Diversity among mods

Tell us how you think the forum can be improved. We will listen.
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: Diversity among mods

Post by lyndon taylor » Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:01 pm

i mean to put it simply, Sam, the forum says your free to say this, and this, and this, and this, but you're not free to say this and this and this. How can that possibly be considered Freedom of Speech. Its moderated speech.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3368
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Diversity among mods

Post by Mr Man » Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:03 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:26 pm
Mr Man wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:03 pm
Sam Vara
The terms of service restrict the speech of everyone who participates in this forum. If they want to break the restrictions or not is not relevant to the original point.

"No there is not full freedom of speech in DW now. The forum is moderated."

I have answered many questions for you Sam Vara. Enough now :smile:
Whether people want to break the restrictions is indeed relevant, because if they don't, then there is no infringement on their right to speak freely. That's an important distinction between two conceptions of freedom of speech, and also relevant in the sense that you yourself have been invited to say whether you have a desire to break those restrictions, and have refrained from doing so. I can therefore infer that although the ToS proscribe certain types of speech, this is not something that you personally are restricted by. Or that if you do feel restricted, you are unwilling to say how.

So although it might be an issue for some people, it's not for you.
Sam Vara

The forum has restrictions on certain kinds of speech. That is all I am saying. "there is not full freedom of speech in DW now". Do you think that what I said is incorrect?

The terms of service, which clearly restrict certain kinds of speech are in place whether an individual chooses to break them or wants to break them or doesn't want to break them or thinks they are good or bad or whatever. All members are restricted by the terms of service whether they choose to feel restricted or not.

I am not relevant to this point although for some reason you seem to want to make this about me. And infringement of rights? What has "rights" got to do with anything?

So just let's get this straight you are saying this "No there is not full freedom of speech in DW now. The forum is moderated." is incorrect?

Why don't you want to let this go Sam Vara?

P.S. This is very much off topic now. Perhaps the thread needs to be split?

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4420
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Diversity among mods

Post by Sam Vara » Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:51 pm

lyndon taylor wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:57 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:48 pm


Whose speech is not free?
Everyone's on the forum. Anytime you take away someone's right to call an axx an axx, you have given up true freedom and entered the realm of moderated forums.
Unless you want to call an axx an axx, then no freedoms whatsoever have been given up.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4420
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Diversity among mods

Post by Sam Vara » Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:56 pm

lyndon taylor wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:01 pm
i mean to put it simply, Sam, the forum says your free to say this, and this, and this, and this, but you're not free to say this and this and this. How can that possibly be considered Freedom of Speech. Its moderated speech.
Providing one does not want to violate the ToS, then one's speech is free. Nobody's speech gets moderated providing it adheres to the ToS. In general, one might say that the speech of all who want to comment is potentially moderated, but what other freedom of speech could you personally want?

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4420
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Diversity among mods

Post by Sam Vara » Thu Jan 18, 2018 4:17 pm

Mr Man wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:03 pm


The forum has restrictions on certain kinds of speech. That is all I am saying. "there is not full freedom of speech in DW now". Do you think that what I said is incorrect?

The terms of service, which clearly restrict certain kinds of speech are in place whether an individual chooses to break them or wants to break them or doesn't want to break them or thinks they are good or bad or whatever. All members are restricted by the terms of service whether they choose to feel restricted or not.

I am not relevant to this point although for some reason you seem to want to make this about me. And infringement of rights? What has "rights" got to do with anything?

So just let's get this straight you are saying this "No there is not full freedom of speech in DW now. The forum is moderated." is incorrect?

Why don't you want to let this go Sam Vara?

P.S. This is very much off topic now. Perhaps the thread needs to be split?
By the same token, I am saying "There is no restriction on speech for those who do not desire to breach the ToS". Do you think that what I said is incorrect?

Speech on any forum, in any context, is constrained by many factors, including facility with the language, intelligence, access to the means of communication, syntactical possibilities, and so on. This is why the concept of an absolute right to free speech is nonsensical. What utterance could ever be free from all constraints? That is why, in turn, it only makes sense to talk of negative liberty in this context; it's all that this or any other forum can do in order to help you make your points.

Your claiming that there is not full freedom of speech invites the question as to what it is that you think you are not free to say. Of course, in the abstract, one can point to any number of constraints upon one's utterances, and the ToS are indeed some of those constraints. But that then invites the further question as to why that is even an issue worth raising. You have pointed to the ToS as a restriction upon absolute freedom. Why? Why not point to the syntax which restricts how you express yourself intelligibly in English? Either you have a substantive point about what you want to say; or you have a vacuous point.

We could say, of course, that the forum is constrained by being moderated. But if you are entirely happy with this, why even raise it? It's not about you - this is a public forum - but your claim is the occasion for me to make this point about the type of freedom we have here.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4420
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Diversity among mods

Post by Sam Vara » Thu Jan 18, 2018 4:34 pm

lyndon taylor wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:55 pm
the reason diversity is so important is that each race and gender has certain positive and otherwise attributes that they can bring to the table that a member of another race or gender might not even be aware of, its not about equality, its about welcoming diverse and differing viewpoints into the equation. The Idea of an Asian religions forum being run by all white Western men does not really bring the full beauty, viewpoints, and traditional history of what is almost exclusively in terms of numbers an Asian tradition. The idea that advanced English proficiency is a prerequisite for moderators, would eliminate 99% of the Buddhist monks and nuns in the world, including the Venerable Ajahn Chah if he were still with us.
A couple of points here, if I may.

1) What "positive and otherwise attributes" do particular races have, do you think? Would you like to specify a few races and then state their attributes?

2) If by "running the forum" you mean moderation, then you overlook the fact that everyone has a role in running the forum ("Be the change you want to see", etc., ) and moderation is just one tiny aspect of that.

3) If by "running the forum" you mean moderation, then are you assuming that I am a white western man?

4) I'm not sure about "advanced" English proficiency being required to moderate this forum, nor do I know about the percentages of Buddhist monastics who speak required levels of English. But Ajahn Chah would rightly be eliminated. He may have been a spiritual leader and teacher without parallel, but he would have been as good at moderating here as he would have been at deep-sea diving or tap-dancing.

binocular
Posts: 5638
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Diversity among mods

Post by binocular » Thu Jan 18, 2018 5:34 pm

lyndon taylor wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2018 7:27 pm
you also said the forum has to be complex and we don't need simple Asian monks to participate.
It's bad style to misrepresent others.
Copy-paste where I said what you're accusing me of.
lyndon taylor wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 12:39 pm
still wondering what an ad hominem post actually is, as many times as I've been accused of it, its still a nothing term to me. Same for straw men, don't care to know what that is.
You should educate yourself on those matters. Then you'd understand what people hold against you.
Every person we save is one less zombie to fight. -- World War Z

binocular
Posts: 5638
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Diversity among mods

Post by binocular » Thu Jan 18, 2018 5:41 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 4:17 pm
Why? Why not point to the syntax which restricts how you express yourself intelligibly in English?
And not being enlightened is also a major restriction of one's free speech! :thinking:
Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:56 pm
Providing one does not want to violate the ToS, then one's speech is free. Nobody's speech gets moderated providing it adheres to the ToS. In general, one might say that the speech of all who want to comment is potentially moderated, but what other freedom of speech could you personally want?
The one to say whatever you want. Literally, to match desire and reality, in every way and instance.

I'd love to see what people who complain about restricting the freedom of speech would answer to the following question:
"At least in your privacy, are you able to put into words whatever it is that you want to say?"


I'm a bigmouth, but even I can't put into words everything I want to say, for the simple reason that I don't have the words to do so.
Every person we save is one less zombie to fight. -- World War Z

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3368
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Diversity among mods

Post by Mr Man » Thu Jan 18, 2018 6:49 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 4:17 pm
By the same token, I am saying "There is no restriction on speech for those who do not desire to breach the ToS". Do you think that what I said is incorrect?
Yes I do. The ToS apply to everyone. Just like the road speed limit applies to everyone not just those who speed.
Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 4:17 pm
Speech on any forum, in any context, is constrained by many factors, including facility with the language, intelligence, access to the means of communication, syntactical possibilities, and so on. This is why the concept of an absolute right to free speech is nonsensical. What utterance could ever be free from all constraints? That is why, in turn, it only makes sense to talk of negative liberty in this context; it's all that this or any other forum can do in order to help you make your points.

Your claiming that there is not full freedom of speech invites the question as to what it is that you think you are not free to say. Of course, in the abstract, one can point to any number of constraints upon one's utterances, and the ToS are indeed some of those constraints. But that then invites the further question as to why that is even an issue worth raising. You have pointed to the ToS as a restriction upon absolute freedom. Why? Why not point to the syntax which restricts how you express yourself intelligibly in English? Either you have a substantive point about what you want to say; or you have a vacuous point.

We could say, of course, that the forum is constrained by being moderated. But if you are entirely happy with this, why even raise it? It's not about you - this is a public forum - but your claim is the occasion for me to make this point about the type of freedom we have here.
Perhaps we could go back to the beginning. Where this conversation started.
Mr Man wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 8:22 am
No_Mind wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:19 am

There is full freedom of speech in DW now which was lacking when I was banned.
Hi No_Mind
No there is not full freedom of speech in DW now. The forum is moderated.
No_Mind asserted that there was "full freedom of speech in DW now" and I said this was not the case.

I can tell you what I am not free to say. I am not free to say things and use language that is inappropriate to minors. Do I have a problem with that? no. But that does mean I do not have "full freedom of speech"

Why did I raise it? I just responded to No_Mind's assertion. Is that okay?

Now if you want to continue perhaps you could make a case for how there is "full freedom of speech in DW now". Can you do that?

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4420
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Diversity among mods

Post by Sam Vara » Thu Jan 18, 2018 8:35 pm

Mr Man wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 6:49 pm

No_Mind asserted that there was "full freedom of speech in DW now" and I said this was not the case.

I can tell you what I am not free to say. I am not free to say things and use language that is inappropriate to minors. Do I have a problem with that? no. But that does mean I do not have "full freedom of speech"

Why did I raise it? I just responded to No_Mind's assertion. Is that okay?

Now if you want to continue perhaps you could make a case for how there is "full freedom of speech in DW now". Can you do that?
Mr Man wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 6:49 pm

No_Mind asserted that there was "full freedom of speech in DW now" and I said this was not the case.

I can tell you what I am not free to say. I am not free to say things and use language that is inappropriate to minors. Do I have a problem with that? no. But that does mean I do not have "full freedom of speech"

Why did I raise it? I just responded to No_Mind's assertion. Is that okay?

Now if you want to continue perhaps you could make a case for how there is "full freedom of speech in DW now". Can you do that?
Yes, I explained to you how No_Mind's assertion could be completely true. In terms of negative liberty, there are no restrictions upon the behaviour of one who does not intend to post contrary to the ToS. You are not free to use language inappropriate to minors (and a few other things besides) but my question is whether you are happy with these restrictions. It's perfectly OK to respond to No_Mind's assertion, just as it is equally OK for me to respond to yours; that's what happens on a public forum.

I'm not interested in making a case that there is "full freedom of speech in DW now", as that would be, as I have said earlier, a logical nonsense in any situation. The concept is unintelligible. I'm not interested in whether you think you are free to post anything at all. I'm interested in asking you if you are free to post whatever you want.

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3368
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Diversity among mods

Post by Mr Man » Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:20 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 8:35 pm
Mr Man wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 6:49 pm
No_Mind asserted that there was "full freedom of speech in DW now" and I said this was not the case.
Yes, I explained to you how No_Mind's assertion could be completely true.
Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 8:35 pm
I'm not interested in making a case that there is "full freedom of speech in DW now", as that would be, as I have said earlier, a logical nonsense in any situation. The concept is unintelligible.
???? Could it be completely true or is it an unintelligible concept? And if you thought "full freedom of speech in DW now" is an unintelligible concept perhaps your conversation should have been with No_Mind not me.
Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 8:35 pm
I'm not interested in whether you think you are free to post anything at all. I'm interested in asking you if you are free to post whatever you want.
Well in my opinion that question is not relevant however I did mention earlier that I had received board warnings, one fairly recently, for posting something that I wanted to post.

Is this conversation relevant to the OP Sam?

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4420
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Diversity among mods

Post by Sam Vara » Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:32 pm

Mr Man wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 9:20 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 8:35 pm
I'm not interested in making a case that there is "full freedom of speech in DW now", as that would be, as I have said earlier, a logical nonsense in any situation. The concept is unintelligible.
???? Could it be completely true or is it an unintelligible concept? And if you thought "full freedom of speech in DW now" is an unintelligible concept perhaps your conversation should have been with No_Mind not me.
It's unintelligible. I didn't take it up with No_Mind because I assumed that he had the same conception of freedom of speech as I do. He certainly seems happy enough with the situation here. He thinks he can post anything that he wants, and I concur with him.
Well in my opinion that question is not relevant however I did mention earlier that I had received board warnings, one fairly recently, for posting something that I wanted to post.
I think it is the crux of the matter; the difference between two different conceptions of freedom, only one of which is relevant here.
Is this conversation relevant to the OP Sam?
I think so, in that it is about moderation and different ways of doing it. I'm happy to leave it here, but if another moderator wants to move it, I'm happy with that also.

User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 2794
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: Diversity among mods

Post by Modus.Ponens » Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:39 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 4:34 pm
lyndon taylor wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:55 pm
the reason diversity is so important is that each race and gender has certain positive and otherwise attributes that they can bring to the table that a member of another race or gender might not even be aware of, its not about equality, its about welcoming diverse and differing viewpoints into the equation. The Idea of an Asian religions forum being run by all white Western men does not really bring the full beauty, viewpoints, and traditional history of what is almost exclusively in terms of numbers an Asian tradition. The idea that advanced English proficiency is a prerequisite for moderators, would eliminate 99% of the Buddhist monks and nuns in the world, including the Venerable Ajahn Chah if he were still with us.
A couple of points here, if I may.

1) What "positive and otherwise attributes" do particular races have, do you think? Would you like to specify a few races and then state their attributes?
I'm curious about this too. I can see diversity of individual opinions, diversity of socioeconomic backgrounds, and cultural diversity as valuable on certain ocasions, especially the diversity of individual view points. But racial diversity, in and of itself, is quite the mystery to me. When did the far left and the far right decided to agree that races are essentially different?

It may be my "privileged" "right wing" position that compels me to not accept race essentialism. So I wouldn't mind a clarification on how the "races" are different.
"He turns his mind away from those phenomena and, having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' " - Jhana Sutta

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4420
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Diversity among mods

Post by Sam Vara » Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:42 pm

Modus.Ponens wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 10:39 pm

I'm curious about this too. I can see diversity of individual opinions, diversity of socioeconomic backgrounds, and cultural diversity as valuable on certain ocasions, especially the diversity of individual view points. But racial diversity, in and of itself, is quite the mystery to me. When did the far left and the far right decided to agree that races are essentially different?

It may be my "privileged" "right wing" position that compels me to not accept race essentialism. So I wouldn't mind a clarification on how the "races" are different.
Indeed. Particularly interesting would be essential differences relating to intelligence. Or morality.

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1805
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Diversity among mods

Post by Coëmgenu » Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:33 am

Sam Vara wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 4:34 pm
lyndon taylor wrote:
Thu Jan 18, 2018 2:55 pm
the reason diversity is so important is that each race and gender has certain positive and otherwise attributes that they can bring to the table that a member of another race or gender might not even be aware of, its not about equality, its about welcoming diverse and differing viewpoints into the equation. The Idea of an Asian religions forum being run by all white Western men does not really bring the full beauty, viewpoints, and traditional history of what is almost exclusively in terms of numbers an Asian tradition. The idea that advanced English proficiency is a prerequisite for moderators, would eliminate 99% of the Buddhist monks and nuns in the world, including the Venerable Ajahn Chah if he were still with us.
A couple of points here, if I may.

1) What "positive and otherwise attributes" do particular races have, do you think? Would you like to specify a few races and then state their attributes?
This reminds me of American-style vs French-style anti-racism discourses. American anti-racists: "35% of jail inmates are black, that seems awfully high"

French responce: "How dare you call them black you bigot!"
世尊在靈山會上拈華示眾眾皆默然唯迦葉破顏微笑世尊云
The Lord dwelt at the Vulture Peak with the assembly and plucked a flower as a teaching. The myriad totality were silent, save for Kāśyapa, whose face cracked in a faint smile. The Lord spoke.
吾有正法眼藏涅槃妙心實相無相微妙法門不立文字教外別傳付囑摩訶迦葉。
I have the treasure of the true dharma eye, I have nirvāṇa as wondrous citta, I know signless dharmatā, the subtle dharma-gate, which is not standing on written word, which is external to scriptures, which is a special dispensation, which is entrusted to Mahākāśyapa.

नस्वातोनापिपरतोनद्वाभ्यांनाप्यहेतुतः

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests