That is a separate issue and one I have clarified and reiterated isn't permitted multiple times in this thread now. If you see it, Report it and we'll handle it on an individual basis.

--jeremy

It's all about impressions, giving everyone a warm inclusive welcome when they arrive and making them comfortable while they're here. Religious/Political sigs work against that. They can admittedly be disabled at any time but they often, as I described before, can contain important distro information.

But fair enough, you're the boss.

I don't feel it is clear. In the past members have followed up not understanding me and it was because they read the helpful links in my signature, or my comment to mark a solved thread as Solved. As amazed as I might have been that they made a simple mistake, it has happened.

I have chosen to clear my signature to avoid confusion.

In the real world, there are many opposing viewpoints on nearly(?) every subject. If we have to pretend this is not the case in order to send a "warm inclusive welcome" and make everybody feel "comfortable", then I believe we will either have to:

1) Create what is known as a "safe space", a make-believe environment where people pretend to hold no opinions on anything of any significance, and define all non-technical discussions as off-topic. This would obviously mean deleting "General".

2) Simply accept that some people might feel unwelcome when they're faced with the reality that others disagree with them on certain subjects, and that there's really nothing other people ought to be doing to accommodate those that are so easily offended.

The problem with #1 is that literally anything can be construed as uncivil or harsh or unwelcoming by someone who chooses to take offense. As the saying goes, offense is taken, not given. It's not a coincidence that several (non technical) forums that implemented strict "safe space" policies have since degenerated into virtual police states with recurring flame wars and mass bannings.

<rant>
One of the things I really like about working in IT is that among professionals, at least most of the time, it's a near-perfect meritocracy. Knowledge and logic rules. There's no room for "feeling" of "believing" whether or not there's sufficient disk space or bandwidth, and the way backups are configured either provide security against system failure or it doesn't. It's all about finding hard facts and how to properly interpret them.

People in IT design systems, perform maintenance, analyze logs. We form hypotheses as to what's causing certain (usually undesirable) behaviour in a system, and then formulate theories that can be tested and either proven or disproven by experiment.

Why, then, should we of all people be incapable of even discussing existential and much more fundamental questions regarding, say, political or religious philosophy? Are we such illogical creatures that we are perfectly able to debate the merits of various Linux distributions in an objective fashion, but at the same time completely thrown off track if someone as much as mentions Donald Trump, Obama, guns, AGW, or Jesus in a .sig? Really?
</rant>

Personally, I don't even mind proselytizing, as long as it's somehow on-topic. So user X wants me to become a Mormon or a democrat or join the NRA? Fine, he can make his case, as long as I get to (politely) respond with my reasons for vehemently disagreeing, or get to just leave if I don't feel it's worth my time to participate.

1 members found this post helpful.

I have no beef with anyone's religious beliefs, political views or who they sleep with. I do on the other hand despise having it shoved down my throat which is exactly what some user's sigs do.

Being welcomed by someone pushing their views on you is not welcoming. My view is sigs should be held to the same standard as threads and forums.I turned them off the first day I was here because of the religious and political content in some of them.

It's a shame a small group can push their agenda on others and use this technical forum to do it, with no way to block it but to completely block sigs, of which many are very helpful. So because of the few, everyone else has to pay the price by being blocked.

It seems, jeremy, that you've already made up your mind on the subject of sigs. It's a shame, because I feel they are one of the largest turn-offs to the new members since most are welcomed by these (what I consider) abusive sigs.

I hesitated to post this as I haven't been here that long. In the end I thought it was important enough to be heard on the subject of sigs.

2 members found this post helpful.

Well, following my own suggestion. I added my previous post in my signature.

That is about it from me for being a kinder, gentler, forum helper.

What a revealing comment. This the kind of user we're attracting now: people who are here because they find the expectations of other forums too restrictive.

Another example:

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...1/#post5418568

And, much earlier, the exodus of banned Puppy users half a decade back. They ended up getting banned here too, after being given far, far too many chances.

Personally, all General has done for me is make me aware that this forum is packed with literally crazy old men, conspiracy theorists, racists, and those who hold beliefs on the extreme fringes (which I'm sure are at least in some cases related to dementia, mental illness or drug use). I'm sure that whose who oppose safe spaces can take this fact being pointed out.

And in case anyone missed it: this was a euphemism. It is because I can see that this crowd is LQ that I plan to leave some time in 2017.

I admit, it does surprise me (terrify me) how many tin foil hat wearing people are on this forum.

We have a lot of seniors and Baby Boomers in our userbase. I suspect that the primary explanation for this trend is actually age-related dementia.

I really don't think my comment reveals anything of the sort.

I'm opposing "safe spaces" since the obvious question then becomes "safe for whom?" Since one man's truth is quite often another man's blasphemy, it stands to reason that the "safe space" would either have to exclude some groups, or alternatively prohibit any meaningful discourse on an extremely wide range of topics.

Alternatively, we could try simply to enforce civility across the board.
Personally, I've hardly spent any time in General at all, so I can't really comment on the validity your assertions. But it does strike me that labeling a large groups of users at a technical forum as crazy, racists or drug users is, quite frankly, unlikely to be correct.

Also, would you not agree that unconditionally applying those terms in such a broad manner would certainly be considered rather inflammatory by those being labeled, and as such is unlikely to constitute a productive contribution to this discussion?

So you're opposed to safe spaces except when one would work in your favor. Got it.

No, I'm being quite consistent here.

A "safe space" a place where where certain views cannot be expressed or discussed, regardless of form. For instance, a consequence of this not being a "safe space" is that I can ask you whether you really think your post represents a positive contribution. You're not obliged to answer, of course.

Had this been a "safe space" of some kind I could, for instance, have caused a big fuzz about you using the word "crazy" and speaking about dementia in what could be interpreted as a condescending manner, which I could then argue was an affront to all those with genuine mental illnesses and/or with loved ones suffering from Alzheimer's disease. I could then have insisted that your posts be censored on the basis that *I* found them highly offensive. See the problem?

Anyway, my argument was that throwing around terms like "racist" or "crazy" is not only not a valid form of debate, since one is not really debating or discussing anything, it could actually fit the definition of slander.

Now, had you said "in these N posts in General [followed by links], a large volume of users are clearly expressing racist/conspiratorical/crazy views", you might have had a case. But reading your post, it seems that one one hand, you feel you should be free to tar a large group of people with an overly broad brush, calling them all sorts of nasty names, while at the same time you're expressing a desire for LQ to be a nicer and more inclusive forum.

I must admit I find that position a bit peculiar.

1 members found this post helpful.

That's a misreading on your part. I thought I was clear that I think that that ship has sailed.

Actually, I'd be happy to do this for Jeremy (privately) if asked.

Do you honestly think so? As I said, I haven't frequented General and have apparently missed some memorable threads, but I do typically visit LQ several times a day to look at the list of new posts. I can't say I've noticed an increase in posts using "unfriendly language" or expressing hostility.

If General is that bad, it seems the effect hasn't spilled over to the other forums, which I find interesting, since it's presumably the same people contributing. Or does LQ have users that lurk in General exclusively? Couldn't this be remedied with active moderation and a general community effort to urge people to keep their emotions and language in check?

I've thought about this.

I'd say that an average of at least one post per day, over a two week period, 100 percent of which are in General, is too much. For any member.

1 members found this post helpful.