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: 3818
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 (1-57) not displayed.
.
.
.
#58. To: robin (#57)
I'll have to try harder.
We should thank the Nazis for giving us all those stark, frightening images. How else we gonna learn not to act like that? On the other hand, monkey see...
Look at it as a mission...;)
Is there any doubt? I thought they were talking about me!
"Besides the three usual brain functions: understanding, rationality, and the will, which together make up man's spirit and serve his life's interests, a fourth category of thinking evidently slumbers within man which, once started through deliberate re-routing of psychic functions, lets men act against their very own interest for the benefit of a foreign will. The better the mentors of such re-routing succeed in hypnotizing other people of a closed world view, the sooner they can be moved as Isms, to sacrifice themselves and others, so that their spiritual mentors don't lack any power and wealth." To be truly in balance one must be hated by both the German and Jewish variety of nazi, being called supremacist of any sort gets triple score.
We should thank the Nazis for giving us all those stark, frightening images. How else we gonna learn not to act like that? On the other hand, monkey see...
Here are my reasons for why "hate speech" merits categorization separate from other categories and what I think "hate speech" is. There is to me (and others like me) a very clear dividing line between disent or differing opinion that ought to be tolerated and even discussed in 'polite company' versus 'hate speech' that has no redeeming merit for discussion purposes. Our constitution protects hate speech, and I'm not advocating we change the constitution or lobby for the author to be jailed. He had and exercizes under the consititution, his right to compose and publish and broadcast his viewpoint. But I do advocate that hate speech not be further imported via Freedom4um into my office/home, or otherwise shoved in my face. My reasons are twofold, one esthetic, the other pragmatic: I did inquire about fixing the bozo filter such that in the future " hate speech" articles might be hidden, as often is the advocated solution. 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. Even if Neil makes the enhancements, one then becomes forced to bozo everything from a poster when only a few articles were objectionable, and even that will be circumvented should some other poster post the same or variant articles. Mandating the 'bozo' filter as the solution acts against the poster rather than the article. 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). As a recent example, in The Biological Puzzle of Jewish Behavior the group being targeted was Jews (as happens all too frquently on Freedom4um, as it did on Freedom Underground and as it does on Stormfront), but not because of what Israeli political leaders did, or not because of some newsworthy event of something happening to Jews, and not even because of what a particular Jew did. From the article: Substitute "White" for Jew (or "male" for Jew) in that article and you'd have something closer to the truth regarding who has the control of our government. This article would be just as wrong directed againt Women, Whites, Blacks, Asians, Muslims, Christians, Buddists, or Rednecks. It was not criticism of someone's actions or goals, it was criticism of their background - the crime was being a Jew and the loose conspiracy accusations leveled against all Jews because they're Jews. In my opinion, any and all articles which target indiscriminatly all members of a group based on ethnicity, rather than on specific actions or status, is simple bashing and has no meritorious content and could be deleted (or proscribed) on the simple grounds of being hate speech. It isn't political speech, aside from it being the hate politics of white supremacists, and I see no reason Freedom4um *must* provide such hate-mongers with yet another outlet for their bile. I favor free political speech, dissent against the mainstream media and political establishment, and a restoration of constitutional government and conservative values. But I am opposed to all racism and hate speech without regard to target. Hating the Jew for being a Jew is just as wrong as hating a black for being black or hating a muslim for being a muslim...etc. As acknowledged above, while our constitution protects hate speech, our constitutional values are *not* to foster racist hatred of any given ethnic group. We recognize the right of forum owners to censor pornography from Freedom4um, but that is free speech as well. And the forum does not tolerate someone exercising their free speech rights to post pornography. And well they shouldn,'t. I'm glad they don't. But that same judgment call and ownership right exercised against pornography can be made against "hate speech" as well. This forum to me is like a "newstand" or a gathering place to discuss events, business, politics, even religion with like or even dissimilar points of view. It started with a lot more balance than is evident at present. It has noticibly changed and increasingly is racist in content. Do I have a right to demand that such views not be published? Of course not. Do I have a right to demand the forum revert to what it was when it started, or that such views not be posted here? Of course not. Do I have a right to not have "hate speech" pushed in my face? I think so, especially in light of mechanisms that permit it to be separated, much like pornogrpahy is covered and separated from otherwise disinterested consumers. Not suprisingly, such a move is met with accusations of trampling the constitution, knuckling under to the Jew power structure and the Illuminati and the RNC and ...whatever the kook conspiracy theory du jour happens to be. But aside from censoring "incite to violence" if no other line is drawn anywhere to separate even the most extreme hate speech from political dissent, where will the forum lead? If nothing is deemed too racist and hateful, if everything merits discussion, what distinguishes Freedom4um from Stormfront? Why would a rational thoughtful person avoid Stormfront and yet post on Freedom4um only to see the same content? None of us object to a course being steered toward free political dissent or even dissent in general. But there are many of us who would welcome a course correction away from the growing racism we all see. It is bad enough wading through the interforum wars, profanity and kook conspiracy theories, but the incessant racism (from some posters) puts it over the top. We have already lost some posters who choose to not associate with a forum that frequently appears to be a platform for racist hate speech. I say 'appears' because while I know that was not the original intent, the frequency of such articles being posted and the number of comments they draw stands out (both in view and in memory) from other news worthy articles. And the number of newsworthy articles and comments diminishes as the posters who are put off by racism depart. As they depart, the remaining posters exercise their tolerance or even proclivity to post further racist hate speech, and overtime the overall appearance of the forum shifts from news and discussion to hate speech. The solution proposed then (as the bozo filter was deemed inapporpriate) was simply a recategorization of the "hate speech" articles to " Israel/Zionism". I think that is a reasonable compromise that seems to satisfy the various viewpoints as I understand them. I would even suggest a couple further refinements: At present, it has not been explained what belongs in "Israel/ Zionism" and so one would assume it would be any and all articles discussing Israel/ Zionism both legitimate as well as 'hate speech', which to me seems overkill in that most of the articles posted about Israel/Zionism are not what I would consider hate speech and not in need of recategorization, but more problematic, the broad category doesn't separate the legitimate from the hate speech. There are many articles posted about Israel or even Zionism, many of which I can understand and accept the complaints of the authors while a few I might care to dispute the historical facts. But it would seem this one category would lump together these news reports or editorials which generally are not objectionable, with the occasional "hate speech" article I don't care to see. I think that is true for others as well. The objection is not against all or most articles about Israel/Zionism, but just against the few that seem to have no purpose other than to bash Jews for being Jewish (and in the future to bash Mexicans for being Mexican, Indian's for being Indian, etc. but all of them being not- White). So, standard news reports and editorials about Israel/Zionism could continue to be posted in the normal News, War, etc categories, so as to continue to give them maximum exposure to the entire forum and perhaps change the category name to "Bait'n n Bash'n" :) - that name alone explains a lot - " Ethnic Issues", or some such, and ostensibly the purpose of this category would be as follows: Articles that now belong in "Bait'n n Bash'n" ["Ethnic Issues" or whatever] are those that express a biased editorial opinion (as opposed to factual research), pro or con (to be fair), predominantly generalizing: As an example, the following threads (as explained for each) might then be moved to "Bait'n n Bash'n": The Biological Puzzle of Jewish Behavior.(editorialize about being Jewish) (The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Are you living in Canada? Germany? Israel? You use the term 'hate speech' as if
it's a statute. Please, my friend, we’re doing all we can to keep that vile
form of PC away from these shores - we hardly need someone like you so willing
to concede it already exists. Why not simply walk past articles and posters
that bother you, or don't conform to your belief system? Why do you feel the
need to define other POV as ’hate’. If we’re going down that path, what I see
coming from you is censorship. If the compromise Christine and Zip put
together doesn’t satisfy you, I suggest it’s you who has the problem, not us.
Perhaps 4 is too free for you.
Are you a rapture monkey?
Thank you for your clarity and your courage.
Are you a rapture monkey?
You really don't want to hear from me, Flintlock. Play nice.
Sure I do. Now answer the question, are you a rapture monkey?
Say what? He's
labeling speech as 'hate speech.' These are the words of an Abe Foxman, or some
other censor. But thanks for the input. It's best to know where people stand on
issues, and you clearly have stepped out of the closet.
I would like to do just that. I'm not asking they be removed. I'm only asking that the filter solution actually work. I'm sure you understand the holes in the bozo filter regarding "content", Neil and Christine do. And I'm confident you also understand my view that most articles about Israel/ Zionism (as well as nearly all articles posted on F4) are worth my reading. And so I believe you therefore understand how filtering out the entire Israel/ Zionism category is overkill. Consequently you seem to implicitly accept the approach of moving Israel/Zionism articles into their own category, so why do not accept moving far, far fewer articles into an even narrower category? You seem to have accepted categorization as a solution. Why disagree with categorizing only those articles which raise objections? You seem to recognize that it isn't censorship. The articles aren't being removed. rather a means is being discussed as to how best permit their precise filtering, a filtering everyone seems to advocate. What would be the point in implementing a solution that is both overkill and doesn't solve the problem? The "need" to be precise in the definition is so to commmunicate to others what precisely ought to be filtereed so as to avoid overkill. And I wasn't so imprecise as to merely define all other points of view as hate, did I. No, I was quite specific. 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? We categorize everything else on F4, why not racial hatred?
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
I have heavy weather approaching and I'm about to loose my uplink. I'll be back later.
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Those who would group everyone of any color, sex, nationality, or whatever or identifiable label into the same subset of individuals is weak-minded. There are more differences between any subset of a group than there are between the sets themselves - thanks for allowing me to go back to eight grade algebra for that one. My criteria are, is it good or is it evil?...is it true or is it false? It just keeps it simpler for me these days. Do continue your discussion, please.
There are more differences between any subset of a group than there are between the sets themselves - thanks for allowing me to go back to eight grade algebra for that one. My criteria are, is it good or is it evil?...is it true or is it false? It just keeps it simpler for me these days. Do continue your discussion, please. One question.. do you think that there are any groups that do depict themselves in one way or another ..if by any group or subset of a group, that do have a likeminded agenda?
"...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
It just keeps it simpler for me these days. Sounds good to me, thanks for keeping it clear and concise.
.. I was thinking of groups like La Raza..
"...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
Absolutely - most every group does their level best to appeal to whomever their target audience may be - it's PR, adverstising, spin, whatever you want to call it, and the same applies to any identifiable group of folks whether social, political, or religious - everyone pimps their point of view and tries to sell it. Some have honorable intents, and others may not...we have to look at the fruit of their actions, and not the promises of their words, imo.
I believe the "anatomically correct" term for them would be "assholes"
"If you're not cynical, then you're not paying attention."
True some do ..some dont...thanks.
"...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
LOL!
"...when a society believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda..."
I'm sure you
understand the holes in the bozo filter regarding "content", Neil and
Christine do. Gee, here's an idea starwind. Why not fire
off a healthy check to christine or zip and let them bring in an IT consultant
so they can get this filter thing to your liking? Here's some advice. Your
mixing of an odd sect of Christianity & politics seems to produce this
disgusting desire to censor. I have every right to hate, people places and
things. To date it isn't a crime. Should enough folks like you achieve
political power, I'm sure it will be. IMHO, your request has already had a
chilling effect on the forum. Earlier today I wanted to post this article -
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/25/world/main711454.shtml - but I
didn't know which pigeon hole to put it in. Thanks chum. Lord knows I wouldn't
want to offend anyone...
Recently, several members have expressed concerns about what they consider to be “hate” speech having been posted on freedom4um. Certain types of content both from posted articles and members’ replies have been criticized as offensive and worthy of censorship. The primary “hot button” is that of the Israel/Jewish/Zionism topic. This subject has proven to evoke strong opinions, reactive language, and emotional invective often from otherwise rational, logical, and reasonable posters. It appears to be the most divisive of all of the issues debated on the various political forums. From time to time at freedom4um I have observed the banishment of very few posters, after it became obvious that they were “disrupters,” whose mission was to debase and ultimately destroy the forum itself. This is quite different than censoring certain topics. I favor a forum where all topics are open for discussion and debate, as long as the language used does not personally threaten someone, does not advocate violence, or does not in some way threaten the continued existence of the forum -- and that can only be determined by the owner of the forum whose private property is at risk. Note, however, it is the language and “conduct” of the poster, not the topic that generally creates the problem. Serious debate using language and conduct that is appropriate should be welcomed and not censored. Members can post any type of evidence available to discredit another poster or to refute that poster’s “facts.” That is the recommended method for debate, rather than censoring a specific topic, even if some find it offensive. I am in favor of free speech. Hate speech is free speech. Political speech is free speech. Inaccurate, biased, or opinionated speech is free speech. If certain types of content are to be censored or banished, then who gets to decide? Each and every one of us has biases. All opinions are biased. Even conclusions based on sound, peer-reviewed research are biased. Let’s acknowledge that. The problem arises when we start allowing one member’s bias to be posted while censoring another member’s bias. Let all posters’ words speak for themselves. If they’re obnoxious, offensive, or hateful, they will be seen for what they are. Their stated facts, assumptions, conclusions, and opinions should be open for challenge, but should not be censored. Remember that the Mission Statement notices all members that this forum is private property. Those who do not agree with the forum’s policies, and who wish to have certain types of subject matter censored, are free to eschew this forum altogether. Alternatively, for those who want to avoid reading what they consider to be offending material, but do not wish to leave the forum, there is another option. The addition of the three new categories to the Content Filter will allow censorship on an individual rather than on a forum basis. In addition, the Bozo Filter allows for individual censorship of specific members. With the availability of these 2 features a member would have to make a deliberate effort to be offended by subject matter or posters. As such, I view efforts to censor certain topics on a forum basis, as authoritarian in nature and an attempt to abolish free speech. The 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.
Yep, it's really that simple. Hate is a valid emotion given the assault we're under. In fact, I think we need more hate directed at those who deserve it, not less. That said, without a free flow of information and discussion we'll never know the truth. Filters and pigeonholes be damned. This free speech isn’t going to last forever, thanks to the ptb. Lets keep the light on till they pull the plug.
Good post, Jethro. Yes, we have every right to "hate." We can like, love, or hate different types of food, different color carpets, different types of movies, certain people, certain cultures, certain forms of government, ad nauseum. This is called having PREFERENCES -- and in a truly free society, we should be able to have and express whatever preferences we desire. It is not the expression of preferences (e.g. likes-&-dislikes, loves-&-hates) that is the problem. The problem arises only when our conduct trespasses onto someone else's right to their life, liberty, and property. PERIOD. I believe that it is impossible for an individual to be a racist. Yes, I said that. An individual can only express a preference. "Racism" is institutionalized oppression by government, or the power structure, designed to favor one individual or group at the expense of another individual or group. As long as you do not violate another's equal right to his/her life, liberty, or property, it does not matter if you dislike or hate. That is your preference and it is called FREEDOM. It has become obvious to me that most people do not understand nor want true freedom. That is probably why the masses have rarely experienced real freedom throughout history.
Good for you. The word racist is a contrived pejorative tossed about by the liberty censors in an effort to stifle free thought and speech. Unfortunately, the sheeple have been conditioned to cower when the word is hurled at them. With that degree of control, is it any wonder people remain mute as they are taxed out of their homes and businesses? Enough timidity. If we can’t openly communicate, it’s time to fold the tent.
That's the real problem. We that want real freedom are always struggling for it, while the sheeple just want a comfortable existence until they're slaughtered.
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.
Comments (98 - 295) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#59. To: Dakmar (#58)
I'll have to try harder.
One if by land, two if by sea...how many if they are already here?
#60. To: Phaedrus, crack monkey (#37)
How did you know they were talking about you?
#61. To: Bayonne, Eoghan, Diana (#48)
There is a constant campaign of conditioning against individuals in the majority in our media- to instill guilt, reinforce certain govt powered groups as perpetual victims, and cement the majority as predatory and aggressive in its relationships with the victim groups.
Prof. Dr. Werner Pfeifenberger, who was heavily persecuted in Germany and Austria for his revisionist views and who was finally driven to suicide, stated the following:
#62. To: tom007 (#60)
I thought they were talking about me!
#63. To: christine, all, *unUsual Suspects* (#16)
"Wherever any significant community of Whites begins to see the world well enough to understand why we must not race-mix, the Jews know the jig is up for them."
No, this was simple "white supremacist" Jew bashing. I am a middle aged white American male, a "mutt" for racial purposes. This was not directed against me or against my friends or even a cause I support. It was just one person expressing his hatred of another ethnic group because of who they are and the author's conspiracy fantasies about their control over his life.
(list to be amended as needed)
THE SEVEN jEWISH BANKING FAMILIES WHO OWN THE PRIVATE 'FEDERAL RESERVE BANKING CORPORATION (unsubstantiated conspiracy by Jews)
One More Hate Letter (racial superiority or inferiority)
#64. To: Starwind (#63)
#65. To: Starwind (#63)
(The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news)
Hey, Meester,wanna meet my seester?
#66. To: Starwind (#63)
#67. To: Phaedrus (#66)
Hey, Meester,wanna meet my seester?
#68. To: Flintlock (#67)
#69. To: Phaedrus (#68)
You really don't want to hear from me, Flintlock.
Hey, Meester,wanna meet my seester?
#70. To: Phaedrus (#66)
clarity and your courage.
#71. To: Jethro Tull (#64)
Why not simply walk past articles and posters that bother you, or don't conform to your belief system?
Why do you feel the need to define other POV as 'hate'. If we're going down that path, what I see coming from you is censorship.
#72. To: All (#71)
#73. To: Starwind, Flint, Ph, whoever else cares (#63)
Starwind makes some excellent points here.
#74. To: lodwick (#73)
Those who would group everyone of any color, sex, nationality, or whatever or identifiable label into the same subset of individuals is weak-minded.
#75. To: lodwick (#73)
My criteria are, is it good or is it evil?...is it true or is it false?
One if by land, two if by sea...how many if they are already here?
#76. To: robin, lodwick (#75)
#77. To: Zipporah (#74)
One question.. do you think that there are any groups that do depict themselves in one way or another ..if by any group or subset of a group, that do have a likeminded agenda?
#78. To: Zipporah (#76)
.. I was thinking of groups like La Raza..
#79. To: lodwick (#77)
#80. To: orangedog (#78)
#81. To: Starwind (#71)
I would like to do just that. I'm not asking they be removed.
I'm only asking that the filter solution actually work.
#82. To: Jethro Tull, All (#64)
#83. To: Freedom William (#82)
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.
#84. To: Jethro Tull (#81)
#85. To: Freedom William (#84)
I believe that it is impossible for an individual to be a racist.
#86. To: Freedom William (#84)
It has become obvious to me that most people do not understand nor want true freedom.
Hey, Meester,wanna meet my seester?
#87. To: Freedom William, Zipporah, All (#82)
The 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..."
.
.
.