Censorship

[Division56]

Should hate speech be censored on this forum?

[Zero Angel]

It should be argued against, and if on consensus that others ask the person to stop then they should. The remainder left to the moderators' judgement.

[crule81]

No. Period. The only thing that concerns me about this stance is that a resounding NO could simply encourage some to flood discussions with racist drivel. But, I believe that's acceptable when the option is simply censoring unpopular viewpoints. We're supposed to have thick skins when it comes to these kind of things: let's prove it.

[Claverhouse]

It should be argued against, and if on consensus that others ask the person to stop then they should. The remainder left to the moderators' judgement.
'Consensus' ? 'Others' ? How many others ? A majority vote* ? A vocal minority assault ? A minority arrogating to itself the mantle of speaking for the majority ? Dr. Goebbels decides ?


I don't want censorship of any opinion: and bear in mind that I don't like most people's opinions.



Claverhouse :ph34r:



*
Now when this lovely Vampire had quitted him, the Emperor Jurgen, in spite of his general popularity and the deference accorded his political views, was not quite happy in Hell.

"It is a comfort, at any rate," said Jurgen, "to discover who originated the theory of democratic government. I have long wondered who started the notion that the way to get a wise decision on any conceivable question was to submit it to a popular vote. Now I know.

[CoHo]

Hate speech is hate speech no matter if it is directed at a group or an individual

If I called a member a nigger I would get banned. On the other hand if I said "all niggers are inferior" I would not get banned. I consider that a laughable position to take.

[jread]

No, that would be ridiculous. I have hateful words about all sorts of people, places or things.... censoring something that may offend someone is way too "F" for my tastes.

[SensEye]

I would say 'not specifically'. If all a particular member wants to do is spew racist drivel that none of the other members want to hear about (or take the time to refute) I would ban them under general trolling rules (i.e. they are cluttering and disrupting the forum).

But if a poster exhibits racism in passing while discussing other topics, such is life, hiding from it doesn't make it go away.

[tragula]

Hate speech is not about offending people. It's about anger, fear, and inciting violence. And I'm against it.

Politically incorrect speech is about offending people. And it should be encouraged! :)

The two things are completely distinct and separate.

(CorporateWhore is in fact correct in pointing out that there is a logical inconsistency there that should be resolved.)

[jread]

Hate speech is not about offending people. It's about anger, fear, and inciting violence. And I'm against it.

Politically incorrect speech is about offending people. And it should be encouraged! :)

The two things are completely distinct and separate.

(CorporateWhore is in fact correct in pointing out that there is a logical inconsistency there that should be resolved.)

It could also be about preference, though. For instance, many people choose a neighborhood based on what type of people are in it. Maybe it's out of fear or what is comfortable, or maybe they just like being around people who are just like them. This is not exclusive to "white" people... other races and ethnicities do the same thing. I feel that a lot of segregation is voluntary. Does that make these people racist or fearful?

[Zero Angel]

I am talking about stuff like Swift's that sits somewhere on the line of hate speech, not 'unpopular' viewpoints or simply politically incorrect speech. Obvious hate speech like racial slurs should definitely be moderated against.

[coffeezombie]

Banning hate speech isn't going to make people like Swift any more open-minded. In fact, it will probably make him more of a racist if he isn't allowed to express himself. The best way to deal with hate speech is to ignore it, not censor it. Ignoring other people is something that many on here seem to have a problem with, I've noticed.

[tragula]

I feel that a lot of segregation is voluntary. Does that make these people racist or fearful?

See, hate speech isn't about being racist, or bigoted, or homophobic. It's about extreme cases of those types of prejudice being expressed verbally in a way that crosses the dividing line between what is provocative and what is seriously demeaning or threatening.

eg. Archie Bunker was a racist. (Not that I ever watched that show.) But he wasn't burning crosses on people's lawns, or threatening to.

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

[Claverhouse]

I am talking about stuff like Swift's that sits somewhere on the line of hate speech, not 'unpopular' viewpoints or simply politically incorrect speech. Obvious hate speech like racial slurs should definitely be moderated against.
Indeed. You may note I added something to 'The Basics' in the Bitching Parlor, shortly subsequent to it's inception:


Edit: Added by Claverhouse: No attacks based on racialism or disabilities will be tolerated here. Such posts will be deleted, and the posters face banning.
Fortunately however, none have occurred and only one member has ever used the word 'nigger' there, but not in a direct attack. If it had not happened in a thread against myself, I should have considered a warning necessary since certain words are verboten, just because.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[ And if any non-white member ever wants to quote extensively from the works of Al Sharpton or call for the white race to be eradicated entirely from the earth, that's alright with me too. ]

[coffeezombie]

See, hate speech isn't about being racist, or bigoted, or homophobic. It's about extreme cases of those types of prejudice being expressed verbally in a way that crosses the dividing line between what is provocative and what is seriously demeaning or threatening.


People with penguin avatars are scumbags. Should I be banned now?

[CoHo]

Fortunately however, none have occurred and only one member has ever used the word 'nigger' there, but not in a direct attack.If it had not happened in a thread against myself, I should have considered a warning necessary since certain words are verboten, just because.

Is that the line?

Is: "I can't stand niggers" unacceptable and "I can't stand blacks" acceptable?

[J.L. des Alpins]

Should hate speech be censored on this forum?Div, thanks for bringing that issue up in a constructive way. Censorship has to be discussed, understood, and resolved once and for all.

I believe that our forum is the flagship of freedom of speech and acquiescence of freedom's responsibilities. In that regard, I voted 'No'.

INTP Central is a unique forum not only because most of its thousand members are INTP, but also because of its boundless topics, opinions, emotions, cultures, reaches, and depths. Its uniqueness are diamonds—maybe still in the rough, but—holding a foundation that has the potential to support the collective rational thinking of humankind.

Think about it, it is not far-reaching to imagine INTP Central as the Logical Check Testsite of the human race. There has never—EVER—been a thousand INTPs challenging each other in virtual real time. If we make this forum truly the 'must-be-there' place for INTPs, soon, our forum will reach ten thousands …a hundred thousands … millions strong membership. EACH OF US, MEMBERS, IS AN ACTIVE CONTRIBUTOR TO WHAT IS IN THE WAY OF BECOMING THE MOST RATIONAL MASS CONSCIOUS ENTITY THAT HAS EVER EVOLVED IN THE HISTORY OF THE LIVING BEINGS ON EARTH.

However, Div, allow any kind of autocratic censorship and what will remain of our destiny are the scribbles in the margins of a science fiction manuscript, the dreams of a king without crown, the legends of a conquistador's ship filled with gold that sinks in the depths of the sea, the illusions nurtured by a father burying his son, the empty feelings of mothers who thought they could have done more, the broken heart of sweethearts waving a last time toward the battleship that carry their love away, the ideas shattered after a crash, the projects dissolved after funding was denied, the best intentions soaked in freezing waters, the noblest of purposes flooded with disillusion, the ambitions denied of their chances.

Div, here is the choice you have to make:


Turn your telescope toward that new star, or
Burn Galileo.
JL

[Division56]

J.L. des Alpins: I am not the sole Admin. The forums are admined by Me, FileCabinet, Shaytana, Heeroyuy and Int.

[Vagabond]

No. You think their opinion is wrong and yours is right, throw your arguments on the table and make your case. Or ignore them and let them make a fool of themselves. If I think and say you are an idiot, it doesn't mean you really are an idiot, it only means I think you are. Banning me for that means you are afraid of what I have to say and creates the impression there is some truth you are trying to hide in it.

[CoHo]

However, Div, allow any kind of autocratic censorship and what will remain of our destiny are the scribbles in the margins of a science fiction manuscript, the dreams of a king without crown, the legends of a conquistador's ship filled with gold that sinks in the depths of the sea, the illusions nurtured by a father burying his son, the empty feelings of mothers who thought they could have done more, the broken heart of sweethearts waving a last time toward the battleship that carry their love away, the ideas shattered after a crash, the projects dissolved after funding was denied, the best intentions soaked in freezing waters, the noblest of purposes flooded with disillusion, the ambitions denied of their chances.


No offense JL but I find the term "I am against censorship" a copout because it is a very easy thing to say but it doesn't appear to really mean anything. People have been banned here before so there is Censorship. Or are you against censorship absolutely?

What are you comments on this sentence?

If I called a member a nigger I would get banned. On the other hand if I said "all niggers are inferior" I would not get banned.

[Claverhouse]

People with penguin avatars are scumbags. Should I be banned now?

Homophobe.


The Romantic Story of Wendell and Cass (http://www.emperor-penguin.com/gay-penguins.html)



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[tragula]

People with penguin avatars are scumbags. Should I be banned now?

Well, let's pretend it is a serious comment, and that it was not directed specifically at me (personal insult), just for the sake of argument. I would say--no, you shouldn't be banned.

See hatred is something that creates fear. And as such it is only groups that are the target of hatred that develop insecurities and need protection. If all people with penguin avatars on the web lived in fear of their safety from penguin avatar hating posters, then the answer would be different.

Which is not to say that I could not be deeply insulted by your criticizing my avatar species. Or that repeatedly and knowingly indirectly insulting someone would not be banable behavior.

The problem is that people get caught up in legalistic talk, when most people know intuitively what is a threatening and highly demeaning comment and what isn't.

A small minority of people on the other hand are easily offended. But so long as the majority (sorry Claver) of English speakers are clear about the difference between something marginally offensive and something deeply offensive and threatening, then there isn't a problem.

[mgb]

Banning hate speech isn't going to make people like Swift any more open-minded. In fact, it will probably make him more of a racist if he isn't allowed to express himself. The best way to deal with hate speech is to ignore it, not censor it. Ignoring other people is something that many on here seem to have a problem with, I've noticed.

How come you are so worried about Swift becoming more racist? And is expressing racist ideas giving him some sort of relief? And ignore a problem doesn't make it go away, in fact, it's just another form of censorship, just a personal one.

I agree with CorporateWhore.

I don't think this is the place for hate speech. I don't think it's the place where people should come to make generalizations about anyone. With that said, there are a multitude of places on the internet where people should feel free to post whatever hate speech they want to.

Everyone here wants to be tolerant. Try joining stormfront and see if they are as a tolerant. I agree with tolerance, but I disagree with being tolerant of intolerace.

[coffeezombie]

Why don't you go and make a politically correct INTP board for people who don't mind their ideas being censored, mgbradsh, and leave this board for people who believe anything should be freely discussed?

[tragula]

I agree with tolerance, but I disagree with being tolerant of intolerace.

See, your agenda is to legislate political correctness, and it would be a disaster for the free expression of ideas in this forum.

Don't take that as an invitation for a big exchange of salvos--I have to go cook dinner! :)

(edit: cz is a much faster poster than me... :-(

[Claverhouse]

I agree with tolerance, but I disagree with being tolerant of intolerace.
'I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say exactly what I think.'



Claverhouse :ph34r:


It would have come out neater if you'd put it: 'I agree with intolerance of intolerance', or just: 'I agree with intolerance'.

[CoHo]

'I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say exactly what I think.'


You still haven't been able to answer any of the questions. All you have said is you are against censorship. Good for you.

[SheepDog]

I hate censorship. Censors are inferior.

[J.L. des Alpins]

No offense JL but I find the term "I am against censorship" a copout because it is a very easy thing to say but it doesn't appear to really mean anything. People have been banned here before so there is Censorship. Or are you against censorship absolutely?

What are you comments on this sentence????

You may have spit a reply too quickly after you read my post. There is an expression in English, I think, that says, "roll your tongue seven times in your mouth before you speak".

Even if I roll my tongue dozens of times while I read your lines, I can't make sense of them:

Former members may have been banned, but is it because of their ideas or because they were breaching the basic rules of decencies? (I don't know myself since I have not been privileged with the facts. If one is banned because of ideas, then it is wrong and the situation must be remedied. On the other hand, if one is just acting like an asshole, then they shall not be missed. In summary, banning is a matter of behaviour, not beliefs.)

Autocratic censorship is a declaration of defeat from the regency. If the membership feels that the oversight is coming short on its responsibilities, then it is the membership's responsibility to elect new moderators. This very thread looks like a healthy debate about your assessment of the moderation and the membership's evaluation of the merits of your arguments.

Your latest posts have generated a marked interest among the membership. You might be onto something. We obviously want to know what's on your mind. Keep at it, we are listening. (Just a thought: If you were to cleanse your discourse of bullshit, profanities, nonsense, stereotypes, cussing, execrations, searing, verbal abuses, insults, and all those indignities which you are splashing everyone with, your message would most certainly be taken more seriously. You are free to express yourself the way you want, and we are free to make whatever we want of your expression.)

JL

[CoHo]

Former members may have been banned, but is it because of their ideas or because they were breaching the basic rules of decencies? (I don't know myself since I have not been privileged with the facts. If one is banned because of ideas, then it is wrong and the situation must be remedied. On the other hand, if one is just acting like an asshole, then they shall not be missed. In summary, banning is a matter of behaviour, not beliefs.)
No matter how you want it diced it is censorship. The line I was referring to is this:

If I called a member a nigger I would get banned. On the other hand if I said "all niggers are inferior" I would not get banned.

Do you agree with the above sentence? [edit add] Do you agree that it makes sense to ban someone for the first line and not ban them for the second line?

[mgb]

Why don't you go and make a politically correct INTP board for people who don't mind their ideas being censored, mgbradsh, and leave this board for people who believe anything should be freely discussed?
Hey that's a crazy idea.

But about here, it's not about PC, and that is such a tired argument by the way.

And I believe the discussion is actually about whether or not this board should be open to discuss anything, so your "why don't you"s come off as kind of lame.

The truth is, we have censorship here to some extent. We just need to figure out what that extent should be. And again, I'm not for banning, that should be an extreme last resort if I haven't made that clear in the past. I am for some rules on this stuff, just like we have rules about other things.

And I'm not afraid to discuss racism or sexism or whatever. That's not what is happening here or where these conversations go. I think people should be able to talk about this stuff but the posts in question, including the one I made, had nothing to do about learning about these things (save the misogyny thread) but about declaring that's how things are, often in a less than logical way, see the difference?

[kafkaesque]

See, your agenda is to legislate political correctness, and it would be a disaster for the free expression of ideas in this forum.

Don't take that as an invitation for a big exchange of salvos--I have to go cook dinner! :)

(edit: cz is a much faster poster than me... :-(
adopting a policy against racist remarks = disaster for free expression of ideas

I think that is a pretty big leap in logic.

[mgb]

See, your agenda is to legislate political correctness, and it would be a disaster for the free expression of ideas in this forum.

Don't take that as an invitation for a big exchange of salvos--I have to go cook dinner! :)

(edit: cz is a much faster poster than me... :-(

Feel free to explain to me the good of the racist/sexist/etc. posts. Tell me what benefit they add to a community of people who are here because they share a common interest in MBTI and their specific type.

And I don't want a double negative suggestion, tell me what the benefit of these ideas are.

[mgb]

Should hate speech be censored on this forum?

How about we do it this way.

Division. You are an INTP, and according to what you've said, gay. You read the thread on homosexuality. Without personal attacks, how did it make you feel? Drop the admin badge for a sec and be honest. Were you mad? Did you feel it belongs on this board?

[coffeezombie]

And I'm not afraid to discuss racism or sexism or whatever. That's not what is happening here or where these conversations go. I think people should be able to talk about this stuff but the posts in question, including the one I made, had nothing to do about learning about these things (save the misogyny thread) but about declaring that's how things are, often in a less than logical way, see the difference?

Who has decided that Swift's posts are not acceptable? Society, right? So when it comes down to it, censorship means only allowing what is socially acceptable to be said here. Now, an INTP society is more tolerant than normal society, but I still don't want my ideas being subjected to whether they are tolerated by a society of INTPs or not.

If I ever say something on this board and it is censored, I will leave immediately.

[mgb]

Who has decided that Swift's posts are not acceptable? Society, right? So when it comes down to it, censorship means only allowing what is socially acceptable to be said here. Now, an INTP society is more tolerant than normal society, but I still don't want my ideas being subjected to whether they are tolerated by a society of INTPs or not.

If I ever say something on this board and it is censored, I will leave immediately.

No one has decided that Swift's post are not acceptable, save a few members.

So, no it has nothing to do with societies views on acceptability, it has to do with what members view as acceptable, and obviously the members in general.

I find it hilarious that you are so against this when you were one of the most vocal proponents of keeping Zedo banned. As a community, you included, it was decided that Zedo/songbird should leave. Their banning was a form of censorship, like it or not. Obviously it was much more personal than political, but censorship none the less. People got tired of reading their posts. They could have been put on ignore by everyone, but it was decided that it would be better for the community to ban them, CENSORING their voices from INTP Central for good.

[SheepDog]

Feel free to explain to me the good of the racist/sexist/etc. posts. Tell me what benefit they add to a community of people who are here because they share a common interest in MBTI and their specific type.

Is this the criteria that you wish to apply to posts here? Do posts have to provide some 'good' to people who are here because they share a common interest in MBTI and their specific type?

[CosmicDust]

I would say 'not specifically'. If all a particular member wants to do is spew racist drivel that none of the other members want to hear about (or take the time to refute) I would ban them under general trolling rules (i.e. they are cluttering and disrupting the forum).

But if a poster exhibits racism in passing while discussing other topics, such is life, hiding from it doesn't make it go away.

This is pretty much what I think. I answered the fourth option because that's fairly close to my opinion. If someone trolls, something ought to be done about it.

Another problem is that censoring takes a lot of work, and often fails at its intended job. Conflict resolution and troll control are the best shots. Introducing censorship to people who are used to doing without it can piss them off and escalate conflict against the mods/admins, as I observed on another forum. It might make the waters more comfortable for some other people in the background, but for the people in the foreground things can become uncomfortable. Some oldbies would be sacrificed for some newbies, and whether the forum got better or worse or neither would be completely a matter of individual POV.

[J.L. des Alpins]

The line I was referring to is this:

If I called a member a nigger I would get banned. On the other hand if I said "all niggers are inferior" I would not get banned.

Do you agree with the above sentence? Do you agree that it makes sense to ban someone for the first line and not ban them for the second line?CWhore, I recognize that you have four times the number of posts than I. You might have witnessed situations that I have not. For instance, the sentence you are referring to: I have not seen the underlying context. You are bringing this point up forcefully, there has to be a basis of truth.

In an American-egocentric, non-INTP forum, there are little doubts that censure would be of short order. In most cases, I suspect, censure would be triggered by fear of litigation, not preservation of human dignity.

But in INTP-Central, I cannot fathom in any way how censure could possibly contribute positively to the membership's vision.

Your example above cannot by itself justify censorship (in this forum). Could you tell me of specific posts where you feel that censorship was applied because of ideas (not behaviour)? For all idea-based censorship, I am fully with you.

JL

[cjs55]

Censoring behavior can be acceptable. Censoring ideas is not. Is hate a behavior or an idea? Tough question.

[mgb]

Is this the criteria that you wish to apply to posts here? Do posts have to provide some 'good' to people who are here because they share a common interest in MBTI and their specific type?

You are trying to apply what I am saying to INTP Central in general. But that's not what I am talking about. I am talking about these ideas specifically. Can you answer the question? You seem to have evaded it.

[Claverhouse]

You still haven't been able to answer any of the questions. All you have said is you are against censorship. Good for you.
Any of the questions, eh ? The great big questions like immortality, the purpose of life and is the Creator benevolent or indifferent ? Nope, you mean those which you have peddled here presumably.

Scrolling up I can find two statements which may be questions:


Is that the line?

Is: "I can't stand niggers" unacceptable and "I can't stand blacks" acceptable?

No offense JL but I find the term "I am against censorship" a copout because it is a very easy thing to say but it doesn't appear to really mean anything. People have been banned here before so there is Censorship. Or are you against censorship absolutely?

What are you comments on this sentence?

If I called a member a nigger I would get banned. On the other hand if I said "all niggers are inferior" I would not get banned.
The first may deserve an answer, I guess, if you really can't see the difference... Yes, grossly offensive language is worse, and deserves banning. The 2nd way of putting it may come from the same place, ( or you could substitute whites or English people or Asians ), but it's phrasing is acceptable even if one does not admire the sentiment. We may regulate behaviour here, but not thinking.

The second contains a question aimed at J. L. and a reformulation of the first question. ( But, by a subtle shift, in it's second incarnation implies that you could say 'all niggers are inferior' here. Again, that usage would be enough for banning. )

It may be pointed out that you continually attribute by inference views that that have not been expressed by any poster: no-one has written an article proclaiming that blacks are inferior. And you extrapolate opinions from pages linked by the same site the page came from. If I posted a eulogistic article on the late Pope from an RC site, that would neither make me a RC nor mean that I was responsible for or held the same views as the other pages on that site, which stated, say, doctrinal beliefs of that church.

Generally, insulting groups may be wrong, but people have that freedom. Insulting individuals of those groups is trolling. The pitiful distinction made by you and others of saying that there is censorship because members have been banned before is fairly ludicrous because they were banned for misbehaviour here, not for whatever views they hold.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[mgb]

Censoring behavior can be acceptable. Censoring ideas is not. Is hate a behavior or an idea? Tough question.

Hey, look who has a 1000 posts.

It's tough on a forum because behaviors become ideas. All we have is ideas here because of the venue....

[CoHo]

Could you tell me of specific posts where you feel that censorship was applied because of ideas (not behaviour)?

To be honest my point is about definitions rather then censorship. What is the line?

I've been using terms like "Faggot" and "Nigger" allot lately... more so then I've probably used in my entire lifetime. That is because they are the strongest words I can think of.

So my question is to you (and those that say they are against censorship) is how far can a person go? When does hate speech BECOME an attack on an individual? When does it become a behavior problem? Finally why is an attack on an individual seen as wrong while an attack on a group is not?

"Black people are inferior to white people"
"Black people love chicken wings and malt liquor"
"Black people are more prone to rape because of their smaller brains"
"I don't trust niggers, they're so lazy, they'll do anything to get out of a hard day's work"

Is that free speech? Should that be allowed? Should some of it be restricted? Where is the line drawn? What is constructive and what is destructive? Why can I insult a group of people and not an individual? Is it then wrong for an individual to be insulted by any of those phrases above?

I'm just trying to really get down to the answers, I want to go beyond the "I am against censorship" and get some actual opinions.

[Division56]

How about we do it this way.

Division. You are an INTP, and according to what you've said, gay. You read the thread on homosexuality. Without personal attacks, how did it make you feel? Drop the admin badge for a sec and be honest. Were you mad? Did you feel it belongs on this board?
*drops badges*

In all honesty, I felt like you were shamelessly trying to manipulate my feelings about homophobia to get me to censor Swift. I do not believe that it is too egotistical to think the entire thread was to get a rise out of me (given that I tend to be the most... easily provoked of the Admins) so I would bitch to the other Admins.

As to my emotions... it was more of an eyeroll than any sort of anger.

[CoHo]

The first may deserve an answer, I guess, if you really can't see the difference... Yes, grossly offensive language is worse, and deserves banning.

So do you have a list of unacceptable words? Nigger, Faggot, Tar baby, Jungle Bunny... what would deserve banning then?

[SheepDog]

Can you answer the question? You seem to have evaded it.Hate speech should not be censored on this forum. If that doesn't answer the question, the please make the question more straightforward, because I don't get your point.

[coffeezombie]

"Black people are inferior to white people"
"Black people love chicken wings and malt liquor"
"Black people are more prone to rape because of their smaller brains"
"I don't trust niggers, they're so lazy, they'll do anything to get out of a hard day's work"

I think Swift's posts have stayed in the first category, which I still consider "intellectual" and debatable even if it is offensive. If his comments dropped down to the nature of some of those other ones then I'd suggest he be warned to change his behavior.

[mgb]

Any of the questions, eh ? The great big questions like immortality, the purpose of life and is the Creator benevolent or indifferent ? Nope, you mean those which you have peddled here presumably.

Scrolling up I can find two statements which may be questions:



The first may deserve an answer, I guess, if you really can't see the difference... Yes, grossly offensive language is worse, and deserves banning. The 2nd way of putting it may come from the same place, ( or you could substitute whites or English people or Asians ), but it's phrasing is acceptable even if one does not admire the sentiment. We may regulate behaviour here, but not thinking.

The second contains a question aimed at J. L. and a reformulation of the first question. ( But, by a subtle shift, in it's second incarnation implies that you could say 'all niggers are inferior' here. Again, that usage would be enough for banning. )

It may be pointed out that you continually attribute by inference views that that have not been expressed by any poster: no-one has written an article proclaiming that blacks are inferior. And you extrapolate opinions from pages linked by the same site the page came from. If I posted a eulogistic article on the late Pope from an RC site, that would neither make me a RC nor mean that I was responsible for or held the same views as the other pages on that site, which stated, say, doctrinal beliefs of that church.

Generally, insulting groups may be wrong, but people have that freedom. Insulting individuals of those groups is trolling. The pitiful distinction made by you and others of saying that there is censorship because members have been banned before is fairly ludicrous because they were banned for misbehaviour here, not for whatever views they hold.



Claverhouse :ph34r:


Sorry, I find your ideas to be kind of warped.

Grossly offensive language deserves banning but ideas don't. We've kind of touched on this before, in the calling things "Gay" thread. I believe the consensus was that using the word "gay" as an insult was offensive to gays. I believe we came to that consensus after some gay people said they were offended. So now we get into the realm of ideas. What is an idea? Theoretically, "nigger" shouldn't offend anyone. It's just a word. As we've learned though, it can be offense, not because of the word itself but because of the ideas behind it. So I find it odd that you are willing to ban someone because of a word but not the ideas behind it, seems kind of backwards.

And there was an entire thread calling Islam Defective. Just because a message gets all "PC'd" up doesn't mean it's changed, I believe the article was meant to imply that Islam as a Civilization was inferior.

But using your RC example, Swift did say that he agreed with the racial connotations of his first article.

And finally, what is "misbehavior" on a forum? It's all posting. All anyone does here is post. No one is beating anyone up or weilding a knife, it's all posting. Misbehavior has to be defined otherwise it isn't really misbehavior is it? That's all that's really happening now isn't it, we are attempting to see if it is worth defining something as behavior or misbehavior. And no matter what, to ban someone from a forum for any behavior is at the end of the day Censorship.

[CoHo]

It may be pointed out that you continually attribute by inference views that that have not been expressed by any poster: no-one has written an article proclaiming that blacks are inferior. And you extrapolate opinions from pages linked by the same site the page came from. If I posted a eulogistic article on the late Pope from an RC site, that would neither make me a RC nor mean that I was responsible for or held the same views as the other pages on that site, which stated, say, doctrinal beliefs of that church.

Then again, Swift is promoting the National Vanguard site IN GENERAL in his signature... he isn't making a reference to a particular article, just saying "join and support your race"


Over the next several years, Dr. Pierce continued regular publication of newsletters, periodicals, and books. The March-April 1989 issue of the National Vanguard featured a full page cover photo of Adolph Hitler, while the interior proclaimed him "the greatest man of our era." His follow up racist novel was dedicated to Joseph Paul Franklin, a violent racist felon who assassinated two innocent black joggers in Salt Lake City, Utah.

[mgb]

Hate speech should not be censored on this forum. If that doesn't answer the question, the please make the question more straightforward, because I don't get your point.

You are still not answeing the questions.

Why is it imperative to have it on the forum? That's my point. Why is it so important to you, that you feel that hate speech is an essential element to this forum?

What is the good in them?

[CoHo]

I think Swift's posts have stayed in the first category, which I still consider "intellectual" and debatable even if it is offensive. If his comments dropped down to the nature of some of those other ones then I'd suggest he be warned to change his behavior.

Then you support a form of censorship. I don't see this thread as being about just Swift, but about drawing the line in general. If that line is way out past what Swift is doing then fine.

[cjs55]

"Black people are inferior to white people"
"Black people love chicken wings and malt liquor"
"Black people are more prone to rape because of their smaller brains"

I don't percieve these as attacks, but rather statements that can be disproven or proven. If any of these were censored we would be in serious trouble.



"I don't trust niggers, they're so lazy, they'll do anything to get out of a hard day's work"

Since nigger is inherently a derogatory term, this could be considered an attack on a group.



Hey, look who has a 1000 posts.


Hey, someone else noticed ; )



It's tough on a forum because behaviors become ideas. All we have is ideas here because of the venue....

Behaviors become ideas? I'm sort of confused by this. Ideas might lead to behaviors, but the other way around seems...backwards. And the reason Zedo and SB34 were banned was because of behavior, not ideas. There is certainly behavior on this forum that goes beyond just ideas. To define it better, stalking someone across threads and pestering them is a behavior. Saying black people are inferior to white people is an idea. Hating anything I think may be a mixture between behavior and idea. I like the idea of censoring hate from a view that it isn't useful to debate and discussion, but by that logic we should censor a hell of a lot of things.

Censoring sources for articles linked I think is absolutely ridiculous however, regardless of the hate present in the writing. If the members can talk about it without hatred either way (hating the source, hating what the source hated), then there can be useful discussion on just about anything.

[mgb]

I think Swift's posts have stayed in the first category, which I still consider "intellectual" and debatable even if it is offensive. If his comments dropped down to the nature of some of those other ones then I'd suggest he be warned to change his behavior.

He actually did have a post showing that black people had small brains.

But I think these are the the types of distinctions that need to be made here. Obviously more general, but still this kind of thing.

[s]

I agree with Div and our response to that thread showed it.

Flames should not be welcomed, but civil disagreement should be encouraged. I am not a fan of censorship. If you want a thread to go away, then ignore it after you register your disgust. Throwing a hissy fit won't make racism (or any other ideology you disagree with) go away.

[cjs55]

I believe the article was meant to imply that Islam as a Civilization was inferior.

What's the problem with this exactly? There is no hate inherent in that idea. It is simply a debatable idea that could very well be correct depending on your definitions of civilzation and inferior.

[coffeezombie]

Then you support a form of censorship. I don't see this thread as being about just Swift, but about drawing the line in general. If that line is way out past what Swift is doing then fine.

Well, I agree with you. I don't think anybody here wants this place to become Stormfront. But if an idea has even a semblance of being intellectual, I think it should stay no matter what.

[CosmicDust]

He actually did have a post showing that black people had small brains.

Would it be received in the same way if it were a post showing that men are socially inept?

[mgb]

Since nigger is inherently a derogatory term, this could be considered an attack on a group.

Behaviors become ideas? I'm sort of confused by this. Ideas might lead to behaviors, but the other way around seems...backwards. And the reason Zedo and SB34 were banned was because of behavior, not ideas. There is certainly behavior on this forum that goes beyond just ideas. To define it better, stalking someone across threads and pestering them is a behavior. Saying black people are inferior to white people is an idea. Hating anything I think may be a mixture between behavior and idea. I like the idea of censoring hate from a view that it isn't useful to debate and discussion, but by that logic we should censor a hell of a lot of things.

Censoring sources for articles linked I think is absolutely ridiculous however, regardless of the hate present in the writing. If the members can talk about it without hatred either way (hating the source, hating what the source hated), then there can be useful discussion on just about anything.

Is it only an attack on a group if a bad word is used?

So behavior is an idea that is pursued over and over. SB and Zedo had the idea that they didn't like each other. They could have left it as an idea but decided to pursue it as a behavior. Is that fair to say?

So, does that mean that Swift has some ideas about different races (and he isn't the only one on the site with general ideas, just the one for reference right now). But when he posts thread after thread about it, it becomes behavior?

I'm not sure if I am stretching your meaning here, let me know.

[mgb]

Would it be received in the same way if it were a post showing that men are socially inept?

I can't say. I can say that some members here have threads about "fembots". And they do elicit a fight.

I do think it would be more appropriate and logical to say that some men seem like they are socially inept, but not all. Something like that would be hard to argue against, in my opinion.

[mgb]

I agree with Div and our response to that thread showed it.

Flames should not be welcomed, but civil disagreement should be encouraged. I am not a fan of censorship. If you want a thread to go away, then ignore it after you register your disgust. Throwing a hissy fit won't make racism (or any other ideology you disagree with) go away.

Why did you agree with him? And why did you respond the way you did.

And ignoring something doesn't make it just go away.

[SheepDog]

You are still not answeing the questions.

Why is it imperative to have it on the forum? That's my point. Why is it so important to you, that you feel that hate speech is an essential element to this forum?

What is the good in them?
It is NOT imperative to me that people post hate speech here. Why are you saying that it must have value to not be censored?

Censorship is YOUR assertion. The burden is on you, and you haven't made the case for it, so I don't agree with you.

[Claverhouse]

So do you have a list of unacceptable words? Nigger, Faggot, Tar baby, Jungle Bunny... what would deserve banning then?
It is wickedly subjective, but if I'd heard of a term I would judge whether it was something that I personally had never said nor ever thought of saying.

Most people can recognise unacceptable terms, even if they are completely innocent of political correctness and despise any progressive thinking post the death of Frederick Barbarossa.



Then again, Swift is promoting the National Vanguard site IN GENERAL in his signature... he isn't making a reference to a particular article, just saying "join and support your race"
It's fairly obvious that this is a riposte to mgbradsh's personally insulting signature. Doesn't mean he's a member of those people: just a retaunt to a taunt.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[cjs55]

Is it only an attack on a group if a bad word is used?

If an inherently derogatory context/word/tone that is not a debatable statement (such as, 'you racist fuck', or 'the damn jews are bad') is included in debate this is an attack that has no relevance to reasonable discussion. You could say 'The jews are bad', because that is a question for discussion that could be disproven. But you can't debate tone, context, and inherently derogatory word choices.

I think behavior is usually acting from an idea, yes. Trolling is the most common behavior on the internet that people usually get banned for. Trolling is defined as behaving in a way that intentionally disrupts a forum (or something like that). Usually, trolling occurs in other threads than ones created by the troller (because anyone can ignore said trollers thread if they wish too).

Do you really think Swift qualifies as a troll? I personally don't, at least not yet, although he certainly can be annoying. Of course, I think trolling is a sort of civil disobedience that if done right can actually be a decent attack on irrational thinking, so my opinion on this matter is a little weird. But in general, trolls get banned.

Now we get into a gray area. I don't think Swift is really disrupting the forum. SB34 and Zedo were. I'm sure we disagree here.

[mgb]

It is NOT imperative to me that people post hate speech here. Why are you saying that it must have value to not be censored?

Censorship is YOUR assertion. The burden is on you, and you haven't made the case for it, so I don't agree with you.

The reason someone would want something is subjective, yes? So I don't think we should have posts with racist undertones on the forum. I've stated why before, so this is redundant, but I feel that this forum is about INTPs. That includes black, white, brown, male, female, semite, Muslim, and Christian INTPs. I personally believe that allowing hate speech will come at a cost of some members who may feel discriminated against because we allow the hate propaganda posts.

I don't think anyone on this site should feel excluded from participating because of ancestory, sexuality, or gender.

That's why I don't think we should have it here. Now really, why is it so important that we do.

And I'll give you an example I came across on the internet. Some of us were having trouble believing that Stem/Utopmk had committed suicide. We came across his username (which we can only assume given is uniqueness no one else had used) on a forum. He had signed up with another person, Division56. I can only assume this was INTP Central's Division56. Division had about 5 posts before he found out that people wouldn't be very accepting of his sexuality on that site. So he didn't stick around, as was evidenced by his lack of posts. It could be other things, I don't know. Maybe he was just trolling or something.

My point is, are these "ideas" so important that we should have them here at the exclusion of some INTPs?

[Vagabond]

I don't think anyone on this site should feel excluded from participating because of ancestory, sexuality, or gender.

That's why I don't think we should have it here. Now really, why is it so important that we do. Because I don't think anyone on this site should feel excluded from participating because of ideological basis.

[mgb]

Because I don't think anyone on this site should feel excluded from participating because of ideological basis.

Sorry, I added a whole story.

They won't be excluded from participating. They can still be members, but they might have to share some of their ideas on other sites.

[Vagabond]

Sorry, I added a whole story.

They won't be excluded from participating. They can still be members, but they might have to share some of their ideas on other sites. So if I find annoying your tendency to protest and complain, I suppose you could stay a member here, but keep your complaining on other sites just the same. Right?

[mgb]

So if I find annoying your tendency to protest and complain, I suppose you could stay a member here, but keep your complaining on other sites just the same. Right?

You'd be surprised that already do.

If someone made a rule that no one was allowed to complain, then I wouldn't. If someone made a rule that I was the only one that wasn't allowed to complain, well, that wouldn't really be in the spirit of this debate would it?

[cjs55]

I personally believe that allowing hate speech will come at a cost of some members who may feel discriminated against because we allow the hate propaganda posts.


Would you really leave if people started linking to anti-white articles?

If anything, it's more interesting to me, because anything that is anti-me is usually something I want to get to know pretty well. I think the only people that would leave are people with extremely thin skin. In my opinion, members of this forum should be able to handle any discussion that doesn't break the attack rules that I listed above. If they can't, that is their problem.

[Vagabond]

You'd be surprised that already do.

If someone made a rule that no one was allowed to complain, then I wouldn't. If someone made a rule that I was the only one that wasn't allowed to complain, well, that wouldn't really be in the spirit of this debate would it? The question is, should there be a rule against complaining because it annoys me?

[Claverhouse]

You'd be surprised that already do.

If someone made a rule that no one was allowed to complain, then I wouldn't. If someone made a rule that I was the only one that wasn't allowed to complain, well, that wouldn't really be in the spirit of this debate would it?

No, don't do that. Someone made a rule that you have to complain incessantly. Wasn't me: must have been God.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[SheepDog]

For the record, I don't find the argument that we should censor people in order to prevent other people's feelings from getting hurt to be convincing.

[s0978]

For the record, I don't find the argument that we should censor people in order to prevent other people's feelings from getting hurt to be convincing.
That's probably because you're white.

[tragula]

adopting a policy against racist remarks = disaster for free expression of ideas

I think that is a pretty big leap in logic.

Well. There are racist insults, which would almost definitely qualify as Hate Speech.

And there are racist comments, which could concievably be attempts to communicate on an intellectual level.

The problem is everyone has to draw the line SOMEWHERE. Otherwise it just escalates into absurdity, which is the problem with political correctness.

For example. "Eskimos suck at making pancakes!" Could be considered a racial slur?

I simply choose to stand on the side of those who say it's better to have a bit of a thick skin and not start witch hunts on the slightest pretense. The actual history around here indicates that excessive sensitivity and political correctness is actually the bigger of the two problems in this forum.

Here's my definition/standard:

Hate Speech is verbal taunts and abuse with the explicit intent of degrading, dehumanizing, or threatening a group of people, or individuals of that group.

The point people need to realize is that it does all boil down to language. A mild taunt repeated three times becomes more serious. There's inflection, there's context. Words become taboo, and then loose their tabooness, based on fashion. So it would be darn near impossible to make a list of acceptable words and phrases. You know it when you see it. Just like pornography. And just like pornography there are people who are so blinded by their moral mission that they would try to cover every nude sculpture if they could.

[s0978]

I don't understand why the debate when:

Edit: Added by Claverhouse: No attacks based on racialism or disabilities will be tolerated here. Such posts will be deleted, and the posters face banning. [from http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=3602]
We don't like "racialism" in the BP, but it's okay elsewhere when cloaked in pseudointellectual rhetoric?

admit it, mgbradsh is just annoying the shit out of you, eh?

[SheepDog]

That's probably because you're white.
No, it's because I believe that each of us has the right to speak, but we don't have the right to not have our feelings hurt.

[edit to add]
btw, this is a cheap ad hominem attack.

[mgb]

The question is, should there be a rule against complaining because it annoys me?

If enough people believe so, or more importantly, the owners of this site, then yes.

[mgb]

I don't understand why the debate when:

We don't like "racialism" in the BP, but it's okay elsewhere when cloaked in pseudointellectual rhetoric?

admit it, mgbradsh is just annoying the shit out of you, eh?

Shoot the message because of the messenger. Such is life.

[mgb]

No, it's because I believe that each of us has the right to speak, but we don't have the right to not have our feelings hurt.

According to the rules of this forum, that's not true. They are specifically designed to make this place as comfortable for the membership as possible.

[SheepDog]

According to the rules of this forum, that's not true. They are specifically designed to make this place as comfortable for the membership as possible.
You asked my opinion. I gave it as clearly as I could.

[mgb]

Would you really leave if people started linking to anti-white articles?

If anything, it's more interesting to me, because anything that is anti-me is usually something I want to get to know pretty well. I think the only people that would leave are people with extremely thin skin. In my opinion, members of this forum should be able to handle any discussion that doesn't break the attack rules that I listed above. If they can't, that is their problem.

At the risk of my fourth post in a row. No I wouldn't leave if there was an anti-white thread. I haven't left after any of the anti-whatever threads either.

Someone else might.

[Vagabond]

If enough people believe so, or more importantly, the owners of this site, then yes. Okay, cool. So, since according to this poll so far the majority is against censorship, and since the owners of the site are against censorship, it looks like the matter is settled according to what you just said.

[mgb]

You asked my opinion. I gave it as clearly as I could.

No you didn't, you argued with my opinion.


For the record, I don't find the argument that we should censor people in order to prevent other people's feelings from getting hurt to be convincing.


No, it's because I believe that each of us has the right to speak, but we don't have the right to not have our feelings hurt.

Same thing with that one. Except you allude more generally that you are for free speech.

You still haven't argued why you believe specifically that Hate Speech should be allowed and the value it has to add to the forum.

[garak]

In general, fewer rules = better. Hate speech hardly seems to be an epidemic here, as it's coming from ... one person (as far as I've seen). I'd like to think that we can have a good laugh at the occasional idiot and move on.

[s0978]

No, it's because I believe that each of us has the right to speak, but we don't have the right to not have our feelings hurt.

Sorry -- that wasn't personal and just a dumb knee jerk reaction.

Right now I'm just feeling like you whiteys can't possibly imagine how hostile racist posts feel to a person of color, and aren't even trying. But I get that there will always be the argument that the onus is on us to keep the stiff upper lips.

edit:

[edit to add]
btw, this is a cheap ad hominem attack.
I was totally already retracting before I read this.

[SheepDog]

According to the rules of this forum, that's not true. They are specifically designed to make this place as comfortable for the membership as possible.

That's an interesting take on this:
http://intpcentral.com/?mode=faq#rules


The forum's rules

This forum is a pretty tolerant place. You can discuss almost any topic, the way you do so is more important. Please follow these guidelines - if you don't, your post will be edited or deleted, and in the most extreme case you will be deleted. Only virtually, though. ;)
No personal insults

Rude behavior and personal attacks or insults toward other forum members will not be tolerated. Moderators will edit, close or delete posts and threads that turn into personal insults.

However, remember not to take things too personally. People have different opinions and they have the right to express them. If someone thinks religion A is bunk and religion B is The Truth™, and you happen to think religion A is The Truth™ and religion B is bunk, don't take it as a personal insult. It's ok to post opinions and criticism about religion A, but it's not ok to post criticism about some certain forum member who believes in religion A.

Of course, this doesn't apply to religion only, but it seems to be a topic people will most likely take too personally.
Sex and pornography

We're not hypocrites and we don't live in the 19th century. If you want to discuss things that have something to do with sex or porn, feel free to do so. Discussing sex is ok as long as you do it like a mature adult. Just remember to keep the discussion civilized.

It may be hard to tell when you've crossed the line of civilized discussion. But posting pornographic pictures or too detailed descriptions of sex or advertising porn sites is not allowed, and moderators should remove those posts immediately.

Illegal things

Discussing illegal things, such as warez, is allowed. Distributing something illegal through the INTP forum is not, and the moderators will remove the topics that promote illegal activities.
Post in the right place

This forum is divided into categories so that people can read posts that are of the particular topic that happens to interest them. So, when you start a new discussion thread, at least try to post in the right category. That keeps things nice and clean.

I know it's sometimes really hard to decide where to put your post. Some posts just seem to fit into several categories, and the analytical INTPs who see all the possibilities may have hard time deciding where to put the post. How to decide if some post is a psychological analysis of peoples' political opinions and should go into "People and Psychology," an analysis of the current political situation in the world or your country and should go into "The World," or a political rant that might offend somebody and should go into "Flamethrower?" It may be impossible to say, so just put it into any of the categories that might fit.

If your post doesn't fit into any category, post it into "The Local Pub," the off-topic category where you can talk about any topic you like. If a discussion thread is clearly in the wrong place, the moderators will move it into the right category.
No spam

Posting links to interesting websites is allowed. Spamming isn't allowed. Where's the difference?

If you know an exceptionally interesting website and think other forum members might like it as well, feel free to post a link to the website and, if you like, comment the website. There's nothing wrong in pointing other forum members to interesting websites and maybe discussing the website or article.

You can also promote your own site if you want. Put the URL into your profile and into your signature, just make sure it's relatively subtle. I'm promoting my websites in my signature as well, so yes, I allow it as long as you don't overdo it.

If you're a regular, participating forum member and think the other members might be interested in your own site, you can post a link to it. But if you're just registered, and your first post is nothing but a link to your own website (and maybe in the wrong category as well), and you haven't participated in any other way, you'll be considered a spammer and the moderators should remove the link from your post.
Use your common sense!

These are the basic guidelines. They should help you if you're wondering if your post is appropriate. But the most important rule is: use your common sense. Almost anything can be discussed in this forum, we don't have any taboos. Just be relatively polite.

[mgb]

Okay, cool. So, since according to this poll so far the majority is against censorship, and since the owners of the site are against censorship, it looks like the matter is settled according to what you just said.

Well, it's been open for just over 6 hours. Obviously the question was asked because some admins aren't sure.

And since I have the right to say anything I want to as afforded by the logic here, I'll keep going.

[mgb]

That's an interesting take on this:
http://intpcentral.com/?mode=faq#rules

I was refering to the new and updated rules:

http://www.intpcentral.com/forums/faq.php?faq=new_faq_item#faq_rules


The Rules
Generally, there is a 3 strikes policy and users will be warned beforehand. Blatant violation of any of these rules will result in a ban.


The Rules:


1.) No software or Porn links/attachments that don't follow the conversation at hand.

2.) No Trolling.
Trolling is considered a post which is one of the following:
-An attempt to bait a user into an offtopic debate within a thread based upon a personal insult or "flame."
-An attempt to make a user 'go off' on the other through use of personal insult or allusion to personal insult.


3.) No Personal Insults or "Flames."
A Personal Insult, or Flame is:


-A post with the sole apparent intent to enrage another user of the forum
-A personal attack or name-calling based upon lies and/or subjective statements.
-Exception: there is leeway for very obvious jokes (where the other poster clearly acknowledges this).



4.) No Causing a "State of Unrest."
A State of Unrest shall be considered:
-A thread made with the intent of causing disorder and unrest throughout the forum. Orderly discussion of 'forum politics' (which we hate) is fine.
-A post made to a thread of another topic about forum politics, meant to cause digression into forum politics, this is also classified as a troll - and if it contains personal attacks on forum administrators and/or users, a flame.
-One thread on one problem at a time, in the appropriate place. A single thread called "Mods SuX0r5", with the issue of the day, in the Suggestion Box is fine. A second thread in the Entertainment section (or anywhere else) isn't. These unnecessary threads will be closed.
Note:
-If you have a problem with a mod or admin, let the other mods and admins know. Private Messages are great.


5.) The mods and admins are using thier best judgement, and will be in agreement when there is a ban
- no one person will be dominating the banning process.


6.) No Spamming.



A note on jokes:
-Lighten up.
-We often have a sense of humor that isn't understood. So try not to take things too seriously.
-If your joke isn't understood, lighten up, and try not to take the responses too seriously.
-If there is any mis-communication, lighten up, and try to fix any problems from the miscommunication, instead of making any problems worse.


Other Notes:

-Posts made in the Playground do not count towards an individual's post-count.

[SheepDog]

You still haven't argued why you believe specifically that Hate Speech should be allowed and the value it has to add to the forum.
You have formed a logical fallacy by implying that for people to be in favor of free speech, they must also be in support of everything that is being said.

* SheepDog believes that people should be allowed to express their ideas.
* Racist expressed hate speech
* Therefore, SheepDog must believe that hate speech is valuable.

I don't think that argument deserves the response you insist on.

[Claverhouse]

I don't understand why the debate when:

We don't like "racialism" in the BP, but it's okay elsewhere when cloaked in pseudointellectual rhetoric?
You missed out that it referred to personal attacks based on racialism ( which BTW is the correct form as opposed to the lazy 'racism' ): if others have racialist views, anti-white, anti-black, anti-inuit, that's their problem, not mine.


admit it, mgbradsh is just annoying the shit out of you, eh?
[considers]

Na, not really. I believe in free speech.

[ But I can't stand emotionalism: right or left, racial bigot or anti-racist, religious or atheist. ]



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[SheepDog]

Sorry -- that wasn't personal and just a dumb knee jerk reaction.

Right now I'm just feeling like you whiteys can't possibly imagine how hostile racist posts feel to a person of color, and aren't even trying. But I get that there will always be the argument that the onus is on us to keep the stiff upper lips.

edit:

I was totally already retracting before I read this.
There may be things I don't understand, but I do understand emotions getting the better of me.

Peace, friend. :)

[Vagabond]

Well, it's been open for just over 6 hours. Obviously the question was asked because some admins aren't sure.

And since I have the right to say anything I want to as afforded by the logic here, I'll keep going. I never said you don't have the right to say anything you want (I thought what I said about complaining earlier was an obvious theoretical example). I am just saying that according to your logic, not according to mine, we shouldn't even be discussing this. So basically, are you indeed trying to make a point that the majority and the owners should make the decisions, or are you just in the mood to bitch?

[SheepDog]

I was refering to the new and updated rules:

http://www.intpcentral.com/forums/faq.php?faq=new_faq_item#faq_rules
Thank you for the clarification.

[mgb]

I never said you don't have the right to say anything you want (I thought what I said about complaining earlier was an obvious theoretical example). I am just saying that according to your logic, not according to mine, we shouldn't even be discussing this. So basically, are you indeed trying to make a point that the majority and the owners should make the decisions, or are you just in the mood to bitch?


More like the majority or the owners. I think sometimes the owners might look to the majority to help them form policy.

And I'm not really in the mood for any of this. If I wanted to bitch this would be in the Bitching Parlour.

[mgb]

You have formed a logical fallacy by implying that for people to be in favor of free speech, they must also be in support of everything that is being said.

* SheepDog believes that people should be allowed to express their ideas.
* Racist expressed hate speech
* Therefore, SheepDog must believe that hate speech is valuable.

I don't think that argument deserves the response you insist on.

OK, why are you so in favor of free speech, given some of the potential drawbacks?

[Claverhouse]

Thank you for the clarification.
Well, it didn't clear up much, did it ? Just muddying the waters...


According to the rules of this forum, that's not true. They are specifically designed to make this place as comfortable for the membership as possible.
Where in those revised rules does it mention either being designed to make this place comfortable for any part of the membership, or removing posts that are offensive to mgbradsh or others on content alone ? They specifically threaten penalties for certain exactly described behaviours. Nothing about posting anything that annoys members; nothing about what thinking is allowed.


But this was interesting, I admit:


-If there is any mis-communication, lighten up, and try to fix any problems from the miscommunication, instead of making any problems worse.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[SheepDog]

OK, why are you so in favor of free speech, given some of the potential drawbacks?
It is an inherent human right.

[coffeezombie]

OK, why are you so in favor of free speech, given some of the potential drawbacks?

Not allowing free speech limits human expression, and thus the mental evolution of the species, in my mind.

[J.L. des Alpins]

So do you have a list of unacceptable words? Nigger, Faggot, Tar baby, Jungle Bunny... what would deserve banning then?CWhore, you are truly onto something here (as was mgbradsh in the homosexuality thread). What is wrong is not your ideas, your language, or even your attitude. It is the MEMBERSHIP's lax of dignity.

Censure has never help a society to grow, prosper, and thrive. The mechanics of discrimination are quite simple to grasp. The underlying laws of human condition is:


Garbage in, Garbage out. Camouflage what's coming in; Anything can come out.


However, simple does not imply easy. Who is to say that something in is 'garbage'? Let's look at it from an other perspective: People—everyone, you—are very good at recognizing garbage coming out. The trouble is: Before you can recognize garbage coming out, can you first see that what's coming in is 'garbage'?

I am troubled, and rightly so. Since I have joined this forum, I have seen a lot of lethargic positions to many infuriated threads, but so few challenging replies.

Case in point? Let me just point one truly troubling example: Mgbradsh's "Homosexuality" thread. Mgbradsh should have been crucified in a couple of replies at most. (What a fucking lazy excuse to say that 'I did not take you seriously') But no. Most left the thread alone or published a ridiculous response. What is a guest to our forum is to make of us? (Fuck, one of us was qualifying one of our prominent members as a "fucking twit". That view does not apply only to that prominent member; it applies to all fucking members who did not condemned the harmful post to start with.

JL

[J.L. des Alpins]

OK, why are you so in favor of free speech, given some of the potential drawbacks?What are the "drawbacks" free speech could potentially bring in?

(Unless you are a despot, I don't see any.)

[Claverhouse]

Free speech merely is. Because even if you silence someone's mouth you cannot silence his thoughts, because you cannot control or see his thoughts. Regimes, peoples, or individuals may try to control others' thinking through first silencing them: since in the end they can't succeed, they start to unperson them, demonise them, and if possible and desired, eradicate them.

Generally based on whatever is fashionable for right-thinking people to think and say. In 16th century Rome you did not expound on the sinfulness of Popes; in 1940s Russia you did not extol Lev Trotsky as the wisest of humankind.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[meshou]

Not allowing free speech limits human expression, and thus the mental evolution of the species, in my mind.
I agree with this.

However, I know that freedom of speech does not mean saying whatever I want where ever I want.

This is a privately owned forum. As such, the owner's right always trumps my own-- if I state an opinion he does not want affiliated with mine, forcing him to keep it on his server is a violation of his free speech.

Same with a magazine. Time is not obligated to publish everything that is sent to them. If they were by law, it would again, violate the publisher's freedoms.

Likewise, if I call my boss a fucking idiot for any reason. he can fire me. If I use racist or sexist language at work, I can be fired. If I do so on a friend's property or at a restraunt, they can kick me out.

Freedom of speech like we're talking about on these forums simply does not exist, even as an idealized right. It's a matter of what the owners of privately owned property or discspace allow.

It looks like the owners are going to defer to what the members want. I maintain that this is not a matter of rights, but a matter of what members here will allow. Seeing as we are very happy to allow homophobic and racist threads go unchallenged, the inevitable vote allowing anyone to say whatever they want just seems like a confirmation of that apathy.

I am all for Swift going out and marching with a hood on for all I care. I would personally prefer he not be given that leeway on these forums.

I'll defer to whatever's decided here (not that I have a choice, whee), and I can respect someone who genuinely believes that being able to say "I hate niggers" is a beautiful triumph of the human spirit. Think they're still wrong, but it happens.

[Claverhouse]

Case in point? Let me just point one truly troubling example: Mgbradsh's "Homosexuality" thread. Mgbradsh should have been crucified in a couple of replies at most. (What a fucking lazy excuse to say that 'I did not take you seriously') But no. Most left the thread alone or published a ridiculous response. What is a guest to our forum is to make of us? (Fuck, one of us was qualifying one of our prominent members as a "fucking twit". That view does not apply only to that prominent member; it applies to all fucking members who did not condemned the harmful post to start with.

JL

I saw it, recognised it as an amusing parody, and moved on. Not having any particular views on homosexuality, there was nothing to contribute to a take-off.

And I'm not prominente.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[J.L. des Alpins]

I know that freedom of speech means saying whatever I want where ever I want.Meshou, your position is grossly wrong (without prejudice to you as a person).

Tell me, are you ready to say 'whatever you want wherever you want'?

Are you ready to suffer the consequences of what you freely say?

What are the limits of what you are able to endure against what you say? Would you tolerate torture? Death?

Your post shows that you have no idea whatsoever about the responsibilities attached to your freedom to babble whatever you want.

Remember: You are as free to babble whatever you want. BUT, anyone else is free to make anything of whatever you say.

[I am writing these lines. They sounds so immature, like I am talking to my 10-year old daughter. Fuck, Meshou… you come out so strong in other threads. Why do you publish this horseshit here…Fucking Christ, take a grip!]

JL

[Clara]

From a document that turned up in my kitchen, that I'm reading ** -- I found it online (www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-c/salt01.htm), too.



"... But though its phraseology is confessedly vague and perilous, there is nevertheless a solid truth underlying it -- a truth which has always been clearly apprehended by the moral faculty, however difficult it may be to establish it on an unassailable logical basis. If men have not "rights" -- well, they have an unmistakable intimation of something very similar; a sense of justice which marks the boundary-line where acquiescence ceases and resistance begins; a demand for freedom to live their own life, subject to the necessity of respecting the equal freedom of other people.

Such is the doctrine of rights as formulated by Herbert Spencer. "Every man," he says, "is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal liberty of any other man." And again, "Whoever admits that each man must have a certain restricted freedom, asserts that it is right he should have this restricted freedom... And hence the several particular freedoms deducible may fitly be called, as they commonly are called, his rights."

The fitness of this nomenclature is disputed, but the existence of some real principle of the kind can hardly be called in question; so that the controversy concerning "rights" is little else than an academic battle over words, which leads to no practical conclusion. I shall assume, therefore, that men are possessed of "rights," in the sense of Herbert Spencer's definition; and if any of my readers object to this qualified use of the term, I can only say that I shall be perfectly willing to change the word as soon as a more appropriate one is forthcoming."

** and posting this part, here in this discussion, because it fits. ( The context for the rest is offline discussions. )

[Serotonin]

Hey J.L., there's something called contextualisation. Like, reading someone's entire post, and, y'know, extracting the vibe, rather than, like, taking one sentence and blasting it for all it's worth.

[J.L. des Alpins]

I saw it, recognised it as an amusing parody, and moved on. [...]And I'm not prominente.Clave, you're one of the top contributors, here. Please, seriously, no emperor-and-king bashing here. It is quantitatively demonstrated that any post that has the label "Claverhouse" gets more attention. And I know, from all the posts I have read from you, that you do understand your added responsibilities in this forum.

Don't say that you are less than what you actually are. Such assertions mislead others who follow you in good faith.

You are a beacon. If one navigates toward or away from that beacon is their own choices. Nobody cares. But whatever anyone's position, anyone is 'against' or 'for' or 'about' where YOUR beacon is located.

If you cannot handle your responsibilities, then, as a favor to everyone, just say fucking so. INTP-Central will find another beacon.

JL


I saw it, recognised it as an amusing parody, and moved on. Not having any particular views on homosexuality, there was nothing to contribute to a take-off.

And I'm not prominente.



Claverhouse http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/ninja.gif

[mgb]

It is an inherent human right.

True, if you are governed by the UN. But you gave up your rights on the forum when you agree to become a member. You now fall under the laws of the admin. Ask Robespierre, he can better explain this than I. Basically, this isn't a realm of freedom, truth and justice, but a private domain.

But I asked. So how is free speech an inherent human right? How are there any "inherent" human rights? I know it's pedantic questions requiring ridiculously long and boring answers, that I probably wouldn't even bother to read even if you did answer it.

So I should have asked a better question, do you believe that free speech exists on this forum?

[meshou]

Meshou, your position is grossly wrong (without prejudice to you as a person).

Tell me, are you ready to say 'whatever you want wherever you want'?

Are you ready to suffer the consequences of what you freely say?

What are the limits of what you are able to endure against what you say? Would you tolerate torture? Death?

Your post shows that you have no idea whatsoever about the responsibilities attached to your freedom to babble whatever you want.

Remember: You are as free to babble whatever you want. BUT, anyone else is free to make anything of whatever you say.

[I am writing these lines. They sounds so immature, like I am talking to my 10-year old daughter. Fuck, Meshou… you come out so strong in other threads. Why do you publish this horseshit here…Fucking Christ, take a grip!]

JLTypo. Should say "Does not mean saying whatever I want when I want." Will fix.

I believe that I demonstrated that I understood actions do have concequences in the rest of the post, and that I believe they should. If not, I have just clarified.

[SensEye]

So I should have asked a better question, do you believe that free speech exists on this forum?More or less.

Here's a question for you - do you believe everything is either black or white? No shades of grey? That is, must free speech exist on this forum without exception (and I'm sure you can find some), for you to consider us to have free speech?

In my opinion the speech here is free enough. Also, in my opinion, this whole thread falls under the category of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

[Clara]

J.L., your posts 104 and 107 veer into "what people ought to be responding". I disagree with this. For several reasons, but I'm going to focus on one here.

Mainly because, there's a difference between not reading, not replying ( or maybe not doing so in a timely manner ) and writing things which might or might not cause others to think, "What is this doing here ?"

Sackanaka complained about this a couple of months ago, in a thread called "big fat lies" (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=3688&page=1). It struck me at the time : to criticize what people don't do, while assuming what they must have thought, yet kept silent... is at best based on a wild guess.

edit : J.L. This isn't a rhetorical question. I am wondering what you think. Because, precisely, you and I don't have the same thoughts, or viewpoints. Or, I suspect, sense of "what else is fun" in ways of discussing ideas.

And, yup, it's occurred to me : I may be misreading some posts, as seriously meant, that were written as an exercise of tongue-in-cheek ( or, simply word churning ).

[SheepDog]

True, if you are governed by the UN.
It is a right, regardless of who governs you. Government cannot grant such an inherent right. (and to my knowledge, the UN doesn't really govern anybody anyway...)


But you gave up your rights on the forum when you agree to become a member. You now fall under the laws of the admin. Ask Robespierre, he can better explain this than I. Basically, this isn't a realm of freedom, truth and justice, but a private domain.

But I asked. So how is free speech an inherent human right? How are there any "inherent" human rights? I know it's pedantic questions requiring ridiculously long and boring answers, that I probably wouldn't even bother to read even if you did answer it. Yeah, I'm too tired, as well.


So I should have asked a better question, do you believe that free speech exists on this forum?Right to speak is not the only human right, of course. Where competing rights exist, resolution is needed. Lots of gray area here, so any exercise in line drawing is going to be flawed.

I won't deny a right among the INTPCentral host(s) to set rules on their forum, and expect their guests (me included) to follow them as a condition of their being granted access. It appears to me that they've asked very little in the way of restraint, though they have expressed some limits. I think I've followed them pretty much without exception, btw.

If asked my opinion whether there should be more constraint on allowed speech, however, I will again say that I do not think censorship is a good thing. As a parallel to the more general issue of right of expression, I think that preserving the right to speak about subjects, even unpopular ones, adds more benefit of open discussion than nearly any benefit of censorship, with few exceptions (e.g. if illegal activities get the site shut down, that wouldn't help things at all).

[mgb]

More or less.

Here's a question for you - do you believe everything is either black or white? No shades of grey? That is, must free speech exist on this forum without exception (and I'm sure you can find some), for you to consider us to have free speech?

In my opinion the speech here is free enough. Also, in my opinion, this whole thread falls under the category of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

It's easier to find the grey when you can see the black and white. So far, I think coffeezombie has the best suggestion, towards some sort of middle ground.

I don't think we have free speech here and I don't think we should. In fact, I don't think we do now otherwise we wouldn't have all those rules.

How broken does something have to be before you think it needs fixing?

[coffeezombie]

It's easier to find the grey when you can see the black and white. So far, I think coffeezombie has the best suggestion, towards some sort of middle ground.


Yeah, the last thing anyone here (except Swift) wants is for this place to become Stormfront, just because any kind of free expression is allowed. However, I think racism is still a valid intellectual position to take, and that it needs to be confronted by people in a mature way, which means intelligent debate and not censorship. Personally, I just ignore online people like Swift. I'd rather confront racism in the real world than get worked up about a few magazine articles.

[Swift]

No matter how you want it diced it is censorship. The line I was referring to is this:

If I called a member a nigger I would get banned. On the other hand if I said "all niggers are inferior" I would not get banned.
Do you agree with the above sentence? [edit add] Do you agree that it makes sense to ban someone for the first line and not ban them for the second line?Somebody please answer the guy! This is about the 100th time he's throwing his nigger line around. CorporateWhore, if somebody is talking about niggers being inferior, it is you (and only you).

Swift

[Swift]

And I'm not afraid to discuss racism or sexism or whatever. That's not what is happening here or where these conversations go. I think people should be able to talk about this stuff but the posts in question, including the one I made, had nothing to do about learning about these things (save the misogyny thread) but about declaring that's how things are, often in a less than logical way, see the difference?Bullshit. You just want to talk ABOUT racism, but you don't want to adress any criticism of minorities. My posts were about just that.

[meshou]

Bullshit. You just want to talk ABOUT racism, but you don't want to adress any criticism of minorities. My posts were about just that.
I thought pointing out the statistics you generalized from came from discredited sources who used questionable research methods to support preconcieved notions was addressing those criticisims. Silly me.

[Shai Gar]

Div, thanks for bringing that issue up in a constructive way. Censorship has to be discussed, understood, and resolved once and for all.

I believe that our forum is the flagship of freedom of speech and acquiescence of freedom's responsibilities. In that regard, I voted 'No'.

INTP Central is a unique forum not only because most of its thousand members are INTP, but also because of its boundless topics, opinions, emotions, cultures, reaches, and depths. Its uniqueness are diamonds—maybe still in the rough, but—holding a foundation that has the potential to support the collective rational thinking of humankind.

Think about it, it is not far-reaching to imagine INTP Central as the Logical Check Testsite of the human race. There has never—EVER—been a thousand INTPs challenging each other in virtual real time. If we make this forum truly the 'must-be-there' place for INTPs, soon, our forum will reach ten thousands …a hundred thousands … millions strong membership. EACH OF US, MEMBERS, IS AN ACTIVE CONTRIBUTOR TO WHAT IS IN THE WAY OF BECOMING THE MOST RATIONAL MASS CONSCIOUS ENTITY THAT HAS EVER EVOLVED IN THE HISTORY OF THE LIVING BEINGS ON EARTH.

However, Div, allow any kind of autocratic censorship and what will remain of our destiny are the scribbles in the margins of a science fiction manuscript, the dreams of a king without crown, the legends of a conquistador's ship filled with gold that sinks in the depths of the sea, the illusions nurtured by a father burying his son, the empty feelings of mothers who thought they could have done more, the broken heart of sweethearts waving a last time toward the battleship that carry their love away, the ideas shattered after a crash, the projects dissolved after funding was denied, the best intentions soaked in freezing waters, the noblest of purposes flooded with disillusion, the ambitions denied of their chances.

Div, here is the choice you have to make:


Turn your telescope toward that new star, or
Burn Galileo.
JL

and i thought that I thought far into the future
i like the ultimatum, burn the man we all respect, or take the good witht the bad

[MacGuffin]

No one has a right to free speech on any internet forum, except the owner.

[Shai Gar]

good point, however in thise case we are discussing the PRIVILLAGES that the owner has given us

[MacGuffin]

Then be clear about it - privileges are not rights.

[Shai Gar]

when did i say rights?

[MacGuffin]

when did i say rights?
You didn't, others brought it up.

[Clara]

It's more complicated than that. In order to have a climate where people will come to discuss things with some degree of thoughtfulness, some of the time, there has to be an expectation that the guidelines of what can or can't be said will be seen. And that some tolerance is present, for those who cross the line without having meant to cross it.

So, Henry Salt's hesitancy over the choice of the word "rights" still applies now : it's being used inexactly, to address what's acceptable -- i.e. "right" -- in discussions in this forum.

[CoHo]

The first may deserve an answer, I guess, if you really can't see the difference... Yes, grossly offensive language is worse, and deserves banning. The 2nd way of putting it may come from the same place, ( or you could substitute whites or English people or Asians ), but it's phrasing is acceptable even if one does not admire the sentiment. We may regulate behaviour here, but not thinking. It is hilarious that you don't consider this censorship.

To go farther. If I was going to post rap lyrics should I remove the references to the word nigger? Should I put a n*r instead? If I was going to quote an article that was blatantly racists should I remove the worlds nigger and put black or n*r? Should I put [expletive deleted] instead?

Can I say
"n*r's are pieces of shit"
"n*ggers are pieces of shit"
"[expletive deleted] are pieces of shit"

Censor: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

You support censorship Claverhouse

Instead of standing on a high horse saying "I don't support that, or I do support that" all I'm trying to do is get some real answers. So far I haven't seen anyone successfully draw a line as to what is acceptable without submitting to censorship.

[SensEye]

How broken does something have to be before you think it needs fixing?Much more broken than the racism issue at this forum currently is.

I haven't paid that much attention to threads by Swift that seem to be the main bugaboo here. I have not noticed much racism in general overall. If Swift starts a thread on race/culture issues every week or two, I don't have a problem with it. I can ignore them easily enough if I don't find the subject of interest.

I only consider it a problem if the posting is excessive and disruptive. If a poster brought derogatory racist remarks up on frequent threads in a fashion that de-railed the main topic under discussion, then it would become a problem. Or if they spammed the forum with 20 race related threads per day. Still more of a problem relating to the behavior of that particular poster, but a problem none the less.

[Claverhouse]

Clave, you're one of the top contributors, here. Please, seriously, no emperor-and-king bashing here. It is quantitatively demonstrated that any post that has the label "Claverhouse" gets more attention. And I know, from all the posts I have read from you, that you do understand your added responsibilities in this forum.

Don't say that you are less than what you actually are. Such assertions mislead others who follow you in good faith.

You are a beacon. If one navigates toward or away from that beacon is their own choices. Nobody cares. But whatever anyone's position, anyone is 'against' or 'for' or 'about' where YOUR beacon is located.

If you cannot handle your responsibilities, then, as a favor to everyone, just say fucking so. INTP-Central will find another beacon.

JL

This is more than kind, and will contribute to the impression that we are in fact the same person. Nonetheless the extreme nature of my beliefs, together with the fact that they are in themselves unlikely to be shared widely anywhere ( to take a few: Divine Right Monarchism; veganism; Germanism; Spenglerism; a belief in freedoms, but not in ideal freedom; hatred of equality, etc. are not attractive to the many ) militates against a cult-following. As for your understanding that my posts get more attention, this is unlikely also: I have assumed that I am on more ignore buttons than anyone else --- which may not be a bad thing, since I can see them where they cannot see me...

booyalab, another big poster, occasionally mentioned that people didn't read her posts. I sympathise. On the other hand, when I see that one statement of mine attracted ridicule: the proposition that 'All information given out has inherent bias', which to me seems self-evident, I merely assume that either they are ignorant of logic, or ignorant of the nature of propaganda ( itself a neutral term ). Or big on emotional response, drawing deep from the well of sentimental fuzziness.

It would be wrong however to assume that because comment isn't made, that either it was ignored or unappreciated. Most of our guests are from Yahoo maybe, but the message was still worth writing even if no-one else ever sees it. In 16 above, your vision beginning: 'However, Div, allow any kind of autocratic censorship...' was gladly noted.

As to whether mod/admins should contribute to the forum with posts/responses as members, opinion seems to be mixed, often in the same member: on the one hand, Claverhouse posts too much and posts drivel; on the other hand, mods are sinister remote manipulators who don't deign to post enough, scofflaws carefully steering the forum into an imitation of the Venerable Stormfront. Still, when they promoted members to mods on MS usenet fora, apparently they began posting more and more: so I think it must relate to time on hand and whether you feel like posting: there's no golden mean. Further I cannot begin to think that there is any inappropriate post or means of expression for a mod, suitable though for members. Most mods are human.

Regard me not as a beacon, although I accept the responsibility to those that are attracted. Regard me rather as an enforcer. They too have their needed responsibilities, both brutal and kind.




Claverhouse :ph34r:


One thing that does beat me is that half the posts seem to be about the forum and it's members: this is like buying a computer and spending 90% of the time improving it's performance, securing it against the outside world, downloading tools that ensure the OS works better; and only 10% of the time using it to do something.