censorship

[Moontanman]

I think our ideas around freedoms is defined by where we live, in some societies freedom means something different to them than it does to us in the West or even in the US. In Afghanistan freedom is to them not what we think of as freedom, We think nothing of a woman at the beach in a bikini, there she would be ostracized (if she was lucky) and everyone would agree it was the right thing to do. Here we can call bollocks on our religious leaders and while some might take offense the majority wouldn't raise an eyebrow there you might be killed and everyone would think it was the right thing to do.

 

Freedom there is more of group idea rather than an individual idea.

[Bignose]

It really is surprising how many people confuse "freedom of speech" with "I demand that you publish what I want."

 

Look. Freedom of speech means that you do indeed have the right to write or say what you want. But you do not have the right to force Bignose's publishing press to print it for you. Nor do you have the right to force a privately owned forum -- a form of publishing -- to publish your words. Go get your own forum/server/website and run it how you want and publish however you want.

 

You agreed to follow rules when you petitioned to become a member here. And you agreed to follow the enforcement of those rules as chosen by the mods.

 

I really believe that they must be doing something right, because the forum has a pretty good active user list. Quite simply, if they were doing things so wrong, people would not bother visiting and posting here.

[Moontanman]

It really is surprising how many people confuse "freedom of speech" with "I demand that you publish what I want."

 

Look. Freedom of speech means that you do indeed have the right to write or say what you want. But you do not have the right to force Bignose's publishing press to print it for you. Nor do you have the right to force a privately owned forum -- a form of publishing -- to publish your words. Go get your own forum/server/website and run it how you want and publish however you want.

 

You agreed to follow rules when you petitioned to become a member here. And you agreed to follow the enforcement of those rules as chosen by the mods.

 

I really believe that they must be doing something right, because the forum has a pretty good active user list. Quite simply, if they were doing things so wrong, people would not bother visiting and posting here.

 

Bignose is a publisher? I have this series of poems and short stories....

[Iggy]

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.

As long as the moderators are censorious nazis they might as well make a new rule that members need to use the word "I" less than 7% of the time.

[Athena]

I think our ideas around freedoms is defined by where we live, in some societies freedom means something different to them than it does to us in the West or even in the US. In Afghanistan freedom is to them not what we think of as freedom, We think nothing of a woman at the beach in a bikini, there she would be ostracized (if she was lucky) and everyone would agree it was the right thing to do. Here we can call bollocks on our religious leaders and while some might take offense the majority wouldn't raise an eyebrow there you might be killed and everyone would think it was the right thing to do.

 

Freedom there is more of group idea rather than an individual idea.

 

Dear Moontanman, yes, our ideas of freedom are defined by our cultures. The culture of the US has radically changed and that is why I write. I want to believe everyone would be writing about censorship very differently if they weren't feeling defensive of the right of mods to exercise censorship with unquestioned judgment.

 

How about this, let us expend this discussion so it is about real issues the effect all of us. I googled censorship in America hoping to find a site that explains how censorship increases during times of war, and how it was applied to communist, and how the movie industry black balled anyone suspect of being communist. I grew up in Hollywood and my family had friends who were black balled. My family and the discussions we had around the dinner table, have everything to do with what I write. Freedom of speech, and freedom to think for ourselves, is not just an abstract idea to me, because I have experienced the reality of power that can take our freedoms, and if we all agree power of authority does have that unquestioned right, then what happens to our freedoms? I stopped looking for information when I found this legislation about the internet. It might be a better start for discussion about censorship.

 

http://americancensorship.org/

 

As long as the moderators are censorious nazis they might as well make a new rule that members need to use the word "I" less than 7% of the time.

 

It is not the moderators who concern me, because they have proven to be pretty cool. It is you all who scare me.

[swansont]

It is not the moderators who concern me, because they have proven to be pretty cool.

Are you no longer "blown away by the censorship in the forum"?

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

The posts discussing censorship in general have been moved to the Politics section here.

Further discussion of censorship by SFN Staff can continue in this thread.

[Athena]

Are you no longer "blown away by the censorship in the forum"?

 

I had to read my opening post because I had forgotten why I said I was blown away by the censorship. At least twice someone reacted to my post without good understanding. If I remember correctly, the second time someone reacted without careful reading, was corrected after I opened this thread. I am saying, I believe discussion like this is necessary for the correction of mistakes. Humans make mistakes and it is important to have systems for correcting them.

 

I was suspended and so I know this happens with no communication, except warnings in a thread that the poster might not even be aware of. May be you all have all day to read post, but I don't. Often I have only enough time to read and respond to one post, and the next day a person can find him or her self suspended or banned, because s/he didn't see the warning. Those warnings need to be PMed and possibly emailed and there needs to be an opportunity to respond. It should not be just assumed a person got a communication and ignored it, because there is a chance the person didn't know of a warning. And with this action, it needs to be taken into consideration that a mistake was made or there is a misunderstanding. Did the moderator carefully read everything, or is s/he just reacting to part of the communication? Does the moderator have enough information to make a decision?

 

People are having a bad reaction to my use of the word "NAZI" and I keep thinking when my explanation is understood what I am saying will be appreciated. This is a serious matter of freedom of speech. I am talking about different purposes of education and how they get different results and changes if how government is organized and changes in philosophy, that is not what people are thinking about when they react to the word. Now this is kind of like trying to explain why the water is making people sick, when they find things too small to see, completely unbelievable. Without an understanding of what I am saying, I am being judged, but that does not make me wrong. Please, can we avoid being too focused on this one example, because it can apply to so many others, especially when people are discussing God. We come to these discussions with different back grounds and different points of view, and judging another without understanding where this person is coming from, can be a misjudgment.

Now we get into the bigger picture and a matter of values. When we value freedom of speech, with a desire to know truth, and are comfortable with how much we don't know, our judgments might be different, than if we are focused on finding those trolls and getting rid of them, or finding people speaking superstition and getting rid of them, because they are not being scientifically correct. That is a focus on policing the forum, kind of like hurting for deer to shoot. I have concern that education for technology leads to policing, more than a desire to explore truth? This has much to do with philosophy. Who do you follow, Nietzsche or Socrates? Are you predominately a left brain thinker or a right brain thinker? Is your mind open or closed? When we had liberal education, teachers asked open ended questions, meaning there was no right or wrong answer, but a need to demonstrate understanding of a concept. As we move into education for technology, there are right or wrong answers. These different focuses on education train our minds differently and activate different values. Are we exploring truth, or are we policing for trolls, and being sure the students know the right answers for the test, because their wrong answers could get us fired?

 

My heart aches, as I fear people will become defensive, instead of understanding what I am saying. We have experienced cultural change, and the young can not compare the present culture with a past one they did not experience. At best they can compare the present, with the explanations they are given for why change was necessary and how this is much better, excuse me- exactly what happened to Germany when the Prussians took over. Are we exploring truth, or determined to judge right from wrong? In the past and present, there are both good and bad things. This is not a right or wrong issue. What do we value? And Swansont, what would change if you replaced the gun in your hand with flowers?

Edited August 19, 2012 by Athena

[CaptainPanic]

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.

Yes, but contrary to real-life, the scumbags that are lurking around the internet are just 1 click away from our forum. But even in real-life you have vandalism and people destroying public property, polluting the environment, and just generally not caring for their fellow people. Online, you can do something bad from behind your computer.

 

Also in real-life, you have enforcers. Lots of them, actually! In a family, the parents enforce the rules. In schools, the teachers do it. And on the street the police enforce. In the shops/mall there are private security guys. In an office, you have a boss/manager.

 

If you're in a civilized place, they do not have to enforce a lot, because people already know the rules. But you know how people are... as soon as the boss is not looking, they'll act differently, and work less hard.

 

Here, on our forum, people often do not know our rules (yourself included), and we get lots of new people too. And because we (mods) like to keep the place as it is, we need to step in every now and then.

 

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.

A big mod-note is 1 message to everyone. You propose at least 2 messages, possibly more. I think I have mentioned this before to you, but we do not have unlimited time on our hands. The way the mods act here is a compromise between the ideal and time-efficient.

 

Your proposals work perfectly for a family, where you can dedicate a lot of time to a few children. However, we're more like school teachers. Very little time, lots of kids. And believe me, it's actually far worse here than in a real school. More kids, less teachers, we cannot have a conversation with the parents, and the kids know they can misbehave without consequences...

 

Some kids just like to misbehave. And that's when you need a mod.

[hypervalent_iodine]

Just to add to CP's post, typically when staff notice a member coming in line for a suspension, a PM is sent to that person. There are exceptions to this; for instance when a new or existing member decides to make multiple, large violations in a short time frame. But in general, if we spy a problem member then we do send them a private message.

[CaptainPanic]

I was suspended and so I know this happens with no communication, except warnings in a thread that the poster might not even be aware of. May be you all have all day to read post, but I don't.

And neither do the mods.

 

Btw, you have received a disproportionate amount of attention from us, so I really don't know what you're complaining about. Multiple mods have spend hours reading your posts, and the heated discussions you were in.

[swansont]

And Swansont, what would change if you replaced the gun in your hand with flowers?

I don't have a gun in my hand. My avatar, which is Sean Connery as James Bond, does. (Probably a prop, though)

 

Don't I have the freedom of expression to use an avatar of my choosing? Isn't the suggestion that I change it an attempt at censorship, according to your position?

[Ophiolite]

It is not the moderators who concern me, because they have proven to be pretty cool. It is you all who scare me.

Interestingly enough, the same may be true in reverse. You are obviously a committed person, who cares passionately about democracy and freedom. That's why is distresses me, and I suspect several others, to see you screaming at the choir for not singing tunes the way you want.

 

As others have pointed out, this is not Hyde Park Corner, where anyone can stand on their soapbox and say whatever they wish. There are a set of rules that apply here and you agreed to follow them. Now you are bitching about them, when there are real and present issues of far greater substance in the real world. Rather than tackle those you come here and berate a group of people who are probably, for the most part, in agreement with much of your thinking. Isn't that a bit silly?

 

You say that it is better if behaviour is determined by the culture rather than through the enforcement of rules. Well, I'm part of this culture and I'm suggesting you back off and rethink what you are doing, because it is the anithesis of your declared intent.

Edited August 20, 2012 by Ophiolite

[proximity1]

( deleted (by the posting member), upon noticing the moderator's note above.)

 

 

Update:

 

Sheesh. I just can't keep up with the movements here! ;^)

 

In a science forum, a (general) discussion of censorship should have some place and, as I see it, that place should be important---better, for example, than what's offered by real world "free speech zones". That is not intended as any criticism of this site or its administration. I haven't been here long enough to know much about those.

 

But I did leave the public discussion fora at the U.K.'s The Guardian in disgust over the blatant censorship practiced by what they are pleased to call "moderators"---some of the least moderate people I have ever encountered (but steeping in Political Correctness will do that to people).

Edited September 2, 2012 by proximity1

[Athena]

( deleted (by the posting member), upon noticing the moderator's note above.)

 

 

Update:

 

Sheesh. I just can't keep up with the movements here! ;^)

 

In a science forum, a (general) discussion of censorship should have some place and, as I see it, that place should be important---better, for example, than what's offered by real world "free speech zones". That is not intended as any criticism of this site or its administration. I haven't been here long enough to know much about those.

 

But I did leave the public discussion fora at the U.K.'s The Guardian in disgust over the blatant censorship practiced by what they are pleased to call "moderators"---some of the least moderate people I have ever encountered (but steeping in Political Correctness will do that to people).

 

 

Now that is an excellent statement, and something I think we need to be very concern about. We all know how effective the church was in preventing freedom of speech and even freedom of thought. Some days I worry that we are experiencing the same reality, only the shoe is on a different foot. We are no longer liberal and this looks like a serious problem to me.

 

Censoring for political correctness destroys the very meaning of freedom of speech.

[imatfaal]

Now that is an excellent statement, and something I think we need to be very concern about. We all know how effective the church was in preventing freedom of speech and even freedom of thought. Some days I worry that we are experiencing the same reality, only the shoe is on a different foot. We are no longer liberal and this looks like a serious problem to me.

 

Censoring for political correctness destroys the very meaning of freedom of speech.

 

"We all know how effective the church was in preventing freedom of speech and even freedom of thought" - well not very effective really. The proof is in the fact that whilst the church relied on wealth, force of arms, and being at the centre of the royal court and power politics they remained immensely strong; but that method of influence waned and they were forced to rely on ideology, their message, and apparently prevention of free speech/thought crimes. And since that point, in Europe at least, the clout of the church is massively diminished; there is legal contraception, divorce, abortion, women's rights, freedom of religion (or none), the ability to affirm rather than swear an oath, and an almost complete non-use of blasphemy statutes (in 2008 the UK got rid of the common law offences of Blasphemy and Blasphemous Libel as they had not been used for years).

 

"We are no longer liberal..." In what way are we no longer liberal? I assume that you are taking examples from certain parts of the USA and judging the whole of that country, and the rest of the world by those standards; this is not the case. There are areas in which we have become less liberal and the law and society may have regressed - but on the whole we are more liberal than we were, more accepting of difference, more tolerant of opposing views, and able to get along better with those we disagree with

 

 

"Censoring for political correctness destroys the very meaning of freedom of speech" Not really - freedom of speech is ill-defined (there is the old chesnut about shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre) but being needlessly crude, insulting, or bigotted does not - in my mind - belong at the heart of freedom of expression. The defence of the use of certain words to describe a group or portion of the community will always be fraught with pitfalls, and if we sometimes make a little bit of an idiot of ourselves by ensuring that we do not offend is that really such a big problem? If one cannot find words to express motives, arguments, and observations without the use of words that the 'political correctness brigade have deemed offensive', then perhaps a rethink may be in order. Convenience should not be allowed to trump the feelings, societal worth, and dignity of members of our culture. The claim that 'I always used to call them that and they never complained. In fact some of my best friends...' is often explained by the reality that they were oppressed and not in a situation of enough power or agency to complain.

[Athena]

"We all know how effective the church was in preventing freedom of speech and even freedom of thought" - well not very effective really. The proof is in the fact that whilst the church relied on wealth, force of arms, and being at the centre of the royal court and power politics they remained immensely strong; but that method of influence waned and they were forced to rely on ideology, their message, and apparently prevention of free speech/thought crimes. And since that point, in Europe at least, the clout of the church is massively diminished; there is legal contraception, divorce, abortion, women's rights, freedom of religion (or none), the ability to affirm rather than swear an oath, and an almost complete non-use of blasphemy statutes (in 2008 the UK got rid of the common law offences of Blasphemy and Blasphemous Libel as they had not been used for years).

 

"We are no longer liberal..." In what way are we no longer liberal? I assume that you are taking examples from certain parts of the USA and judging the whole of that country, and the rest of the world by those standards; this is not the case. There are areas in which we have become less liberal and the law and society may have regressed - but on the whole we are more liberal than we were, more accepting of difference, more tolerant of opposing views, and able to get along better with those we disagree with

 

 

"Censoring for political correctness destroys the very meaning of freedom of speech" Not really - freedom of speech is ill-defined (there is the old chesnut about shouting "fire!" in a crowded theatre) but being needlessly crude, insulting, or bigotted does not - in my mind - belong at the heart of freedom of expression. The defence of the use of certain words to describe a group or portion of the community will always be fraught with pitfalls, and if we sometimes make a little bit of an idiot of ourselves by ensuring that we do not offend is that really such a big problem? If one cannot find words to express motives, arguments, and observations without the use of words that the 'political correctness brigade have deemed offensive', then perhaps a rethink may be in order. Convenience should not be allowed to trump the feelings, societal worth, and dignity of members of our culture. The claim that 'I always used to call them that and they never complained. In fact some of my best friends...' is often explained by the reality that they were oppressed and not in a situation of enough power or agency to complain.

 

You said so many good things, it is hard to remember all of them.

 

I didn't know there was something other than swearing on the bible. Of course swearing the bible has its problems, but it is akin to what I mean when I say I answer to God, not a group of people, and it is not the social norm that defines my decisions. I think someone objected to me saying that, and I have contemplated why anyone would object to that ever since yesterday. I am glad to approach this question from another angle.

 

What is this ability to affirm? I assume this is a transition of morality that is needed, and it gets to the very crux of the problem of "why god". I will wait your explanation with great anticipation.

 

As for transition of faith, this so much goes with scientific discovery and I here religion in England is perhaps doing a better job of adjusting to the demand for change. I know less of what is happening in England, that the impact of Newton. Too bad the church refused to look through Galileo's telescope and see for themselves the moon is not a perfect sphere. Oh my, the battle between religion and science is such a source of tension and confusion. However, when you have a classical or liberal education based on Greek and Roman classics, and Newton defines gravity as a law, this set off a fire storm of faith that science will reveal god. God, logos, universal laws, what a thrilling adventure into knowledge and meaning. I think the rejection of Galileo and the acceptance of Newton, was about the literacy of those who could afford education?

 

Of course Darwin set off a new controversy and hearing what my Christian friends say about God, it is obvious they do not have adequate education in science. Without doubt the Texas Republican agenda is to keep evolution and education for independent thinking out of the school. This is a terrible thing, and I wish the church would get back on board with faith that science will reveal god. I think this would go much better if there were not so much strong insistence that is no god. This is so sad, but Christians and Muslims are pushing against those "godless people" and this increases the push against those religious people. Allegorically speaking Satan is the lie, and this fight over what is truth and what is the lie, manifest the anti Christ. I am not saying non believers are the anti Christ, but the energy that builds in this conflict is the anti Christ. This conflict can brings us to another terrible war, and

 

whoops friend came to take to breakfast, have to run.

[dmaiski]

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.

 

BURN THE HERETIC!! HE MUST BE PUNISHED FOR THE CRIME OF BLASPHEMY, SEDITION, AND HERESY AGAINS THE CHURCH OF NOD!!

(had to be said)(no one expects the spanish inquisition)

 

but really freedom of speech expend only as far as you are willing to say

but you must be aware that whatever you say, good or bad, has consequences

 

unfortunately this is the internet, here we have real freedom of speech behind the blanket called anonymity

 

so feel free to spew profanity, utter obscenities, have holy wars against chickens, discuss your love of your cat, moan about the taste of milk, or anything else you can think of.

 

just don't expect the moderators to put up with it if its off topic

Edited September 25, 2012 by dmaiski

[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?

 

I think I will repeat this post, because of comments that do relate to it. This is not only about censorship, but how it is being done. I write this is a memory of history and the struggle for freedom of speech, and with concern for the future. There was a country where the people were just like us, and where everything went very wrong, because the people were just like us, and didn't see the bad coming. While there are good reasons for censorship, if it is done poorly, and no makes an issue of it, a bad history can be repeated.

 

Oh the other hand, I very effective way to get rid of an unwanted poster is to ignore that person. Of course if the person is doing something that could cause harm to others, ignoring this person is not an option. Good censorship and bad censorship are really a judgment call, and things go better when everyone is involved in that judgment call.

[dimreepr]

I think I will repeat this post, because of comments that do relate to it. Thisis not only about censorship, but how it is being done. I write this is amemory of history and the struggle for freedom of speech, and with concern forthe future. There was a country where the people were just like us, and whereeverything went very wrong, because the people were just like us, and didn'tsee the bad coming. While there are good reasons for censorship, if it is donepoorly, and no makes an issue of it, a bad history can be repeated.

<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;"><br style="mso-special-character: line-break;">

 

People will always be people and seldom are the lessons ofhistory learnt, unfortunately.

 

 

Oh the other hand, I very effective way to get rid of an unwanted poster is toignore that person. Of course if the person is doing something that could causeharm to others, ignoring this person is not an option. Good censorship and badcensorship are really a judgment call, and things go better when everyone isinvolved in that judgment call.

 

 

The problem when everyone is involved is fear and prudence canbe used to manipulate all of us into accepting far more censorship than isreasonable. As I outlined in the split thread.

 

 

[ydoaPs]

This is not only about censorship, but how it is being done.

 

It's not about censorship; it's about people feeling entitled to break the rules. You agreed to follow the rules and etiquette guide by joining. If you don't like the rules, then log out and don't come back.

 

As for how the moderation is conducted, they give a lot of leeway and second, third, and fortieth chances. True most of the moderation discussion is done behind closed doors, but the result of the discussion is as public as need be.

 

I write this is a memory of history and the struggle for freedom of speech, and with concern for the future.

 

Freedom of speech doesn't come into play at all. You do not have the right to free use of someone else's toys. This site is John's toy. He and his crack admin team have set certain rules. If you abide by the rules, you get to play with John's toy. If you don't, you don't get to play. It's that simple.

[dmaiski]

I think I will repeat this post, because of comments that do relate to it. This is not only about censorship, but how it is being done. I write this is a memory of history and the struggle for freedom of speech, and with concern for the future. There was a country where the people were just like us, and where everything went very wrong, because the people were just like us, and didn't see the bad coming. While there are good reasons for censorship, if it is done poorly, and no makes an issue of it, a bad history can be repeated.

 

Oh the other hand, I very effective way to get rid of an unwanted poster is to ignore that person. Of course if the person is doing something that could cause harm to others, ignoring this person is not an option. Good censorship and bad censorship are really a judgment call, and things go better when everyone is involved in that judgment call.

 

I would prefer censorship done poorly then censorship done well. A censor you cant see feel or even know about is far more dangerous then the obvious one, because if you can see it you can guess what is being said, if you cant see it, you wont know what hit.

 

 

How do you censor someone on the internet? a persistent troll is unstoppable, and they will always complain that its bad censorship.

 

 

 

 

[Moontanman]

Ok this censorship stuff is getting out of hand. I've been on this forum for several years and so far i have yet to see anyone treated unfairly. In fact I've seen people tolerated that if this was my "toy" they would be given the boot no questions asked. Yes i am aware this sounds like ass kissing but try a forum with little or no moderation if you want to experience frustration.

 

The rules are quite plain and the moderators go way out of their way to give people the benefit of the doubt. I've had my wrist slapped a few times and i grew from the experience. i have learned a great deal on this forum, about science, about life, about how to learn and in a few instances I have managed to teach others a few things.

 

I say stop all the whining read the rules and follow them or go to a forum where chaos rules and see how frustrating it is to have a dumbass spout bullshit and no one can do anything about it...

 

I've seen a really great forum die from lack of moderation, it's sad, you put real effort into teaching and learning and a troll comes along and basically neaner neaner neaners the thread into stupidity, debating is not arguing, you cannot learn by arguing but a moderated debate can be informative and any learning experience is precious to me and all the bitching and whining interferes with that, count your self lucky you have found a forum that is fair and equitable, I have been on many that are not and they are useless...

 

I tried to explain something as simple as crop circles are nothing but woo on face book and got my ass kicked because there was no one to point out real evidence was necessary and that really believing something is meaningless. Count your blessings, you don't have to like like the moderators but falsely accusing them of being unfair because you can't support your brand of horse feathers is just stupid...

[swansont]

I think I will repeat this post, because of comments that do relate to it. This is not only about censorship, but how it is being done. I write this is a memory of history and the struggle for freedom of speech, and with concern for the future. There was a country where the people were just like us, and where everything went very wrong, because the people were just like us, and didn't see the bad coming. While there are good reasons for censorship, if it is done poorly, and no makes an issue of it, a bad history can be repeated.

 

Oh the other hand, I very effective way to get rid of an unwanted poster is to ignore that person. Of course if the person is doing something that could cause harm to others, ignoring this person is not an option. Good censorship and bad censorship are really a judgment call, and things go better when everyone is involved in that judgment call.

You're telling people to not reply to an unwanted poster. IOW, you are advocating censorship — stifling responses. But it appears that since it's what you want, it's "good" censorship, and that makes it okay. But if someone is of a differing opinion and want to approach things in another way, then they are advocating "bad" censorship.

[Athena]

Somethings are just a matter of logic. It is very hard to continue a discussion if everyone stops posting. Inversely the way to keep a discussion going is to reply to what has been said. I know when people stop replying to me, and I have nothing to reply to, that is the end. It is that simple.

 

I think I made a legitimate complaint, not about the rules, but how they are enforced. On occasion moderators have reacted to a word, or a subject without having adequate knowledge. Either the moderator is not familiar with the subject or has not read the content of a thread, before making a decision. In a different forum, someone asked what I meant by concrete thinking, and I googled for an easy explanation. I about fell out of my chair when I got several links about concrete thinking and NAZI Germany. I have been told not to talk about this here, so I will not, other than to say this is something I have been told not to talk about this and education. I think if people were familiar the issues, there be appreciation of the subject, but that will not happen here, because it is something I have been told not talk about. Get it, it is not as simple as enforcing rules, but also a matter of judgment.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Athena