Policy The Jedi Council Forum Rules Have Been Revised

It was tendentious, sarcastic, intended to marginalize, contained a personal insult about my motives, and is essentially comprised of intellectually injurious, obstructionist strawman statements.

I want that freedom. I also want the freedom to criticize all religious and political ideologies and empirically unsupportable attitudes, beliefs, and maxims.

And I want everyone else to have that very same freedom.

That's what free speech is. If you defend it for one, you defend it for all.

As for Islam, yes, in theory and in practice, I think it's crass and gross, and manifestly not benign. Note how the first respondent immediately tried to downplay its persistent maladies and any contemporary threat it represents to a free, open, and progressive society by implying it has overcome its bloody, repressive past; and that modern adherents do not believe what polls (and often their own statements) actually show they believe.

It is most certainly my view that religion generally fosters intellectual apathy and outright dishonesty. I couldn't even be having this conversation with you in a pro-forma Islamic country, and this comes mere weeks after cartoonists were shot and killed in a modern European, secular country. The noose around the neck of western society is tightened ever more sneakily each time someone attempts to shut another up for criticizing Islam and slaking it as hate speech or (disingenuously) projecting onto them that they're blaming followers for past ills (even if those ills still exist).

They should be free to do that. And I should be free to respond. Provided no-one is being threatened either bodily or with being silenced or banned. Free speech is the only real means of fostering progress and keeping barbarianism and totalitarianism, and various atavisms, subtle and gross, at bay.

 

I don't think you're understanding the difference between free speech and hate speech. We have a thread in the community forum The Theist/Atheist Thunderdome where you can, pretty much criticize and pick apart any and all religions. That falls under free speech. Hate speech would be telling somebody that they're a filthy pig who deserves to die because of their religious affiliation.

Nobody is stopping you from thinking and speaking critically, it's when the thinking moves towards hatred and bigotry when it becomes a problem.

Aaaaaand it's clear that there's still a lot of work to be done with defining hate speech.

 

Well, yes. I agree: that would be hate speech.

Funnily enough, however, such speech is also encoded into several reputedly "holy" books.

But as long as people's right to criticize beliefs won't get trampled on, what I'm objecting to remains redundant.

Maybe heavy-handed moderating decisions in the past (not necessarily over religion, FWIW) have blunted my objectivity on this matter.

I just wanted to stick up for freedom to criticize beliefs, religious or otherwise. Such freedom, to me, is now more precious than it's ever been.

 

No, this is not a place that seeks to stifle critical thinking. I don't know which mod was "heavy-handed" with you about such things, but the Community mods (where such discussions usually take place) are pretty fair and open-minded.

 

Various mods.

And did you not attack Bazinga'd, another mod, back on the previous page?

 

I asked him a question.

 

the problem for me is when "Religios bashing" becomes focus on a thread where it has no need to be mentioned to begin with, usually in the PT threads you get some slight remark against faith, so many times have I seen a thread on say Midichlorians becomes a thread on evolution and those that don't support it are "delusional" or "oh you're one of those".

Have you threads on religious disscussions, pick it apart if it makes you happy for some reason, but I'd rather not see sly remarks brought into threads where it really has no place to begin with. If I wanted to participate in such threads I would.

 

So I have two primary remarks as regards that particular clause:

1. We are not a government organization, we're a private message board. As a private message board we are capable of setting guidelines for what we consider an appropriate means of discourse. I don't want someone calling another user a "filthy papist" or whatever any more than I want someone calling another user a "fag." I do not consider slurs to be a board appropriate means of discourse nor do I consider them necessary for the purposes of criticism, and as I stated in my first post I don't view the hate speech policy as exceeding the intent of our Terms of Service, wherein respect for other users has been codified.

2. I don't appreciate the use of our policies as an excuse - and you are using them as an excuse - to rail on a particular sociopolitical point.

 

Do you always ask questions in that accusatory tone?

That is fair. But what about "filthy commie" or "capitalist pig"? Where is proscription for that kind of slander?

As it stands, it looks a little like religion is being specially protected, above and beyond the protection that other belief-based positions and affiliations get.

Great. Someone else telling me what they think I'm doing.

I know what I'm doing, sir/miss, and it doesn't reduce to what you're egregiously projecting onto me.

What it looks more like what you're saying, to me (though this could be my own projection), is that I'm not really allowed to question or criticize your sacrosanct policies, even when there's a thread specifically set up about them.

How easily people who make an objection to some ingrained rule are maligned. As I've said, as long as people aren't going to be pressured to stop criticizing certain beliefs or threatened with expulsion, my objection remains redundant. I hope it stays that way.

 

Oh my God, you're an insufferable idiot. Do you suck this bad all the time?

Would be an example of what I couldn't say to you even though I wanted to.

 

Thank you, non-insufferable idiot, "Manager Emeritus" ....... "who is writing his masterpiece".

Neat way of circumventing rules you have.

And of upholding the TFN ethos -- like several others in here have shown -- of mods and former mods, leading by example (in a thread about forum rules no less), treating others with basic respect, and refraining from personal attacks.

 

Religious affiliation or lack thereof is generally viewed by individuals as a fundamental aspect of their identity, in a way that political affiliations or economic positions are not. Were there a history of drive by posts insulting users in unrelated topics for their stance on neo-Keynesianism versus Austrian school we would perhaps look into the matter.

No, what I am saying is that, rather than focusing specifically on concerns about how our policies could affect the boards, you're dragging in unrelated grand ideals about the state of "western society" - as though we're not an international board - and a perceived social focus on protecting a specific subsection of the protected class that, ironically, this policy wasn't really written with a mind towards, as most of the issues we see with this concern Christian and Atheist users.

It should.

 

I haven't seen any personal attacks in this thread. The thing that led to this revision of rules, and if you look at the previous rules, no massive revising has been done, was a talk about sexism, and the fact that sexism isn't really mentioned in the TOS or moderated the way other forms of hate speech are. That policy is still being worked on, but it led to a revision of the rules, which I think is a good thing, as it had been quite a while.

Religion is not being protected above anything else. Sexual orientation, race, sex, gender identity, disability, etc are just as equally protected. You seem to be focused on religion, because that's what seems to affect you the most, personally. You clearly have an issue with Islam, and are upset that you can't voice it (except you can, you just can't hurl some slur at any of our Islamic posters).

As for the question I asked Bazinga'd, don't worry about it; it doesn't concern you... thanks.

 

That was not bashing. I simply asked if you had anything constructive to add to this, or any other discussion.

I don't think there's a fine line between freedom of speech and hate speech, and I think Ramza did a good job with clarifying that. Just simply coming in and saying there's a fine line between this and that added nothing to the discussion, and wasn't in the least bit helpful. Giving feedback is not bashing, and that's what I was giving.

 

Discussion of religious issues is still going to be allowed in the appropriate forums and threads, of course. What the new policy is saying is, we are not going to allow anyone to treat anyone else as subhuman because of their religious beliefs, just like we are not going to allow that kind of treatment because of racial, sexual or gender traits. And yes, we consider them as bad as racial slurs, no matter if the target is Christian, Muslim or atheist users. The interpretation is, as always, going to be left to the moderating teams.

I am an atheist, and firmly so, yet I've never felt the need to attack others because of their religious or political beliefs, and I've always spoken out my mind in here and I've always said how harmful I consider all religions to be. We are not going to allow anyone to tell believers that they are stupid for believing in flying bearded men, just like we are not going to allow anyone to call for Jihad against the indifels. You want to discuss why God exists/doesn't exist? Be my guest. It's simply a clarification of our long existing "discuss the post, not the poster" policy.

 

You do realise that he was illustrating a point with that, don't you? Taking it literally is the worst possible option.

 

Almost didn't hear the gun to your head then.

 

And that could be said to be part of the problem. Religion presents a strong example where belief and identity are intractably mixed together.

But don't drift here. The new hate speech wording is clear that neither individuals nor groups can be attacked. That is dangerously close -- in my mind -- to suspending the right to criticize religion generally. After all, what is religion, in the common sense of the term, but a cult with a big membership?

Strong believers tend to play the "offence" card when they see their beliefs coming under attack. If you enshrine hate speech as some sort of law or rule, including religion and religious affiliation, then it's that much easier for religious bigotry to defend itself from scrutiny when a believer can run to a hate speech law to silence a critic, or have removed anything that makes them feel uneasy.

You also imply that these decisions are pragmatic in origin and intent. I understand why you might clarify on that basis and hope to assuage doubt, but it's a fallacy, of sorts. There are reasons, or reasons given, for laws. Then there are the laws themselves: how they're applied in practice. You've given me the "why", but once a law or rule exists it's the "how" is the part that matters. I refer you back to my former paragraph.

All laws and rules theoretically offer protection -- but who do they protect, how do they protect, what is their practical scope and function? We've all seen the Star Wars prequels, haven't we?

This board is predominantly western. Unless I am mistaken, it has a western origin, is based on a western film text, utilizes western web infrastructure, is home predominantly to western posters interacting with a broadly western (Indo-European) language, who share their thoughts in a way that is generally western, founded on western principles of democracy and egalitarianism, enshrined by relatively free and open communication.

The term "western" is certainly very broad, and a bit shaky, perhaps, but I meant it first and foremost in a paradigmatic sense. I was talking less geography, more a set of core principles that are to be found in the west. The west is hardly perfect, but the enlightenment and modern scientific progress, giving rise to vast and on-going social reforms, happened synergistically according to western, liberal values.

This board can be as "international" as it likes -- yes, please. But it is western values of democracy and freedom of speech that need to be kept strong; and it is western values that monotheism (not just Islam; but Islam most insidiously), a rigidly patriarchal, Bronze Age religious structuralism that comes from the desert, is forever trying to retard. Humanist values are simply stronger in the west. Western principles afford them the greatest protection.

And it is really irrelevant who you believe the issues presently or most centrally concern. Situations change; and these rules are clearly designed to be all-encompassing.

You're also acting like my particular focus is Islam. Islam, I believe, poses the single greatest threat to democracy and freedom of expression, but I reserve contempt for all the monotheisms, and I believe I was pretty clear in stating my prime concern regarding this hate speech rule at the outset.

Other people saw the word "Islam" flash up a couple of times and assumed I was placing fanatical emphasis on it. I feel my emphasis has been merely proportionate to the threat I believe it poses. Staunch, backward attitudes on jihadism, apostasy, blasphemy, homosexuality, and women's rights by the votaries of Islam are not fringe things.

You should start getting concerned as these things will affect us increasingly so in the future. No, I don't think you have introduced this rule to kowtow to one religious group or another, but religious attitudes tend to overlap, somewhat, and the religious will frequently link arms when they perceive a mutual threat to their dogmatic, inviolable beliefs. Laws, rules, and other precepts intended to minimize persecution can be a gift to religiously-motivated groups and individuals.

Well, I'd like to believe in your reassurance.

Since I doubt the wording is going to change, I guess only this rule's practical application will bear out my concerns or not.

BTW, it's nice to have been attacked by several people and to see no action taken against them ......... despite the foundational "discuss the post, not the poster" homily that people love to throw out (and which *is* meant to be enforced or encouraged with zeal), but seem to have a hard time following.

 

I didn't realise that "criticising is not neccessarily hate speech" was such a difficult concept.

 

I didn't realize the board rules were the key cipher for decoding the western zeitgeist, but here we are.

Honestly, Cryogenic, I appreciate that you feel very strongly about this issue, but ultimately we're making decisions about what constitutes an appropriate level of discourse on a Star Wars message board. And I do not think "Don't insult people based on their religion" is particularly out of line.

 

And you are the evil head, allowing this poor lad to get mercilessly attacked. Probably reading it and laughing in your ivory tower.