Mono wiring vs. poly wiring

[Ceoli]

Originally Posted by Quath

Now that I see Mono's quote:

It seems pretty clear that he is talking about his own personal viewpoint and showing what may have influenced him to see things in a certain way. He is not saying all monogamous people see things this way. From his personal experience, he sees this as an influence. In effect, it sounds like he is saying "In my mono mind..."

And I would still call that to task. It's fine to have a personal opinion on something, but to attribute an opinion that has nothing to do with the things that monogamy addresses to a person's own mono wiring is not only making a larger definition of what being wired mono is, but it is attaching all sorts of inaccurate assumptions to that definition. So it's not the opinion being called into question- it's the stated fact that such opinions are being driven by monogamous wiring that I'm disputing.

As I said earlier, that kind of reasoning creates an artificial divide between mono and poly people. Saying things like "Of course you can't understand, you're not wired mono" just makes that divide even bigger. My motivations are not to lambaste Mono for having an opinion. My motivations are to shrink the divides that exist between mono and poly people because of such flawed reasoning, regardless of how generally accepted that reasoning may be.

[AutumnalTone]

I've pared many messages from the thread that were parts of non-productive tangents. I much prefer to let a discussion run its course naturally, though I will act to keep a discussion on topic and functional if I think it's becoming toxic.

Please, consider your words carefully. Comments that aren't outright ad hominem can stil be insulting and inflammatory.

Also, consider your assumptions carefully. Assuming that somebody else is discussing in poor faith can derail a conversation in short order.

[Joreth]

I appreciate the effort and hard work it takes to moderate a discussion forum, especially when things get heated and emotions get riled up. There is often nothing a mod can do that won't piss someone off when they step in to cool things down.

This is why I take the time to explain my opinions on these sorts of procedures, so that the rules can be modified, or the moderators can at least understand what some possible consequences might be during the enacting of said rules. These consequences might be acceptable, but at least they will not be a surprise.

My opposition to the method of editing posts doesn't actually work in my favor here, as the editing makes me look better since no one can go back and pull out those lines that so angered everyone. But, objectively, I see flaws in the method, hence my comments. My words are in print for all to see, including the offensive ones. Unlike certain politicians, I do understand that when it's said on the internet, it's on the record and one can't say "I never said that" when one so clearly did. One can explain and/or apologize, but one can't really hide that it was said in the first place.

I did try to refrain from crying "why me? they did it too!", especially since the initial response I received from Seventh Crow was a private discussion, so maybe I wasn't the only one being talked to, but since it has been brought up publicly, I do feel it is not out of place for me to point out that it appears as though my posts were singled out for editing and deletion when there were other posts with equally strong use of language and apparently high amounts of emotion.

Perhaps I was the only one who didn't see the need to try and censor someone else's words just because I didn't like what was being said. As mentioned previously, the only rule that might have been applicable was rather fuzzy on whether it applied in this situation or not (I maintain that I did not break the ad hominem rule except to point out what an ad hominem was on several occasions to illuminate that I did not, in fact, make an ad hominem attack). As far as I could tell, neither was anyone else breaking that rule, they were just getting upset, so I saw no reason to try and censor anyone else even though I clearly disagreed with several other posts, and some of them were worded just as strongly, if not moreso, than mine.

Breaking in and asking everyone to step away for a few hours was a reasonable approach and first step, and, as everyone can see, the argument immediately ceased. All following posts are regarding the moderating tactics, which the moderators themselves brought up. Since a moderator has stated that editing other people's posts will not be used for now, we can leave that one be.

But, like Ceoli, I would like to know where the line is drawn on which posts will be selected for deletion, since the posts that were deleted were not against any guidelines. Repetitiveness isn't an ad hominem attack, nor was it spam. Several posts were made asking what a person actually said, and some of those posts were immediately after a quote taken from that person. I figured people couldn't see them for some reason or another, and all caps, bolding, and large fonts is considered "yelling". Since we were already repeating ourselves several times, repeating myself in rapid succession didn't seem out of line, and is not addressed in the guidelines one way or another.

There should be some objective way to determine which posts get deleted, so that the moderators do not delete the posts of the people they happen to disagree with while people they agree with use equal or similar language or tactics. I am not saying this was the case here - I have no idea why some posts were deleted & edited while others remain, and that's kind of the point. If I don't know what made some posts eligible and others not, then I can't avoid breaking the guidelines in the future. There should be some method of determining that this post counts as a breach in the guidelines while that post doesn't.

Unless, of course, part of the guidelines include "all rule-breaker decisions are a subjective decision", in which case, it's entirely up to how the moderators feel about someone. This is a valid and legal method, most notably used in certain other online poly communities, but, IMO, encourages "favorites" and not designed to make the larger community feel welcome.

**This was written prior to Seventh Crow's most recent post about "Thread pared" but was not posted then because the thread was locked. I had some points I still wanted to make, so I posted it anyway, even after the "Thread Pared" post. I'm really not a fan of someone else going back and editing/deleting other people's words, thereby changing the nature of the discussion, whether they're my posts or someone else's. Again, spam and useless name-calling I think are reasonable uses of the deletion privilege.

[Ceoli]

Perhaps I was the only one who didn't see the need to try and censor someone else's words just because I didn't like what was being said.

I certainly don't see that need. Unfortunately, deleting the posts doesn't change the basic problem that many people started taking things personally and were responding accordingly.

[MonoVCPHG]

I've come back to this thread to give credit to a question that underlies all of this and not hijack LR's thread. One last shot. LOL!

Here was the point I was trying to make.

A person who is inherently monogamous or wired monogamously has no desire to open up. This is not to be confused with a person who is just in a monogamous relationship because they have only found one love so far. That person may have a desire or acceptance to open up.

So, when viewing information on how to "open up" the information is perceived as a threat to what the truly monogamous person wants in their life. It is not seen as enlightening or positive because it goes against their nature and threatens the world they know.

Same words, same pages, but the information is received differently. The forecast of a warm dry summer could be perceived as the best thing in the world to a sun bather…but to a farmer the same forecast might be viewed as the worst thing as it could spell disaster to what he knows and loves…his crops.

That is all I was trying to say Ygirl…sorry if it sounded confusing or divisive..but there is a difference…no sense denying that. We just need to accept it and work with that.


More peace and more Love
Mono

[NeonKaos]

Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG

I've come back to this thread to give credit to a question that underlies all of this and not hijack LR's thread. One last shot. LOL!

Here was the point I was trying to make.

A person who is inherently monogamous or wired monogamously has no desire to open up. This is not to be confused with a person who is just in a monogamous relationship because they have only found one love so far. That person may have a desire or acceptance to open up.

So, when viewing information on how to "open up" the information is perceived as a threat to what the truly monogamous person wants in their life. It is not seen as enlightening or positive because it goes against their nature and threatens the world they know.

Same words, same pages, but the information is received differently. The forecast of a warm dry summer could be perceived as the best thing in the world to a sun bather…but to a farmer the same forecast might be viewed as the worst thing as it could spell disaster to what he knows and loves…his crops.

I get it. I get what you are saying. I agree that two people can read the same book and take diametrically opposed viewpoints of it.

And now I'm going to drop the bullshit completely.

The underlined portion in the quote above basically states that because YOU are "wired" to be monogamous (which NO ONE here has any problem with), that it makes you qualified to say that ALL PEOPLE WHO ARE WIRED MONOGAMOUS WILL BE THREATENED BY A BOOK ABOUT "OPENING UP". You do not even KNOW all monogamous people. You do not know how all monogamous people think. You do not know what makes all monogamous folks "tick", what makes all monogamous people feel threatened, what makes all monogamous people happy. The only thing you can say all monogamous people have in common based on their monogamous nature is that they can all ONLY BE IN LOVE WITH ONE PERSON AT A TIME.

It's like saying "I'm a woman, and all women want children. Therefore, all women FEEL THREATENED by people who DON'T want children."

It's like saying "I'm gay, so I can tell you how all gay people will feel about a certain movie, because scientists have proved that homosexuality is based on nature not nurture."

This is not about how YOU, Mono, feel about a certain book (and the comment made was not about "opening up" but about whether a certain book seems "new agey" or not).

YOU do NOT know for a FACT that ALL MONOGAMOUS PEOPLE FEEL THREATENED by information about "opening up". You know that it makes YOU feel threatened.

Are you saying that you DO know how all monogamous people feel about it? What are all their names? Did they tell you this in writing or over the phone, or in person? Really, I want to know. I'm trying to understand because if my reasoning is out of line, i'd like to change it so i can you know, learn and grow from the experience. I don't HAVE to be right about this...

[MonoVCPHG]

Wow...I'll concede to your point. In my opinion I feel any person who is wired monogamously as I feel it internally, with the ability to love one person intimately/romantically at a time, who is in a mongamous relationship and is presented a book on "opening up" by their partner, would have a tendancy to view the information as a threat to the relationship style they know. The partner looking to open up would see it as a positive with a chance for growth as they define it which is neither right or wrong.

If any referance to "new ageyness" was implied, I apologize, because having never actually used that word, it was not implied or intended.

[NeonKaos]

Originally Posted by MonoVCPHG

Wow...I'll concede to your point. In my opinion I feel any person who is wired monogamously as I feel it internally, with the ability to love one person intimately/romantically at a time, who is in a mongamous relationship and is presented a book on "opening up" by their partner, would have a tendancy to view the information as a threat to the relationship style they know. The partner looking to open up would see it as a positive with a chance for growth as they define it which is neither right or wrong.

If any referance to "new ageyness" was implied, I apologize, because having never actually used that word, it was not implied or intended.

I admire your attempt to put your statement into E-prime (English Prime, which is a practical application of General Semantics and more information on this can be obtained through Googling these terms), but I would replace the word "would" with "might" or "may" and venture that the "IMO" is superfluous. However, you get an "A" for effort.

The remark about "new-ageyness" was originally made by Seventh Crow; I thought we all knew that, but perhaps it was not made clear that that is what I was referring to. It certainly could have sounded like I was saying it was you who said that.

Stick a fork in me, anyone?

[MonoVCPHG]

Originally Posted by YGirl

you get an "A" for effort.

WOOHOO!! I got an "A"! I'll take it

[ImaginaryIllusion]

Originally Posted by YGirl

Stick a fork in me, anyone?

Is there an app for that?

(There's no emote...I checked)