is like beating a dead horse. After being here for three contests, and participating in 2 of them, I'm really really sick of reading about abortion. Nothing original ever pops up. Ever. The survey someone put up is about as close to original as you can get, and considering all those points are brought up over and over again, it's not all that original.
Stem Cells, you can pull some new information on, because it hasn't been beaten to death yet. In fact, I only remember a handful of posts on that, so I don't know why Nick listed it in the first place.
Gay marriage... dead horse. And the same people give the same arguments in every single discussion. It gets old. Really fast.
The others are probably ok. But abortion and gay marriage... pretty dead. Religion is nearing its end very very quickly.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
....but some abortion arguments haven't been argued enough. D: At least imo. Same with gay marriage. There's the common arguments and then there's the not-so-common ones which haven't totally been discussed to death. Plus new people with new ideas and beliefs come in all the time. So don't bite my head off if I post about abortion in a bit? (I'll be posting two things - one being "Common Misconceptions about Abortion" and the other "Why Abortion Must Be Legal." I think they'll both have things that haven't been mentioned ten zillion times before.)
I posted about religion only because I was tired of reading about it.... I tried to be as original as I could though. :-)
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/sawaboof
"...There is a crushing guilt that comes with being a Catholic. Whether things are good or bad or you're simply... eating tacos in the park, there is always the crushing guilt."
-30 Rock-
I can see 'evolution' added to that list...
Sustainably yers, http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
" People who think that it's ok to joke around with me before I've established a relationship with them."
They lurk, reading your quips too awestruck to reply, then when they try to join in the fun...
Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Yeah. Whoa intimidation.
yeah, I kind of figure that's the problem.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
My Creative Writing
I back out of arguments all the time. I can't stand when they get nasty, or when it goes nowhere!
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
From my observations of you, you don't... anyway, it's completely acceptable to back out of an argument with a person who shouldn't be on ProU in the first place (see list, heh). :p So if someone's being nasty or it's going nowhere (and it will go SOMEWHERE if both people are open-minded), go ahead and back out. :p
I guess I fall under your closed-minded catagory, since I rarely, if ever, change my mind on things. I'm just REALLY stubborn. Thing is, I do think about what others say...if they say it in a respectful way. I'm not here to preach. I don't expect people to be any less stubborn than I am, but I do want to make them THINK. Look at things in a different way. You know?
Stubborn =/= close-minded.
Yes, but your definition of closed-minded as "someone who is unwilling to change their mind" fits me perfectly. Just because I am stubborn.
I won't change my mind, but I will consider the opinion you express. *shrugs* I don't know. I'm just really out of it today.
I think that is very interesting that you use: Close-minded people. Here I define "close-minded" as people who are unwilling to consider others opinions as possibly being correct and their own as possibly being wrong.
Using this as an example for who should and shouldn't be able to post here is completly hypacritical(most probably spelled wrong please don't ban me). What could be more close minded and unfair than prohibiting others from speaking. Period. You can't be an open minded individual if you are supportive of censorship of have the kind of elitist opinions that you express in the remainder of your blog..
Before you accuse me take a look at yourself.
Eric Clapton
If you can't spell, use spellcheck.
It seems you didn't even read my post... I recommend you read it again, especially the first few paragraphs.
This comment seems to violate both rule two and three. Suggesting that some one reread what they have already read isn't defending a position and it certainly isn't backing up your position with facts from unbiased sources. If you are releying on the first paragraph where you say that you can't judge because you aren't staff then you should have stopped right there. You can't say that you aren't judging people or suggesting to censor them and then proceed to preach how and to who censorship should be imposed upon. If you would like to have a discussion as to why your opinion doesn't violate the basic premise of freedom of speech I would welcome that but please don't insult me by suggesting that I don't understand what is written. Live by your own rules and defend your position or don't even bother to reply.
Right, and where did I say that every single comment has to be defending a position? O.o I was referring to blog posts and to discussions/debates.
I'm not censoring anyone, period. I'm not staff, so I can't. I'm merely making suggestions as to who should post here. I'm not saying that those who don't follow those guidelines should be censored (though, why not? If their writing is not relevant to ProU, why allow it to clutter it up?), rather that those people should simply leave because this is obviously not the right place for them.
I recommend you take note of the many suggestions a member of staff added to my post as a comment. Take it up with someone who IS a member of staff and has the power to censor you.
Nick responded as a member of the site, not as a member of the staff.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Exactly! He's not enforcing any of that either. No one is. We're writing our opinions. My opinion doesn't even have any real power because I have no authority on ProU.
***This is obviously a discussion or debate over a blog post and according to your rule number 2 these people should not be allowed to post:
"2. People unwilling to argue their point. If you're going to post about it, then you'd better be prepared to respond to people with a bit more than, "Well, let's just agree to disagree." If it's important enough for you to be posting about here, it should be important enough for you to argue about. It's one thing to leave an argument if you feel like it's going nowhere (though that's still pretty impolite), but don't make a habit of it."
I feel as though you are obligated to defend your postion and your rational that:
"Right, and where did I say that every single comment has to be defending a position"
contridicts your earlier statement and defeats the entire purpose of your original blog.
I took your final suggestion under advisement:
"I recommend you take note of the many suggestions a member of staff added to my post as a comment. Take it up with someone who IS a member of staff and has the power to censor you."
Frankly I'm not impressed with either of their imput. I guess I just don't see how either Nick or Mike had to say is relevant to a discussion about censorship.
If these individuals are responsible for determining who does and does not get censored clearly anything goes. If you chose to tackle an issue as contriversial as censorship you better be damn sure of your position and able to defend it without relying on "I don't have to defend every comment" as a defense. If you don't have anything intelligent to say in response I wouldn't find it all suprising since defending censorship as part of modern American values seems completly ignorent. However if you would like to attempt to defend your position I would like the oppurtunity to have a debate about the value of freedom of speech.
***mvenus929, Mar 11, 2008.
Your VERY FIRST sentence was an attempt at a personal insult. You just broke the first rule of debating.
How on earth did you somehow get my post to mean that every comment must have significant content in the first place? O.o I was referring to debates, which I thought was obvious.
Yes, those individuals are indeed responsible for that. If you looked a little closer, you'd see Nick had posted his own ideas for "censorship". You'll also notice that Nick, despite being a member of staff, did not in fact enforce his ideas, nor mine, though he liked them.
These are OUR OPINIONS, based on the Editorial Policy of this site. If you want to blog uncensored, a site dedicated to a particular type of post and discussion is not the place for you.
But please, don't get so worked up about it. Perhaps you are the one who needs to take a hit of the bong...
If you chose to tackle an issue as contriversial as censorship you better be damn sure of your position and able to defend it without relying on "I don't have to defend every comment" as a defense. If you don't have anything intelligent to say in response I wouldn't find it all suprising since defending censorship as part of modern American values seems completly ignorent. However if you would like to attempt to defend your position I would like the oppurtunity to have a debate about the value of freedom of speech.
If you decide to act as though you are more intelligent and thus superior to me, you'd better use spellcheck. :)
If you choose to respond to an exchange that didn't even include you, you'd better make sure you know what was said and meant, too. Look over that particular response again, IN CONTEXT.
Sorry, not interested. I don't think that's a particularly interesting debate. Try over at the forums?
.
Apperently people are censored because some of my comments have been removed by your fellow staff members. Somehow your repeated use of the word fuck and repeated comments about beastiality and beating baby featuses are more acceptable than being called a liberal. I'm certainly glad that you agree with the author of this fine post sponsering censorship on progerssiveU
Using swear words is not against the Terms of Use.
You are free to appeal any censorship you feel is unjust, though.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
.
Personal attacks use a persons name or the words you are. MY post used neither of those things I merely stated an opinion that there is nothing more frustrating to me than psyudo intellectual liberal elitists with more mouth than brains. That is my personal opinion not a personal attack. This is directed at a group of individuals. If I were to say that I didn't like people who swear of make dead baby jokes or people who go to florida for the winter these statements aren't any different, just a general opinion about a group of individuals not a specific one. If you look at the previous post Nicholas Aden says that he hates the vast majority of new users on this site. I am a new user so this is directed towards me and the word hate is certainly stronger than frustration. Does this make it a personal attack? No because his comment is directed towards group of individuals just like mine. Return my post to it's original form.
You should take this up with the mods, not on my blog, but since you posted it here...
Nicholas was referring to a large group of people, not a specific person, thus, his attack was on a group, and wasn't a "personal" attack. He did not name you, you merely assumed that you were in the "majority".
You, on the other hand, referred (or appeared to refer) specifically to me, insulting me (calling me a psuedo-intellectual elitist is definitely an insult, or do you want to argue that it is not?). You did not seem to be referring to a group as you replied to my post specifically, thus replying to me specifically. Perhaps you could try editing your post to clarify this position so you are not calling me, specifically, a psuedo-intellectual elitist.
psuedo-intellectual elitist
Every time I see it on here, I keep thinking of Peter Griffin (Family Guy)repeating the phrase "shallow and pedantic" in the episode where he became a pseudo-intellectual elitist.
I think your blogs show that you just might have a smidgen more intellect than Peter Griffin. ;-)
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/sawaboof
"...There is a crushing guilt that comes with being a Catholic. Whether things are good or bad or you're simply... eating tacos in the park, there is always the crushing guilt."
-30 Rock-
I did not refer to you specifically either by name or indirectly. My response was below yours and in response to something that you wrote. That is exactly what nick has done just because his is removed from mine by physical space it is still a comment that is directed towards something i wrote. seeming to appearing to i believe it to be are all subjective actions up to individuals to interpret as they will but that doesn't mean that it is the correct interpretation. It doesn't mean it isn't either. The point is that I never called you a psuedo intellectual elitist if you were able to reread the post you would see that. the fact that this site is so quick to remove comments without speaking to the party involved is very scary and I highly doubt that they will be as quick to remedy the situation as they were to censor my comments I have filed a protest with the site administrators.
The reason that it is being discussed on your blog is that I'm guessing that you are the one who reported it. certainly a busy moderator isn't out scouring all the blogs that are posted looking for personal attacks. I think that it is well within the context of of the blog because you are suggesting who should be banned from posting on the site in my opinion this is censorship and now part of my post has been censored at your prompting. How is this not relevent to the rest of the posts about your blog
Apparently the mods thought it sounded like you did. So did I, personally. I see no reason why a busy moderator should have to talk to a user before removing inappropriate content. I'd be curious to hear the administerator's reply. :)
Please desist this conversation. You are both out of line.
If you have a problem - bring it up with the mods or try to work it out in a PM. This public argument "You said..." "Nuh uh, I did not" "Yes you did" brings you both down. It's unnecessary and moot, since none of the users reading this really care about your personal issues with another user.
your absolute refusal to defend your opinion amazes me. there is a comment section attached to the end of each blog for a reason. i have made three diffenent attempts to get you to expand upon your position and explain you opinions but apperently you are unwilling each time you chose to change the subject and discuss something entirely different rather than explain yourself. as for your ascertation that the ability to correctly use spell check is some how related to intelligence is absurd. learn to spell would perhaps be a better comment not learn to use spell check. however those distinctions seem to be what is important to your type of people the form of a thing as opposed to the function or the substance of the thing there are many spelling errors in here i am sure perhaps you could ignore what i have said refuse to defend your position and instead list them out for me and add a good link for some spell check software
Very astute observation. One I tend to agree with. Anyone can use spell check (and not using it only shows how lazy you really are); only the truly capable can write without it. MS Word does not contain all the answers to proper use of the English language; in fact, often it is incorrect in its suggestions.
Quite true, but if one claims to be intellectually superior to me, their writing should show it.
Writting and spelling are two seperate issues. if by writting you mean putting together logical arguements that support a main idea in a way that is clear and consise I think I'm up to the task, although I don't recall claiming intellectual superiority to anyone but I appreciate the compliment regardless
Please use the reply button.
You did not actually respond to my previous post. Please explain your problems with it. I attempted to explain and defend my position there, quite clearly imo, please point out what you need clarified.
I completeley agree with you on statement #1. Yes blogging is a place where you can voice your opinion and you're entitled to talk about anything. But when a disagreement is in the air you should not take it in offense or totally disregard their opinion just because it differs from yours. Thats normal, what would the world be if everyone thought the same. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and as a bloger, you should expect neg/pos comments and try to understand where he/she is comming from. Thats the good of hearing other opinions, you are exposed to a light you never noticed before. Dont neglect it.
that there should be a good balance of stubborn people and open minded people.
In my opinion, if there were just open minded people here, we would move very slowly in any direction of beliefs, opinions, and concerns...because we would all agree with each other (for the most part).
Uh, what?
Open-minded does not mean having the same opinion O.o
well then...
I think that the line that separates strongly opinionated open minded people with ignorant, stubborn people is a bit hazy.
[edit]
crap, i forget to do the "reply" thing. sorry.
HAHAHAHA the part about the post about the boyfriend and girlfriend thing made me almost piss on myself! That was hilarious and I agree with you on that!