Meanwhile in London: Beheading in broad daylight

[Drowsy Emperor]

You might as well convene the General Assembly of the UN to vote on it.

[TrashMan]

 

But you are in the business of telling people what they are allowed to do or think.  You do so by telling those people that they "don't get to disallow and vilify a symbol just because [they] don't like it."

 

Saying that you don't want the association "forced on you" is irrelevant.  Decorating your house with Swastikas is more than likely going to illicit a reaction.  People may even tell you what that reaction is, just as you're sharing your reaction to people doing things that you disagree with.

 

Symbols exist within a context.  As Zoraptor points out, it's less of an issue in Asia than it is in Europe and North America.  You can choose to ignore that context if you like, but you're effectively telling other people that they can't share their displeasure towards your thoughts and intents, all the while you share your own displeasure at their thoughts.

 

 

NO.

Because there is difference in voicing displeasure and actively trying to force someone to do something.

 

I'm not telling them what they are allowed to think or do - as long as they are not trying to change me or my tastes/likes or thoughts.

 

Think whatever you like. Say whatever you like. But don't force it on others.

[TrashMan]

 

I'm not quite sure where you sat on school, that they taught that. But in the Netherlands, eductation is a lot better.

And yes, I still stand by my point that Christianity caused it. 

There were no crusades? To teach the infidels the meaning of Christ or perish? Ancient legendary cities weren't completely demolished/razed during this.

That didn't happen, right?

 

Wrong. It did.

And the muslims has a hard time with the Mongols at the same time as the European Christian crusaders fought at them. They got pretty close to wiping them out.

That's just on the edge of extermination to me...

 

 

You might want to study exactly WHY the crusades were started in the first place. You know..the socio-political and economical situation. Things like causes and consueqences.

Do they teach you to focus on that in history (to actually learn from it) or do you just learn dates and events?

 

I'll give you a little hint: 4 christian kingdoms lost. 5th calling for aid. Europe and western civilization threatened.

[TrashMan]

 

Wow, you are HARDCORE!!! You don't care if people like you, but next time say it in a way so that people might actually believe you ?

 

 

 

Depends on the people. No, I don't care if you like me. Nor do I care if you belive me or not.

 

[Zoraptor]

But you are in the business of telling people what they are allowed to do or think.  You do so by telling those people that they "don't get to disallow and vilify a symbol just because [they] don't like it."

There are two different (and significantly so) concepts there though. I'd strongly disagree with banning symbols but equally strongly disagree with banning dissent on the use of those symbols inappropriately. Most people who'd actually want to walk down the street wearing/ carrying swastikas are pathetic individuals whose entire identity and sense of self worth rests on the accident of their birth, and people should be free to tell them that. On the other hand, they should also be free to broadcast their stupidity to the world. People do not have the right not to be offended and for good reason- there's always something that offends someone and if you're going to ban symbols because they offend you're going to end up with a monumental list of banned stuff.

 

And I'm really rather tempted to change my avatar to some Jain symbology, because Jains are cool.

[Hurlshort]

 

 

Wow, you are HARDCORE!!! You don't care if people like you, but next time say it in a way so that people might actually believe you ?

 

 

 

Depends on the people. No, I don't care if you like me. Nor do I care if you belive me or not.

 

 

 

I've never understood why someone would want to join a community just to get people to not like them.  Why waste the time?  I mean we all have our unpleasant moments, but not every post has to be a competition.

[Hurlshort]

 

But you are in the business of telling people what they are allowed to do or think.  You do so by telling those people that they "don't get to disallow and vilify a symbol just because [they] don't like it."

There are two different (and significantly so) concepts there though. I'd strongly disagree with banning symbols but equally strongly disagree with banning dissent on the use of those symbols inappropriately. Most people who'd actually want to walk down the street wearing/ carrying swastikas are pathetic individuals whose entire identity and sense of self worth rests on the accident of their birth, and people should be free to tell them that. On the other hand, they should also be free to broadcast their stupidity to the world. People do not have the right not to be offended and for good reason- there's always something that offends someone and if you're going to ban symbols because they offend you're going to end up with a monumental list of banned stuff.

 

And I'm really rather tempted to change my avatar to some Jain symbology, because Jains are cool.

 

 

I agree fully with this.  

 

But I also get why Germany bans it, they are trying to distance themselves from a terrible chapter in heir history.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

Wow, you are HARDCORE!!! You don't care if people like you, but next time say it in a way so that people might actually believe you ?

 

 

 

Depends on the people. No, I don't care if you like me. Nor do I care if you belive me or not.

 

 

 

I've never understood why someone would want to join a community just to get people to not like them.  Why waste the time?  I mean we all have our unpleasant moments, but not every post has to be a competition.

 

 

That's the complete irony around what Trashman said and why its obviously not true. Human beings are generally gregarious creatures by nature, everyone end of the day  wants to be liked. Unless of you course you are some sort of sociopath. So now take an example of a forum, one of the perfect examples of how people interact. Whether a person admits it or not you want people to enjoy your comments and to be accepted in this virtual community. Its just the way it is, a real misanthrope wouldn't be part of any forum.

 

So whenever anyone says things like " I don't care if anyone likes me " or " I just make comments irrespective of what people think" in almost all cases its not true. And the person is only saying this as some sort of defense mechanism pretending to show indifference as they are feeling sheepish about some sort of bad forum behavior that they have been called out on

 

PS: Trashman this is not directed at you but its a general observation. For the record I do like you

[Malcador]

I'm sure he'll believe that wasn't aimed at him despite all the signs it was, at least take a shot at him and be honest about it. And nothing wrong with joining a 'community' (heh) online to just have people to argue with, really.

[TrashMan]

 

I've never understood why someone would want to join a community just to get people to not like them.  Why waste the time?  I mean we all have our unpleasant moments, but not every post has to be a competition.

 

 

What part of "depends on the people" is it hard to grasp?

 

The level of care about what person X thinks of me depends on the person.

 

My family or friends? I care a lot.

Aquantances?  I care somewhat.

Some random stranger on the internet? Not really.

 

As for "want to be liked" it also depends.

If you comeptley and utterly despise or disrespect someone, them hating you is generally a sing you are doing something right

Edited June 1, 2013 by TrashMan

[Walsingham]

Trashman, I can't really claim to be the world's best online debater - insert mass debating joke here - but it seems pretty logical that if you up and tell your audience that you don't give a flying **** what they think then they'd be more likely to tell you to **** off and stop listening.

 

Either you're debating the point because you care about our opinion or you're simply a timewasting arse.

[TrashMan]

 

 

Trashman, I can't really claim to be the world's best online debater - insert mass debating joke here - but it seems pretty logical that if you up and tell your audience that you don't give a flying **** what they think then they'd be more likely to tell you to **** off and stop listening.

 

Seemed to work for Carmine.

 

Also, it's a fallacy.

Just because I (hypotheticly) don't care what you think still doesn't mean that I don't enjoy a discussion or do not want to educate some people.

 

You are not all people.

You you should correct that last statement by replacing "our oppinion" with "my oppinion".

 

 

Or you know... I might be a "timewasting arse". Which I wouldn't find insulting given that everyone that posts on off-topic is doing exactly that - wasting their time. If oyu weren't bored and had better things do do, why are you posting here?

Edited June 1, 2013 by TrashMan

[Zoraptor]

 

Either you're debating the point because you care about our opinion or you're simply a timewasting arse.

I'd actually suspect that most people on the internet only really care about their own opinions, not other people's. That's both human nature/ why people have opinions in the first place (ie they aren't likely to have opinions they consider wrong because, well..) and the reason why there is very seldom any conversion of opinion from one side to the other.

 

I don't really care about the other side of the argument in this case as I know there's no chance of me being convinced by Bruce or anyone else that banning symbols is a good idea, because so far as I am concerned it just fundamentally isn't. Even if every single person here disagreed I wouldn't be convinced. That doesn't mean that counter opinions are worthless- though they may be in some circumstances- they can give new information and an idea why people think as they do, and you don't have to 'hate' someone just because their opinion differs andor you don't care about their opinion.

[Walsingham]

I fear you have got confused, Zoraptor. There are differences of opinion, and then there is cutting a man's head off in broad daylight. Not much to debate there, at least from the pesrpective of the man who had his head cut off. Or his wife and kids.

[Rostere]

Same goes for word censorship.

Especially on 18+ forums. I see no need for censorship at all. I'm all for freedom of speech - and freedom of speech includes the possiblity of me being offended. I recognize that, but I can deal with it.

In other words...you have the right to be offended. You don't have the right to outright forbid people from offending you.

 

I think you misunderstand the reasons why I sympathize with forum censorship. Originally, I didn't, but I guess such things come with age and experience. There can be very harsh language in some other parts of the web, like for example RPG Codex. The "General Discussion" subforum there used to consist of about 100% racism, communists, porn pictures, outrageous sexism and so on. On the other hand there's an almost total absence of that kind of behaviour here on these boards, even though there must reasonably be an almost 100% overlap regarding common interests between the members of the forums. That is the most relevant example since the boards are otherwise so similar, but I have lots of experience with (too) liberal moderators in other forums as well.

 

I really appreciate the more grown-up civilized tone here, and I've come to think that it is likely the result of moderation and censorship, no matter how much the idealist in me would like it to be otherwise.

 

Like you did earlier, you bring up specific instances of moral issues. Of course I also prefer free speech to not being offended (indeed I think it's rather impossible to offend me in the first place anyway, so that's pretty much a non-question...), but that's really irrelevant here. My reasons for supporting censorship (here on these forums, in some form similar to it's current one) are not moral, but pragmatic. I want a civilized debate and as far as my experiences go, this is better achieved with some censorship.

 

So if you want to reduce it to a utility question (I'll reply to this in advance): yes, for me it appears more useful with a civilized debate than the right to offend someone. But of course, the opportunity is always there for you to come up with a captivating and intellectually challenging discussion centered around genitals, fecal matter and Nazi symbolism. If you do, maybe also the mods will be tempted to lift the censorship.

[Hurlshort]

There is also a lot of room to exercise your freedom of speech and still maintain a form of common decency.  

[alanschu]

NO.

Because there is difference in voicing displeasure and actively trying to force someone to do something.

 

Only in your mind.  Probably because it lets you avoid cognitive dissonance.

 

If your point was purely about letting him know that you disagreed, you would have simply stated your point and left it at that.  Lets look at your original quote:

 

"You don't get to disallow and villify a symbol jsut because you don't like it. Hitler was a bad man. Yes."

 

Someone behaved in a way that you feel is inappropriate.  As such, you're not simply voicing your displeasure... you've stated that he straight up is not allowed to disallow and vilify a symbol simply because he doesn't like it.  In other words, you're telling him how to behave... the very thing that you tell other people that they can't do to you or anyone else.

 

Or, by the contrary, there's a difference between actively "forcing" (your words) someone to behave in a certain way and another person suggesting that attempting to "take back" the swastika isn't something worth the trouble.

 

After all, you snapped on Hurlshot.

 

 

I will, however, gladly recant my position that you are doing the very thing you dislike, if you acknowledge that people on this thread are behaving the same way as you.

 

 

 

 

Think whatever you like. Say whatever you like. But don't force it on others.

 

We both know that's not how human beings work.  You state your perspective for the hopes of convincing other people to adopt your perspective.  I say mine to have you reign it in a little.  You say yours because you think that that is an ideal.  I say mine because I consider my perspective to be ideal.  The same goes for everyone else in this thread.

 

You believe in those ideals, and want others to share them, because you consider them the best ideals.  At best you tolerate ideals that don't directly infringe on your own, but ultimately get defensive against ideals when they conflict with the things you hold dear.  This is being human.  I say that if you are saying that you genuinely don't care what other ideals (ideals... not ideas or things) people believe in, then you're not being entirely honest with yourself.  Because if you didn't care what other people idealized, you wouldn't have bothered sharing your perspective.  Stating that it's just because you enjoy discussion is a way to avoid cognitive dissonance, as there are fundamental paradoxes associated with your ideal (most do, as ideals don't reflect reality).  You speak out against the ideals you don't believe in, because you want yours (which you feel are the best, by virtue of choosing to believe in those ones over others) to become more common.  Why?  Because you consider them the better ideals?  If you didn't, you'd believe in something else.

 

 

See point #5.  This is why we take part "just to enjoy discussions."

 

 

That said, as I'm less inclined to argue simply for the sake of winning as I once was, I'll let the issue die with this post.

Edited June 2, 2013 by alanschu

[Meshugger]

 

Same goes for word censorship.

Especially on 18+ forums. I see no need for censorship at all. I'm all for freedom of speech - and freedom of speech includes the possiblity of me being offended. I recognize that, but I can deal with it.

In other words...you have the right to be offended. You don't have the right to outright forbid people from offending you.

 

I think you misunderstand the reasons why I sympathize with forum censorship. Originally, I didn't, but I guess such things come with age and experience. There can be very harsh language in some other parts of the web, like for example RPG Codex. The "General Discussion" subforum there used to consist of about 100% racism, communists, porn pictures, outrageous sexism and so on. On the other hand there's an almost total absence of that kind of behaviour here on these boards, even though there must reasonably be an almost 100% overlap regarding common interests between the members of the forums. That is the most relevant example since the boards are otherwise so similar, but I have lots of experience with (too) liberal moderators in other forums as well.

 

I really appreciate the more grown-up civilized tone here, and I've come to think that it is likely the result of moderation and censorship, no matter how much the idealist in me would like it to be otherwise.

 

Like you did earlier, you bring up specific instances of moral issues. Of course I also prefer free speech to not being offended (indeed I think it's rather impossible to offend me in the first place anyway, so that's pretty much a non-question...), but that's really irrelevant here. My reasons for supporting censorship (here on these forums, in some form similar to it's current one) are not moral, but pragmatic. I want a civilized debate and as far as my experiences go, this is better achieved with some censorship.

 

So if you want to reduce it to a utility question (I'll reply to this in advance): yes, for me it appears more useful with a civilized debate than the right to offend someone. But of course, the opportunity is always there for you to come up with a captivating and intellectually challenging discussion centered around genitals, fecal matter and Nazi symbolism. If you do, maybe also the mods will be tempted to lift the censorship.

 

 

The sad part about this, is that the are really few places on the internet where there's actual effert to have free speech-forums. RPGCodex is one of them, and there's a swedish one that i visit as well: Flashback. That's about it from the top of my head.

[Meshugger]

alanchu: Do you think that Voltaire was wrong? I get the impression that you think so.

Edited June 2, 2013 by Meshugger

[TrashMan]

 

I think you misunderstand the reasons why I sympathize with forum censorship. Originally, I didn't, but I guess such things come with age and experience. There can be very harsh language in some other parts of the web, like for example RPG Codex. The "General Discussion" subforum there used to consist of about 100% racism, communists, porn pictures, outrageous sexism and so on. On the other hand there's an almost total absence of that kind of behaviour here on these boards, even though there must reasonably be an almost 100% overlap regarding common interests between the members of the forums. That is the most relevant example since the boards are otherwise so similar, but I have lots of experience with (too) liberal moderators in other forums as well.

 

I really appreciate the more grown-up civilized tone here, and I've come to think that it is likely the result of moderation and censorship, no matter how much the idealist in me would like it to be otherwise.

 

I dislike censorship on a general principle and as a RULE.

 

However, internet forus are privately owned, so the owner does gets to say "this is my house, you play by my rules" and put in censorship.

Indeed, some communities are filled with vitirol, but the vitirol doesn't really go away - it's just hidden by censorship.

 

Not to say that I don't like more civilized bored with less outright trolling and insults, but more times than not, the censorship criteria are redicolous.

 

 

 

 

Like you did earlier, you bring up specific instances of moral issues. Of course I also prefer free speech to not being offended (indeed I think it's rather impossible to offend me in the first place anyway, so that's pretty much a non-question...), but that's really irrelevant here. My reasons for supporting censorship (here on these forums, in some form similar to it's current one) are not moral, but pragmatic. I want a civilized debate and as far as my experiences go, this is better achieved with some censorship.

 

So if you want to reduce it to a utility question (I'll reply to this in advance): yes, for me it appears more useful with a civilized debate than the right to offend someone. But of course, the opportunity is always there for you to come up with a captivating and intellectually challenging discussion centered around genitals, fecal matter and Nazi symbolism. If you do, maybe also the mods will be tempted to lift the censorship.

 

See, that depends entirely on what you want out of forums.

 

Some people may just want to say whatever is one their minds. Some just want to commen. Or discuss a move.

Not everyone is out lookingfor a debate.

 

Altouhg I do have to say that words like "civlilized" and "adult" are for me a bit loaded.

[Malcador]

Man, the way you people are going at him you'd think he said something really nasty and rude.

[Hurlshort]

Man, the way you people are going at him you'd think he said something really nasty and rude.

 

Well he did call Bruce spineless.  Or I guess it was spinless.  

 

But then he said it was a hypothetical insult.  

[Malcador]

And that's all it took ? Heh.

[Hurlshort]

And that's all it took ? Heh.

 

It's all about the context.  We were having a pretty interesting conversation about the swastika, and it was out of place to go for a personal dig.  It derailed a nice debate.  Then it turned into a whole "I don't care what you think!" and it got silly.  Seems like a pretty typical day in the WOT to me.  

[Walsingham]

It strikes me as rather ignorant to suggest that rules constraining behaviour simply paper over bad behaviour.

 

I have to ask if you really think that is the case, and if so whether you've been in charge of any groups for any period of time.

 

Mostly conduct in groups is down to personal leadership and example. What the rules do is permit active trimming of poor conduct without that trimming being unfairly applied. They do less to govern the governed and more to govern the governors.

 

And before you ask, I simply got too old to care. Now someone else has to keep me in line rather than the other way around. It's quite liberating.