Crimes of color

[jaguar]

I'm not responding to maggies offtopic flames, ever again. Enough bait is enough. Anyway..

Xugumad, the key difference is that for the society in 1984 to work it requires noone to understand how it works, otherwise it would eventully colapse. Even in scientology those at the top understand it, or any other cult etc, that is the fundamental difference.

[juju]

Originally posted by jaguar
I'm not responding to maggies offtopic flames, ever again. Enough bait is enough.

I think what you mean to say here is, "I can't defy your logic. Therefore, I will trivialize and demonize you."

some points:

offtopic -- well, I thought it was kinda clever how she linked the two topics, myself.

flames -- well, I don't think her language was inflammatory at all.

bait -- well, she was just stating her opinion. Just because you get tired of talking about it doesn't mean she's trying to trick you.

[jaguar]

Every post she's made in this thread has been incendiary as hell, its entirely intentional and is entirely offtopic, her attempts to tie in each on vaguely with the otherwise interesting flow of conversation make it no less so. If she wants to rant on about 'censorship', do it in the thread in the home, not in an unrelated topic. I am not going to be bullied into spending my time reply to her flamebait. If you cannot spot at least two fundamental flaws in that post I’ve been giving you far more credit than you deserve.

[MaggieL]

You see, juju, "what you can say depends on who you are" has nothing whatever to do with the <b>real</b> topic of this thread, right?

Depending on who you are, of course. :-)

[juju]

Originally posted by jaguar
Every post she's made in this thread has been incendiary as hell, its entirely intentional and is entirely offtopic,

Just because you find her opinion inflammatory doesn't mean she's trying to be inflammatory. Grok this: your perception is not her perception. Just because you think you're being baited doesn't mean she's trying to do that.

I'm kind of tired of talking about it, too. But I still don't understand why people get so riled up about her. Maybe they just take things too personally?

An aside -- who gives a crap about anything being off-topic?

In a free discussion, it's okay, but when two parties are debating (or attempting to debate, or arguing - I'm not interested in redefining words here) a point, it can be frustrating if one of them continually moves the discussion off-topic.

I haven't been paying attention here, so I dunno if that's happening, but just chiming in about how someone might care about it.

[jaguar]

Just because you find her opinion inflammatory doesn't mean she's trying to be inflammatory. Grok this: your perception is not her perception. Just because you think you're being baited doesn't mean she's trying to do that.

My perception is based on past experience and is reaffirmed by the opinions of others over time. Grok that in-between the pseudointellectual, disattached comments that fail to grasp the contextualization of the issue or past events you seem to like making. Kinda clever linking? Kinda lame attempt to flog a dead horse. .

An aside -- who gives a crap about anything being off-topic?

When the offtopic is an attempt to flog a dead horse, one that's done no good in the past and been resolved - I do. As for defining offtopic, attempting to drag another thread into an unrelated one I think is a good definition.

Fuckit. I'm in a bad mood.

You see, juju, "what you can say depends on who you are" has nothing whatever to do with the real topic of this thread, right?

Nice game of mutual masturbation you've got going there, good on you, now, lets get back to reality can we?

I think what you mean to say here is, "I can't defy your logic. Therefore, I will trivialize and demonize you."

I explained why I wasn't reply - simply because I have wasted my time too many times in the past, and listening to flames will with personal attacks in response, why should I bother again? Clearly you've decided to pick a bone or you've missed some really long, ugly threads.

I think that exercising ideological control over information flows is not that different on the large scale than on the small, nor on the right wing than on the left. To pretend that it is strikes me as doublethink, glossed as believing two contradictory ideas at the same time.

Translation: Because I can't bitch and whine in dhamsaics forums, its evilevil censorship, which should be stopped because I have some kind of special cellar elder status which means I know more than everyone else about cellar, which therefore adds weight to my opinion. Since I lost that one ill attempt to make not very subtle attempt to bring it up every time I can because I feel aggrieved about the issue.

Doublethink does have the seductive property of allowing the pot to call the kettle black. Or even "a bitch", while excoriating the kettle for negative attitude and personal attacks.

Translation: Since I know jag is usually up for an argument and attacked me in that pervious debate about 'censorship' ill make some rather illogical(to clarify for those up the back - I attacked her for being offtopic and flogging a dead horse - not personal attacks) comments that specifically attack him with the hope of drawing some ire I can work with.

I think that exercising ideological control over information flows is not that different on the large scale than on the small, nor on the right wing than on the left. To pretend that it is strikes me as doublethink, glossed as believing two contradictory ideas at the same time.

Doublethink does have the seductive property of allowing the pot to call the kettle black. Or even "a bitch", while excoriating the kettle for negative attitude and personal attacks.

Translation: Jag is an evil hypercritical censor fascist.

If you want to talk about this so called censorship, bring it up in the thread about it and ill explain exactly what you can do about it. Namely, start your own website, or personal forum and say whatever you. Or maybe post every deleted post in that thread for all to see. Mayber wander into the street and exercise your first amendment rights as much as you want. Or jsut shut the fuck up about it, stop whining and live with it. Pick one, any one and stick to it and stop defecating on other threads.

This is in itself a demonstration of a: why dhamsaic deletes her comments, and secondly why i was refusing to answer her comments - another long, utterly pointless flamewar. I hope juju in your little domain of ethical piety the reality of the situation eventully got though. Sadly i doubt it.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by jaguar

Or jsut shut the fuck up about it, stop whining and live with it. Pick one, any one and stick to it and stop defecating on other threads.

If you're going to ignore my posts, you should probably stop quoting them . Even if you're going to grace us with your personal interpretation of what I said.

In *this* forum at least, you're not the arbiter of what's on-topic on a per-thread basis. Even if topic-drift was verboten (which it isn't), simply pronouncing points-of-view with which you disagree "off-topic" is feeble. "We're not talking about censorship here, so shut up and go away" looks pretty weak, too. McCarthyism and the works of Orwell are all about ideological repression. Claiming that's unrelated to censorship is silly.

[jaguar]

I was making a point to juju, otherwise i would not have wasted my time. What you don't seem to get is its not fucking censorship, its a private board on a private forum, noone is taking away your rights, get over it. We're nto trying to destroy the idea's you're throwing up, jsut isck of listening to flamebait filled crud. Topic drift is different to violently grabbing the topic, throwing it out of the way and using it a vehicle to deliver your own little acidic rant.

[hermit22]

I'm kinda with jaguar on this one. MaggieL decided that she wanted to bring the politics between her and...whomever and it served only to deaden the discussion, since everyone remotely impacted by her rhetoric jumped on the bandwagon in some way. Topic drift is acceptable and normal, but, like Jaguar said, topic hijacking isn't and shouldn't be.
Just my 2 cents. It pissed me off when I saw that vitriolic debate spill over into here.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by hermit22
Just my 2 cents. It pissed me off when I saw that vitriolic debate spill over into here.

Well, I'm not the one dispensing vitriol.

My original point was that some folks, who express outrage over an idea or speech only being criminalized when it comes from a certain person or class of people, seem to be quite comfortable with speech being suppressed for its *authorship* rather than its *content* when speakers *they* don't like are involved. What holds itself out as a "principled stand in support of the downtrodden" is revealed as being just "hurray for our side".

So then in reaction we've had page upon page of foul-mouthed flamage--apparently the new writing style in some circles--about how disruptive *I've* been. I think it's all just designed to distract from that original point.

These issues are *not* abstract and distant, they happen to us personally every day. This is what's at the core when a country originally founded on personal freedom is faced with the challenge of deadly enemies within its borders. (Will "the terrorists alrady have won" by causing us to "give up some freedom for a little safety"?) Sometimes it's easier to adhere to a principle than at other times. Those other times are the measure of how much you really believe in the principle...or keep it just for show.

[jaguar]

Free speach only applies when its useful, ie of artistic, poltical etc value. The stuff that i've seen deleted was mostly pointless bait for your little games. For crying out loud quit bitching. As i said, you can freely post the deleted posts in that thread in home, you can make your own forum and post them there, or whatever you want, you can print them out and leaflet drop the across the United States for all I care - you freedom of speach is not being impinged on, we should just have the right not to listen to what you have to say if we so choose. Dham's is a private forum and he has the right to decide what is posted there.

My point is irrispective of who made the comment, stop trying to play some kind of victim, you write crap, expect it to be called crap and deleted, i expect the same and have been justly critisised many times for posting shit, you post shit on dhams board, expect it to be treated as such.

You have the express right to say whatever you want. I have the right to ignore it, and dham has the right to delete it. Don't like it? Go elsewhere. Personally your comments have infuriated me so much i lost my cool which i regret, some things aren't worth getting so worked up about. I'd lvoe to be able to see this all from your perspective but i just can't get my head that far up my ass.

The fact your post has turned this thread about an interesting and serious issue into a battleground about a completely different issue only serves to illustrate my point.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by jaguar
Free speach only applies when its useful, ie of artistic, poltical etc value.

Your words do betray your values, Jag. That's probably the most outrageous thing I've ever heard you say. No wonder we seldom get along.

[hermit22]

Originally posted by jaguar
Free speach only applies when its useful, ie of artistic, poltical etc value.

Who's going to judge its usefulness? Free speech should be allowed as long as it does not threaten another person.

[Xugumad]

Originally posted by hermit22
Who's going to judge its usefulness? Free speech should be allowed as long as it does not threaten another person. [/b]

'Person' is such a fluid description.

Evaluate the sentences below:

1. "I'd really like to kill the Unabomber."
2. "I'd really like to kill Saddam Hussein."
3. "I'd love to kill my boss."
4. "I'd love to kill the President of the USA, George Walker Bush."
5. "I'd love to blow up the Scientology HQ, since they brainwash and kill people."

Speech is only free while it's not restricted, and restrictions are only a law away in most countries. FYI, saying the fourth to another person, or typing it in earnest somewhere (I'm not, just for clarification), will get you arrested in the US, as it has several people in the past who clearly had no intention of actually harming the POTUS. The fifth might get you arrested, held without trial and without lawyer, without telling anyone where you are for an indefinite period, and then tried secretly by a military court without the right to a jury or lawyer.

The first will probably meet blank stares, the second might be greeted with applause, the third with a chuckle.

I honestly can't say what should be 'allowed', and what shouldn't. But since I don't think that any of us are wise and able enough to derive some sort of common law of freedom regarding speech, I believe we ought to stick with the default: unrestricted free speech. Isn't there an amendment somewhere dealing with that?

X.