censorship

[Athena]

I am blown away by the censorship in the forum. I have a message apologizing for a warning and an explanation from the mod that the action was taken without reading carefully. I think that just happened again, only instead of a warning the thread about Hitler and science, correcting a public broadcasting show last night, was closed. There could not be a worse offense to the very reason for our protected freedom of speech, than this kind of censorship. This kind of censorship is exactly what is raising alarm across the nation, in discussions shows, and has focused me on concerns about morality, social change and politics. The censorship is being done by those who do not know the subjects and occasionally by those who do not even carefully read what a discussion is about. This is called "reactionary". It is not equal to critical thinking and reasoning. If nothing else, I hope you all take a good look at the censorship and question if this where you want to take us?

[Phi for All]

That particular thread is under review, since it basically invokes Godwin's Law right at the OP. Learn what censorship really means.

 

Please forgive us for taking a bit long to figure out how to pre-warn people not to simply flame you for comparing today's scientists with Hitler and the Nazis. Your obsession with all things Greek and Nazi Germany is already starting to wear thin with some members, based on the many comments and complaints we've gotten.

 

 

 

Edit to add: Review complete, thread re-opened.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Phi for All

[ecoli]

Read the rules of the forum. Freedom of speech is at the discretion of mods and admins. This is a dictatorship.

[Autumn_Man]

There could not be a worse offense to the very reason for our protected freedom of speech, than this kind of censorship. This kind of censorship is exactly what is raising alarm across the nation, in discussions shows, and has focused me on concerns about morality, social change and politics. The censorship is being done by those who do not know the subjects and occasionally by those who do not even carefully read what a discussion is about. This is called "reactionary". It is not equal to critical thinking and reasoning. If nothing else, I hope you all take a good look at the censorship and question if this where you want to take us?

You're confusing freedom of speech as it pertains to our constitutional rights and as it pertains to our private lives. It doesn't hold in all wallks of life either. Freedom of speech is not absolute in the US. In particular you don't have freedom of speech when it comes to libel, slander, obscenity, copyright violation and incitement to commit a crime. You also can't go into a private organization and start preaching whatever is on your mind. In this case you can't go to a private discussion forum such as this and not follow the rules the've established to keep order to the place. You can't go into a Protestant Church or a Jewish temple and preach the Koran. In that sense you can't go to a private dicussion forum and place trhread containing pseudoscience in a place meant for mainstream physics either.

[Athena]

You're confusing freedom of speech as it pertains to our constitutional rights and as it pertains to our private lives. It doesn't hold in all wallks of life either. Freedom of speech is not absolute in the US. In particular you don't have freedom of speech when it comes to libel, slander, obscenity, copyright violation and incitement to commit a crime. You also can't go into a private organization and start preaching whatever is on your mind. In this case you can't go to a private discussion forum such as this and not follow the rules the've established to keep order to the place. You can't go into a Protestant Church or a Jewish temple and preach the Koran. In that sense you can't go to a private dicussion forum and place trhread containing pseudoscience in a place meant for mainstream physics either.

 

I never associated freedom of speech with the right to say anything we please, wherever we please. That obviously is tolerance of immorality, and I am never tolerant of immorality.

In these private forums, if those running them do not respect freedom of speech, the country will not, because it is the people who enforce the principles of democracy, not the police of military. It is our duty to defend our liberty by raising objections when anyone threatens our liberty, and censorship can most definitely be a threat to our liberty. On the other hand, protecting burning the flag or covering a statue of Mary with cow dung, is immoral and should not be considered protected freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not an act of disrespect or destruction, but the use of words in argument. It is about reasoning and engaging others in the process. It must be protected with rules for morality. All liberties are protected by rules for morality.

 

Agreeing that the rules of private property can change the rules of how we live together is dangerous, and this is why I discuss NAZI Germany so much. What made us different from Germany was culture and our institutions. We adopted the German model of education for technology and stopped transmitting our culture, so it is no longer our culture that makes different from the Germany that came under the NAZI machine, that makes us different. We adopted the German model of bureaucracy, so it is no longer the organization of government that makes us different. I think it necessary to use the German model of bureaucracy, but not transmitting in our in the classroom, could be a mistake, and as long someone argues in favor of private property rights trumping rules that protect our liberty, I will raise an alarm. This is a matter of values, and our future. I will not be in the future, but my grant grandchildren will live it, and care very much about their future.

 

What do you value when you argue against protecting freedom of speech? This forum is like a religious organization? Ah, I have been concerned about it being as dogmatic as religion, and I am quite sure no one approves of that. That is why I raise the issue. I don't think we have disagreement on values, but possibly our reasoning of shared values is different? I think we share in common a desire for truth, and the belief that critical thinking is the path to truth. I do not enter religious organization buildings and attempt to engage people gathering for a religious service in a critical discussion of their beliefs. If it is agreed these forums are equal to such a religious organization, I will not enter the forums, again. Wow, I think you hit the nail on the head. ARE THESE FORUMS EQUAL TO RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS? THIS IS WHAT I FEARED WHEN I BEGAN THIS THREAD.

 

Read the rules of the forum. Freedom of speech is at the discretion of mods and admins. This is a dictatorship.

 

Thank you for speaking truth. Now how is this different from being NAZI? Who or what can protect our liberty and justice if it is not you?

[dimreepr]

I never associated freedom of speech with the right to say anything we please, wherever we please. That obviously is tolerance of immorality, and I am never tolerant of immorality.

In these private forums, if those running them do not respect freedom of speech, the country will not, because it is the people who enforce the principles of democracy, not the police of military. It is our duty to defend our liberty by raising objections when anyone threatens our liberty, and censorship can most definitely be a threat to our liberty. On the other hand, protecting burning the flag or covering a statue of Mary with cow dung, is immoral and should not be considered protected freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not an act of disrespect or destruction, but the use of words in argument. It is about reasoning and engaging others in the process. It must be protected with rules for morality. All liberties are protected by rules for morality.

 

Agreeing that the rules of private property can change the rules of how we live together is dangerous, and this is why I discuss NAZI Germany so much. What made us different from Germany was culture and our institutions. We adopted the German model of education for technology and stopped transmitting our culture, so it is no longer our culture that makes different from the Germany that came under the NAZI machine, that makes us different. We adopted the German model of bureaucracy, so it is no longer the organization of government that makes us different. I think it necessary to use the German model of bureaucracy, but not transmitting in our in the classroom, could be a mistake, and as long someone argues in favor of private property rights trumping rules that protect our liberty, I will raise an alarm. This is a matter of values, and our future. I will not be in the future, but my grant grandchildren will live it, and care very much about their future.

 

What do you value when you argue against protecting freedom of speech? This forum is like a religious organization? Ah, I have been concerned about it being as dogmatic as religion, and I am quite sure no one approves of that. That is why I raise the issue. I don't think we have disagreement on values, but possibly our reasoning of shared values is different? I think we share in common a desire for truth, and the belief that critical thinking is the path to truth. I do not enter religious organization buildings and attempt to engage people gathering for a religious service in a critical discussion of their beliefs. If it is agreed these forums are equal to such a religious organization, I will not enter the forums, again. Wow, I think you hit the nail on the head. ARE THESE FORUMS EQUAL TO RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS? THIS IS WHAT I FEARED WHEN I BEGAN THIS THREAD.

 

 

 

Thank you for speaking truth. Now how is this different from being NAZI? Who or what can protect our liberty and justice if it is not you?

 

 

Can you not see the fallacious nature of your argument? You HAVE been allowed to argue your point without censorship and unlike a religious or other dogmatic environment; no one has shouted heresy and demanded you be punished. However as has been pointed out the forum has (very reasonable) rules, as with society, every society.

Edited August 16, 2012 by dimreepr

[Phi for All]

Can you not see the fallacious nature of your argument? You HAVE been allowed to argue your point without censorship and unlike a religious or other dogmatic environment; no one has shouted heresy and demanded you be punished. However as has been pointed out the forum has (very reasonable) rules, as with society, every society.

Hey, watch it. If you're not careful, you might stall a perfectly good rant with all that reasonableness.

 

Next thing you know, folks might start talking about benevolent dictatorships. There aren't enough swastikas on the internet to protect us from THAT.

[Moontanman]

Hey, watch it. If you're not careful, you might stall a perfectly good rant with all that reasonableness.

 

Next thing you know, folks might start talking about benevolent dictatorships. There aren't enough swastikas on the internet to protect us from THAT.

 

 

If i was world dictator it would be benevolent... well except of course for my personal slaves... but everyone else would be free to do what ever i allowed them to do...

 

Athena on the other hand I would lock in a tall tower and feed her with a sling shot...

Edited August 16, 2012 by Moontanman

[zapatos]

In these private forums, if those running them do not respect freedom of speech, the country will not, because it is the people who enforce the principles of democracy, not the police of military.

I call bull. Since people with a modicum of education are able to comprehend the difference between the federal government and private enterprise, there is no causal connection.

[ACG52]

I never associated freedom of speech with the right to say anything we please, wherever we please. That obviously is tolerance of immorality, and I am never tolerant of immorality.

 

So freedom of speech is the right to say anything you approve of?

[Moontanman]

Speaking of slaves, has any one read "The Domination" by S.M. Sterling?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Domination

[Klaynos]

...across the nation,

 

I didn't realise that freedom of speech was such a big talking point in South Korea, I assume that is "the nation" to which you are referring?

 

 

Thank you for speaking truth. Now how is this different from being NAZI? Who or what can protect our liberty and justice if it is not you?

 

 

This is rather offensive and completely ludicrous let me reply in a similar vain, the nazi's were to a certain extent elected by the people, we are not so yeah, quite different. We are appointed by the private operators of this site, which is another important point we are not running a country nor are we killing people.

 

On a more serious note, your liberty nor justice are affected by our mod actions towards you in regards to closing threads or even banning you.

[Moontanman]

This is rather offensive and completely ludicrous let me reply in a similar vain, the nazi's were to a certain extent elected by the people, we are not so yeah, quite different. We are appointed by the private operators of this site, which is another important point we are not running the country nor are we killing people.

 

Well there was that troll a few months ago.... he disappeared under mysterious circumstances...

[Phi for All]

Well there was that troll a few months ago.... he disappeared under mysterious circumstances...

OK, well, now we're talking real censorship. Our ability to reach through your computer to lethally stop you from trolling us is not a matter for public discussion. You must STOP NOW or suffer the consequences.

[Greg H.]

Well there was that troll a few months ago.... he disappeared under mysterious circumstances...

 

The universe spat him out. Nothing more to see here - move along.

[swansont]

Well there was that troll a few months ago.... he disappeared under mysterious circumstances...

You can't pin it on me. You have no proof.

 

Thank you for speaking truth. Now how is this different from being NAZI? Who or what can protect our liberty and justice if it is not you?

 

Are you calling SFN staff NAZIs or simply acknowledging your inability to differentiate us from them? I think most users can.

[CaptainPanic]

In these private forums, if those running them do not respect freedom of speech, the country will not, because it is the people who enforce the principles of democracy, not the police of military.

What is the staff supposed to do with someone who is cursing, swearing, insulting and just generally being a troll on our forum?

 

Where would you draw the line?

[Ophiolite]

@Athena. Are you confusing the freedom to speak freely with the freedom to be an idiot? In general the forum rules are designed to constrain the latter. Most idiots never seem to get this point.

[Athena]

What is the staff supposed to do with someone who is cursing, swearing, insulting and just generally being a troll on our forum?

 

Where would you draw the line?

 

Thank you for asking. For sure, where to draw the line is a difficult judgment. And it is really complicated because when we know someone, we begin judging what was said in the context of our knowledge of that person, and how we feel about that person, so a curse word maybe totally ignored, or totally blown out of portion, condemning that person to hell. It depends on our thoughts of that person, and how we feel.

 

However, this is such an important subject, can we think seriously of it? When I was considering buying a forum, I did some research and the stories of people getting sued, turned me away form buying a forum. Obviously anything that can result in a law suit must be avoided.

 

Secondly, it is really great that school youth sometimes get involved, and schools have rules. Obviously forums need to comply with school rules if a forum has educational ambitions.

 

I have left forums where people attack others. It seems tolerance of such attacks was much greater when these forums began. I was pleasantly surprised when I found forums where this is not allowed. However, I have often felt attacked for what I think and this is not cool. Critical thinking is a good thing, and requires a statement of disagreement with what was said statement, how, ever I will accept not everyone has this skill. I think I would put more emphasis on reminding people to clarify their objection to what is being said. This is where things get really messy. For example my understanding of God requires knowledge of education and abstract thinking that is no longer common. I didn't realize how much of a problem this would be, but I am discovering people are concerned about me violating forum rules. For example, God is not to be defined, and someone thought I was violating a rule because I refuse to define God. In another thread, because it became necessary to address the meaning of saying abstract thinking needs to be taught, I was accused of derailing my own thread. I am dealing with these communication problems, and for awhile was very concerned I would banned before anyone understood what I am saying.

 

However, I began talk of freedom of speech when a mod came down on someone else. I have a problem with the word trolling. Exactly what is it and why is wrong? I write with a purpose, and forbidding people to engage in their sense of purpose, is one of the worst violations of humanity.

I don't care if the person is a religious fanatic. We have two choices in this case. Engage this person or ignore this person. When people want to engage this person, in my opinion, a mod should not step in.

 

Culture is more effective than laws and law enforcers. You all have created a pretty civil culture here, but this should not be just up to the mods. It should be everyone's responsibility to maintain a civil culture, in forums and real life. If I were a mod, and I thought someone was being a problem, but not a serious one, I might PM the people who are engaging this person and mention my concern. If we decided not to engage in with someone, it is like not putting gas a car. As a mother would say, "don't play with that little boy, because he is not being nice". A mother can not drive an unpleasant child out of the neighborhood school, but she can teach her child how to avoid a problem with the child.

 

My granddaughter is here- quickly the bottom line is morality.

 

We respect all people because we are respectful people.

We protect the dignity of others.

We do all things with integrity.

 

I think if we agree to live by those rules, the world be a pretty nice place. This includes using them when dealing with a troll. If we agree to this, we have a culture and that is very powerful.

[swansont]

Two comments:

 

- there are those who mistake disagreement with personal attack. You give no examples, so I can't make a judgement if that's the case here, but across the spectrum of posters I would say that it isn't all that uncommon.

 

- a troll is someone who posts controversial or provocative material to get a reaction; trolling is the action of doing this (as with fishing, it's moving about while dangling bait in order to get a bite) Sadly, the term is probably overused and some of the people so labeled actually believe what they are posting, as silly as their post might be. An example would be someone who claims gravity is not real and we are held down to the earth by invisible pink fairies, or that the 1970's didn't really happen. But given that there are some people who think that we never went to the moon or that 9/11 was an inside job, to name a few topics, it's hard to distinguish between a troller and someone who is simply a fervent believer of nonsense (which leads us to Poe's law and behavior similar to it)

 

Perhaps, in that light, one might recognize why a statement like "that's just like a NAZI" might make one wonder if there is trolling taking place, as that's fairly provocative.

[Athena]

Hey, watch it. If you're not careful, you might stall a perfectly good rant with all that reasonableness.

 

Next thing you know, folks might start talking about benevolent dictatorships. There aren't enough swastikas on the internet to protect us from THAT.

 

Read the post just above yours. They already are.

[dimreepr]

Read the post just above yours. They already are.

 

 

So any one who disagrees with your, somewhat, skewed version of reality, is guilty of trying to establish a dictatorship or is a Nazi? Seriously! Do you not see the ridiculous position your taking? It's just laughable; I'll refer you to Swansont's post #20.

 

Edited August 17, 2012 by dimreepr

[Athena]

Two comments:

 

- there are those who mistake disagreement with personal attack. You give no examples, so I can't make a judgement if that's the case here, but across the spectrum of posters I would say that it isn't all that uncommon.

 

- a troll is someone who posts controversial or provocative material to get a reaction; trolling is the action of doing this (as with fishing, it's moving about while dangling bait in order to get a bite) Sadly, the term is probably overused and some of the people so labeled actually believe what they are posting, as silly as their post might be. An example would be someone who claims gravity is not real and we are held down to the earth by invisible pink fairies, or that the 1970's didn't really happen. But given that there are some people who think that we never went to the moon or that 9/11 was an inside job, to name a few topics, it's hard to distinguish between a troller and someone who is simply a fervent believer of nonsense (which leads us to Poe's law and behavior similar to it)

 

Perhaps, in that light, one might recognize why a statement like "that's just like a NAZI" might make one wonder if there is trolling taking place, as that's fairly provocative.

 

Who decides who is trolling? I know my motive is being a citizen of the US, who had a grandmother who devoted her life to defending democracy in the classroom. My father served in Germany during WWII, and my mother sang for USO shows. So I speak with a deep sense of meaning. I know public education in the US stopped transmitting the culture of the democracy we defended in two world wars, and for me this is a terrible, terrible thing that means my grandchildren and their children will not have the good life that we defended in two world wars, and those who died and suffered, it may have all been for nothing, because their democracy is dying with them. Our young have no memory of when it was evil Europe that made people carry ID, not our great democracy with liberty. They have no memory of the privacy we had, before employers and property managers started judging people on what is written in a file. We now marginalize people, and turn them into worse than second class citizens, and gloat about how superior we are to those undeserving people, if we are not one of them; with no memory of when our country was very different, because extremely few people had affluence, and no matter how many times we failed we could start anew without a bad record locking us out of another chance. You all may hate religion, but I love when we thought "there but for the grace of God go I" and we practiced forgiveness and charity, and accepted youth are apt to have bad judgment, and deserve another chance. To me the change is like a police state swallowing up the friendly culture we had. I am very concerned about this.

 

I devoted many years to studying the history of education, and all history related to democracy, including the first monotheism in Egypt, that I believe later became the Hebrew faith. I have a large personal library, and listen to college lectures daily, and I am here for intellectual reasons, and because I care deeply about the future my great children will have when us old folks are no longer here to protect their liberty and justice.

 

However, almost every other post in this thread seems to about getting attention and being popular by taking the side that is popular. Captain Panic, gave a sincere reply, because he questioned my meaning. That was a thoughtful and mature reply. He questions how I would make decisions. His question is vital to opening up the discussion of the subject. If everyone did as Captain Panic, this would be a great discussion with much intellectual satisfaction. Instead of looking like bull fight.

 

About the question of being like a NAZI, why would you think this is about getting attention? Perhaps we should talk about projection. You know- figuring out what someone's motives are because that is your motive would be. When you do not the know the person you are judging, the judgment can not be based on knowledge of that person, and I am saying this to everyone who has attacked my character. If we think about it, isn't it really stupid to try to attention doing something that will lead to being disliked? Why would anyone do this? I assume everyone knows of Socrates? He was perhaps one of the most disliked men in history, and he didn't get there out of a desire to get attention. He got there because he wanted people to think about what they think, so they would make better moral decisions, and I have said, this about the future that my great grandchildren will live.

 

Try this, okay? Go to where I said "that's just like a NAZI" and explain why what I am referring is not like a NAZI. Keep in mind this about thinking, and you have the opportunity to argue my logical is wrong. Focus the thinking as math and science requires us to focus our thinking. If people engaged each other with real arguments, we all have a chance of realizing greater truths, and isn't that what these forums are about? Other people's arguments often enough turn a light on in my head, and I realize something I had not realized before. The pleasure of this, is worth the beating I take, while looking for that reply that is intellectually stimulating. As Captain Panics post pushes the point to the next level. You might have noticed, when this does not happen, I stop returning to a thread, and I may even stop coming to the forum for long periods of time. How long I stay gone depends on how things are going in other forums. Sometimes the discussions in other forums holds me for a long time. I cruise the internet looking for the people I want to be with, not looking to get attention by making enemies. It is disappointing when I think, at least I have found the discussion I was hoping to have, and everyone quits the thread. It seems often when people create arguments they think they can, by attacking someone's character, and or may be asking a few sincere questions, when they realize they are not going to win an argument, they just drop out. That means, there are no new revelations for me too.

 

If people want me to go away, all they need do is ignore me, and I will move on to a forum that gives me the intellectual stimulation I desire. If you want someone to go away, don't poke them like bull fighter in the ring, poking at a bull until he can thrust the sword in for the kill. Who is getting the benefit of these bull fights? Not the bull. Threads that are like bull fights, ending with a mod killing the thread, and or banning the person, can not be manifest without everyone's participation. I am not knocking the mods for taking action, but I am raising awareness that it is not one person causing the problem, because ignoring someone ends the problem too. The bull fight type discussions are not what I want, so I will engage in it, and we should all have the liberty to decide if we are going to ignore someone or not.

 

So any one who disagrees with your, somewhat, skewed version of reality, is guilty of trying to establish a dictatorship or is a Nazi? Seriously! Do you not see the ridiculous position your taking? It's just laughable; I'll refer you to Swansont's post #20.

 

 

 

Okay, instead of waiting for someone to quote me and explain my error in logic. I will bring up the quotes.

 

ecoli, on 3 August 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:

 

Read the rules of the forum. Freedom of speech is at the discretion of mods and admins. This is a dictatorship.

 

 

Thank you for speaking truth. Now how is this different from being NAZI? Who or what can protect our liberty and justice if it is not you?

 

There is the quote and my reply.

 

It appears my comparison between the democracy we once had, with the my understanding of being like NAZI's is under attack? What is the important difference between the two?

 

As I understand the difference, in the US liberal education internalized authority. Education for technology holds authority external. Ecoli says these forums are a dictorship, and seems to think we should follow the rules without question. I hold this is the thinking we defended our democracy against, and all those people died for nothing if we accept this reasoning.

 

Is something wrong with my logic? What protects our liberty if it is not all of us? What keeps us from being as NAZI Germany if we are to submit to unquestioned authority? If no one answers this question, I do not think I have an obligation to continue with this thread.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Athena

[dimreepr]

I call “reductio ad absurdum” no one here is attacking free speech let alone to the point of being a “Nazi” or trying to establish a universal dictatorship, as Ecoli has pointed out this is a private forum with its own set of rules, this doesn’t extend to society in general. This is the reason for the opposition to your position.

 

 

[swansont]

Who decides who is trolling?

The staff who run the site

 

About the question of being like a NAZI, why would you think this is about getting attention? Perhaps we should talk about projection. You know- figuring out what someone's motives are because that is your motive would be.

I didn't say it was, I said that it raises the question. I prefer not to speculate about motives; I think it's a bad idea. Odds are one will be wrong, and questioning motives is a personal attack. If I am determining whether a post has broken the rules, I don't care what the motive is, because you shouldn't get a pass on breaking the rules because of good intentions.

 

When you do not the know the person you are judging, the judgment can not be based on knowledge of that person, and I am saying this to everyone who has attacked my character.

Again, since you have not pointed to examples, I can't possibly come to my own conclusion about this, but disagreement is not inherently an act of judging character.

 

If we think about it, isn't it really stupid to try to attention doing something that will lead to being disliked? Why would anyone do this? I assume everyone knows of Socrates? He was perhaps one of the most disliked men in history, and he didn't get there out of a desire to get attention. He got there because he wanted people to think about what they think, so they would make better moral decisions, and I have said, this about the future that my great grandchildren will live.

Yes, it is, and one wonders why. But it happens, and one cannot appeal to the illogic of it say that it doesn't.