Policy The Jedi Council Forum Rules Have Been Revised

Cryogenic - I've been on this board a long time, and I haven't seen too many religious zealots. If I understand you correctly, that's what you're worried about, right? From what I've seen, most people on this board are pretty chill about religion. Sometimes it comes up, and sometimes you'll get people mention their personal beliefs or say "god bless" or some other comment pertaining to their religious standing, but it's not too common and usually something really low-key. I mean yeah if you're not from that person's religion, it sounds sort of "weird", but part of being in a globalized society is learning how to deal with other cultures. Now if someone's harassing you and in your face all the time about why you don't worship god XYZ, then yeah, you have cause to complain because they're not respecting you at all. Then you go to the mods.

But honestly, we have more spambots here than crazy religious zealots. They're really few and far between.

 

"Of course you hate gays, you're a Christian" = Problematic.
"Of course, I expect misogyny from you, you're a Muslim" = Also a bit whiffy.
"Issues with the ways in which SWC/PT/Spinoff mods and Muslims view women..." = acceptable.

Want to cuddle now it's resolved, Cryogenic?

 

Cryogenic I didn't recognize your username at all until you posted in this thread. So I went through your post history and you don't seem to ever post in Community. This is kind of relevant because generally any kind of discussion with regards to religion (including critiquing religion) occurs in that subforum. I guess I'm wondering why you feel so strongly against the policy when it seems like you don't get involved in those kinds of discussions to begin with. You're coming across as if your right to criticize religion is gone but....you weren't even doing that in the first place (until now).

 

G-d, this thread makes me so glad I'm not still a mod.

Please feel free to criticize me for not spelling out G-d fully now.

 

actually nevermind,

won't bother

 

Guys I don't think anyone's given appropriate consideration to the fact that Ramza used the word zeitgeist as part of a gentle but firm correction.

 

Anakinfan: wouldn't bashing feminism fall under the sexism policy though? got to admit I haven't kept tabs on the thread.

Ender: fair point.

 

In all fairness to Ramza, I will happily admit they have been pretty decent with me. Didn't quite like their first post at the end for accusing me of pursuing a pet sociopolitical agenda, but they seem to have been pretty straight-down-the-line apart from that initial (and, in my opinion, unwarranted) terseness.

That's all fair and fine. Despite a view that seems to have formed, I don't spend much time here going over religion or railing against a particular creed. Most of my posts are squarely in either the "Prequel Trilogy" or "Saga" forums.

Do I slip in some snips from time-to-time? Do I upbraid people for religious beliefs when I catch a whiff (and sometimes more than a whiff) of them being used to stifle discussion? Yes and yes. It's not how I really choose to distinguish myself or engage with others on this board, 99% of the time, however.

This next part was originally in answer to Ramza and meant as a summary of my posts here; but since I've been asked directly, I'll now frame it as my response to the following:

It's long, long, looooooooooooooong, but it's the best and fullest explanation I can offer..............

I said what I said here because I've been a member of the TFN community, off and on, for almost ten full years. And I think religious obfuscation and religious apologism have grown in that time; even as that is counter-posed with growing atheistic and irreligious trends.

I held fire at first, but then decided that I didn't want it on my conscience that I said nothing about this. Even though I knew I would be launched upon and glibly accused of overreacting. These freedoms are important; and there are lots of people trying, one way or another, to stamp them out.

Of course, this is just a Star Wars board, and it might be reasonably said that I've either lost the plot, or desperately about to. But that's also why I piped up. Really, if one is to have a social conscience, you should speak up about any infraction of civil rights, any attempt to stymie free speech and free expression; especially where you often choose to hang your hat. Maybe that's just my own standard, though.

Discussing Star Wars is what gives me the most pleasure and satisfaction here. I don't really go in social threads or senate threads or anything of that nature very much, no. Maybe a couple of dozen times. And I commend you for doing some research! (Even if you just checked back with a few brief mouse clicks). But don't think I won't defend the right of others to free and unfettered speech; or as free and unfettered as I feel it reasonably ought to be. Balance in everything, but with a weighting to things that ultimately confer balance, not a passive acceptance of those that seek (or could be exploited) to disrupt and remove it.

Other people can pick at me, make jokes, laugh, and all the rest. And that's kinda right. Mockery should always exist. I probably have veered wildly to one side on this one. After all, this is just one tiny place, meant for discussing space wizard movies, right? I'd prefer to get back to them for myself. I've said my piece and put the argument as strongly as I can make it. Others can take it in their own direction; and hopefully remember what I said if they find the walls closing in on them and my words become more prescient than I hope they are.

Yeah, guys. Gotta be able to laugh at myself, too. What I've said is at least a little bit ridiculous. I know that. My bloviation is a little extreme and probably irrelevant, even unhelpful. It's a rule that makes more sense than not. Who wants to be on the end of discrimination; who wants to see others suffering it? Not I.

I have to say, though, that it is a little bit ironic to see religion wedged in there, not least because it has often stoked the fires (quite literally in some cases) and been the cause of enmity and hatred to individuals and groups based on the other categories of hate legislated against. Is anyone going to deny the terrible homophobia of the monotheisms? The persecution of other religions (and rival sects), the repressive attitudes to women?

It makes my blood run cold that a major source of hatred and violence is still given a big pass in modern society. We have computers, the Internet, we've split the atom, mapped the human genome, landed on the moon and mounted successful missions to Mars, and people still retreat into ancient literature (normally inculcated into them in childhood) to define their attitude to gays and women. The penalty for blasphemy and apostasy in all Islamic countries (those with sharia law) is death.

People in the west are constantly threatened and muzzled by religious interests who want them to permanently remain silent; and who would be imprisoned or killed if religious law (monotheistic law) replaced secular law. Please be careful of what it is you're defending here. Even very basic, seemingly-innocuous rules like these, on tiny forums like this one, can set a precedent and help veil and spread tyranny and violence -- however small.

But I'm probably getting too serious again. The west is good, in part, because of overtures like this. We don't want to see people attacked and maligned. Minorities are (ostensibly) protected and everyone is (theoretically) equal under the law. That is not to be scoffed at. It's hard-won progress and essential if progress is to continue. But rules can be abused.

I sometimes wonder, if the idea is to treat people decently, why concoct such rules at all? Why not keep it dead simple and assert that hateful, discriminatory language isn't allowed? Too much specificity can have a gagging effect. People can point to the bits they like and claim they are within their rights to cut someone else down, when they're actually doing it for murky reasons. Problems can arise so easily with injunctions like this. "See? You can't bash my faith!" Which is different to bashing a person, but this rule brings the two in very close alignment.

That's about all, really. I've probably said much too much, and made a mountain out of this, when it's really quite simple. But no-one else seemed to want to make the case -- so why not have one person express it in the strongest possible terms? I was much more relaxed about religion ten years ago, when I joined. I don't feel I can be anymore, unfortunately. I've learned too much. The burden of knowledge is, of course, the loss of innocence, and the compulsion to act. Even though one may not always be acting prudently. I accept that I am probably in error here. And I'll take that taint. At least I've said something. People really need to be on their guard about things like this, in my opinion. But now..... back to fun stuff.

 

Generally; no unless there was an attempt to hand-in-hand attacks on feminism with attacks on women. There are women, on all sides of politics, who find the term problematic and so there is scope for an intellectual debate on an idea. Of course there is.

But there's bashing an idea and using that as a vehicle to promote an unhealthy misogynist agenda and that's why the rules are open ended enough to allow mods to act.

 

You're right, I haven't really written a masterpiece. In fact I'm not even working on one. But carry on taking things literally. It really stings.

I mean, you just come in here with a huge attitude and start writing these epic posts and being really condescending and trying to change the rules that impact Community without having ever really posted there. And literally five minutes of actual reading of Community would have alerted you to the way religion is treated in there, which is critically. And then you're shocked when people attack you. Next time, inform yourself about the issue at hand, be less aggressive, less condescending and be passionate only about things that actually matter to you. The attacks against you will diminish, I assure you.

 

Rogue1-and-a-half, I'm not sure that's constructive. It might be true, but it will lead nowhere positive.

 

So in summary, it's comms, Ender Sai

 

Guys, I'm concerned about my right to advertise in my signature.

 

...and he also gets back up from the team member that seems to be into all the kinds of wrong, pseudo-provocative and annoying. This has been a problem for a while and hadn't it happened, Cryogenic might have not gone on a tirade.

Lacking consistency?

What did I just read? Coming from a society that was multi-religious for centuries and it was only the "good guys" that tore it apart, I am slightly angry whenever people who never experienced one single war in their life make such general assumptions.

Also, this is a large-scale community.

It's always been clear that deaths and suffering of the less privileged people who only live on the west in terms of geography are worth less than deaths of the privileged ones, whom you're so bluntly representing here. You have no right to speak on our behalf, the same way you don't have the right to make the generalization you made about Islam, or any other religion.

...

All of this sounds just like the stereotype "Opinionated male with a large vocabulary: now online!" routine to me and I find it dangerous that somebody can rant as much in a place that's likely full of young, impressionable people. If they take anything from your extreme, privilege-based views, we'll have old world order all over again; as if it wasn't offensive enough that "first world" is a thing once again, long after the actual concept has been buried by changes in the society.

I apologise to the mods and people who understand how human rights, hate speech as opposed to criticism et cetera work.

 

I really want to cut loose from this thread, but this is pathetic...

I don't know which is worse: his open contempt or your passive aggression.

http://boards.theforce.net/pages/terms-of-service/ ->>

TheForce.net Jedi Council Forums Principles of Behavior​

2) Users are expected to conduct themselves in a manner which is respectful to themselves and fellow users at all times.




Would you care to explain where I attacked anyone in my first post.......???

You're pretty repugnant to suggest I deserved to be attacked -- why?


It seems to have escaped your comprehension, but the new rule applies to all boards, not just those you deem credible.


I have also been a member of TFN for almost ten years and have every right to comment on issues that potentially affect myself and fellow posters.


It's also hard not to notice the big banner at the top of the screen, telling everyone, in all forums, to check the amended rules, with a link to this thread.


Yet the moment I comment on it, I'm impinging on the turf of others. My own membership, my own views, count for nothing.


And I'm the one that's trying to change the rules? I am???


So ....... what's this thread about, then???


Frankly, I think a lot of people here are flagrantly territorial, shallow, reactive, and extremely contemptuous of anyone with a different view.


Maybe you're right and there's no point in defending anyone's freedoms. I should leave you to nastily engulf and viciously snipe at each other as much as possible if that's all you want to do; as much as the rules, or their half-hearted enforcement, allow.

 

Why can't I have Darth Vader's clone from The Force Awakens as my avatar?

 

Okay, I don't want to ban anyone, so I'm locking this thread for the night.

 

The short, short version: do you? yes. do you? yes. Good, you're married, kiss.

I mean, this isn't rocket science. This is the whole reason the last part has always been included:

"Finally, use common sense. This is a long list of rules, but they're here for a reason. The nutshell version of the above is "Be nice, don't curse, don't pirate and don't post NSFW material." Not everything that may occur is covered by the rules above, and the staff of the JC will use their own common sense in enforcing both the rules and situations not covered above, but in general -- as long as you follow the rules you should be just fine."

 

Nice work on the rules update! I've been shoveling snow for the past 46 hours so didn't notice the change until just now.

Congrats!

 

Great. The thread has been re-opened.

May I be allowed to defend myself from one final scurrilous attack?

I have no idea what you're talking about. The only "backup" I've received is a single six-word post stating there is a "very fine line" between curtailing hate speech and free speech.

I've otherwise been fighting this battle entirely on my own. Nice attempt to delegitimize me, though.

Offering clarity. "Those with sharia law" meaning where Islam truly reigns.

In other words, a full-blown implementation of Islam -- consistent with what is mandated for believers in the Qur'an and hadith literature -- doesn't lead to liberalism or pluralism, but the precise opposite.

Ever heard of Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Heard about those cartoonists in Paris that were just a few weeks ago massacred?

Even though the west is not subject to Islamic law, it is subject to serious threats -- and actual manifestations -- of violence, by the medieval perversions of Islam and by a significant contingent of its rabid followers.

The western press (supposedly a "free" press: something alien to the Islamic world) has already gagged itself repeatedly for fear of more deaths, more killings, more violence. No major news channel or newspaper republished the Danish cartoons in 2006. History has just repeated itself in 2015.

When the fatwa calling for Rushdie's death was issued in 1989 by the leader of an Islamic state, many figures in the western media actually condemned Rushdie, thereby tacitly supporting the worldwide call for him to be murdered, for money. Rather than defending the basic right of free speech, many chose to throw down with religious outrage, real and perceived, throwing Rushdie -- and freedom of expression -- to the wolves.

These are not minor details. We're already living in the shadow of religious fascism. Here in the west. The west certainly has its problems, and you seem to think I'm treating it as some megalithic embodiment of "good", when what I'm saying is that modern, secular values have taken root most firmly in the west and should be vigorously defended, yet the reach of Islam is so strong that it is profoundly hacking at the root. I can't comment on your situation, but I feel everyone is ultimately threatened by this.

And how was I making any kind of assumption there? I said that people are muzzled in the west (not saying that people in other parts of the world aren't; the opposite, in fact), and it's not a small thing to lose one's right to criticize religion or to openly share material or views that religious people might deem offensive. You're on at me even though I'm the only one unambiguously making the case for the importance of secularism in a world riven by tribal dogmas, religious oppression, and a whole other range of superstitious, dangerous, misleading, atavistic BS.

Largely composed, it seems, of reactionary bigots.

This is just ranting. I have every damn right to make accurate (and even inaccurate) generalizations about Islam and other religions. It's called freedom of speech -- without it, beliefs and ideas can't be criticized or examined, nor can new ones be formulated or meaningfully spread. This is the very right that religious institutions and creeds want to take away, either by removing it by force or through trying to dissuade people by other means (many of which contain the threat of violence and not all of it earthly).

I didn't say I was speaking on "your" behalf, whoever "you" are. Why don't you speak on your behalf and I'll speak on my behalf and the principles I believe in?

All deaths are abhorrent, even though empathy is a difficult subject. You think when I slam religion, I'm NOT thinking of all the insane violence being done in its name around the world?

Interesting way to close your post. All of that is very insulting, culturally ignorant and pseudo-racist, and clearly also quite sexist.

Funny, I thought the stated reason behind the rolling out of this new "hate speech" rule was concerns over sexism, and here you are rounding off with a markedly sexist statement.

Or is it only sexism when it's dished out to women, not men?

 

Cryogenic... this is a thread for discussing rules revisions. I mean, if you want to critique Islam, check out the Theist/Atheist Thunderdome here If you want to discuss Charlie Hebdo, you can do that here

My point is, you are not, at all, being prevented from discussing, or criticizing, any of these things that you seem to think you are being prevented from discussing or criticizing. You're fighting some battle that you've created in your own head. The reactions that you're receiving are largely because you've chosen the strangest of places to have these discussions and believe that you are not allowed to have these discussions, while threads exist specifically for these discussions. Do you understand?

 

Yeah..you could have been a contender in the Senate... but I think this whole 'debate' is just going around in circles now.