Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Tell us how you think the forum can be improved. We will listen.
Locked
User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4092
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by Sam Vara » Tue Apr 10, 2018 2:15 pm

rightviewftw wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 1:54 pm
Mkoll wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 1:49 pm
The bad threads aren't worth touching with a 10 foot pole. They're a source of defilement and demerit, for oneself and others.
Breaking ToS right there. Am i right moderators?
Could you say why?

User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by aflatun » Tue Apr 10, 2018 2:18 pm

Mkoll wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 1:49 pm
Upeksha wrote:As for my own view, I cannot in good conscience remain a member of a forum in which there is so much ill will, intolerance and outright prejudice expressed to non-Buddhist groups or individuals. So I will follow this thread to its natural conclusion and sign off.
Caodemarte wrote:The apparent decision to become a conduit for other material with “so much ill will, intolerance and outright prejudice” in order to attract a wider audience (as explained in this thread) is the right of the owner and administrators. It is not one I wish to be associated with or can support. So I will also “follow this thread to its natural conclusion and sign off.”
What I do is essentially ignore those kinds of threads. There are still good threads once in awhile. Sometimes there are opportunities to give good advice. Sometimes there are informational threads about a new book or event going on. Sometimes there are threads where one can promote harmony. These are the threads that make this forum still worth visiting.

The bad threads aren't worth touching with a 10 foot pole. They're a source of defilement and demerit, for oneself and others. It's taken me many years and thousands of posts, many disharmonious, to figure this out. All forums have these threads. We can't direct the content of threads on this forum or any other, just as we can't direct what other people say to us and others. It's up to the moderators and owners of respective forums to curate them. But we can control our own involvement in those threads.
:bow:
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16

User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 3355
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by Mr Man » Tue Apr 10, 2018 2:20 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:46 am
Mr Man wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:02 am

It's fairly obvious that Pornography and coarse humour would be covered by 2c. Execution videos as well, which might also be illegal (?).
Indeed. Hence my examples. I think what I would term racial abuse would also be fairly obviously covered by the ToS.
It seems implementation is done on an ad-hoc basis according to the disposition of the mod.
If anything is being implemented by mods, it would always be on an ad hoc basis. If it were not ad hoc, then it wouldn't do justice to the particularity of what is being posted.
Why don't you wish to include specific terms relating to racism, homophobia, misogyny etc.
It's not my site and I've had, as yet, no detailed discussion as to what should be included. But personally, I'm happy with the ToS as they are, so I'm not convinced that the inclusion of specific terms would serve any useful purpose. It might be useful for you to give a specific example of an improvement which would be effected by such an inclusion, so I could consider it.
People also have very different conceptions of what is "Language or subject matter inappropriate to minors".
They do, and we have an approach of ad hoc judgements as opposed to a long and permanently disputed list of words and subjects which are proscribed. Do you think there is a lot of content that is inappropriate to minors?
I guess in this post and the following one (to Dinsdale) you have made a case for doing away with the ToS altogether :smile:.

I think it is important to clearly recognize that it is not the ToS that governs the forum but the moderators.

I don't believe in a long list of proscribed subjects but I do believe that a clear and as unambiguous a ToS as possible would be a good thing.

Personal racial abuse is clearly covered and in my opinion this makes the omission of a specific clause dealing with content all the more glaring.

To have specific reference to content would be a good thing in my opinion. I can't see why anyone would be against it.

With regard to what content is inappropriate to minors. My perception is that profanity is more common than it once was on this forum (profanity would seem inappropriate full stop). Some of the video clips could also be seen as "inappropriate to minors". One on this thread has a content warning (I didn't bother watching beyond that though).

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4395
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by SDC » Tue Apr 10, 2018 2:35 pm

Mr Man wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 2:20 pm
With regard to what content is inappropriate to minors. My perception is that profanity is more common than it once was on this forum (profanity would seem inappropriate full stop). Some of the video clips could also be seen as "inappropriate to minors". One on this thread has a content warning (I didn't bother watching beyond that though).
I wholeheartedly agree with this.

User avatar
Modus.Ponens
Posts: 2766
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Gallifrey

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by Modus.Ponens » Tue Apr 10, 2018 2:52 pm

Mr Man wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 1:36 pm
Modus.Ponens wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 1:28 pm
But the point is that people cannot want their cake and eat it too.
FREE ANJEM CHOUDARY
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/ar ... sy9CC7waUk
The man who pledged alligiance to ISIS is in jail? Oh, now you've got me! What kind of free speech supporter would be in favor of arresting an enemy soldier?
"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
rightviewftw
Posts: 1773
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by rightviewftw » Tue Apr 10, 2018 3:12 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 2:15 pm
rightviewftw wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 1:54 pm
Mkoll wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 1:49 pm
The bad threads aren't worth touching with a 10 foot pole. They're a source of defilement and demerit, for oneself and others.
Breaking ToS right there. Am i right moderators?
Could you say why?
Is predicting karmic consequences?

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 11705
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by DNS » Tue Apr 10, 2018 3:28 pm

Some of you are confusing the non-making of spiritual attainment-claims by mods and staff and the liberal use of free speech as the site being not run by Dhammic principles. If you look at the terms of service, it includes whole sections on Intention, [Right] Speech, [Right] Action, and [Right] Mindfulness.

As those of you with experience know, a person with advancement and attainments wouldn't need to publicly proclaim them. An insecure person or staff would love nothing more than controlling others with authoritarian actions, regularly punishing members, suspending members, banning members, etc. The fact that this doesn't happen is testament of how well the staff is doing. This is why there are not that many suspensions, bans, etc. It does happen, but only when absolutely necessary.

It is just that the staff recognizes there are a plethora of views in all religions, including Buddhism, so doesn't make claim that they have the correct way and neither could anyone else here or on any other forum. A forum based on the principles found in the terms of service we have here is Dhammic as it allows freedom of expression and doesn't censor views simply because they are views not found among staff or the majority here or IRL. as long as it remains compliant with the terms of service.

Regarding race and racism, we do have this clause in the terms of service:
2.f. Personal attacks, including the vilification of individuals based on any attributes - whether related to their personal attributes (e.g. gender, nationality, sexuality, race, age) or their approach to the Dhamma (e.g. their practices, level of experience, or chosen tradition)

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4395
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by SDC » Tue Apr 10, 2018 3:35 pm

rightviewftw wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 3:12 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 2:15 pm
rightviewftw wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 1:54 pm

Breaking ToS right there. Am i right moderators?
Could you say why?
Is predicting karmic consequences?
If you think so report the post and stop talking about it here.

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4395
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by SDC » Tue Apr 10, 2018 3:37 pm

Mkoll wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 1:49 pm
Upeksha wrote:As for my own view, I cannot in good conscience remain a member of a forum in which there is so much ill will, intolerance and outright prejudice expressed to non-Buddhist groups or individuals. So I will follow this thread to its natural conclusion and sign off.
Caodemarte wrote:The apparent decision to become a conduit for other material with “so much ill will, intolerance and outright prejudice” in order to attract a wider audience (as explained in this thread) is the right of the owner and administrators. It is not one I wish to be associated with or can support. So I will also “follow this thread to its natural conclusion and sign off.”
What I do is essentially ignore those kinds of threads. There are still good threads once in awhile. Sometimes there are opportunities to give good advice. Sometimes there are informational threads about a new book or event going on. Sometimes there are threads where one can promote harmony. These are the threads that make this forum still worth visiting.

The bad threads aren't worth touching with a 10 foot pole. They're a source of defilement and demerit, for oneself and others. It's taken me many years and thousands of posts, many disharmonious, to figure this out. All forums have these threads. We can't direct the content of threads on this forum or any other, just as we can't direct what other people say to us and others. It's up to the moderators and owners of respective forums to curate them. But we can control our own involvement in those threads.
This is precisely the perspective I wish more members had. Beautiful post, James. :smile:

User avatar
rightviewftw
Posts: 1773
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by rightviewftw » Tue Apr 10, 2018 3:39 pm

SDC wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 3:35 pm
rightviewftw wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 3:12 pm
Sam Vara wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 2:15 pm


Could you say why?
Is predicting karmic consequences?
If you think so report the post and stop talking about it here.
is talking about it against the ToS or are you making rules as you go?

User avatar
SDC
Posts: 4395
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by SDC » Tue Apr 10, 2018 3:42 pm

rightviewftw wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 3:39 pm

is talking about it against the ToS or are you making rules as you go?
What I am trying to tell you is not to discuss it in the thread. If you think he violated the ToS then report it. This is really simple.

And no we do not "make them as we go". We will discuss the reported post and make a decision. Deciding on the spot because you think so would be "making the rules as I go" and that isn't very fair.

boundless
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:16 pm

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by boundless » Tue Apr 10, 2018 3:58 pm

Greetings all,

Regarding the respect to other views, religions etc this might be of interest: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... el386.html (The Edicts of King Ashoka)

:anjali:

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4092
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by Sam Vara » Tue Apr 10, 2018 4:02 pm

Mr Man wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 2:20 pm

I guess in this post and the following one (to Dinsdale) you have made a case for doing away with the ToS altogether :smile:.
Ah, that's the problem with guessing - it leads to wrong conclusions. I'm advocating their sufficiency, rather than their superfluity. That's why I said
But personally, I'm happy with the ToS as they are
I think it is important to clearly recognize that it is not the ToS that governs the forum but the moderators.
That's a form of rhetorical question-begging, I'm afraid. One can only clearly recognise what is the case, "recognition" being a verb of success. The moderators only implement the ToS, and even if that's not an exhaustive account of what they do, I haven't seen any instances of arbitrary government.
I don't believe in a long list of proscribed subjects but I do believe that a clear and as unambiguous a ToS as possible would be a good thing.
Me too. I think we've got a clear enough one now, but of course, people might have different opinions.
Personal racial abuse is clearly covered and in my opinion this makes the omission of a specific clause dealing with content all the more glaring.


So it's clearly covered, but you want it covering again? You think that wearing braces as well as your belt makes your trousers more secure, or is it a fashion statement?
To have specific reference to content would be a good thing in my opinion. I can't see why anyone would be against it.
Because if, as you said earlier, the moderators govern this forum, then the nasty racist misogynistic homophobes would just ignore it as they presumably do now...

I'll ask you the same question I asked Dinsdale. Does the lack of what you are advocating ever tempt you into racism, homophobia, or misogynistic hate speech, Mr. Man? Would your desire to ridicule or extirpate a particular minority be held more firmly in check if you had a little paragraph telling you not to do it? If so, let me know by PM, and I'll PM you one back so you can print it out and pin it up next to your computer.
With regard to what content is inappropriate to minors. My perception is that profanity is more common than it once was on this forum (profanity would seem inappropriate full stop). Some of the video clips could also be seen as "inappropriate to minors". One on this thread has a content warning (I didn't bother watching beyond that though).
Yes, I sometimes delete gratuitous swearing, sex, and violence, but I'm all for content warnings in the case of (say) specifically asubha content. Minors should not be able to stumble across it, and people should not be able to see it unless they opt in, so to speak.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4092
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by Sam Vara » Tue Apr 10, 2018 4:09 pm

boundless wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 3:58 pm
Greetings all,

Regarding the respect to other views, religions etc this might be of interest: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... el386.html (The Edicts of King Ashoka)

:anjali:
Excellent - many thanks. :thumbsup:

I hope you don't mind if I quote the bit from your link that I think is the most relevant here, as it's a long piece overall:
Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, honors both ascetics and the householders of all religions, and he honors them with gifts and honors of various kinds.[22] But Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, does not value gifts and honors as much as he values this — that there should be growth in the essentials of all religions.[23] Growth in essentials can be done in different ways, but all of them have as their root restraint in speech, that is, not praising one's own religion, or condemning the religion of others without good cause. And if there is cause for criticism, it should be done in a mild way. But it is better to honor other religions for this reason. By so doing, one's own religion benefits, and so do other religions, while doing otherwise harms one's own religion and the religions of others. Whoever praises his own religion, due to excessive devotion, and condemns others with the thought "Let me glorify my own religion," only harms his own religion. Therefore contact (between religions) is good.[24] One should listen to and respect the doctrines professed by others. Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, desires that all should be well-learned in the good doctrines of other religions.

boundless
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:16 pm

Re: Free speech, mere offense, direct harm & antisemitism

Post by boundless » Tue Apr 10, 2018 4:20 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 4:09 pm
boundless wrote:
Tue Apr 10, 2018 3:58 pm
Greetings all,

Regarding the respect to other views, religions etc this might be of interest: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... el386.html (The Edicts of King Ashoka)

:anjali:
Excellent - many thanks. :thumbsup:

I hope you don't mind if I quote the bit from your link that I think is the most relevant here, as it's a long piece overall:
Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, honors both ascetics and the householders of all religions, and he honors them with gifts and honors of various kinds.[22] But Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, does not value gifts and honors as much as he values this — that there should be growth in the essentials of all religions.[23] Growth in essentials can be done in different ways, but all of them have as their root restraint in speech, that is, not praising one's own religion, or condemning the religion of others without good cause. And if there is cause for criticism, it should be done in a mild way. But it is better to honor other religions for this reason. By so doing, one's own religion benefits, and so do other religions, while doing otherwise harms one's own religion and the religions of others. Whoever praises his own religion, due to excessive devotion, and condemns others with the thought "Let me glorify my own religion," only harms his own religion. Therefore contact (between religions) is good.[24] One should listen to and respect the doctrines professed by others. Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, desires that all should be well-learned in the good doctrines of other religions.
I agree that it is the most relevant part and, of course, I approve your quotation! :twothumbsup:

I think, however, that everyone should read the whole of it (by "everyone" I mean not only Buddhists, but everyone). I feel very humbled by the moral percepts found there :bow:

IMO these edicts should be considered part of the "Early Buddhist Texts"! I find a lot of value in them. Sadly, it appears that they are not well known.

:anjali:

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests