When a moderator threatens consequences if you don't, that's kind of a no-brainer.
You clearly advocate the existence of censorship on this board, I have not made it secret that I find it deplorable. But it's not going anywhere either way.
Shatner Slams E.U. Censors Proposal to Ban Star Trek’s “To Boldly Go Where No MAN Has Gone Before "
- Thread starter Cpt. MAGA Man
- Start date
You clearly advocate the existence of censorship on this board, I have not made it secret that I find it deplorable. But it's not going anywhere either way.
Untrue.
I’ll drop the issue after this, because we’re going in circles. Let me just say that I’m still baffled how someone could fail so monumentally at answering such a basic question as: Do you agree or disagree that a group of people’s humanity, right to exist and participate in society cannot be up for “debate”? Should be so damn easy.
All the flailing, whining and dodging would almost be kind of funny if it weren’t so sad. And like I said, the non-answer is telling.
How can one look at themself in the mirror and live with the fact that your fellow human beings have to assume that you potentially want to deny an entire group of people the right to exist? And all you have is a tired excuse of being held back by imagined censorship.
Man, what a downer.
All the flailing, whining and dodging would almost be kind of funny if it weren’t so sad. And like I said, the non-answer is telling.
How can one look at themself in the mirror and live with the fact that your fellow human beings have to assume that you potentially want to deny an entire group of people the right to exist? And all you have is a tired excuse of being held back by imagined censorship.
Man, what a downer.
I have to take issue with this thread, particularly the title. Shatner's not going to slam anyone. He's going to double axe handle them and then maybe karate chop their shoulders.
1. It's a warning, not a threat. She's just been explaining the situation to you, because ...
2. ... it's board rules, which are actually written down, and not by said moderator. If anything or anybody "threatens consequences", it is the board.
3. As mentioned, the board rules are written down, and can (and should) be checked before signing up, because in order to sign up you have to agree to them.
So, the fact that you are here complaining about censorship is because you agreed to the rules. Sure, you can not like a rule and advocate for it to be changed, but let's not misrepresent what's going on and smear one of the moderators in the process.
Man, what a downer.
I think my conditions for answering the question (immunity from administrative consequences) were quite reasonable. If you don't, I respect your right to your opinion.
Just reread the rules. As written, they are quite reasonable. I enforced similar rules when I was a mod, on another board. The problem is, "no trolling" can be interpreted as "don't express any social or political viewpoints that we don't like".
They're not.
Besides, you've already answered the question.
It's right there for everyone to see.
No, I've taken the Fifth. Or the Seventh Guarantee, if you prefer.
It's only problematic if they try to enforce such a belief or act on it.I’ll drop the issue after this, because we’re going in circles. Let me just say that I’m still baffled how someone could fail so monumentally at answering such a basic question as: Do you agree or disagree that a group of people’s humanity, right to exist and participate in society cannot be up for “debate”? Should be so damn easy.
All the flailing, whining and dodging would almost be kind of funny if it weren’t so sad. And like I said, the non-answer is telling.
How can one look at themself in the mirror and live with the fact that your fellow human beings have to assume that you potentially want to deny an entire group of people the right to exist? And all you have is a tired excuse of being held back by imagined censorship.
Man, what a downer.
It's only a downer if we refuse to engage in relationship with such people, and confirm their long held suspicions of what "the other" thinks of them.
Their house, their rules. If you don’t like it, you can always go elsewhere.
Private platform, private behavioral rules.
Not everything is censorship, you know. Sometimes it's just people enforcing the clubhouse rules. Censorship is a very specific thing and everything else is just somebody's own standards of behavior.
Not everything is censorship, you know. Sometimes it's just people enforcing the clubhouse rules. Censorship is a very specific thing and everything else is just somebody's own standards of behavior.
Indeed, yes. One of the big things about the hyper-individualism that occurs is the idea that we still have to engage in relationship with members of a group, society or culture. Humans are highly relational beings and the reason for such rules is to govern behavior. We internalize this at a relatively young age, depending on socialization and ability to pick up on those social cues. We cry "That's not fair" over things that have nothing to do with fairness, but speak to an unspoken standard we carry within us.
Ultimately, what we long for more than most anything is acceptance, even at our worst selves.
If somebody's warned or even banned from this board it's not censorship. It's the rules of the clubhouse that the Admins and Mods take the time out of their respective days to run. They decided certain words and phrases aren't allowed because of their hateful and disruptive nature and since this is a privately-run message board that takes no taxpayer money to operate it's under no obligation to pander to any of our sensitivities.
I'm not sure I follow this. Freedom of association means that, if I find someone too vile and disgusting to stand, even if it's "only" because of what they advocate politically, then I am free not to socialize with them. Without socialization, there is no "relationship."
I placed the word only in scare quotes above, because in a democratic republic such as the United States, advocacy can translate into voting in popular elections, which can translate into representation, which can translate into advocated legislation, which can, depending on the legislation, negatively impact peoples' lives. Speech is a form of political power. Hate speech is banned in certain countries precisely because it can be influential in furthering movements to deny groups of people their rights. If I choose not to, I don't have to have a relationship with someone who wishes to deny people their rights, full stop.
I believe there is evidence to support the premise that people with close relationships to marginalized groups tend not to support oppression of those groups. (Apologies, I don't have a link to any article regarding this at this time, but perhaps others can post links to support or refute this.) But, as far as I know, it does not follow from this that attempting to form close relationships with people who support marginalization will tend to be successful in influencing them to change their position, nor does the cost/benefit ratio favor taking this up, at least on an individual basis. (Ditto, here, regarding links.) If you oppose extending rights to a marginalized group, there's a fundamental difference between on the one hand, say, discovering that your own child is in fact a member of that group and on the other hand being invited to dinner by people you don't know very well but who support the rights of the group. (And here.)
Anyway, I have better things to do than to invite the neighborhood Nazi over for tea and biscuits. If he thinks less of me because I turn my nose up at him, to hell with him. Or her.
Of course, I didn't say otherwise.
Your choice. From what I have studied, people have changed their minds when someone actually engaged in relationship, i.e. a white supremacist ended up befriending a black pastor and changed his mind.
Of course you have the choice. I just fear, irrationally, that to continue to withhold all contact is to validate those beliefs. In so doing, we create the insular relationship to affirm those maladaptive beliefs.
I don't know. People are banning hate speech but I don't think its eradicating hate speech. I could be wrong. Regardless, you have that choice, as do I.
Well, I explicitly asked for data in three different places. Change my mind (with data).
I don't support modifying the First Amendment. And I do not believe it will be modified in the foreseeable future in any way shape or form.
That said, I oppose hate speech.
If a corporation does not wish to engage in a business relationship with someone who posts hate speech, I fully support them in not engaging in any such thing.
Sadly, social media has created Echo Chambers where no one, on either side, is questioned on there beliefs, its all just confirmation bias, Ra Ra Stuff. Why on this form I'd say at a guess its 75-80% left leaning in the people that frequent here. I try as a minority viewpoint on the board to express my opinions in I hope a respectful manor and encourage debates.
But for a good chuck of people, there mind is made up and anything that goes against there bias is automatically wrong and must be vehemently trashed. I'm Human ( atleast thats what the traffic light puzzle says I am) therefore I can be wrong and fallible, and do my best to listen to counter opinions and maybe modify my own. All I expect and hope from whomever I interact with is a somewhat open mind and an ability to listen.
As for this board, its not the public square, its like going into someones house. If the person who owns the house doesn't like you, well there's the door.
Anyways, back to it.
But for a good chuck of people, there mind is made up and anything that goes against there bias is automatically wrong and must be vehemently trashed. I'm Human ( atleast thats what the traffic light puzzle says I am) therefore I can be wrong and fallible, and do my best to listen to counter opinions and maybe modify my own. All I expect and hope from whomever I interact with is a somewhat open mind and an ability to listen.
As for this board, its not the public square, its like going into someones house. If the person who owns the house doesn't like you, well there's the door.
Anyways, back to it.
Agreed.
I'm not trying to change your mind.
Here are some discussions around interventions, including educational based ones to build relationships to alter unhelpful believes. Link here, and here.
Example of a white supremacist being invited and changed.
This isn't for everyone. But, in my experience, individual relationships carry more weight.
ETA: Another example.
And another with a good quote:
I wholeheartedly reject white supremacists and what they represent, but Daniel's friendship taught me a lesson: people too often find the differences instead of the similarities. Humans, we love to hate each other. None of us is better. None of us is lesser. All of us are human. You would think that after so many years on this earth, we'd have figured it out by now.
And in what world does declaring a behavior illegal or criminal eradicate that behavior? Might as well legalize … oh, I don’t know … theft, because in hundreds of years of being illegal it hasn’t eradicated the behavior.
Or am I reading you wrong?
Thank you, that's a beginning. Unfortunately, as usual, (at least some of) the scholarly articles are pay-walled.
