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: 4015
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 (1-86) not displayed.
.
.
.
#87. To: Freedom William, Zipporah, All (#82)
You articulated perfectly my position on the matter. This is exactly what would happen. We'd all be arguing about what posts belong in the "Bash'n n Bait'n" category and we'd be right back to square one. I'm not willing to be burdened with that responsibility when I have biases of my own and I certainly don't want to be Freedom4um's nanny. I don't think there's a person here who would appreciate that. I don't feel that any further "pigeonholing," categorization, or control is necessary. Darn, I'm feeling oppressed already!
Absolutely couldnt agree more. And thanks Bill for the input. Absolutely summed up my thoughts on this matter..
"...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
Here's Starwind: In my opinion, "hate speech" is any article wherein the object is to criticize, deride, or otherwise bash some person or group not based on what they have said or done (behavior or actions) but based on their genetic, racial or ethnic background (makeup or appearance). There seems to be the implicit assumption here among many that "free speech" is the highest good, more important than any other good, and that "censorship" is the greatest evil, more base than any other. I'm exaggerating to make a point but the point, I think, is valid. Just because you (plural, generally) have heard it over and over, again and again, from the pols and the media (is there not a little self-interest there?) and professoriate that "free speech" must not in any way be diminished does not make it true. The owners of this forum have every right to "take out the trash" in order simply to keep the place clean. Judgement and maturity are required, in addition to a healthy dose of common sense and everyone's not going to be happy. So what? To exaggerate once again, if someone comes into my home and spits on the floor, I throw him out, in spite of his professed right of "free spitting". Now, throw your rocks.
What problem do you have in not simply skipping by such articles? Is that a problem for YOU? Turn the channel, so to speak. Or, better yet, try analyzing and taking to task articles that are IN YOUR OWN VIEW biased, baseless opinion. You can argue on the merits and substance, yes? Are you afraid you may find that some of these articles and opinions are not so baseless? After all, isn't that the essence of a politcal forum such as this--the give and take of polical discourse? I guess it needs to be remembered that biased and baseless is in the eyes of the beholder. I also know that the absent a full discussion on the merits and substance of an issue or arguement, the declaration of "biased and baseless" is a true sign of intellectual bankruptcy--a tacit admission of being on the illogical and unreasonable side--a short hop to the gratuitous name calling. But to some that is the objective--the avoidance of a free and open discussion on the merits and substance on particular issues and topics. It is SOP at many internet forums. No so, it appears, here.
Dr. Condoleezza Rice said that the “security of Israel is the key to security of the world.”
Well said, If I don't wish to read a particular article, I skip past it. Heck - sometimes I even read it even if I do not have anything to add. How can you learn things unless you study BOTH sides of an issue?
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force you are ruined... The great object is that every man be armed... Everyone who is able may have a gun." -- Patrick Henry
No rocks, here. I agree. Even if "free spitting" is a right, that right does NOT extend to your private property. Throw him out!
I assume that in this case "spitting on the floor" means posting ideas that conflict with your fantasy rapture monkey theology. This forum is as much mine as it is yours and I say you are spitting on my floor.
Thanks, Zip!
That's very true. And if an article or subject offends anyone, as some offend me, don't read that article. Then post articles you wish to discuss.
Yep!
That's so damn logical, it will probably be missed by many.
Night all. Good conversation and input!
Hate speech, as thus defined, may have a basis in reality. The criticism is invalid only if the former (what they have said or done) has nothing to do with the latter (genetic, racial, or ethnic background.) Correlation, of course, does not equal cause (though I think Hume had the right of cause and effect), but (to paraphrase Shockley), allows statistically valid estimates, objective and/or particular to a value system, to be made by the pragmatic man on the street. Furthermore, the fine-grained sorting and classification required by willfully ignoring "genetic,racial, or ethnic background", has costs.
I assume you are talking about groups. Some groups of people are less successful, have lower IQs, etc. I don't want or need censorship of those facts, although I always put on a skeptical hat and think about the motivations of the poster. But applying those group characteristics to individuals is where I would draw my line. I would never ever consider an individual's genetic, racial or ethnic background as a measure of their integrity, IQ, honesty or anything else. I don't do that whether it's positive or negative (an individual from a favored group might still be a dumbass). So to me on the street a panhandler is a panhandler but a black person is a person. On this forum we are not on the street so posting facts about groups is ok although I will always try to do fact checking.
(If you see flies at the entrance to the burrow, the ground hog is probably inside)
Mature, balanced and fair. Kudos. The standard is always truth. Any article or post that slurs a whole group is, on its face, untrue because there are always individual exceptions, sometimes glaring.
Zionists agitprop agents will advocate some degree of
censorship or repression of their opponents and/or critics. This may include a
very active campaign to keep opponents from access to public forums, as in the
case of blacklisting, banning or "quarantining" dissident spokespersons. They
may actually lobby for forum policies against posting articles they deem
offensive, or banning forum members who post forbidden information. In each
case the goal is some kind of information control. They would prefer that you
listen only to them. They feel threatened when someone talks back or challenges
their views.
Life is a tragedy to those who feel, and a comedy to those who think.
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.
Exactly.. We're adult enough to realize that if there's a serial killer loose, it's probably a white guy. A knocked over liquor store? That could be a black man, etc. For anything beyond this, you just have to accept that people are smart enough to know who posts what material and basically just trust people to weigh it and come to the proper conclusion for themselves. We do this every day with a wide variety of issues. I don't believe for a minute that most people aren't smart enough to be objective when it comes to Israel, Palestine and the Mideast.
"Working Three Jobs is: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic... Get any sleep?" (Laughs) ~ George W Bush
I think that much of the
consternation from those who argue against comparing entire goups of people on
any variable is misguided. Most research is accomplished in this manner by
statistically comparing group means (averages). For example, would it be
incorrect or racist if I said that National Basketball Association (NBA)
players have a higher verticle jump than do non-NBA players, or than do PGA
Golfers, or professional tennis players, or Olympic swimmers? It is a fact that
the NBA is made up of about 75-80% blacks, whereas golfers and swimmers are
predominately white. So, is this group comparison "racist"? It certainly
exposes and highlights the group differences. This group comparison does
not even begin to suggest that the results can be interpreted to mean that
every single NBA player has a higher verticle jump than every non-NBA player.
Certainly there can be more intra-group variability than inter-group
variability on many measures. But that reality does not negate or invalidate
observable and measurable group differences. Most research is accomplished
by measuring some variable and then comparing the values of the group means
(averages). If researchers did not do this, there would be very little
scientific research. Admittedly, it is okay to compare group differences.
It is also true that some variables are more difficult to measure precisely or
to measure at all than are other variables. Does that mean that these variables
(or issues) should be precluded from public discussion? We all know that any
individual within a group may be vastly different from the group norm. So
should this fact stifle discussion about possible group differences? If the
answer is yes, then we need to shut down discussions of 99% of the so- called
scientific research. Extending this reasoning, it is my opinion that
discussions and debates about group differences is valid and even necessary in
our search for truths. These debates should not be stifled or censored in any
way and those who engage in them should be entitled to their exercise of free
speech.
Excellent point.. and there are those that would do and have done exactly that, shut down discussions on the sciences.. PC has hit the scientific community as well.
"...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
That line defeats the point of the classification. I would never ever consider an individual's genetic, racial or ethnic background as a measure of their integrity, IQ, honesty or anything else. Maybe so. In my experience most people that profess such scruples so carefully arrange their lives that the cognitive dissonance fades into the background noise. But even Jesse Jackson was relieved once to find that the sounds of footsteps behind him were not being made by a group of young black men. It would be particularly foolish for me to try to follow your rule. I am of Irish descent; my father, grandfather, and one of my uncles are alcoholics. In consideration of these facts I choose to drink very little.
People need to get over being so damn sensitive. I'm a mixture, like almost everyone else. I'm pimarily Cherokee,Swede and German and yes...even some Jew. I've been called lots of names. You know what? I don't give a rat's ass what anyone says. That's just their opinion. If somebody says crap about Indians I don't care and the same with any other origins of my blood line. I don't give a shit about the stereo-types. I hate censorship and everyone has the right to their opinions whether I agree or not. If I don't like it,I just ignore it like many others have already said. Tribal fighting has always been human nature and nothing will change that, no matter how many laws are passed or people 'offended.' If I offended anyone with what I said...I don't give a shit so don't start balling to me about it.
Absolutely. It is the ruling elite class that funds much of the scientific research. Does anyone believe that the Rockefeller Foundation, for example, is going to fund research showing that civilizations have always prospered when using a freely chosen gold/silver/substance standard of money in comparison to when using an imposed fiat currency (legal tender) standard? The politicians, major media, academia, and even ecclesiastical entities have failed to escape the control of the elite money changers.
Come on. 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". No one has denied or asked that anyone be denied their right to post or publish. The request was to implement a way so that those of us who didn't want to read racist hate articles could "bozo" such. And everyone agreed bozo'ing or category filtering was the solution. But that solution doesn't actually work, now does it. As an experiment, bozo the author of the top article (whatever it is) on the "latest menu" and you'll see the article itself (as posted by the bozo'd author) is still displayed. Likewise being pinged to an article in an otherwise filtered category. Likewise opening any article (unawares as to its content) in any category. The point I made above, in view of these current limitations on the bozo/ category filtering tehcnology, was simply to narrow the categorization to actual racist hate speech. Nor more, no less. No one's right to post or publish has been infringed or even suggested. No one complains that their articles go into filterable categories now, so why complain about one more category? Why insist that, in absence of any other solution, those who don't care to read what we find offensive have a way to not have it pushed in front of us, at work or at home? Why does a request for a filter (that everyone advocates be used) be fixed so it actually works keep getting recast as a demand for censorship?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
very good points you made. preferences and awareness of DIFFERENCES is key to survival and, again, we must be FREE to be able to say so.
The politicians, major media, academia, and even ecclesiastical entities have failed to escape the control of the elite money changers. Exactly!! Follow the money.. there are sciences that have been either decried as not valid or changed due to political pressure.. such as psychology as you no doubt are probably well aware ..
"...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
Can you show me an example of a poster here arguing that whites are superior to Jews? And that Jews control the world?
Sometimes it is untrue only in the sense that the statement "Ants love candy dropped by children" is untrue. Some ants cultivate fungus. The untruth might be resolved with the simple word "most". Would the inclusion of that word suffice? Note that most subjects of discussion are not held to a standard this high.
outstanding!
(sigh) avoiding the specific article (and the thread) is what is desired, not the poster himself. See my post #63
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
~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?
Comments (127 - 295) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThe problem with the suggestion of narrowing a category into sub-categories such as “hate speech,” “bait’n & bash’n,” etc is that this further classification system is, in-and-of-itself, a type of forum censorship. It requires someone, admittedly with biased opinions, to decide what subject matter goes into what sub-category. This methodology is burdensome and could create new types of arguments, for example, over the classification system itself. I do not see this as a viable solution. I suggest, rather than creating an onerous classification system, that each member use the Content Filter or Bozo Filter to individually censor, once you have become offended. Or, alternatively, leave the site if it becomes overly upsetting to you.
#88. To: christine, Freedom William (#87)
#89. To: Freedom William, Starwind, All (#82)
#90. To: Starwind, Zoraoster, christine, Zipporah (#71)
But, what problem do you have in categorizing as hate those articles that express a biased baseless opinion that targets entire groups as racially inferior or superior, or guilty of conspiracies by racial background, merely based on their race?
#91. To: wbales (#90)
#92. To: Phaedrus (#89)
To exaggerate once again, if someone comes into my home and spits on the floor, I throw him out, in spite of his professed right of "free spitting".
#93. To: Phaedrus (#89)
if someone comes into my home and spits on the floor.
Hey, Meester,wanna meet my seester?
#94. To: Zipporah (#88)
#95. To: Freedom William, All (#82)
Note, however, it is the language and “conduct” of the poster, not the topic that generally creates the problem.
One if by land, two if by sea...how many if they are already here?
#96. To: Flintlock (#86)
#97. To: robin (#95)
"...if an article or subject offends anyone, as some offend me, don't read that article. Then post articles you wish to discuss..."
#98. To: all (#97)
#99. To: Starwind (#63)
In my opinion, "hate speech" is any article wherein the object is to criticize, deride, or otherwise bash some person or group not based on what they have said or done (behavior or actions) but based on their genetic, racial or ethnic background (makeup or appearance).
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.
#100. To: Tauzero (#99)
statistically valid estimates, objective and/or particular to a value system, to be made by the pragmatic man on the street.
#101. To: purpleman (#100)
Some groups of people are less successful, have lower IQs, etc. I don't want or need censorship of those facts, although I always put on a skeptical hat and think about the motivations of the poster. But applying those group characteristics to individuals is where I would draw my line. I would never ever consider an individual's genetic, racial or ethnic background as a measure of their integrity, IQ, honesty or anything else. I don't do that whether it's positive or negative (an individual from a favored group might still be a dumbass).
#102. To: CAPPSMADNESS, wbales, Freedom William, Flintlock, robin, Jethro Tull, Tauzero, purpleman (#91)
Well said, If I don't wish to read a particular article, I skip
past it. Heck - sometimes I even read it even if I do not have anything to add.
How can you learn things unless you study BOTH sides of an issue?
#103. To: Phaedrus, Tauzero, purpleman, Starwind (#101)
Any article or post that slurs a whole group is, on its face, untrue because there are always individual exceptions, sometimes glaring.
#104. To: purpleman (#100)
I assume you are talking about groups. Some groups of people are less successful, have lower IQs, etc. I don't want or need censorship of those facts, although I always put on a skeptical hat and think about the motivations of the poster.
#105. To: Phaedrus, Tauzero, purpleman, Arete, robin, Diana, Zipporah, Jethro Tull, Neil McIver, Zoroaster, 1776, Eoghan, BTP Holdings, gengis gandhi, Arator, wbales, Starwind, Flintlock, All (#101)
The standard is always truth. Any article or post that slurs a
whole group is, on its face, untrue because there are always individual
exceptions, sometimes glaring.
#106. To: Freedom William (#105)
It is also true that some variables are more difficult to measure precisely or to measure at all than are other variables. Does that mean that these variables (or issues) should be precluded from public discussion? We all know that any individual within a group may be vastly different from the group norm. So should this fact stifle discussion about possible group differences? If the answer is yes, then we need to shut down discussions of 99% of the so- called scientific research.
#107. To: purpleman (#100)
But applying those group characteristics to individuals is where I would draw my line.
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.
#108. To: all (#104)
#109. To: Zipporah (#106)
PC has hit the scientific community as well.
#110. To: Freedom William (#105)
Extending this reasoning, it is my opinion that discussions and debates about group differences is valid and even necessary in our search for truths.
These debates should not be stifled or censored in any way and those who engage in them should be entitled to their exercise of free speech.
#111. To: Tauzero (#107)
But even Jesse Jackson was relieved once to find that the sounds of footsteps behind him were not being made by a group of young black men.
#112. To: Freedom William (#109)
Absolutely. It is the ruling elite class that funds much of the scientific research. Does anyone believe that the Rockefeller Foundation, for example, is going to fund research showing that civilizations have always prospered when using a freely chosen gold/silver/substance standard of money in comparison to when using an imposed fiat currency (legal tender) standard?
#113. To: Starwind (#110)
The issue is about whether it is legitimate to argue "Whites" are better than "Jews", or "all Jews are manipulating the world".
#114. To: Phaedrus (#101)
Any article or post that slurs a whole group is, on its face, untrue because there are always individual exceptions, sometimes glaring.
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.
#115. To: Freedom William, lodwick (#105)
#116. To: Bayonne (#113)
Can you show me an example of a poster here arguing that whites are superior to Jews? And that Jews control the world?
#117. To: Tauzero (#114)
Note 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.
.
.
.