That's simply not why I posted the thread.
You should read my PM to the mod in question as a kind of "open letter" to the liberals in general.
Private Message to a Liberal Moderator: Liberal Censorship
- Thread starter Traditio
- Start date
That's simply not why I posted the thread.
You should read my PM to the mod in question as a kind of "open letter" to the liberals in general.
journey
New member
I've read the entire thread. Arguing with a moderator rarely has good results. The same is true for TOL.
Except he didn't yell at you. He gave you a chance to reform your approach. I'll come back to that toward the end of this. And when the point was pressed THAT (wiki) was your authority.
lain: You might as well have declared that you were proclaiming from hearsay and second hand, limited understanding of the subject and out of a hostile bias. That's about all you managed with your approach.Here's how you actually kicked off your position. You wrote:
To even approach a reasonable position you'd have had to limit what followed to those two presumptions. Most of life isn't covered in them, but your comment was...and given your lack of background the question would still have been the better course.
Well, no. To be clear, I said you were sent packing because of the rude response to the moderator. The problem prior to that was your approach in relation to your familiarity and choosing to essentially dismiss dialogue before it could start. More on that point in a bit.
Dismissing a man as a liar is entirely personal...and pointless if you mean to have a conversation. That's what you did when you said to a Muslim that whatever he had to say to you couldn't be trusted. What's that an invitation to, really?
That's too bad. You're as wrong in that as the person who claims that all killing is murder.
It's established prima facie. He's the moderator. He told you something he hoped you simply weren't aware of, applied an understanding of the rules of conduct to your own and attempted to settle you into compliance, which wouldn't have precluded you working to your point. It wasn't really a difficult position unless you made it one.
You don't get this, but you aren't the arbiter of what's appropriate at that site. And his intervention was fairly gentle, unlike your rebuff.
It depends on your purpose. If you mean to persuade people, you're wrong. If you meant to remain in play in the hope of reaching someone, you're wrong. If you wanted to strut and fret your hour on that stage and leave...mission accomplished.
So there was a chance to engage and discover. Instead you made another choice and learned nothing, taught nothing, and accomplished less.
Greg Jennings
New member
He's not obligated to allow free speech, but I think you are right and that people should be allowed to speak their minds and be heard.
I wonder, though, if an Islamic person speaks negatively about Christianity (as you did about Islam as a whole), would they be banned here at TOL? :duh:
Are you against that censorship as well?
ClimateSanity
New member
Supra. The burden isn't on me to change my approach and soften my claims. From Traditio
I keep seeing town use this word. It appears to be used in law, but in this context, it appears to mean "from what was previously written".
So trad is saying the burden to change his tone isn't his based on what has been previously stated?
I keep seeing town use this word. It appears to be used in law, but in this context, it appears to mean "from what was previously written".
So trad is saying the burden to change his tone isn't his based on what has been previously stated?
I wouldn't even call what I said overtly negative. What I basically said is that Muslims cannot be trusted to tell the truth in circumstances in which the muslim doctrine of Taqiya would permit them to lie.
Here, I have to admit that I find it strange that so many people are considering this anything remote to a serious insult.
Replace "muslims" with "Jew Hiders."
"Jew Hiders cannot be trusted to tell the truth in circumstances in which the Nazi at the door is demanding to know whether Jews are hiding in the attic."
Last edited:
Supra is a Latin word that means "above." Literally all that Town or I mean when we use the term is "look up at the previous comments."
He shouldn't have considered my approach in need of reform. That's precisely what I take issue with. I didn't make a personal attack on anyone. I made a statement of fact. The fact that some people might find that statement of fact offensive does not, in and of itself, make it rude or impolite. Statements of fact are either true or false. It's really that simple.
I'll come back to that toward the end of this. And when the point was pressed THAT (wiki) was your authority.
There's nothing wrong with using wikipedia. It's not a scholarly, academic source. You shouldn't cite it in an academic paper. That said, there's nothing wrong with consulting it for a basic overview of the general outlines of a given topic.
But again, my general answer returns again:
If you disagree with what I've cited, then it's your prerogative to post counter-evidence, not to censor me.
He asked me whether I would apologize for my previous comments about muslims (namely, they should be driven out of the West) if he told me that he was a proud American.
My answer? "No. I have no reason to believe that you are telling the truth when you say this. Why should I? You have a good reason to lie about this, all things considered, and your religion says that you can."
Given the context, there's nothing impolite about what I said. I even took great care, prior to that, to say:
"And by the way, just so you know, you shouldn't take anything I said personally. These are all general points about muslims and Islam in general."
I wasn't shutting down the debate. I was answering a particular point.
To which the moderator chimed in: "You can't say that!"
And my answer, and the answer of any reasonable, self-respecting, educated Western adult?
[Censored] :madmad:
The rules of politeness and reasonable debate don't require this. The rules of political correctness might, but this only strengthens my claim that liberals are authoritarians when it comes to matters of free speech.
Supra.
I didn't dismiss the man as a liar. I specifically said that I have no idea whether or not he is truthful. I assumed a position of epoche (suspension of judgment). My point was simply that his saying "I am a proud American" is no disproof of my claims that muslims and Islam are dangerous/subversive to the West. He very well could be lying. Is he? I don't know. But his religion, it seems to me, would permit the lie.
And ultimately, this is a further point in my calling the moderator intellectually bankrupt, and in pointing out my own intellectual superiority.
If the man can't even understand the points that I am making, and if he cannot even follow my arguments, then he shouldn't consider himself as having the capacity to judge/moderate them.
It wasn't an attempt to self-aggrandize. I was essentially telling the moderator to [censored].
The Christian martyrs appear to have disagreed with you. At any rate, it's irrelevant to this thread.
What's your point? There are two ways I can take this claim:
1. He is the moderator and is entitled to enforce any standard of conduct that he pleases, whether reasonable or otherwise.
I grant this point.
2. He is the moderator and therefore it must be assumed prima facie that he was justified in thinking that your conduct was unreasonable.
There's no reason to grant this point.
What objective reason does he have to insist that I comply, and what objective reason do I have to comply? You'll answer, I assume, "because it's their site." Fair enough. But ultimately, this only drives home my point about the liberals. When they have the capacity to do so, they show their true colors. They don't believe in freedom of speech in the least.
They will use any old excuse, however slight, to shut down the opinions of their ideological opponents.
So, let's recap:
1. When I initially asked you what was objectionable in the posting, you appealed to something in another posting.
2. When I pressed you on the initial posting, you basically make an appeal to authority: "They can set whatever standards they please!"
I agree, but I only wish to note that there is nothing inherently objectionable in what I wrote. Their standards reveal the authoritarian, thin-skinned, politically correct attitude so prevalent among liberals.
For the purpose of not being censored.
It's not prerogative to check my opinions in order not to be censored. It's the prerogative of others to avoid censoring me unless there is grave reason otherwise (e.g., foul language).
One final point:
Given the fact that I'm probably the most well-educated, eloquent person to tell a mod to [censored], it really does disappoint me that moderators don't, at the very least, acknowledge my eloquence and sheer semi-poetic expertise in telling them to [censored].
At the very least, can I get a "I am deeply offended by what you have said and am going to ban you now, but I am AMAZED at the marvelous way that you've told me to [censored]! Beautifully done! Enjoy your ban while I sit and sulk in the corner, deeply butt hurt, but amazed by your brilliance, utterly charmed by your turns of phrase"?
Is that really so much to ask? :nono:
Let me be clear. I have some facility in 5 different languages (English, Greek, Latin, French and German), to greater or lesser extents.
I've studied Cicero and Virgil in the original Latin.
Can't I get some bloody acknowledgment in the sheer eloquence with which I insult a moderator and tell him to [censored]?
What is the world coming to...? :nono:
Given the fact that I'm probably the most well-educated, eloquent person to tell a mod to [censored], it really does disappoint me that moderators don't, at the very least, acknowledge my eloquence and sheer semi-poetic expertise in telling them to [censored].
At the very least, can I get a "I am deeply offended by what you have said and am going to ban you now, but I am AMAZED at the marvelous way that you've told me to [censored]! Beautifully done! Enjoy your ban while I sit and sulk in the corner, deeply butt hurt, but amazed by your brilliance, utterly charmed by your turns of phrase"?
Is that really so much to ask? :nono:
Let me be clear. I have some facility in 5 different languages (English, Greek, Latin, French and German), to greater or lesser extents.
I've studied Cicero and Virgil in the original Latin.
Can't I get some bloody acknowledgment in the sheer eloquence with which I insult a moderator and tell him to [censored]?
What is the world coming to...? :nono:
Greg Jennings
New member
And previously I've seen a Muslim on this site banned for arguing that Christianity is invalid because it violates monotheistic tradition by having God and Jesus as two beings. That also is a fair point, but he was still banned for it because the moderator(s) were sensitive about the info. Just like I'm sure the mods you were in conflict with were sensitive about Islam.
For the record, I agree with you that all forums should allow free thought to flow, no matter if you're a saint or a literal nazi. But that's rarely the case in reality
Thanks for the thanks. I inadvertently erased this one. I may have it in Quixote's...shoot.
Last edited:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
It is okay to lie in certain circumstances Trad. If you can't figure out why then carry on boring forum moderators to death...
Were you not advocating for censorship awhile back when you created a thread suggesting that the mods remove several members including myself from TOL in this thread? Appeal to the Moderators: TOL is for Dialogue? Really?
Not that I am surprised that you support censorship when you agree with the results. Worth pointing out.
Can't blame you for putting the poorest relief in play possible and focusing on it. But sure, I also don't believe in allowing children to view pornography.
Do you? Because if you say no then you're also in favor of censorship.
I'd hope not.
That's because you need to make that context free bit of nonsense the focus here. If not, your behavior and the reasonably indefensible nature of it, along with the consequences that followed, won't allow you much room on that stump of yours. If not, you have to answer on a few points you aren't ready to, like the notion that speaking the truth to serve an immoral end is moral and lying to thwart an immoral end isn't. You'd have to figure out how to sustain the notion that you were opening discourse while telling the fellow who would supposedly be the other half of that nothing he said could be trusted...that sort of thing.
Careful with your point Trad. You only have two eyes. :e4e:
Again, I wish to emphasize that the "censorship" that I was advocating had nothing to do with the content being censored.
More evidence of liberal censorship:
On that same forum, I put up a poll in an attempt to determine the general mindset and "moral" dispositions of persons who play a certain set of factions in a table top game. Rather than moving that thread to the appropriate sub-forum, it was locked and I received a warning for it.
On that same forum, I put up a poll in an attempt to determine the general mindset and "moral" dispositions of persons who play a certain set of factions in a table top game. Rather than moving that thread to the appropriate sub-forum, it was locked and I received a warning for it.
When you censor the source, you censor the content. I am not surprised in the least that you somehow see yourself as being censored as different and inexcusable. You do have the opinion of opening your own university ...
In precisely the same sense that it's "censorship" to delete a posting that vulgar language.
Furthermore, if you actually read my arguments in that thread, you'll find that the kind of posting that I'm attacking doesn't really have an argumentative content.
There's a clear difference between:
1. Being censored because you don't agree with me.
2. Being "censored" because, instead of providing an opinion and arguments in favor of it, you chose to throw around personal insults.