WBC

[Kate Thomas]

https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,31441.0.html

West boro Baptist Church is a "headline/hate ministry" the only reason they exists is to get headlines and spread hate. I respectfully suggest  we  ignore any and all stories involving this organization. Posting any story, positive or negative only advances their distorted views.

I do not see this as censorship of news but rather an editorial choice. unfortunately there are plenty of other sources that will write and publish about this group. IMHO Susan's Place does not need to distribute their hate filled headlines.

if you need further information on this group see this Wikipedia page

[Kaelin]

Oh good, this topic found its way to a more suitable (new) forum.

There are plenty of individuals are groups who have demonstrated a total unwillingness to understand TG (or frankly any progressive) issues and only put out speech showing no interest or curiousity about opinions outside of their circle.  Unless they have something to say that shows some sort of original idea, it's really a waste of our efforts to talk about them.  All we can do 95% (or more) of the time is just offer a condemnation or ignore it outright, and that's not going to enhance our understanding.

In my experience so far, we are so flooded with news-related articles, it might do us some good to filter out some of the redundancies and garbage.  Perhaps we can limit ourselves to one Ted Kennedy ENDA-related article a week (barring new developments), and ignoring O'Reilly whenever he says, well, anything.    Having fewer threads can allow us to respond to a larger percentage of them, as well as encourage sustained discussions on a topic (rather than having it getting bumped off the front page by one or two new threads on the same topic).

That's my take, anyway. 

[lady amarant]

I would argue though that we miss an opportunity if we do that. I often end up taking people on in the comments section of stories like these. Most of the time it's frustrating and tragic, but every now and again you manage to make somebody just stop and think for a second. I've only managed this once, in story published in "The Scotsman" a few weeks back, but that one success keeps me going back for more, despite some of the very nasty abuse I get in response.

~Simone.
       Glutton for Punishment.

[Kaelin]

Based on an initial glace of the site you mentioned, it does not seem to be what I had in mind for filtering out.  On the surface, it seems to be an organization that does not carry an agenda, unlike WBC or FOX News.  But maybe the author of the article did.  In that event, I should offer a revision:

If the organization releasing the content, or the organization hosting the person that releases the content demonstrates that they don't care about having honest discussion or engaging about TG issues, and that person or organization is not accountable to us in way (unlike politicians), it's generally not worth our time tossing them in the forum.  Those entities just aren't going to listen.

On the flip side, this revision would allow us to pay attention to offending contributors to "unbiased" organizations.  We could still hope to influence the management in such cases (such as "The Scotsman"), so it's probably a good idea to keep those headlines coming.

[EDIT]: Okay, Wikipedia calls the paper center-right in terms of its politics.  Obviously this idea paints The Scotsman in a somewhat ambiguous light, because it'd be hard to say whether it leans conservative in practice (where it incidentally expresses those ideas, in which case they are willing to listen -- and by US standards, it may seem neutral rather than right-leaning), or whether it deliberately plays to a conservative base like Fox News does (which leans *way* to the right).

[lady amarant]

Kaelin, you do have a point, though I would contend that, in censoring them, we censor ourselves as well. People who routinely visit sites like the one you describe tend not to visit those with opposing viewpoints, and just get further indoctrinated. The are bigots through ignorance as much as anything else, because they never hear the other side. Granted they may also be vested in their viewpoints because of fear and comfort, and be resistant to opposing views, but every now and again somebody might just come along and read good arguments on the basis of science or ethics or history, and it might just make them think twice. If the question here is of denying them site-stats, it's hardly like one lone voice of a trans-person will make a huge difference, but a vocal trans-person may just get some of them thinking.

~Simone

[Kate Thomas]

Frank Phelps has already won a victory. By my hand. His actions  and protests of his actions have manipulated me into trying in some small way deni him a few headlines.  instead i have only provided another vehicle to direct attention to his organization. my actions in posting this were in no way meant to do that.

that one success keeps me going back for more, despite some of the very nasty abuse I get in response.

Simone this is a carbon copy of Frank Phelps point of view.  If he gets  9998 negative responses and  then 2 positive responses he has had a great day,  thanks god for it, then goes right to work planing his next headline grabbing scheme.

At this point he has planed for the 12 to protest at the funeral of a 24 year Iraq contractor in California
on the 15th his group will be protesting at the funeral of a marine major in Virgina
hopefully the patriot guard riders will help the family's from being disturbed. but still having some one use your loved ones funeral as a protest venue.
Then the pope is in the country so he will be making every attempt at injecting his views into that trip.
there will be plenty of corespondents needing to turn in a story. i am sure he will get his share of attention. his schedule puts him in all the right places at the right times.


Look for it all in headline news


Or is using a family's funeral  The funeral of honored soldiers who have lost their life protecting the freedom of speech among other ideals to numerous to mention.  as a soap box to advance hate..... "newsworthy"


The pope will not be delivering a hate message. but don't worry Frank Phelps will be.   is that message of hate..... "newsworthy"

The truth is that the stories about frank and the WBC will still be written. he will likely be interviewed within the next month 

My suggestion is that stories about the WBC  are not newsworthy of this forums news boards.
(this would be an editorial view)

each and every headline is a victory for Frank Phelps and the WBC message of hate. do you really want to add another.




I already have just by posting this thread.

[lady amarant]

Giggle. I suppose my stance is that, if he does it, then we need to do the same, if only to counteract his tactics.

... on the other hand ...

Fight fire with fire and the whole world burns.

It's a tough call, either way, either fight his message, and in the process spread it, or ignore it, in which case he'll just spread it anyway, unopposed.

~Simone.