See other Miscellaneous Articles
Title: Debate on 4um censorship--Weigh In!
Source:
n/a
URL Source: http://n/a
Published: Jul 24, 2005
Author: Christine and Zipporah
Post Date: 2005-07-24 23:28:38 by christine
Keywords: censorship--Weigh, Debate
Views: 3608
Comments: 295
Because concerns by several members have been posted to us, both publically and privately, about the free speech "allowed" on 4um, we have decided to create three new categories. The primary hot button is that of the Israel/Jewish/Zionism topic. We do not wish to censor and we also do not wish to offend (in reality, unavoidable, as what
offends one may not offend another) anyone. With the availability of specific categories, each individual may eliminate an entire subject that he/she wishes not to view via his/her personal 'setup' page.
In the spirit of cooperation, and with the goal of working toward a satisfying and pleasant forum experience for everyone, we'd like to request that you avail yourselves of these specific category selections when posting your articles. The three new categories are:
Israel/Zionism
All is Vanity
Author! Author!
We hope that you all feel that this is an equitable solution.
Christine and Zipporah
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-116) not displayed.
.
.
.
#117. To: Tauzero (#114)
~chuckle~
"...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
Are you then saying that the category "immigration" should be put into the new
category you have suggested?
"...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
And my argument is, "Who gets to decide what is a legitimate argument and what is not? You? Me? Christine? Or some other biased person? We are ALL biased! So rather than have a biased individual or group start categorizing and sub- categorizing content, ad nauseum, in an effort to pre-determine what types of speech may or may not offend you, along with each and every individual poster or reader of this forum, maybe it would be better to just refrain from stifling, censoring, or categorizing and let a poster make a fool of himself or post valid observations, whichever the case may be. Otherwise, those who are upset by reading certain types of materials, may be better served to move elsewhere, rather than dictate the format and policies for use of someone else's private property; not to mention the added expense and burden of implementing your proposed system. BTW, have you donated any funds to help the owners pay the webmaster for the additional funds that will be needed to organize their website to your liking? I believe that the rest of your concerns were addressed in posts #82, 84, 87, and 105.
It's your forum and thus your call, Christine. I would not permit lies, bigotry or personal attacks. I would be wrong from time-to-time but would not get too exercised over it. In February 2004, JimRob would not permit anyone to post who might promote voting Democrat against GWB. I said "Goodbye". JimRob currently will not permit Justin Raimondo to be posted on his website. I think he goes too far but it's his website and his call. I agree with him insofar as he attempts to keep "a clean house" (no spitting on the floor).
Indeed, I am well aware.
Now how do you propose we do that? "...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
Here is an interesting letter exchange to clarify the point: 1. From: Lanny Cotler to Joh I am a Jew who is totally against the Israeli occupation. Why assert anything about Jews in general? Any generality you might make would not, could not, accurately describe me. So what's the purpose, except to stir up emotions that do not broaden, but narrow, people's mind? 2. From Joh to Lanny, Contrary to what you suggest, we make general remarks about people all the time, even negative ones; Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, Christians anyone. What is more, Jews make negative remarks about people in general constantly. So what is the beef about making general remarks about Jews? Why do you personalize it? Is this not taking a 'narrow' view of things? Far from 'narrowing' peoples' minds, the non-pejorative term is 'focus'. Focus is of course a powerful tool, and it is understandable that it be delegitimised in order to keep people on the straight and narrow track. If Jews were not so narrow-minded about anti-Semitism, we could pick the guilty bastards off one at a time. So, in a way, talk of 'narrow-minds' is an insult to our intelligence. You ask, why not call them 'chauvinists' instead of 'Philo-Semites'? Because I could not give two figs about chauvinists. 'Chauvinists', generally, are not planning to bomb an entire group of people - Philo-Semites are. Nor is it 'bigots', 'racists', 'imperialists' and whatever other cover may be put on it, 'philo-Semites' are the culprits. 3. From JTR: I had a similar argument with this very same Lanny Cotler online somewhere a year or two ago. With him and so many others, I learned that it is a colossal waste of time to try and educate him and his many clones. It is impossible to cure anyone of self-delusion. Cotler's bottom line is "Anything you say about 'Jews' will be a generalization and therefore you are forbidden from saying it." This 'generalisation ban' is an integral part of Jewish Stealth technology. Without some ability to generalise, we can't answer even an innocent question, say, how many apples are there on the desk? Otherwise, you will be answered: these apples are all different, and can't be counted. In order to count, you have to generalise. No political discourse is possible without generalisations. And people generalise without difficulty. For instance, the declaration Not In Our Name signed by a Rothschild and Rabbi Lerner, among others, claims that "The Bush government seeks to impose a narrow, intolerant, and political form of Christian Fundamentalism as government policy. It aims to strip women of their reproductive rights, to drive gay people from public life back into the closet etc". Is this generalisation? Yes, and a rather misleading one; among Christian Fundamentalists one can find Pastor Charles Carlson and his movement We Hold These Truths/Strait Gate Ministries, a great enemy of the Bush administration. Pastor Chuck supports the people of Palestine and Iraq in their defensive war against Israel and America; he is also against abortions. Joh Domingo correctly replied that " . . .the entire idea of singling out right wing Christians is intolerant in itself. Is it extreme to want to outlaw abortion, suppress the imposition of homosexual values and argue that there is scientific value to spiritual experience? That is intolerance in my mind, and a direct denunciation of any alternative worldview; dismissal even. In short, it is a sign of a bigoted mind." Well, but so what? One can argue against this generalisation until one is blue in the face, but I bet these guys won't dignify your objection with their reply. The ban on generalisation applies to Jews only, and only to negative assessments: you can write about wonderful Jews day and night, and no Lanny Cotler will waste your time with his objections. Ha! That's a great idea! Let's make a law against lying. Then to start with, we could rid ourselves of all the politicians and attorneys! Uh oh, did I just disparage an entire group? Can you come up with a subcategory for me to place this post? ;)
Great idea. YOU can pay to have everyone take a polygraph prior to posting. Or should the owners of 4um fund your fantasy?
Christine, and/or Zipporah, and/or whomever they choose to delegate. It's their forum and I'll accept their honest judgement. You keep pretending that my desire to avoid what someone else has already posted, somehow stifles their freedom to post. But then if they've already posted it, their freedom has been in no way stifled, now has it. Further, if others can set their filters (as they do now) to make it visible, their freedom to view it has in no way been stifled either, now has it. I believe the customary response at this point is "so bozo me if you don't want to read what I post". Comment was solicited. I wasn't the only one rasing the concern about how to avoid such content. I didn't propose, let alone dictate, the solution either, I'm only pointing out, upon specific request to me, what doesn't work about it. I'm only pointing out how what everyone thinks works, in fact doesn't work, and rebuting accusations of attempts to censor when the articles would continue to be posted and viewed, as they are now. You are mistaken.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
I didn't say your job was easy. It can be done but perfection can't be the standard. We are, after all, only human ...
Great. They've already decided. They don't want to be
burdened with the added expense and onerous task of sub-categorizing content.
They've already stated that sub-categorizing will open up a new set (and sub-
set) of arguments over what category the content or post should be placed in.
End of discussion, huh?
Now.. if you filter all categories that somehow could be offensive to you, then is that not the solution?
"...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
How about if we let you review everything before it goes up? This seems to be the solution that you're groping for. If you don't want to see something, bozo it. Otherwise you're being a thread nanny trying to control what the other people see. This is not a popular position.
Of course the best idea, which is one I practice, is to put the entire rest of the forum on bozo and only read my own posts, this way I am always in agreement and nothing offends. :P
Not interested. I've got a life.
ROFL! Kinda like the daily affirmation? "Because I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggonit, people like me!" "I deserve good things. I am entitled to my share of happiness. I refuse to beat myself up. I am attractive person. I am fun to be with."
"...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
I'm glad we're having this dialogue on open forum as I wanted input to your ideas and suggestions from everyone. So far, the concensus is that further categorization is not desired and that this has the potential to create more dissention and discord in the forum. However, I remain open to the points of view of any other members who wish to weigh in.
Too funny......and what a great idea. I'm going to start doing that, too.
Really? It seems a large part of your life is looking over the shoulders of posters, observing what you deem acceptable content. It's stuff for the Blue hair crowd.
Then what have you been yapping about for the past five days. Simple solution: If something offends you, don't read it. If someone else reads it, it's none of your business.
Anything from her can be placed in the "Rantings of a
Rapture Rodent" category. Would the inclusion of that word suffice? No. The Israel Uber Alles crowd will settle for no less than full-blown censorship, calling any mention of Israel/Jews in less-than-glowing terms, lies, spitting on the floor, racism, etc. They say they don't advocate censorship, but their circular arguments always end up back at the same place, demanding that posters be banned and the "offending" material removed and/or not allowed at all. It worked out wonderfully for Retard Central (FU), it's for the good of the forum, don'tcha know? I would suggest that posters that don't like the content of the forum go ahead and opus and call us all anti-Semites, and just get it over with. Better yet, they could opus from the country, putting their mouth where my tax dollars are being sent to, and move to Israel. They're sure not needed here.
LOL!!
"...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
WOW....Good one!
Yep, TBL rants, palo adds a comment and Todd doesn't answer. That's app. 50% of the forum content, give or take a few posts. The destroyers of FU did well....
Yeah, and maybe they're looking in to see what true FREE SPEECH is. Outstanding post, Esso.
Fine by me. Always would have been. But as long as I was asked, don't expect me to blow smoke. Fine. Then at least put an end to the fantasy that filtering is the solution, that I'm dictating your forum management, and that I'm trying to censor posters. If you ask me my opinion, don't be surprised when you get it, and please don't recast it into "demands".
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
I've done some testing on the bozo filtering and I do need to revisit it. Starwind is correct in some of these filtering holes. The bozo filter apparently is not working in the title box, but the category filter is. Both filters work on the LC page, but not the Latest Article page (which I'm guessing Starwind meant). It does not work on the headlines page, though that page is not visited much so it's not been much of a priority overall. I am seeing that bozo'd posters are never displayed on the LC page so I don't understand the last item. One difficult programming decision is what should happen if you have a category filtered, but then get pinged from a non-bozo in that category. Should you not see the ping because it's in a filtered category, or should the ping from the non-bozo take precedence over the category filter? And again what if a ping list you're subscribed to is used on a filtered category? Should the subscription ping or the category filter take precedence? Some might want to get the ping, some might not. Perhaps what should happen is the LC page should warn the user that they've been pinged to a filtered category (?) I could have the preference be indicated on the user setup page, but that might make things a little complicated for many to understand. There are other filtering options I've thought of which could help. One would be an "Ignore Thread" feature where if you see one particular thread you don't like that perhaps is generating dozens or hundreds of posts (and dominating the LC page), you can filter out that particular thread for perhaps 1 week. Another possible option is a Title Word filter where you give list of words on your setup page. If any of those words appear in the title of a thread, it's bozod. (I.e. "Jews" or "Zionism"). But yes, Starwind is correct that the present filtering is not doing everything it should be doing. I'll turn my attention to that in the coming days.
Outstanding play-by-play analysis. You should be a sports announcer -- missed your calling.
Plain talk like that is what we need. It's not just Todd.. At the risk of offending some people, I'll just say it out loud: Regardles of the free speech claims, "Anti-semitic" (Whatever that means now) material has, at times, met with a sub-zero response there. The Zio-Censors can count the havoc they caused on FU as, at least, a partial victory.. While Todd's quickly taking of what remains. :(
"Working Three Jobs is: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic... Get any sleep?" (Laughs) ~ George W Bush
Good grief, Neil. This filtering and categorizing stuff is complex, cumbersome, and expensive -- all so some overly sensitive soul won't become offended and suffer post-traumatic stress disorder from having laid eyes on some text.
Wasn't this post originally called "3 New Catagories" ? Now is titled "Debate on 4um censorship--Weigh In!" Could the "critisiums" or "comments" sent to Neil, Chrissy, or Zip be posted here (not revealing who made them)?
The mind once expanded by a new idea never returns to its' original size
Kind of like what she went through when she found out there was no Santa Clause
Book recommendation: Thinking About Social Thinking
Ha! A new career, eh? I’m actually working on one presently. It’s called vagabond.
Yes, I changed the title last night as I wanted to encourage comment by all members. The criticisms and comments are being posted here now as per my invitation to do so.
Perhaps, but at minimum, the existing filters should function as advertised. No debating that.
But then again, Jethro, what do you know? Post your petty, snide remarks to someone who's interested.
Comments (158 - 295) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestNote that most subjects of discussion are not held to a standard this high.
#118. To: Starwind (#116)
#119. To: Starwind (#110)
The issue has never been about the legitimate examples you cite and you know it. The issue is about whether it is legitimate to argue "Whites" are better than "Jews", or "all Jews are manipulating the world".
#120. To: christine (#103)
Your opinion, of course, and for the most part, I agree, as I try very hard to judge people on an individual basis rather than collectively. The fact remains, however, that people have the right to post such articles here on 4 (and hold that view no matter who is offended by it), just as you and anyone else has the right to disagree/rebut/refute/criticize/discredit it should they choose.
#121. To: Zipporah (#112)
#122. To: Phaedrus (#120)
would not permit lies, bigotry or personal attacks.
#123. To: Bayonne (#113)
The Jewish responses were expectable and they could be summed by one line: "You can't say anything valid about Jews because we all are different". Probably you have encountered this line. Without recognising it, the responders actually give you the Paradox of Zeno. This Greek philosopher 'proved' that Paris did not kill Achilles: at every chosen moment, the arrow of Paris was in a certain point of space, thus it did not move and couldn't kill. There is a branch of mathematics called Integral Analysis that helps to deal with the paradox and proves what we know anyway: while an arrow rests at every chosen moment, it actually moves and kills. Likewise Jews: while being different they are perfectly able to act in unison.
#124. To: All (#123)
#125. To: Phaedrus (#120)
I would not permit lies,
#126. To: Phaedrus (#120)
I would not permit lies, bigotry or personal attacks.
#127. To: Freedom William (#119)
And my argument is, "Who gets to decide what is a legitimate argument and what is not? You? Me? Christine?
maybe it would be better to just refrain from stifling, censoring, or categorizing and let a poster make a fool of himself or post valid observations, whichever the case may be.
Otherwise, those who are upset by reading certain types of materials, may be better served to move elsewhere,
rather than dictate the format and policies for use of someone else's private property; not to mention the added expense and burden of implementing your proposed system.
I believe that the rest of your concerns were addressed in posts #82, 84, 87, and 105.
#128. To: christine (#125)
Ha! That's a great idea! Let's make a law against lying. Then to start with, we could rid ourselves of all the politicians and attorneys! Uh oh, did I just disparage an entire group? Can you come up with a subcategory for me to place this post? ;)
#129. To: Starwind (#127)
Christine, and/or Zipporah, and/or whomever they choose to
delegate. It's their forum and I'll accept their honest judgement.
#130. To: Starwind (#127)
#131. To: Phaedrus (#128)
I didn't say your job was easy. It can be done but perfection can't be the standard. We are, after all, only human ...
#132. To: Zipporah, christine (#130)
#133. To: crack monkey (#131)
How about if we let you review everything before it goes up?
#134. To: 1776 (#132)
Of course the best idea, which is one I practice, is to put the entire rest of the forum on bozo and only read my own posts, this way I am always in agreement and nothing offends.
#135. To: Starwind (#127)
#136. To: 1776 (#132)
Of course the best idea, which is one I practice, is to put the entire rest of the forum on bozo and only read my own posts, this way I am always in agreement and nothing offends.
#137. To: Phaedrus (#133)
Not interested. I've got a life.
#138. To: Phaedrus (#133)
Not interested.
#139. To: christine (#125)
Can you come up with a subcategory for me to place this post? ;)
Hey, Meester,wanna meet my seester?
#140. To: Tauzero (#114)
The untruth might be resolved with the simple word "most".
#141. To: Jethro Tull (#137)
It's stuff for the Blue hair crowd.
#142. To: Esso (#140)
#143. To: Esso (#140)
It worked out wonderfully for Retard Central (FU), it's for the good of the forum, don'tcha know?
#144. To: Esso (#140)
It worked out wonderfully for Retard Central (FU), it's for the good of the forum, don'tcha know?
#145. To: christine, Freedom William (#135)
Freedom William: They've already decided. They don't want to be burdened with the added expense and onerous task of sub-categorizing content. They've already stated that sub-categorizing will open up a new set (and sub- set) of arguments over what category the content or post should be placed in. End of discussion, huh?
Christine: So far, the concensus is that further categorization is not desired and that this has the potential to create more dissention and discord in the forum.
#146. To: Starwind, christine, Zipporah, All, *Pinguinite Software* (#63)
As it is, the bozo filter does not filter articles on the "Latest" menu, the latest comments page, the headlines page, and doesn't even filter pings from bozo'd posters.
#147. To: Jethro Tull (#143)
#148. To: Esso (#140)
I would suggest that posters that don't like the content of the forum go ahead and opus and call us all anti-Semites, and just get it over with. Better yet, they could opus from the country, putting their mouth where my tax dollars are being sent to, and move to Israel.
The IF crowd hates clean and non-parsed speech, they flee truth like a vampire does a Cross.
#149. To: Jethro Tull (#143)
#150. To: Neil McIver (#146)
#151. To: christine (#13)
Debate on 4um censorship--Weigh In!
#152. To: Freedom William (#150)
all so some overly sensitive soul won't become offended and suffer post-traumatic stress disorder from having laid eyes on some text.
Hey, Meester,wanna meet my seester?
#153. To: christine, All (#111)
The Roman Emperors American people could have any single bureaucrat killed removed from office, but ultimately they required the cooperation of the bureaucracy in order to rule.
#154. To: Freedom William (#147)
#155. To: Itisa1mosttoolate (#151)
#156. To: Freedom William (#150)
Good grief, Neil. This filtering and categorizing stuff is complex, cumbersome, and expensive -- all so some overly sensitive soul won't become offended and suffer post-traumatic stress disorder from having laid eyes on some text.
#157. To: Jethro Tull (#137)
Really? It seems a large part of your life is looking over the shoulders of posters, observing what you deem acceptable content. It's stuff for the Blue hair crowd.
.
.
.