Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This is in reply to this post:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Scientology is a legally recognized religion in the US.

For some reason.

Because stupid people exist. That's really the answer for Scientology, and FSM was created as a joke. The whole Jedi thing even started as kind of a light tongue-in-cheek idea (in the real world, not SW), but with the exception of moving things with the mind or controlling others, the belief structure is almost the same as Christianity; so it moved past its good-humored origins. Scientology and FSM have not moved past their origins.

What next? We find out that Xenu and FSM are the parents of Cthulhu. Give me a break.

So, apparently it's ok to call people who believe in Scientology stupid? I reported the post soon after it was made, and it's still there. So the only thing I can conclude is that the moderator who saw the report decided that calling members of a particular religion stupid is perfectly ok. But I'm pretty sure that if I made a post like this I would be taking a nice long vacation from the forum:

Christianity is a legally recognized religion in the US.

For some reason.

Because stupid people exist.

So why is it suddenly ok when the subject is a less-popular religion? Why do Christians (and possibly members of other popular religions, but I've seen some unpleasant things said about those) get special protection?

Peregrine wrote:So why is it suddenly ok when the subject is a less-popular religion? Why do Christians (and possibly members of other popular religions, but I've seen some unpleasant things said about those) get special protection?

I received an in-thread warning by a moderator for claiming that Muslims cannot be trusted to tell the truth (in particular, about their degree of patriotic devotion to a non-religious State) due to taqiya.

Of course, I disagree with said warning.

Nonetheless, it does seem that calling people stupid for believing a given religion (which may or may not be true) is more severe than saying that people are untrustworthy due to their credence in a given doctrine.

Personally, I think that such claims shouldn't receive moderator action either way and should be allowed to stand or fall based on public debate.

Rules against impoliteness should be restricted to personal insults and harassment.

Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:So why is it suddenly ok when the subject is a less-popular religion? Why do Christians (and possibly members of other popular religions, but I've seen some unpleasant things said about those) get special protection?

I received an in-thread warning by a moderator for claiming that Muslims cannot be trusted to tell the truth (in particular, about their degree of patriotic devotion to a non-religious State) due to taqiya.

Of course, I disagree with said warning.

Nonetheless, it does seem that calling people stupid for believing a given religion (which may or may not be true) is more severe than saying that people are untrustworthy due to their credence in a given doctrine.

Personally, I think that such claims shouldn't receive moderator action either way and should be allowed to stand or fall based on public debate.

Rules against impoliteness should be restricted to personal insults and harassment.

That isn't really how this forum operates. It's generally frowned upon to insult members of the public as we are expected to adhere to rule #1 regardless of who the people are. Part of the reasoning is that members of this forum may very well be members of that group. See: The ebay oddities thread for more info.

Though, admittedly, this does seem to be unevenly applied. Maybe it depends on the likelihood of miniature wargamers being members of the group in question?

TheCustomLime wrote:That isn't really how this forum operates. It's generally frowned upon to insult members of the public as we are expected to adhere to rule #1 regardless of who the people are. Part of the reasoning is that members of this forum may very well be members of that group. See: The ebay oddities thread for more info.

Though, admittedly, this does seem to be unevenly applied. Maybe it depends on the likelihood of miniature wargamers being members of the group in question?

Insulting people in general is impolite.

That said, I think that moderation should have a stricter sense of what an insult is.

"I think that Muslims are untrustworthy because their religion tells them that it's OK to lie to me in certain circumstances"

is not the same thing as saying:

"Shut up, you big nosed Jew."*

And neither of those is the same thing as saying that you have to be stupid to believe in a given religion.

My advice to everyone:

If you aren't being personally insulted, grow thicker skin. If you disagree with a given proposition, bring reasoned argumentation against it.

Or just flat out ignore it.

*Here, I intend no offense or insult to anyone, nor do I positively assert it. I simply use this as an example.

 Peregrine wrote:
t if I made a post like this I would be taking a nice long vacation from the forum:

4 or 5 complaints over your post saying

" Sure, its creation myth is obviously absurd, but so is Christianity's creation myth",

So why is it suddenly ok when the subject is a less-popular religion? Why do Christians (and possibly members of other popular religions, but I've seen some unpleasant things said about those) get special protection?

For the exact same reason you weren't "punished" : we try to look at things in the context of the discussion.

Given the circumstances it was justifiable in this context to describe the Xtian creation story as being absurd -- even if some other posters found that offensive and/or crass.

There would however be times that would not be an appropriate thing to say.

And therein lays the dilemma for both users and us.

We also, of course, factor in the past behaviour of the people in question.

First of all, I'd like to clarify that I don't really think the post in question is one that needs some harsh punishments. The issue I have is that in discussions like this I have to try very hard to stay on the right side of the fine line between harsh criticism of an idea I strongly disagree with and saying something that will be considered a violation of forum rules. And that has led to things like editing a post over and over again, trying to make sure I don't get a long (or permanent) ban like I've been threatened with, but without trying to censor legitimate discussion. And then I get to sit around hoping that I didn't screw it up this time and catch a moderator on a bad day.

Then here's another person openly saying "these people are stupid", without any concerns at all. And I can't help thinking that the reason is that certain religions/political groups/etc are protected more strongly than others, that "don't criticize Christianity too much" is an unwritten rule alongside "but things Christians disagree with are fair game".

 reds8n wrote:
For the exact same reason you weren't "punished" : we try to look at things in the context of the discussion.

But I don't see what "context" makes the post I quoted ok.

Calling an element of Christianity "absurd" is of course very critical of a particular belief, and a statement many people would disagree with, but it doesn't make it personal. I didn't follow it up with "and you're stupid if you believe it" or anything (and taking moderator action would have been justified if I had).

Calling people who believe in Scientology "stupid" does make it personal. It's not just taking a very critical and possibly controversial position, it's making a direct and completely unnecessary insult towards the people who believe it. And it doesn't really even address the issue of "why is Scientology recognized as a religion by the US government" in the previous posts in the quote.

Here are a couple of examples of what I would have considered an appropriate, though still completely critical of Scientology, response:

"Because even religious beliefs that are obviously not true still get protection from the government."

"Because people aren't aware that Scientology was created by a science fiction author as an 'I bet I can make a religion and get people to follow it' thing and Scientology keeps its most embarrassing claims secret until you're too far into it to back out easily, then mercilessly abuses you if you try to leave".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 reds8n wrote:
We also, of course, factor in the past behaviour of the people in question.

Past behavior, though not of any specific person, is part of what I had in mind here. This isn't the first time I've noticed people here get away with making comments about Scientology that would have earned them a ban if they had made the same comments about Christianity, I just finally decided to comment on the subject. And it seems to be a trend in society in general, where certain religions are declared to be acceptable targets for mocking and behavior that would be unacceptable if directed at a mainstream religion is met with "lol Scientology".

 Peregrine wrote:


Calling an element of Christianity "absurd" is of course very critical of a particular belief, and a statement many people would disagree with, but it doesn't make it personal. I didn't follow it up with "and you're stupid if you believe it" or anything (and taking moderator action would have been justified if I had).

Calling people who believe in Scientology "stupid" does make it personal.

If you reread that's not quite what he said.

Nor is it personal, or at least anymore so than your comment on the "laughably false or foolish" nature of the Xtian creation story.

One assumes that , for example, some of the people who hit the alert over that took your comment a bit personally.

But I don't think your intent there was to try and offend or upset those other people.

Just as I don't believe the comment you flagged was done so either.

Could either of those -- or indeed other comments in the thread by other posters -- be phrased better / Yes, of course.
However we do have to take into account that this is nothing more than a , ultimately, disposable conversation in the off topic board of a wargaming website, not the National Debate Championships.
So we give a bit of leeway at times with phrasing, we don't expect people to have technical paper precision or whatever.

And it seems to be a trend in society in general,

...that might be a little bit of a stretch for us to deal with but we'll crack on with it and see what happens alright ?

 reds8n wrote:
Could either of those -- or indeed other comments in the thread by other posters -- be phrased better / Yes, of course.
However we do have to take into account that this is nothing more than a , ultimately, disposable conversation in the off topic board of a wargaming website, not the National Debate Championships.
So we give a bit of leeway at times with phrasing, we don't expect people to have technical paper precision or whatever.

And I actually agree with that principle. But I have been temp-banned in the past for things that were very similar in nature*, and in some of those cases it was exactly that: a disposable piece of conversation where I didn't double-check every word to make sure it couldn't be taken the wrong way. And when I tried to explain to the moderator responsible for the ban that I hadn't meant it that way I received little more than a "that's nice, you're still banned" in response.

*One particularly memorable incident involved an almost-identical "because people suck" response in a political debate, where the justification for the ban was "generalizing about conservatives". Why? Because I hadn't paid enough attention to an earlier quote saying "conservatives" vs. "some conservatives" and added in an explicit note that I was only referring to a particular group of people who did something wrong, not conservatives in general. I tried explaining this and got absolutely nowhere with it.

...that might be a little bit of a stretch for us to deal with but we'll crack on with it and see what happens alright ?

You can laugh at that interpretation I guess, but the point I was trying to make there is that the issue I was raising here is not just one particular post taken in isolation, it's one post that follows a broader trend of something I disagree with. I'm not just nitpicking one post and trying to get someone banned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:
Personally, I think that such claims shouldn't receive moderator action either way and should be allowed to stand or fall based on public debate.

But you can't have any public debate over "people who believe in {religion} are stupid" because "stupid" is an insult with little or no factual content behind it. All you can do is argue back and forth, probably with increasingly hostile insults exchanged, until the thread is eventually locked. And, aside from any principles about "you should be nice to people", I think it should be pretty obvious why such an exchange is not desirable from a forum moderation point of view.

Now, contrast this with a statement like "Scientology's beliefs are not plausible and have no evidence to support them", which can be a subject of debate and should be allowed even if people disagree very strongly with it.

Peregrin wrote:But you can't have any public debate over "people who believe in {religion} are stupid" because "stupid" is an insult with little or no factual content behind it. All you can do is argue back and forth, probably with increasingly hostile insults exchanged, until the thread is eventually locked. And, aside from any principles about "you should be nice to people", I think it should be pretty obvious why such an exchange is not desirable from a forum moderation point of view.

"People who believe in scientology are stupid" is an alleged factual claim. That claim can be understood in a variety of ways:

1. "People who believe in scientology are stupid" could mean that the adherents of scientology are generally not well educated. This claim can be supported or weakened by appeals to facts/statistics.

2. "People who believe in scientology are stupid" could mean that adherents of scientology have low IQs. This claim can be supported or weakened by appeals to facts/statistics.

3. "People who believe in scientology are stupid" could mean that the doctrines of scientology are so inherently absurd and repulsive to "common sense," so to speak, that it would take a very gullible and dim-witted person to believe them. This can be supported or weakened by a consideration of the actual doctrines in question.

4. "People who believe in scientology are stupid" could even mean that adherents of scientology also have a tendency to believe in other outlandish, ridiculous things. This claim can be supported or weakened by appeals to facts/statistics.

Likewise, my claim that Muslims cannot be trusted due to their belief in taqiya can easily be disproven (if the claim is false) by:

1. Showing that Muslims do not believe in taqiya.
2. Showing that a belief in taqiya does not entail a "right" to lie in the case in question.

The mark of a well educated and liberal minded person (moderator or otherwise) is to promote reasoned and civil argumentation one way or the other.

The mark of a poorly educated, dim-witted and closed minded person is to say "BOO! THAT OFFENDS ME! JUST SHUT UP ALREADY!!!"

Imho, moderators of all varieties should strive for the former, not the latter.

Edit:

I will say this. People like David Hume, John Stewart Mill, etc. would be positively repulsed by the tendencies of certain "liberal" minded people today. Freedom of speech and letting arguments rest or fall on their own merits was kind of a big thing for Mill. Not personally a fan of Mill myself, nor of Hume. But certain people probably are who should be concerned at their own close-minded tribalistic censorship tendencies.

Traditio wrote:
The mark of a well educated and liberal minded person (moderator or otherwise) is to promote reasoned and civil argumentation one way or the other.

The mark of a poorly educated, dim-witted and closed minded person is to say "BOO! THAT OFFENDS ME! JUST SHUT UP ALREADY!!!"

Because stupid people exist.

So, how is this not a poorly educated response?
Doesn't exactly seem reasoned or civil when the basic premise of it is insulting and inflammatory.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:So, how is this not a poorly educated response?
Doesn't exactly seem reasoned or civil when the basic premise of it is insulting and inflammatory.

That wasn't the whole of the response, though. The posting then goes on to detail just how and why scientology is ridiculous and repulsive to anyone who isn't "stupid," however you want to understand the term. I quote the initial response:

"Because stupid people exist. That's really the answer for Scientology, and FSM was created as a joke. The whole Jedi thing even started as kind of a light tongue-in-cheek idea (in the real world, not SW), but with the exception of moving things with the mind or controlling others, the belief structure is almost the same as Christianity; so it moved past its good-humored origins. Scientology and FSM have not moved past their origins.

What next? We find out that Xenu and FSM are the parents of Cthulhu. Give me a break."

Again, I fully agree that this posting should receive a warning given the moderator standards that seem to be in effect.

That said, I think that the moderator standards currently in effect are ridiculous and repugnant to any well educated, cultured Western person.

The way that I see it, we can express the above syllogistically:

1. Whoever believes in a "religious" system, or else, even recognizes such a thing as a "religious system," which derives from science fiction (and was not originally intended to be legitimate religious expression) is stupid.
2. Scientologists are such believers.
3. Therefore, scientologists (and anyone else who thinks that it's a legitimate religion) are stupid.

You may very well disagree with the argument, but the appropriate response to this is to disagree with premises 1 or 2 and present counter-evidence to support your disagreement (presupposing the argument is bad).

The appropriate response to this is NOT to see the conclusion and start crying for political correctness nazi/moderator mommy, insisting that you be provided with free blowing bubbles for your "safe space."

The entire opening premise I see as "People are so stupid to believe something I don't see as rational." Which sounds REALLY offensive.

Again, is it really a person's place to criticise another person for their beliefs, whether those beliefs are valid in your eyes or not? Just let people believe what they want, so long as it's not hurting anyone else.

I'm not sure if the "safe space" comment is meant to pertain to me, but I'll treat it with the contempt it deserves.

Traditio wrote:
That said, I think that the moderator standards currently in effect are ridiculous and repugnant to any well educated, cultured Western person.

See, it's statements like these, with unnecessary implied slights and insults, that are the type that provoke other users. It really doesn't matter what you type after them - you've set the tone in such a way that it's clear if someone doesn't agree exactly with you, they must be poorly educated and uncultured.

You're not in a public forum; you're not entitled to a soapbox. You're in Yakface's & Legoburner's living room, where they've invited you in to discuss toy soldiers, and maybe some other topics of mutual interest with other users. All they ask is that you follow a few simple rules, such as "Be Polite." And no, there is no bright-line test for politeness, so it's best to err on the side of not dismissing anyone with a different opinion using prejudicial terms.

edit: And yes, Rule #1 applies in conversations about Rule #1. It's very meta.

 Janthkin wrote:
edit: And yes, Rule #1 applies in conversations about Rule #1. It's very meta.

QFT.

And yes, quite meta indeed.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The entire opening premise I see as "People are so stupid to believe something I don't see as rational." Which sounds REALLY offensive.

Again, is it really a person's place to criticise another person for their beliefs, whether those beliefs are valid in your eyes or not? Just let people believe what they want, so long as it's not hurting anyone else.

I wish to note the following:

1. There is no substantial sense in which it "hurts" you or anyone else for the person mentioned in the OP to express his opinion. Therefore, by your own reasoning, you should "just let" him "believe whatever" he wants, since it doesn't hurt you one way or the other. You should feel yourself to be at perfect liberty to ignore him rather than calling for the political correctness Nazis to impose your own personal standard of politeness.

2. The fact that something sounds offensive to you doesn't in and of itself make it offensive. Perhaps instead of hitting the "report" button, you should seriously ask yourself WHY you consider the sentiment in question offensive.

Do you think that it's false? Either you do or you don't.

If you don't think that it's false, then why should the truth strike you as offensive?

If you think that it's false, then again, we are back to my original point: you should be engaging in refutation, not crying for moderator mommy. In fact, you should even see yourself as performing a SERVICE for the person mentioned in the OP, since you clearly think that he is ignorant of the truth and deluded by falsity. You should be presenting sound argumentation as a remedy for his ignorance, if, indeed, he is ignorant.

Unless, of course, you are simply incapable of refuting the thing in question, at which point, you should reflect on your own reasons for thinking that the proposition in question is false.

3. Again, the sheer relativism that you express is self-refuting. "Everyone should be able to believe whatever they want without being called out for it, having their intelligence put into question or having arguments made against them." Well, the person in the OP expressed such a belief.

I also wish to note how such an opinion is ultimately destructive of and undermines all possibility of rational debate.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Janthkin wrote:

Traditio wrote:
That said, I think that the moderator standards currently in effect are ridiculous and repugnant to any well educated, cultured Western person.

See, it's statements like these, with unnecessary implied slights and insults, that are the type that provoke other users. It really doesn't matter what you type after them - you've set the tone in such a way that it's clear if someone doesn't agree exactly with you, they must be poorly educated and uncultured.

If you were to conduct a poll among, say, all tenured professors in academia, how many of them do you think would be in favor of censorship?

Edit:

All they ask is that you follow a few simple rules, such as "Be Polite." And no, there is no bright-line test for politeness

If there's no "bright-line test" for it, then it's not a "simple rule." It's a thinly veiled excuse to censor dissident opinions.

I'm sure that people like Pinochet, Stalin and Mussolini had plenty of such "simple rules."

Edit: This is in response to Peregrine, I was ninja'ed a few times while typing

Unfortunately, you're not going to be able to determine a hard line for things like this - like red has stated, it's going to depend on context. A lot of the things being discussed here, both the quote from the OP and your own comments that red mentioned, are borderline but were left unmoderated despite alerts. As such, they are by their very nature close to the line and may or may not result in consequences.

The only way to be sure about something like this, is just not to post in this borderline fashion. So, if you ask "In what context can I call an idea stupid and not be warned for it?". We really cannot give you an answer - it's going to depend on the situation. The safest thing, is to avoid making that kind of statement altogether - make your point in a positive way, or agree to disagree with another poster rather than attacking their view.

As red also mentioned, the OT forum really is just a small part of the site and not the main focus. Because such hotly contested issues are discussed there, it results in a much larger percentage of warnings than other parts of the site. I think of it kind of like walking into an unruly bar... there's every possibility you'll get dragged into something you shouldn't and get in trouble, even if your intentions upon entering were good. Maybe it's in response to an insult to someone else, maybe it's just bad luck - but you're running a risk just by setting foot in the place.

Similarly, when hotly debating religion, politics, or any other hot button issue, the chance of things getting out of hand is much higher than when talking about the new Imperial Guard release. So, if you're not comfortable with avoiding borderline commentary like discussed above, but really want to avoid the possibility of a warning - the best thing would be to avoid the area altogether. We've actually had users ask for self OT bans for just this reason!

I know this isn't likely the answer you were looking for... but there really isn't a hard line we can give, and you have to moderate your own posts and tone and realize that really any of the quotes discussed in this thread could result in a warning, depending on the context. But for reference, while the OT generates more warnings by far than any other area of the site, it ALSO generates way more alerts - and if we applied a warning for each one, we'd probably just have to shut the area down. So, there is going to be a grey area, unfortunately - and what you've seen in this thread is about as clear as we can explain what that area is.

Traditio wrote:


I'm sure that people like Pinochet, Stalin and Mussolini had plenty of such "simple rules."

Comparing users to those individuals is hardly the basis of polite discussion...

Traditio wrote:
Imho, moderators of all varieties should strive for the former, not the latter.

I think you have misunderstood the role of the moderators on a site like this.

We're not here to be impartial adjudicators, or defenders of free speech. We're here to maintain some semblance of order on a forum dedicated to discussing games of toy soldiers.

We have no obligation to allow any given point of view to be aired on this site. The fact that the OT forum exists at all is a courtesy extended by the site's owners, to allow gamers to share and discuss views on topics other than gaming with other gamers. But as a privately-owned webspace, there is no requirement that any and all opinions be allowed, nor for people to be able to express their views in any manner that they see fit.

We do make an effort to not show undue favouratism to our own points of view, because that's better for building a community. You may well disagree with where we choose to draw the line but, ultimately, that line is drawn by the site's administrators, not by philosophers who died over a century ago.

Traditio wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
The entire opening premise I see as "People are so stupid to believe something I don't see as rational." Which sounds REALLY offensive.

Again, is it really a person's place to criticise another person for their beliefs, whether those beliefs are valid in your eyes or not? Just let people believe what they want, so long as it's not hurting anyone else.

I wish to note the following:

1. There is no substantial since in which it "hurts" you or anyone else for the person mentioned in the OP to express his opinion. Therefore, by your own reasoning, you should "just let" him "believe whatever" he wants, since it doesn't hurt you one way or the other. You should feel yourself to be at perfect liberty to ignore him rather than calling for the political correctness Nazis to impose your own personal standard of politeness.

2. The fact that something sounds offensive to you doesn't in and of itself make it offensive. Perhaps instead of hitting the "report" button, you should seriously ask yourself WHY you consider the sentiment in question offensive.

Do you think that it's false? Either you do or you don't.

If you don't think that it's false, then why should the truth strike you as offensive?

If you think that it's false, then again, we are back to my original point: you should be engaging in refutation, not crying for moderator mommy. In fact, you should even see yourself as performing a SERVICE for the person mentioned in the OP, since you clearly think that he is ignorant of the truth and deluded by falsity. You should be presenting sound argumentation as a remedy for his ignorance, if, indeed, he is ignorant.

Unless, of course, you are simply incapable of refuting the thing in question, at which point, you should reflect on your own reasons for thinking that the proposition in question is false.

3. Again, the sheer relativism that you express is self-refuting. "Everyone should be able to believe whatever they want without being called out for it, having their intelligence put into question or having arguments made against them." Well, the person in the OP expressed such a belief.

1. Oh, correct. I am in no way hurt. But plenty of others (ie, possibly the OP of this thread) could be. And that premise opens up a whole other can of worms which would derail this far more than it already has been.

2. Putting the "moderator mommy" quote aside, I have not hit report. Interesting assumption. If am I mistaken in how I have interpreted their tone, I do apologise, but the very fact that people ARE offended makes it true.
At this point, I did lose all coherence of your point, I'll be honest, so please forgive me if I can't answer it.

3. The OP of this thread seems to be expressing is a question. Not a statement. There's a difference.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Janthkin wrote:

Traditio wrote:
That said, I think that the moderator standards currently in effect are ridiculous and repugnant to any well educated, cultured Western person.

See, it's statements like these, with unnecessary implied slights and insults, that are the type that provoke other users. It really doesn't matter what you type after them - you've set the tone in such a way that it's clear if someone doesn't agree exactly with you, they must be poorly educated and uncultured.

If you were to conduct a poll among, say, all tenured professors in academia, how many of them do you think would be in favor of censorship?

I have no idea how that is relevant. Would you care to explain that, please?

All they ask is that you follow a few simple rules, such as "Be Polite." And no, there is no bright-line test for politeness

If there's no "bright-line test" for it, then it's not a "simple rule." It's a thinly veiled excuse to censor dissident opinions.

If you don't like it, you know exactly what you can do. No-one's forcing you.

(And just to make sure - no, that is not an insult or a threat.)

 insaniak wrote:

Traditio wrote:
Imho, moderators of all varieties should strive for the former, not the latter.

I think you have misunderstood the role of the moderators on a site like this.

We're not here to be impartial adjudicators, or defenders of free speech. We're here to maintain some semblance of order on a forum dedicated to discussing games of toy soldiers.

We have no obligation to allow any given point of view to be aired on this site. The fact that the OT forum exists at all is a courtesy extended by the site's owners, to allow gamers to share and discuss views on topics other than gaming with other gamers. But as a privately-owned webspace, there is no requirement that any and all opinions be allowed, nor for people to be able to express their views in any manner that they see fit.

We do make an effort to not show undue favouratism to our own points of view, because that's better for building a community. You may well disagree with where we choose to draw the line but, ultimately, that line is drawn by the site's administrators, not by philosophers who died over a century ago.

Then at the very least, you should be open about it. In the rules section of the OT forum, there should be bright red letters:

NON-RELATIVISTS AND CONSERVATIVES NEED NOT ENTER!

Traditio wrote:
Then at the very least, you should be open about it. In the rules section of the OT forum, there should be bright red letters:

NON-RELATIVISTS AND CONSERVATIVES NEED NOT ENTER!

Plenty of people seem to manage to conduct discussion in the OT forum without breaking the site's rules. That's far less to do with their point of view than it is to do with how they choose to express it.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:1. Oh, correct. I am in no way hurt. But plenty of others (ie, possibly the OP of this thread) could be. And that premise opens up a whole other can of worms which would derail this far more than it already has been.

Absolutely nobody is hurt by it in any substantial sense. Even if a scientologist were reading, i would propose the same alternatives:

Do you think the proposition is true or false?

If it's false, why do you think it's false? Present arguments.

Why? Because I am a highly educated, (at least semi) cultured Westerner. Not a chinese communist.

2. Putting the "moderator mommy" quote aside, I have not hit report. Interesting assumption. If am I mistaken in how I have interpreted their tone, I do apologise, but the very fact that people ARE offended makes it true.

People get offended by anything and everything. I could say that I enjoy watching Fox news, and somewhere, somebody would be incredibly ticked off and offended.

At this point, I did lose all coherence of your point, I'll be honest, so please forgive me if I can't answer it.

Why do you think it's offensive?

Simply because people get offended? That pushes the question back: Why are they offended?

In the end, you must admit one of two things:

It's offensive and false.

It's offensive and true.

But the latter is hardly objectionable.

Sometimes, reality is offensive. Liberals just need to deal with it.

3. The OP of this thread seems to be expressing is a question. Not a statement. There's a difference.

I was referring to the "scientologists are stupid" bit. By your own reasoning, since nobody should be called out or challenged based on their sincere beliefs...

I have no idea how that is relevant. Would you care to explain that, please?

I made a factual claim. Censorship is repugnant to well educated, cultured Westerners.

The moderator took issue with that claim.

Ok. Then let's take the best educated, most cultured westerners and see what they feel about censorship.

What do you think the results would be?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:Plenty of people seem to manage to conduct discussion in the OT forum without breaking the site's rules. That's far less to do with their point of view than it is to do with how they choose to express it.

Ok.

How many trump supporters are currently in good standing in the OT forum?

Fact is, "without breaking the site's rules" is a thinly veiled code phrase for "without expressing opinions controversial in our estimation."

The OT forum isn't a place for actual discussion. It's a place for a select group of people to pat each other on the back.

Traditio wrote:

I made a factual claim. Censorship is repugnant to well educated, cultured Westerners.

No, you didn't. You made the claim that the 'moderator standards' on this site are repugnant to 'educated, cultured Westerners'.

Whatever your intention with this statement, the end result is that people reading it will take it as you stating that anyone who disagrees with you is uneducated and uncultured. It's difficult to read that as anything other than a deliberately insulting statement towards anyone who doesn't share your viewpoint.

Ok. Then let's take the best educated, most cultured westerners and see what they feel about censorship.

What do you think the results would be?

Maybe before we do that, you can explain how it's relevant to a privately owned webspace that has the primary purpose of discussing games of toy soldiers.


Dakka's administration is not limiting your right to the free speeches. We're asking you to show some restraint when exercising that right in yakface and legoburner's house. If you really feel the need to wax lyrical in ways that the site's administrators deem unacceptable, there is a whole huge, wide internet out there, some of it actually dedicated to political and religious discussion where you can do so.


Again, Dakka's OT section is a courtesy that exists so long as people choose to not abuse it.

How many trump supporters are currently in good standing in the OT forum?

I have no idea. How do you define 'good standing'?

Fact is, "without breaking the site's rules" is a thinly veiled code phrase for "without expressing opinions controversial in our estimation."

No, it isn't, and the fact that you think so suggests that you've never actually spent any serious amount of time there.

Open any of the various political, religious or gun-related threads in the OT forum and you will see a massive range of different points of view. That's not a problem. The problem only arises when people choose to express their opinions in a way that is inappropriate.

insaniak wrote:No, you didn't. You made the claim that the 'moderator standards' on this site are repugnant to 'educated, cultured Westerners'.

I.e., the use of extremely vague, seemingly innocuous rules as a thinly veiled guise for censorship.

See, this is another problem that I have with the mentality of a lot of people on this site.

Why the leap to "I'm offended!!!! BOOO!" Why not simply ask me what I meant?

Whatever your intention with this statement, the end result is that people reading it will take it as you stating that anyone who disagrees with you is uneducated and uncultured.

And my advice to these people is to grow thicker skin; furthermore, instead of jumping to conclusions about what I meant, if it's unclear what I've meant, perhaps the best solution is simply to ask me what I meant.

Maybe before we do that, you can explain how it's relevant to a privately owned webspace that has the primary purpose of discussing games of toy soldiers.

Dakka's administration is not limiting your right to the free speeches. We're asking you to show some restraint when exercising that right in yakface and legoburner's house. If you really feel the need to wax lyrical in ways that the site's administrators deem unacceptable, there is a whole huge, wide internet out there, some of it actually dedicated to political and religious discussion where you can do so.

Again, Dakka's OT section is a courtesy that exists so long as people choose to not abuse it.

My problem is with this notion of "abuse." The simple fact is that there is an OT forum and political discussion is permitted in that forum. The determination of what constitutes "abusing" it presupposes a liberal, politically correct mindset. If I have to practically apologize for expressing an unpopular opinion, then what you are saying, in effect, is that persons who have those opinions are, for all intents and purposes, personae non gratae.

Again, I wish to reiterate this simple fact. Motyak actually had the audacity to administer an in-thread warning for the following line of discussion:

Him. Would you change your opinion if I told you that I am a Muslim and am a proud American?
Me: No. Muslims believe in Taqiya. As such, they aren't to be trusted when saying such things. They could feel as though they have a right to lie.

That was deemed impolite. Paint that however you want, but by all conservative standards, that's positively ridiculous.

I have no idea. How do you define 'good standing'?

Have been regularly posting there for at least a month, have regularly expressed controversial views which match the opinions of Donald Trump, and have not received even a single in thread warning (or equivalent) thus far.

Fact is, "without breaking the site's rules" is a thinly veiled code phrase for "without expressing opinions controversial in our estimation."
No, it isn't, and the fact that you think so suggests that you've never actually spent any serious amount of time there.

Open any of the various political, religious or gun-related threads in the OT forum and you will see a massive range of different points of view. That's not a problem. The problem only arises when people choose to express their opinions in a way that is inappropriate.

Again, that's code phrase for "expressing dissident views."

How precisely should I have phrased my reply to the alleged Muslim, while in no way altering the content of that reply?

Traditio wrote:Because I am a highly educated, (at least semi) cultured Westerner.

I'm not sure your high education means a whole lot when you behave in a rude manner. I would regard many of your comments and topics as inflammatory and I don't have the thinnest skin. As a Mod said above, we are in someone else's website and are expected to follow their rules. They picked the Mods and the Mods enforce the rules. If you are complaining about the fascist Mods so much, why don't you leave?

Personally, I have always felt like I am able to make the most idiotic statement and share whatever offensive thought comes to my mind.

Of course I am able to make those points without breaking Rule 1, so there's that.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Traditio wrote:Because I am a highly educated, (at least semi) cultured Westerner.

I'm not sure your high education means a whole lot when you behave in a rude manner.

"Rude" is relative.

Most of the things that I've said would be considered perfectly common place in a far right conservative setting.

Personally, I think that a lot of the things that have been said to me are rude, which the mods apparently think are just fine.

I would regard many of your comments and topics as inflammatory and I don't have the thinnest skin. As a Mod said above, we are in someone else's website and are expected to follow their rules. They picked the Mods and the Mods enforce the rules. If you are complaining about the fascist Mods so much, why don't you leave?

Because those rules are ambiguous. Again, if they simply want to ban the expression of conservative points of view, then by all means, they are entitled, I suppose, to do that. But at least they should be up front about it.