Lowering ourselves
Offline I don't believe in censorship (well I believe it exists, just don't believe it's ever justified except possibly for minors) It is a tool of those who try to control what we can and cannot think. Whether it's trying to maintain support for a political ideal, maintaining unquestioning faith in a religion or to engineering society into your version of utopia.I recently took part in a discussion in the Atheist vs. Theist board that was titled "Killed in the name of atheism." Cpt_pineapple posted what he believed to be evidence of people motivated by atheism to kill theists. He believed that this countered the argument used by many of us that one of the reasons religion is bad is because it motivates some people to kill in God's name.
I didn't agree with him and argued (along with many others) that it was [a particular version of] communism that motivated the killing in his example, not atheism. While this discussion was going on a moderator changed the title to "Killed in the name of communism" with the explanation that the original was dishonest. I don't think Cpt_pineapple wasn't being dishonest, he honestly believed that it was an example of atheism causing what we accuse theism of doing. My biggest problem is that although the post is still there, changing the title is still in a way censoring it. He posted it as an example of atheism motivating murder and changing the title presents it as communism motivating murder, which was not his argument. Everyone knows people were killed in the name of communism, it makes the post seem utterly pointless.
If we disagreed with his argument we could (and did) respond to it. There was no need to sabotage it.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
- Login to post comments
I would agree, unless he consented or asked for the change.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Good call. It ought to be changed back, unless Pineapple agrees with the correction. Outside of obvious trolling or rule violations, posts ought not be edited for content.
Lets not jump to any conclusions.
I have myself caught myself in "Kill em with kindness" cussing up a storm,........then relized after I hit submit where I was.....DOH!
It's kinda like walking into a room talking to a friend or family member who is on a tiny cell phone but you dont see it at first.
I've also changed my own titles of my own threads.
But, having been a mod on other boards I can tell you it is definatly hard to please everyone and sometimes you catch flack from both sides of an issue. It's like making a marginal call in the Super Bowl, did the guy have two feet in, check the replay and still you cant tell.
My point is, out of all the boards I have been on, this one DOES NOT make a habbit of censorship. I'd not make any assumptions about what was done and why.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Brian37
I dont think Cpt_pineapple wanted it changed. He posted:
Someone changed the title.
Maybe next time somebody posts a theist extremists groups topic, the title should be changed to 'Killed in the name of a political goal, but they just so happen to be theists'
And although I'm not sure who it was that changed the title sapient (who I assume would be aware of the reasons) said:
Right, because the initial title was ridiculous and dishonest.
So I'm pretty sure I'm not jumping to conclusions about the reasons.
I just think it weakens our position to resort to tactics like that. I think we have reason on our side so we dont need to. A properly answered challenge is much better for our side than re-titling their posts to suit our point of view. Remember we're meant to be the rational ones.
I respect the way Cpt_pineapple and wavefreak conducted themselves in that discussion. They were greatly outnumbered by us but presented an argument that had me questioning things. I decided in the end I was unconvinced by their case but it's good to have our opinions tested and I'm thankful they had the courage to do so.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
I can't remember what the movie was, but a DVD came out that Wal-Mart refused to display. It was some morality issue.
Whether or not I agree with 'why' they refused to display it is irrelivant. Wal-Mart is owned by people who decide these things. While I am perfectly within my rights to disagree with the decision, honestly, it is none of my business. If I don't like it (which I didn't) I should shop elsewhere (which I do).
I'm not suggesting "if you don't like it fuck off" but I am suggesting that the people who own / run a forum have to make decisions based on what they think is healthy for the community. I think this thread is great in that it gives discenting opinions a place to vent. Totally healthy in my opinion. In the end though, if the folks running the place do not think changing the title was out of line, it is their call to make.
BTW, I agree that altering posts should be done sparingly and only when there is some genuine concern. A healthy community should encourage opinions, even when they are unreasonable or just plain stupid. That is not saying that they shouldn't be torn apart in discussion, just that the post itself has not done any harm and should be given the opportunity to stand on it's own or be torn down by differing opinion.
How diplomatic.
I do feel bad, but if people don't like the way this board is run then please for your own good... don't be part of it.
With cries of censorship how could this dissenting thread still be here? How could the thread in question still be there? I hope these questions are asked in the head of those concerned about censorship. I too think this thread is good, I don't mind the constructive criticism offered by Paranoidagnostic, I think I can even tell he/she has good intentions. I hope it's enough for paranoidagnostic to know we read his/her comments, disagree, and will continue to analyze the situation moving forward with his thoughts (as well as those of others) playing a role.
Board members who question decisions most often do not know background to moderation decisions, amount of times a member has been warned in private, past infractions, etc.... Those who question our decision making must realize that we get it from all angles. While X member cries foul on our moderation there are mods in the backroom looking to ban the same person. We have over 6,000 members there is simply no way that all of them will be happy with how the site operates. And I accept that, I agree to disagree on moderation all the time.
I have a long series of justifications as to why the title was edited, but do not feel as if conveying them to anyone here is a good usage of my time, you don't need to agree with me anyway. I feel I have already taken too much time on this.
I should say, I do highly appreciate the people who have come to understand where we are coming from on this and all moderation decisions.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
Marcusfish
I know that the owners of this site are within their rights to do whatever the hell they like with it. I'm not trying to say otherwise. I'm just expressing my opinion of their actions.
I hope (and beleive) that they will allow me to express this opinion and may even consider my point of view.
Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!
I thought they were right because the original poster was totally dishonest and an asshat.
WHY CANT I BARBAQUE KITTENS! I SAW THAT STUPID RULE AND FOR THE LIFE OF ME DONT UNDERSTAND IT? YOU SAPIENT MAKE A MOCKERY OF "TRUE" trademark, copywrite atheists by not allowing the barbaquing of kittens!
Oh, and another thing. That ban on cootie spreading has got to go too. You are asking way too much.
(please dont hurt me)
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
You ever read a response and you can't tell if they're agreeing with you or using sarcasm to tell you to shut your hole?
I haven't frequented these boards enough to be able to tell. Damned text.
Totally, I had no intention of implying that I thought you were trying to overthrow the 'man'. I was just kind of restating the obvious, which maybe I should have just left alone
I agree with this too.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.