Ric Flair

Enhance

Enhance

Administrator
Ric is upset that he was suspended two weeks and has since PM'd me and also started a thread (in which he showed my warning to him to the board) as a means to shame me and defend himself.

I have half a mind to ban him for sharing my warning with the board. Another member did this once (after a long line of problems) and was banned. But, perhaps I'm in the wrong.

I suspended him for two reasons: one was that he was trolling a political thread and two because I felt he was being offensive to people whom may identify as transgender for referring to transgenders as having a mental illness. I felt it was a violation of board rule #5. Calling transgenderism a mental illness is highly controversial in the medical field despite being an opinion people hold. Perhaps my interpretation of that rule was incorrect.

This was the post in question:





Thoughts? Would appreciate any advice on how to handle. He may have a point about the transgender comments, but PM'ing to call me a coward and then sharing my warning in a public message with the board seems a bit extreme. The thread he started about all this was moved to Test 1 in the Junkyard.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I missed where he quoted your warning. Do you have a link? If he did that, I would think that is inappropriate. There is a thread in the Woodshed where members talk about why they were given warnings/suspension, so no problem there. However, no one quotes the specific language used by the mod in the warning.



I think the thread should be removed because of this sentence:

Ric Flair said:
Suspending people you disagree with is a coward’s way to run a discussion board. 
Click to expand...


It clearly shows his intent is to be combative and insult, not discuss his position. That discussion should happen via PM anyway.

 
It looks like I moved the part where he quoted me to Hidden Posts and the rest to Test 1. But, it should all be in the thread in Test 1 now.

Appreciate the help, @Thanks_Tom RR. I'm just not sure if there's a next step and what that should be. Perhaps my interpretation of his statement and board rule #5 is a bit heavy-handed and off base. Saying transgenders have a mental illness is probably not in the same vein as calling someone a homophobic slur. His attempt to troll that thread (and many others where he disagrees with people) was a warranted accusation, IMO, as that is how he conducts himself.

His first decisions upon returning from his suspension were to call me a coward publicly and privately, and then directly quote my warning to him in a message. Part of me thinks he should be banned and that be the end of it given his general behavior around here, but, I don't know if that's too much of an overreaction.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You already took down the thread, so a PM to him explaining why it was removed is warranted (if you haven't done so already).

I say let him define the next step after that. If he wants to make a new one (with the same text) or starts throwing insults via posts, status updates, email, or PM, I think that is reason for another suspension or a ban. If he leaves it at this, then we can monitor his posts, but no other actions is necessary.

If you think more immediate action is necessary based on the PMs he has sent you, then go with that.

 
Yep - the thread has been removed. I'm also trying to determine though if I was a bit heavy-handed by suspending him for saying transgenderism is a 'mental illness.'

I had no problem suspending him for trolling but some of what he said about the mental illness part had me second guessing that part of it all.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There have been quite a few times where I had a warning written out, but never hit submit. I've had difficulties with his transgender as well. Yes, he is able to hold those opinions, but it's been his delivery that I have issues with. He just nonchalantly includes it like it is fact when, as far as I know, there has been no research on this. Plus, I feel that if you have an opinion like that, you should probably not say/post it in public. But I guess some people have no empathy, so what do you do.

 
Yeah, that is definitely a tricky topic. Where is the line between debate about a group of people and bigoted, derogatory comments?

I did not read all of @Ric Flair's comments on the topic. I think we could allow that conversation to happen, but it would have to come from a place of open discussion, not ignorance or intolerance. If you felt that he was being intolerant, I would not worry about your decision to suspend him.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, I further explained my justification (courtesy of Tom's suggestions, since I did feel it came from intolerance). This was his response.

Ric Flair said:
Lame but entirely predictable. Cowards would rather silence dissent than engage in actual discussion.
Click to expand...


¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 
I rarely go into the P&R Forum.  So all I can do is speak in generalities.  I don't really have any background on this particular situation.

As far as the first issue - discussion about transgenderism - I think being relatively lenient is the way to go.  To me, there seems to be evolving on the board - by many different members - a rush to label dissenting opinions as "trolling."  I've noticed this for at least the last year or two.  Basically, it seems to me like several people like to look at things as "there's no way he could actually think that so he must just be trolling."  That's a pretty slippery slope, IMO.  First, it's a pretty inflated opinion of yourself - to think that someone has to be basically stupid to disagree with you.  Second, it's pretty intellectually dishonest to just throw out a dissenting opinion out-of-hand.  If you're really here for the discussion, you should be able to ask the other person for their reasons for having that opinion and be able to give an explanation for your own opinion.  Plus, it's basically a back-handed way to try to silence opposing viewpoints - especially if they're in the minority.

Here is the email Ric sent after being suspended.  I haven't do anything to verify if his claims are correct or not.  But they seem to be presented in an honest way as opposed to the scorched earth a lot of members respond with.  So if there is any validity to them, it would seem that they would be worthy of discussion.  Despite the fact that many members would not believe it or want to hear it.

The World Health Prganization and every country except Denmark classify transgenderism as a mental disorder.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/where-transgender-is-no-longer-a-diagnosis/

The formed psychiatrist-in-chief of Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry 

Dr. Paul R. McHugh, the former psychiatrist-in-chief for Johns Hopkins Hospital and its current Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry, said that transgenderism is a “mental disorder” that merits treatment, that sex change is “biologically impossible,” and that people who promote sexual reassignment surgery are collaborating with and promoting a mental disorder

Transgenderism can be classified as a mental disorder according to the American Psychiatric Association. 

“A psychological state is considered a mental disorder only if it causes significant distress or disability. Many transgender people do not experience their gender as distressing or disabling, which implies that identifying as transgender does not constitute a mental disorder. For these individuals, the significant problem is finding affordable resources, such as counseling, hormone therapy, medical procedures and the social support necessary to freely express their gender identity and minimize discrimination. Many other obstacles may lead to distress, including a lack of acceptance within society, direct or indirect experiences with discrimination, or assault. These experiences may lead many transgender people to suffer with anxiety, depression or related disorders at higher rates than nontransgender persons.

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), people who experience intense, persistent gender incongruence can be given the diagnosis of "gender dysphoria." Some contend that the diagnosis inappropriately pathologizes gender noncongruence and should be eliminated. Others argue that it is essential to retain the diagnosis to ensure access to care. The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is under revision and there may be changes to its current classification of intense persistent gender incongruence as "gender identity disorder."
Click to expand...


Like I said, I'm not trying to say one way or the other about this particular situation.  Just in general I think we need to make sure some is actually trying to troll as opposed to just posting things people disagree with or want to claim as trolling.

As to the posting of the warning, I don't think it's a big deal to hide that for now.  As TTRR mentioned, people have taken to posting some of that in the Shed.  So I don't think it's necessarily that big of a deal.  There really shouldn't be anything to hide in there.  Though if they're doing it in a disrespectful way that's different.  But this seemed to be more his way of showing that he was actually telling the truth when knapp was skeptical.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the insight, Mav.

After digesting everything he said and what was shared here, I don't have much of a problem with the final result. Ric has been doing a troll job in several parts of the board for the last several months. He was warned about it late last year and I don't feel bad reminding him again. I think I probably should've put a bit more thought into suspending him for making comments about transgenderism, but I think there's an argument to be made for the way people present opinions, particularly on something like that.

I'm just thinking out loud here and not directing this at anyone, but, saying 'I believe being a transgender is a mental illness because of reasons x, y and z' is a lot different than saying 'a dude with a penis and a mental illness that makes him think he should've been born without said penis.' The latter suggests any 'dude' who feels this way is mentally ill.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Enhance said:
Thanks for the insight, Mav.

After digesting everything he said and what was shared here, I don't have much of a problem with the final result. Ric has been doing a troll job in several parts of the board for the last several months. He was warned about it late last year and I don't feel bad reminding him again. I think I probably should've put a bit more thought into suspending him for making comments about transgenderism, but I think there's an argument to be made for the way people present opinions, particularly on something like that.

I'm just thinking out lead here and not directing this at anyone, but, saying 'I believe being a transgender is a mental illness because of reasons x, y and z' is a lot different than saying 'a dude with a penis and a mental illness that makes him think he should've been born without said penis.' The latter suggests any 'dude' who feels this way is mentally ill.
Click to expand...


There's also something to be said based on fact. An opinion that is saying "I think it should be mental illness" is arguing against facts. It's not a mental illness. The people who define mental illness have said so. In fact, multiple bodies that define mental illness have said so. If you'd like any help addressing this stuff in the future let me know. 

Seems like you handled everything well though. Happy to provide you any support that's needed moving forward. 

 
@Huskerzoo, spot on. The DSM-5, which Ric keeps citing, indicates that transgenderism itself is not a mental disorder, rather the distress it may have on an individual. It's odd that he adheres to this false narrative.

 
Back
Top