Petition to remove censorship rules
Posted by Agape on Thu, 11/20/2008 - 10:25pm inI'll go ahead and start this as a petition of sorts. If you believe we should get rid of the censorship rules, reply in the affirmative. If you believe we shouldn't, feel free to discuss it. At the end of it all, once the topic dies down, we can do a rough total of people who think all the naughty words should be allowed, and those who think we should be confined to buns, poo, bich, and mmkay. Or, heck, it looks like there's an upcheck/downcheck on it. We could try using that as the yea/nay system. If it doesn't work how I think it does, we can go with the replies.
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 304 reads
****
I generally dont agree with censorship. However, with sites where anyone can post there often become people that like to spew nothing but profanity and or personal attacks. Thus, some censorship needs to be there. Is there an example you have of being censored? I will ask and see what we can do.
if you censor four-letter words, why not also censor five-letter words? why not six-letter words as well?
... you can stop an "idea" because it is four letters indeed...
... you can avoid a "fact" because it is something to retract...
... don't say a "word" because it's absurd...
... if four-letters, why not five?
... what are you trying to hide?
let's take a look see ...
"I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire
Glad you came to watch the show!
Much adieu, Average Joe
+++++++++++++++++
" If you ain't a Millionaire, yell out loud: 'It's just not fair!' "
If you take away the right of private censorship then you take away all liberty. It is government censorship that we need to worry about. This is about property rights. This site isn't your property. It belongs to whoever owns it.
If someone is going to cry and whine about being censored here and claim they are some kind of victim, then they don't understand freedom and probably would be better off not posting here.
>>"This is about property rights. This site isn't your property. It belongs to whoever owns it."
No one is talking about taking away any rights, or forcing the owners of this site to do anything. I think our assumption is that the owners are interested in getting feedback from the members. Let me ask you, would you keep coming here if certain topics were off limits, like religion, for example? Or would you complain to the management that you don't like being censored? If I go to my favorite restaurant and complain that although the food is great I wish they would stop blasting the air conditioning, does that make me a whiner, or just a customer offering valuable information about how the service could be improved?
I think whoever wants more freedom on BTM should say so. People who want to censor certain words should speak up as well. Of course then it is up to management to decide what to do (or what not to do), and anyone who doesn't like it is free to leave.
I would love to see BTM members police the site ourselves, rather than relying on management to do it. I think that if we give abusive or offensive people a hard enough time they will either shape up or leave. It would be an interesting test of the power of free speech.
"I would love to see BTM members police the site ourselves, rather than relying on management to do it. I think that if we give abusive or offensive people a hard enough time they will either shape up or leave. It would be an interesting test of the power of free speech."
Why do you think "mob rule" is acceptable on an intimate level? This is what I mean by (critical thinking errors) So you think if you abuse someone that you find abusive, that might is right? Just because there are more that agree with you about someones behaviors being (one way or another) if you can (give him/her a hard enough time) they will shape up or leave? I find this to be such a hypocrisy! Why do we as a people not see the simple fact that the problem with the government comes from "us" as a group and if we see the state as a tyrant of the majority over the minority or (individual) why would we find that mindset to be acceptable within our intimate circles? Please do not give me the same old line about "acceptable social behaviors" because that is just an excuse to promote group think and I find it repulsive!
This is a quote from an article I found interesting,
"to examine consensus in practical terms, my own experience has shown me that when larger groups try to make decisions by consensus, it usually obliges them to arrive at the lowest common intellectual denominator in their decision-making: the least controversial or even the most mediocre decision that a sizable assembly of people can attain is adopted -- precisely because everyone must agree with it or else withdraw from voting on that issue. More disturbingly, I have found that it permits an insidious authoritarianism and gross manipulations -- even when used in the name of autonomy or freedom."
Daimona, do you tolerate everything everyone does? What if someone shouts obscenities at you, or at someone else? Wouldn't you let them know you find their behavior unacceptable? I would. I have no problem giving people a hard time for being rude and obnoxious, in part because I think if everyone lets them get away with that kind of behavior, they will never learn that it is unacceptable.
A lot of people want to elevate tolerance above all the other virtues. In fact, I consider that to be one of the dumbest of all the group-thinky ideas that are fashionable at the moment. You think we should all be tolerant, right? But tolerance of evil isn't virtuous, is it? OK that one is easy. Of course you shouldn't tolerate murder, theft, etc... But should you really tolerate everything else? Lying, cheating? The very fact that you are criticizing me for wanting to give people who swear a hard time indicates that you don't tolerate me giving people a hard time. Isn't that kind of inconsistent?
I think that people tend to want to live up to the expectations of their community. If standards are high, you get good behavior. If standards are low, people will behave badly. I much prefer this kind of community feedback to censorship from above as a way of letting people know they are being offensive. I think it's hypocritical to pride yourself on being tolerant and then to expect the authorities to do all the dirty work of telling people off when they offend you.
By the way, giving someone a hard time isn't the same thing as abusing them. I consider that I just gave you a hard time. Was I being abusive?
I do not think that "I" as an individual giving feed back on statements I find offensive qualifies as a collective force, however in your post you said "WE" which signifies to me an act of the collective! (Us giving someone a hard enough time to socially force them to either comply or remove themselves from our community) Which is what I found the statement in question to imply! Let me re-post it here for you...
Claire said: "I would love to see BTM members police the site ourselves, rather than relying on management to do it. I think that if we give abusive or offensive people a hard enough time they will either shape up or leave. It would be an interesting test of the power of free speech."
Now to address the following statement:
Claire said: "The very fact that you are criticizing me for wanting to give people who swear a hard time indicates that you don't tolerate me giving people a hard time. Isn't that kind of inconsistent?"
I have not criticized "You" in any way, I did however question your statement. I found your statement in direct conflict with one of my many firmly held convictions. I am sorry if you find that to be inconsistent. I do not. I have not once initiated any form of force or coercion in altering your beliefs or your actions. I have merely stated my opinion and my observation of the obvious dichotomy!
This will be my final post on this subject, I feel that this discussion has now taken a dramatic turn in the wrong direction and I will not be a part of this form of communication.
>>"in your post you said "WE" which signifies to me an act of the collective! (Us giving someone a hard enough time to socially force them to either comply or remove themselves from our community) Which is what I found the statement in question to imply!"
Really? If I say "we need to do what we can to promote freedom", or "we shouldn't get depressed about this economic crisis", is there something sinister about that? Do you never use the word "we"? I find that hard to believe. In what context do you think it is acceptable to say "we"? By the way, this site encourages lots of collective actions, money bombs etc... A call to write to your representative is a call for collective action, usually a criticism of someone or something. Does that bother you? The writer of this petition is calling for collective action to send a message about censorship to the owners of the site. Do you have anything to say to him?
Anyhow, I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't even calling for collective action. Sometimes several people, each thinking as an individual, can all come to the same conclusion, especially if they are all perceiving the same truth. That's what I meant by "we". A bunch of people, each one speaking his mind and expressing himself as an individual, rather than relying on management to fight his battles for him-- management is "they"-- the higher authority, the ones with the power to delete people's posts. We are "we", as in "we the people", those who must use persuasion alone to dissuade abusive behavior on the site. What do you think is a better way to deal with rude or abusive people on this site? Persuasion by their peers, or getting the the management to delete their posts?
That's how socialization works, Daimona. That's why we don't all end up behaving like wild animals. It's what makes us civilized. If you irritate or offend enough people, you are going to start hearing it from all sides, which, if you are a normal person, will motivate you to change your behavior. If a person posts something really abusive it usually only takes one or two people complaining to get that person to back down. In fact, if I think someone has been particularly rude, I can take him on myself. I don't need a gang of people to help me. And should it turn out that I was wrong, that I overreacted, I'm going to hear it from someone else. Freedom of speech is a great corrective. It's only when government or some other "higher power" interferes with freedom of speech that perceptions start to get skewed. That's one of the reasons I think censorship is bad for society. It interferes with the very good mechanism we have for discovering what is true. I see no reason why anyone should feel inhibited about speaking out when they see someone doing something wrong. If everyone is free to speak, the truth comes out eventually.
Or maybe I misunderstood you. Maybe what bothers you is not intolerance of bad behavior, but rather the use of force to coerce people. If so, will you please explain to me how posting an objection to a rude comment constitutes an act of force, whether it's done by one person or several people. I've had a lot of people argue very frankly and heatedly with me on this site; I never felt forced to leave. I think it's a big mistake to characterize any form of speech as being equivalent to the use of force (unless it's a direct physical threat-- which is not at all what I am advocating). Telling someone they are out of line-- heck, even yelling obscenities at someone (which I'm not advocating either), is not the same as using of force against them. Neither is writing critical responses to their posts on BTM.
Freedom of speech does not exist on private property. You speak here because you are allowed to speak here by the owners of this property. At any time the owners can take this site away or remove you from it. Everything that happens here happens because the owners allow it to happen. When you speak about the guaranteed right to freedom of speech you refer to your right protest against the government while on public property and really not much more than that.
The only censorship that is dangerous and against freedom and liberty is censorship that oppresses ideas (banning books and films for example). There is no oppression of ideas when you are asked to express yourself without using curse words because you can still express your ideas in countless other ways. Swear on your own property or on sites that allow it. If you went to Ron Paul's house and swore and he asked you to stop or leave would you say he was censoring you and not truly for freedom and liberty and therefore a hypocrite?
"Proper emphasis of meaning" should not ever depend on using curse words.
I don't think family friendly has anything to do with it. You don't have to be a kid to not enjoy reading peoples cussing and swearing. Some people can be offended deeply if the words go against their religious beliefs. You don't want them to be uncomfortable and leave because others haven't developed their skills of expression do you? Should we who are members here because we want to spread the freedom message sacrifice a whole huge demographic of i.e. Christians, so a smaller group of people who like to swear can do so? If this site is about spreading the ideas of liberty and freedom having swears all over it would pretty much destroy it's ability to do educate huge demographics of people by turning them away and THAT would be the irony factor.
I don't know if your post was meant as a respone to my own - but since you bring up various points i raised - i will assume at least some of it was. You write:
"Some people can be offended deeply if the words go against their religious beliefs. You don't want them to be uncomfortable and leave because others haven't developed their skills of expression do you?"
It can also be deeply offensive to the same "religious" people to have a thread on the existence or lack thereof of God. Or one discussing another religion, say Islam or Buddhism or whatever - as if it were the "one true" religion. Each of those topics, without the use of curse words, could drive away potential members. Shall we ban sensitive and/or controversial topics as well to avoid offending some group?
I never claimed nor implied that 1st amendment protections applied here. I in fact recognized that my wishes, or even the wishes of the majority here, do not control. What I did say was that 100% of the people I am aware of that frequent this site are adult. Adults sometimes use curse words. Yes, people can express themselves without the use of cursewords and most people here do. A majority in fact.
To borrow from your example - I would be more concerned about losing die-hard freedom enthusiasts to an overly nannyish comment/conduct policy than I would be in losing particularly sensitive potential members.
And I think you confused two concepts. "If this site is about spreading the ideas of liberty and freedom having swears all over it would pretty much destroy it's ability to {sic} educate huge demographics of people by turning them away and THAT would be the irony factor."
Arguing as I do that cursing (or people that curse) should not be banned does not equal advocating that cursing be encouraged. There is a proper balance that can be struck - and in fact is being struck right now by the BTM staff as it concerns this very topic - (I.e, people who veer off policy are told to stop, if they don't, they face repurcussions or get kicked out of chat or whatever the case may be).
There is a school of philosophy that deals with language. Particularly, how language shapes thought - in so far as when you 'think' or 'contemplate' or 'reason' you are thinking, contemplating and reasoning in a particular language in your own mind. Hence, thoughts and even 'ideas' themselves are limited by the language one employs in developing them. If this school of philosophy is correct, then the mere act of limiting a particular dialogue or argument or discussion or thread or whatever to a pre-defined language standard could in fact have as an end result the limiting of the very freedom ideas, or possibly new ideas, we wish to spread.
Irony? You bet your CENSORED!
"It can also be deeply offensive to the same "religious" people to have a thread on the existence or lack thereof of God. Or one discussing another religion, say Islam or Buddhism or whatever - as if it were the "one true" religion. Each of those topics, without the use of curse words, could drive away potential members. Shall we ban sensitive and/or controversial topics as well to avoid offending some group? "
I think there is a major difference between discussing topics and expressing ideas that people can find offensive, as compared to using words that are by their very nature designed to be offensive. I understand you are saying that you use them for expression but lets be practical and admit that these words have (and to a large degree) a built in "offend factor". And even if they are used for expression they are weaker forms of it. Just because you can express something with a swear doesn't mean you have to or that you can't express yourself much more effectively with regular words. So I don't see a slippery slope here, the line to cross is very clear.
I would agree there are times in all of our lives that we will swear in reaction to something that just happened to us and yes it feels good and expresses our feelings perfectly at that moment in that way. That's all well and good, but just because swears can feel good doesn't mean they should be used in the discourse of thoughts and ideas in a (for the most part) publicly accessible forum. If we cannot respond here with swears we are forced to take a step back from our initial reaction and think of a way to say it in a more intellectually expressive way. This extra five to ten seconds often brings a great deal more clarity to our responses. This "ups" the level of discourse imo and is good for all of us.
We are mostly adults here (although I saw one impressive young guy, around 13 or so from the looks of it, making the case for free speech). I would rather see people who are abusive or who swear get ostracized by the rest of the community than be forcibly removed by management. People who are removed for swearing will tend to consider themselves as victims of censorship, but if they experience the natural social consequences of cursing then they will understand that if they aren't getting their point across they only have themselves to blame. On the whole, freedom tends to elevate people, I think. It turns adolescents into adults. It also makes people in the community take more responsibility. We the members of BTM can keep language "clean" on the site, without resorting to censorship. How can we do this? By making people who swear in the forums uncomfortable. We can challenge them, we can point out how uncouth they are, we can vote them down, we can ignore them. Think of how cool it could be if BTM were an example of how a free marketplace of ideas can be edifying for everyone involved.
There are many ways to apply emphasis to your thoughts. USE UPPERCASE LETTERS TO MAKE IT SEEM LIKE YOU ARE SHOUTING! Or how about emoticons >:0 ? Too cute? Okay, well then there's that quaint old standby #@/%* If all else fails, go ahead and suggest the swear word by writing only the first letter of the offensive word, and following it by a series of dashes representing the missing letters. I would use this only as a last resort, though, because it's only barely less rude than printing the entire word.
Does that help at all? No? Then I suggest you go... fly a kite.
if you make it obvious that you are self-censoring, then the whole point of censorship has been an exercise in futility because the person reading the message will insert into the *#@*# whatever "bad" word would be appropriate. Oh noes.
I don't know if humanity will survive.
But I do know that I agree with you with respect to the policing (for lack of a better term) of each-other to keep the discourse elevated and at least a little respectful. Like I said from the beginning, a little common sense (which i take to include a modicum of restraint on behalf of the evil-minded cussers) goes a long way.
that a site dedicated to spreading the message of freedom, liberty (of thought and action) and other such noble endeavors would engage in censorship.
At least thats the immediate thing that comes to my mind.
I understand the arguments on the censorship side and they are persuasive - we cannot control who signs up to BTM and there are some sick CENSORED on the net. Further, BTM hopes to be a profitable business at some point in the future, and if it is a free-for-all zone the chances of that business venture being a success could go down. That is a price too high to pay for completely unmoderated social internet site.
I realize cursing or abrasive language does not add anything to an argument per se (especially purely ad-hominem type statements), but sometimes, it can add proper emphasis. And let's face it, a lot of the stuff we "discuss" in the forums and in chat require certain emphasis. As we catalog the abuses and tyrannies taking place on a daily basis all around us...If you are not really really CENSORED concerned at what is happening, then we are collectively failing in our job.
Some people like to consider this place a family friendly place, but to be honest, i don't know too many little kids (in fact, none at all that i am aware) who hang around and take active roles in any of the threads or on any of the programs that air. Most of the stuff would go right over their head. And if they were old enough to understand, then they would have already been exposed to the very words & what not we would be censoring.
At any rate, it would be great to be able to say that everyone who comes here would be courteous, outstanding &"mature" conversationalists. Dr. Paul types. But that ain't reality.
I vote against censorship of language or expression as a matter of principle. (Note: this would not prevent the prohibition of such things as spamming and other maladies associated with the internet).
I don't expect, however, that my view should control, or even that of the majority of us if we were all to overwhelmingly vote against censorship. This isn't a democracy. Its a website. I will consciously attempt to abide by the 'rules'. But I would just ask patience if I do not conform from time to time and in very short duration. I am animated by nature, and sometimes that comes out in the language i choose to use to express myself. It needs to be remembered that this site is also a social networking site. Language appropriate for mainly adult social settings (amongst adults) is going to be used. Adult topics will be discussed. And we all have different tastes & sensibilities when it comes to that. A little common sense by all can go a long way.
What's the point of swearing? Why should it be necessary to swear in these forums? Are there any ideas that can't be expressed in ordinary words? Swearing doesn't bother me that much, but it does leave a negative impression on me.
That being said, I would have to come down on the side of free speech, so I don't think censorship is a good idea. I do think people who swear a lot should censor themselves, though-- especially if they want to get their points across persuasively, without turning a lot of people off.