binocular wrote: ↑
Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:46 am
Millennia of philosophy down the drain. The kind of relativism that you espouse would be fitting for a postmodernist forum (but not even there, really), but not for a religious one where words are actually expected to mean something and things be either true or false.
You're totally misunderstanding and misrepresenting what was said.
I'm not saying that "your truth" is
"the truth"... it's just that the purpose of this forum is not about trying to force "the truth" on anyone. Rather, it's about providing a space where people can share and explore ideas and views for themselves, without coercion
. Providing that environment, and going through that interactive exploration with other Buddhists, rather than dogmatically accepting teachings from authority figures, actually maximises the likelihood that "your truth" will be aligned with "the truth" - which is not owned by anyone
That same perspective, which has been applied to Dhamma discussion, also guides the mode of engagement we have attempted to establish in the News section. Now, admittedly, in the past there were instances (circa 2015/16) when certain staff members took it upon themselves to "force their truth" upon others, and to moderate (and ban members!) according to their own views, preferences and priorities rather than the Terms of Service, but those people have since been relieved of their duties.
Despite the tolerance of the current staff, there are serial complainants amongst our membership who remain chronically intolerant of worldly or political views that deviate from their own. Whenever the opportunity arises, they invariably create a hubbub that opposing views are even allowed to exist in the News section. In a world where people have created their own self-styled, technology-enabled "echo chambers", where they self-source their news from preferred outlets, I guess it's unsurprising that some of the views expressed in "an open marketplace of ideas" will be challenging for some people. Nonetheless, I am surprised and somewhat disappointed at how intolerant certain individuals are about the mere presence of opposing views, and how they endeavour to make their private
discomfiture with opposing views, a public
matter for others to deal with and endure. So much for the Buddha's teachings on endurance and sense restraint.
That said, as pointed out earlier in this topic, there is this from the Rules for the News Section...
5. We do understand that politics can be an emotional or disruptive subject for some people. Therefore if you wish, you may voluntarily opt out of the News section by following the instructions here
. Because participation in the News, Current Events & Politics section is entirely optional (and won't even show up in your "Active Topics
" search, if you opt out), please refrain from meta-discussion in the form of complaining about the existence of such topics here at Dhamma Wheel. If they are burdensome to you personally, simply opt out.
Failure to abide by the rules and standards specific to this forum may result in access to the News, Current Events & Politics forum being revoked.
Staff would be well within their rights to start locking people out of the News section if they're unwilling to engage in sense restraint and are going to remain chronically intolerant of its presence, or of the presence of unfavoured views therein.
binocular wrote: ↑
Wed Apr 11, 2018 4:46 am
That's why they usually use the aggressive communication style, not the assertive one.
I'd suggest that what you experience as an "aggressive communication style" is actually the Dhamma Wheel staff getting sick and tired of the way you unfairly project your historical experiences with religious authorities onto us, as if we were personally responsible for any dukkha that befell you in former years. We do not deserve that, and it would be decent of you, and certainly appreciated by me, if from now on you were mindful to strive harder to differentiate between what staff actually do
, versus the qualities and motives that you impute upon them
based upon your former misadventures with people who are not us.
We do not deserve to be on the end of your unfair projections - enough is enough.
( See binocular, I told you I wasn't advocating relativism.