American Dream » Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:19 pm wrote:@srp
Are you saying there is a destructive dynamic between you and Elvis???
Mostly just that we strongly disagree in ways that I find deeply upsetting. Given the chances of success from any possible dialogue, it doesn't seem worth it.
When has Elvis ever bullied or abused you? You certainly never hit the alert button.
I'm not saying he did.
What do you really think about the article you posted, aside from it not being warmongering?
I think he makes some important points. His tone etc. are not always what I would use but escalating censorship here is not the solution.
That said, You still haven't been very responsive as to your new interpretation of the old rule, which as I read it proscribes racism, sexism, homophobia. religious bigotry and the like. How did that become a rationale for banning certain opinions regarding the Syrian War, assuming this is the case? In other words, what specifically is prohibited according to you, and
why?
As I promised you earlier, I'm cross-posting this here to address your inquiries, and reiterate some of my own.
American Dream » Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:19 pm wrote:@srp
Are you saying there is a destructive dynamic between you and Elvis???
Mostly just that we strongly disagree in ways that I find deeply upsetting. Given the chances of success from any possible dialogue, it doesn't seem worth it.
When has Elvis ever bullied or abused you? You certainly never hit the alert button.
I'm not saying he did.
Where collaborative discussion is concerned, I do not want you to be bullied or abused. I think it would be helpful to me if you could PM me a list of RI members who have done this to you in the past that you no longer interact with on the board. I don't wish to have their names muddied again in public, but I don't want to repeat bringing up a post from a member I think needs addressing if this is from someone you have a negative history with. I'm not sure why it would be "deeply upsetting" if you are interacting with someone that you strongly disagree with if it is arguments that are issue-based. But if it is, I don't want to put myself in a situation where I am unknowingly coercing you to do so, so I would appreciate a PM of your list of those members who are "deeply upsetting" to you as well.
Important points.
Yet not important enough for you to specify? This is an example where you are guilty of the very charge you accuse other board members of, obeying the letter, but not the spirit of the request both moderators have made.
BTW, you removed the link from my original reply, I just put it back. You might want to read it again, or not if you really don't give a shit about the spirit of our request. I never censored that link, nor the link for which I suspended you. If suspensions are what you're referring to as censorship, that's our call with Jeff's blessing (yes, that's right, it was Mr. Wells himself who appointed us moderators) if we feel someone is violating the rules.
American Dream » Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:19 pm wrote:That said, You still haven't been very responsive as to your new interpretation of the old rule, which as I read it proscribes racism, sexism, homophobia. religious bigotry and the like. How did that become a rationale for banning certain opinions regarding the Syrian War, assuming this is the case? In other words, what specifically is prohibited according to you, and
why?
Wrong, I have given multiple responses on the subject in an attempt to clarify every time you asked. Here they are:
stillrobertpaulsen » Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:17 pm wrote:American Dream » Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:35 pm wrote:Didn't you yourself develop a highly idiosyncratic interpretation for a rule that was against what would more commonly be called "Hate Speech" and then proceed to apply it only to me?
Wrong. It doesn't just apply to you. It applies to everyone.
stillrobertpaulsen » Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:52 pm wrote:But this is an effort on our parts to maintain consistency here - we are not asking American Dream to do anything that we would not ask any other member to do - it's just that we don't
have to ask most other members. They just do it on their own accord, either out of a desire to clarify or maybe just simple courtesy. It shouldn't have to be an exercise in pulling teeth. Hopefully as a result of my action it won't be in the future.
Call it an idiosyncratic interpretation if you want, but in my book, there is no greater form of violence on this planet than warmongering. And I don't think it's idiosyncratic to say it has no place on this board coming from
anyone.
stillrobertpaulsen » Tue Apr 17, 2018 5:08 pm wrote:American Dream » Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:20 pm wrote:@srp
We haven't really gotten very far with the "warmongering" policy. If I'm not mistaken, it seems to hinge on some particular interpretation of this:
Posts advocating violence, or espousing hatred of a people based upon race, religion, gender or sexuality, are not permitted.
We should all be clear what your policy regarding "warmongering" says is proscribed speech, right?
Right! I'm not sure why this is unclear, but if you just read the part I bold, and not the part I diminish, my policy should be crystal clear as how this rule applies to warmongering:
Posts advocating violence, or espousing hatred of a people based upon race, religion, gender or sexuality, are not permitted.
Now to your latest query:
Regarding the rule cited: it still stands for "hatred of a people based upon race, religion, gender or sexuality." Nothing has changed there. I am using the bolded part as my rationale to prohibit warmongering because it just seems like common sense to me not to allow warmongering. Do you really think Jeff would prohibit posts advocating violence against the groups he mentioned but
allow posts advocating violence against entire nations?! I don't; that's the reason
why. That goes for any war, Syria or otherwise.
Just to clarify for everyone else, here is my original ruling and rationale to AD:
stillrobertpaulsen » Wed Apr 11, 2018 6:13 pm wrote:These are particularly precarious times where Syria is concerned. The civil war/proxy war has been especially heinous. The last thing this board needs is the promotion of a warmongering voice that uses strawmen and ad hominems to shout down
anti-war rhetoric. Bill Weinberg seems to be that voice.
But you posted both of his articles without any amending commentary. I
warned you before to stop doing that. I realize the circumstances were slightly different; then you were posting 9/11 disparagement, this time warmongering. So I'm giving you a few days off. Please read these words from Jeff:
Jeff » Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:38 am wrote:Posts advocating
violence, or espousing hatred of a people based upon race, religion, gender or sexuality, are not permitted.
Then re-read those Weinberg pieces and consider: if 'anti-war' is the wrong approach to take toward Syria, what then is Weinberg implicitly advocating? And if you post such a piece without specifying any objections you have, what are
you advocating?
So, AD, how do you answer those two questions?