Discussion of the Day: Virtual Flirting (Page 8)

honestly I feel even one oversensitive person is far too much, talking about majority, there are two people who are flirting and have a wavelength, a moral police steps in and says ok, I find this offensive, anyone else here think this is offensive, majority is on the side of the flirters. by this action the moral police has succeded in putting a mortification effect on the flirters, that goes against any discussion groups rule #1, treat your fellow member with respect

Generally by this time the flirters would have left the discussion and the moral police is now in the majority of one

what has just happened is the moral police has succesfully been able to impose their set of values, morals on others. Now people do not join forums to learn morals, do they?

In your opinion, just as the self-professed moral police is being over-sensitive and supposed to ignore the dirty words and flirting comments, the poster of such comments can (almost always does in fact ) ignore the police/ or should report the police in turn for that
never happens, Indians/South Asians in general are very respectful or others feelings

e.g A boy and a girl are standing by a street corner, elderly person passes by clears the throat, generally the kids will say, lets talk tommorow at school/college, the kid will never say, "Uncleji Gale me kharash hai, Do you want Strepsils"
Pressing report button multiple times against a poster making offensive / dirty remarks (which majority find distasteful and comment in PMs ) can only get the poster in trouble.

now offensive dirty is a subjective term, if it is beyond a discussion groups policy, they will get warned, the moderator will step in right away and that flirting session will shut down. Also individuals are well aware of their limits, they will not cross that limit or else they know there are consequences, no-one needs to tell them, they know

If it is allowed and moral police is the one who is getting offended, maybe it is time they realize they are in the wrong place

Instead, if the moral police chooses to make it known to the poster, and the poster chooses to select audience, place and tone, I see no harm in trying that. It is being an adult instead of running to Dev team for every twisted or offensive word.

Nope that is vigilatism at the very best

Regards RISKS of personal chatting, what can I say Vineet? I cannot agree more with you! Your parenting pointers are the right thing and there is only so much people other than parents can / should do when it comes to saving their friends from predators- who come in discrete fashion.

Additional Comment to clarify -  There is a THICK  line  between funny flirting on web and making it more personal or of sexual nature.  I frankly support and even indulge in the former, while I have negative feelings regarding the LATTER in an Internet community where membership is open to children over 14.  That is when unasked-for-policing comes in.

now that is our personal opinion about where that line is, I have seen 14-15 year olds who are more advanced than 30 year olds, that is called as Generation gap, When we were 14-15, we were more advanced in certain areas than 30 year olds

I think we are applying our morals in our timeframe to current times, when the rules of engagement have changed significantly and we should let people who understand it more deal with it, rather than getting our hands into it and complicating the matter for the person responsible. Also different people have different set of rules, what is good in my household might be too conservative in yours or vice-versa, with such kind of subjectivety, moral policing is better left to the party responsibile of it, am just glad I am not the party responsible

Originally posted by mermaid_QT

A question to those who think flirting is always HARMLESS fun and others who are policing it are doing it just for being jealous  -

Would you say the same if / when you have a teenage daughter who is flirting online with God knows who? Would you police / would you sit back and relax for not being jealous of her and her flirting partner?

I am curious to know this!

flirting imo is not harmless. as they say, one thing can lead to another, including partners and by-standers getting jealous, of going down the garden path that runs nowhere etc. That said, it might still be preferable to more serious emotional/ physical attachments.

Internet flirting itself leads some people to come out of their inhibitions and take coast-coast flights to meet that special someone and there could be more serious emotional &/or physical attachments in store for once just virtual flirts / lovers

problem with moral policing as i see it is people running around with their heads chopped off each excercising their personal judgment. cant have folks individually and selectively apply their moral filters. that would quickly result in a lowest common denominator of expression, one where people are afraid of being rebuked and less willing to take the risk of engaging in spontaneous behavior. not much fun.

hehehe.. that reminds me how someone had policed me in PM saying I was flirting and whether my husband knew about it.  Sadly, that police was the only head thinking that way.  My moral policing involves watching individuals that become target of several PMs exchanged and discussions generated and questions raised.. and comments objected by more than one or two.   Then if of these group of individuals, one or two speak up as the moral police, I see nothing wrong in that.  A group will rarely judge an individual.  If they do, then since group forms majority, the chances that the individual will have fun among the group are slim .

then, there's the question of verifying sincerity in the virtual domain. the person who is dispensing all that valuable advice could be trying to lure the kid by first establishing trust. dont a lot of pedophiles use the same bait and lure approach?

they sure do .  this is why once again a group approach should be used.  If a person (eg me) has several girls on my MSN under 16 years of age, they all should be aware of that and also aware of the PM exchanges that may happen between us.  Sharing the conversations is the key.  I am more than happy if all my little friends here tell one another how qt didi was mad when they got bad grade and what she cooked tonight.  Most importantly, As Vineet said- when it comes to KIDS ON MESSENGER, I am sure parents have their strict rules and kids must abide by them. 

Originally posted by mermaid_QT

Vineet,  I agree with you myself and hence said that some may think it is NOMB. I see why you would say that it is the duty of parents / mods. But when these are not around, I see nothing wrong in making a suggestion to see if majority would like such behaviour stopped.  If one can prove that majority finds the moral police wrong, then there is a reason to figure who is being oversensitive .

honestly I feel even one oversensitive person is far too much, talking about majority, there are two people who are flirting and have a wavelength, a moral police steps in and says ok, I find this offensive, anyone else here think this is offensive, majority is on the side of the flirters. by this action the moral police has succeded in putting a mortification effect on the flirters, that goes against any discussion groups rule #1, treat your fellow member with respect

Generally by this time the flirters would have left the discussion and the moral police is now in the majority of one

what has just happened is the moral police has succesfully been able to impose their set of values, morals on others. Now people do not join forums to learn morals, do they?

In your opinion, just as the self-professed moral police is being over-sensitive and supposed to ignore the dirty words and flirting comments, the poster of such comments can (almost always does in fact ) ignore the police/ or should report the police in turn for that
never happens, Indians/South Asians in general are very respectful or others feelings

e.g A boy and a girl are standing by a street corner, elderly person passes by clears the throat, generally the kids will say, lets talk tommorow at school/college, the kid will never say, "Uncleji Gale me kharash hai, Do you want Strepsils"
Pressing report button multiple times against a poster making offensive / dirty remarks (which majority find distasteful and comment in PMs ) can only get the poster in trouble.

now offensive dirty is a subjective term, if it is beyond a discussion groups policy, they will get warned, the moderator will step in right away and that flirting session will shut down. Also individuals are well aware of their limits, they will not cross that limit or else they know there are consequences, no-one needs to tell them, they know

If it is allowed and moral police is the one who is getting offended, maybe it is time they realize they are in the wrong place

Instead, if the moral police chooses to make it known to the poster, and the poster chooses to select audience, place and tone, I see no harm in trying that. It is being an adult instead of running to Dev team for every twisted or offensive word.

Nope that is vigilatism at the very best

Regards RISKS of personal chatting, what can I say Vineet? I cannot agree more with you! Your parenting pointers are the right thing and there is only so much people other than parents can / should do when it comes to saving their friends from predators- who come in discrete fashion.

Additional Comment to clarify -  There is a THICK  line  between funny flirting on web and making it more personal or of sexual nature.  I frankly support and even indulge in the former, while I have negative feelings regarding the LATTER in an Internet community where membership is open to children over 14.  That is when unasked-for-policing comes in.

now that is our personal opinion about where that line is, I have seen 14-15 year olds who are more advanced than 30 year olds, that is called as Generation gap, When we were 14-15, we were more advanced in certain areas than 30 year olds

I think we are applying our morals in our timeframe to current times, when the rules of engagement have changed significantly and we should let people who understand it more deal with it, rather than getting our hands into it and complicating the matter for the person responsible. Also different people have different set of rules, what is good in my household might be too conservative in yours or vice-versa, with such kind of subjectivety, moral policing is better left to the party responsibile of it, am just glad I am not the party responsible

ok, I see Egg and CB also, so I will step away from this for the time being

afford equal opportunity to both sides of the argument? good stuff. am all for it, provided we do have both sides appear with real, not fake, identities and talk things out openly and with proper decorum. That to my mind usually means not attacking members in personal ways, unless i am wrong. also as long as criticism of someone's idol is not construed as "reeking of regionalism". and as long as we realize that there are far worse things in life than a joke about "ducks" which actually is related to the game of cricket. what's worse? imo, some of the really bawdy stuff (such as "stiff" etc). even the dhobi ka ghat for dhoni, and the gadha for gajendra singh, lines. the latter fwiw can actually be seen as casting names in an ethnically negative way. also, slinging personal info back at someone ceases to be fun after a while, especially when repeatedly used in a mocking off-topic way. what does a member's financial background have to do with the thread? someone also expressed "hurt" over a fairly light-hearted phrase used in response to their post. sorry, they felt hurt? nothing on the attacks that went on on another person? would that be a case of selective hurting?

without that kind of understanding, i am not sure i want to participate in the "discussion". cant be bothered listening to people who cant even stand up without fake IDs. if they cant have the courage of their convictions to come out in the open, then that's not exactly who i would want to deal with on an intellectual level. silly me no?