So...are people saying this "issue" is more about it taking away from the Trek'iness of the game?
The game with Calhoun in it from the New Frontier Books? Whose crewman referred to as "Hir" had a kid with a Vulcan woman?
Or the Sulu family...with Demora being revealed as bisexual/pansexual in the last book?
Or any of the other examples from the books or the TV shows? Media that's enough of a part of the lore to have characters or their descendants included in the game?
This is the Trek'mmersion that's being "ruined" here?
"IDIC, You're a bigot, No YOU'RE a Bigot, WHADDABOUT MA KIDS???NONOJUNIORUPYOURCRITSOYOUCANSEETHEBODIESDISINTEGRATE!"
Give it a rest already and go eat a bowl of Grape Nuts. lol
Perhaps the saying attributed to Voltaire is more appropriate: "I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." If more people could look past anger and knee-jerk reactions and the automatic first resort to "let's punish people because they said things we don't like," and instead consider that real tolerance requires...actually tolerating that others disagree with one's point of view instead of intimidating them to shut up...I think things would go better.
Oh, and prolegap--totally agreed on Klingons and bad writing. House Pegh was full of bad writing, but unfortunately that's been a tradition since the TOS movies started dumbing down the Klingons and then TNG and DS9 handed the Klinks the idiot ball permanently. By the time STO came around and made them even dumber, it's hard to say they weren't following established canon precedent by making them dumber than rocks. Pretty much just a bunch of angry, untrained pit bulls in their portrayal...a sad loss compared to the likes of the TOS Klingon captains.
Kai komerex klinzhai, dagnabbit!!! :mad:
I will in fact defend to the death their right to say what they think - as long as they are not inciting violence or attempting to intimidate, and as long as the force I am defending them FROM actually has the power to stop them.
Being told you are bigoted, retrograde, and wrong isn't censorship. Having your posts deleted or your access removed from a privately-owned forum isn't a violation of your freedom of speech. You have the right to say what you think, subject to the aforementioned issues of incitement and intimidation, but no one has to approve (or even withhold their expression of disapproval) and no one has to give you access to their resources to say it.
I will in fact defend to the death their right to say what they think - as long as they are not inciting violence or attempting to intimidate, and as long as the force I am defending them FROM actually has the power to stop them.
You are talking about 2 different things: opinions and actions. You do not have to agree with someone's opinion to be able to acknowledge their right to have it. However if that person tries to stop other people from doing something, that is an action. So there is no need to conflate the two as if they were the same thing, when the are not.
While using politics to 'force you to hide' is reprehensible, I think that those who use this issue in the opposite direction are just as wrong. Its none of *their* business either.
I have no idea who you are talking about here, or what you mean.
Nadiezja, I probably share your opinion of many of the bigoted things that have been said about the bi/TRIBBLE couple in the new mission, but I have to correct you about one thing:
Having your posts deleted or your access removed from a privately-owned forum isn't a violation of your freedom of speech.
It absolutely is. You might be thinking of the 1st Amendment which restricts the US government from violating free speech rights. Free Speech doesn't exist because of the 1st Amendment, the 1st Amendment exists because of the universal concept of Free Speech, which has been codified by the UN as an universal human right.
I'm not saying that deleting someone's forum posts is a massive human rights violation. But is a violation of the principle of Freedom of Expression.
As an European social democrat, I'm troubled by the fact that many people claiming to be progressive, have been lately embracing censorship, as long as it's against opinions they dislike. Often using the same false "only the goverment can censor" line. This is a dangerous trend, as the right has been using Freedom of Speech as a weapon to paint the American left as authoritarian. An accusation which becomes increasingly harder to refute.
The Internet is in effect a collection of private forums. If private forums silencing opinions isn't censorship, should we just accept that Freedom of Speech doesn't exist on the Internet? That sounds like something that'll bite us all in the rear at some point, as people's lives move more and more online.
I'm tempted to dismiss it as nonsense on wheels. Something tossed onto the Vulcan heap without much thought (except for the chance at making money) by Robbenberry (and in that, it seems I'm in agreement with Nimoy).
After all, Vulcan was the most tradition bound of all the Federation members, ruled by it's unbreakable laws, rituals, and codes of behavior, and bound to strict and unforgiving logic. Spock was in effect disowned by his father for simply joining Star Fleet. Clearly there was no happy IDIC in Vulcan culture itself.
However...
It does make sense if applied outside of Vulcan when dealing with other cultures. There IDIC would act to allow them to deal with (in their view) irrational alien races cursed with unrestrained emotion. Despite their lack of Logic, they were in practical terms successful species on par with their own. To the logical Vulcans, that is an odd outcome to say the less- but one they had to deal with.
In those terms, IDIC is a label for saying "You know, that's not logical and I want no part of it. But it seems to work for you. Now, how do I keep you out of my cheerios?".
The answer to that last question was of course "The Prime Directive". Those two concepts together allowed Vulcan to exist as a UFP member. Without either, membership would have likely been impossible.
I will in fact defend to the death their right to say what they think - as long as they are not inciting violence or attempting to intimidate, and as long as the force I am defending them FROM actually has the power to stop them.
Being told you are bigoted, retrograde, and wrong isn't censorship. Having your posts deleted or your access removed from a privately-owned forum isn't a violation of your freedom of speech. You have the right to say what you think, subject to the aforementioned issues of incitement and intimidation, but no one has to approve (or even withhold their expression of disapproval) and no one has to give you access to their resources to say it.
It's an old and silly argument: "You're making me feel bad about my bigotry, which means that *you* are the real oppressor! I'm uncomfortable because I have to reconsider how I treat others, which is worse getting beaten up for holding your boyfriend's hand in public!"
This issue is not politics. It's about whether some people have the same value as everyone else. Nothing that the people who got a butthurt from B'Eler makes sense unless you believe that TRIBBLE/bi people are less than straight people.
It absolutely is. You might be thinking of the 1st Amendment which restricts the US government from violating free speech rights. Free Speech doesn't exist because of the 1st Amendment, the 1st Amendment exists because of the universal concept of Free Speech, which has been codified by the UN as an universal human right.
The flaw in your logic is that free speech, even as a universal right, does not exist in *privately* owned locations. Want an example? Let's say you have a little party at your house. One of your friends bring someone you don't know(maybe a new boyfriend or girlfriend), but you decide to let them in since they came with your friend. However, before long this person starts saying things that offend you or your family. As the owner of your house, it is your RIGHT to kick that person out, effectively ending their "free speech" inside your house. And guess what? This forum is Cryptic/PW's house. That means they get to set the rules, and kick out people who don't follow them. So your argument about free speech does not apply in someone else's privately owned location.
About IDIC, though, I have to agree that it doesn't make much sense in the context of Vulcan culture, which was presented as internally uniform, xenophobic, and arrogant. The Trill, Betazoids, or humans would probably come closest to that ideal based on their representations in the show.
The flaw in your logic is that free speech, even as a universal right, does not exist in *privately* owned locations. Want an example? Let's say you have a little party at your house. One of your friends bring someone you don't know, but you decide to let them in since they came with your friend. However, before long this person starts saying things that offend you or your family. As the owner of your house, it is your RIGHT to kick that person out, effectively ending their "free speech" inside your house. And guess what? This forum is Cryptic/PW's house. That means they get to set the rules, and kick out people who don't follow them. So your argument about free speech does not apply in someone else's privately owned location.
I might have edited my post with some clarifications after you posted this. I'll respond to it anyway:
I agree that privately owned forums have the legal right to restrict people's expression. It's however still a violation of the principle of Freedom of Expression, even though it doesn't violate any laws.
The problem with privately owned forums restricting speech, is that the Internet is in effect nothing but a collection of privately owned forums. This gives the forum owners the ability to direct the discussion to the direction they want, even to the detriment of the readers. And the end result is that Freedom of Speech doesn't exist on the Internet in any form for the average user, be it legal or in principle.
If it were up to me(and it of course isn't), if you create a forum that's publicly visible, and anyone can register and post, you've just created a public forum, which makes it your responsibility to maintain the Freedom of Expression of the posters.
I have to confess, i didn't know they were lesbians, its not something i "care" about, they are free to do whatever they want its nothing out of the ordinary for me, hell where i work we see loads of TRIBBLE people every day, maybe i just accept that as normal without feeling the need to highlight it
What, are you trying to force your new-age Grape Nuts agenda on me? You're infringing on my right to insist that everyone eat Wheaties!!
(Yeah, it's about that significant... )
Ya can't fool ME, Jons! Wheaties is a tool of the corporate sponsors and their...AGENDA!
So tired of having to be forced to walk by that in-your-face orange box with some athlete on it just so I can grab my box of Cinnamon Toast Crunch! FOODIE FASCISTS, I SAY! Stop ruining my childhood memories of my first steps to Age Onset Diabetes! :O
I have to confess, i didn't know they were lesbians, its not something i "care" about, they are free to do whatever they want its nothing out of the ordinary for me, hell where i work we see loads of TRIBBLE people every day, maybe i just accept that as normal without feeling the need to highlight it
Which is more or less how they handled it in the story. It's there. It's treated as about as interesting as the color of your shirt, and just a part of their characters. No clue why people make a fuss over a single line.
I might have edited my post with some clarifications after you posted this. I'll respond to it anyway:
I agree that privately owned forums have the legal right to restrict people's expression. It's however still a violation of the principle of Freedom of Expression, even though it doesn't violate any laws.
The problem with privately owned forums restricting speech, is that the Internet is in effect nothing but a collection of privately owned forums. This gives the forum owners the ability to direct the discussion to the direction they want, even to the detriment of the readers. And the end result is that Freedom of Speech doesn't exist on the Internet in any form for the average user, be it legal or in principle.
If it were up to me(and it of course isn't), if you create a forum that's publicly visible, and anyone can register and post, you've just created a public forum, which makes it your responsibility to maintain the Freedom of Expression of the posters.
You too might have replied to an incomplete post. Apologies for editing the post so late.
You say that you would maintain freedom of expression but trust me, it never works out. I've done forums for years, and I've tried the whole "say whatever you want" and it always backfires. You HAVE to have some sort of rules on what is or isn't allowed to say or else it becomes a cluster TRIBBLE of problems, users being harassed, violations of the laws in your country etc. It's why there are rules here stopping say religious discussion. It always turns ugly and we have to step in before people start threatening.
Yes, I'm that Askray@Batbayer in game. Yes, I still play. No, I don't care. Former Community Moderator, Former SSR DJ, Now Full time father to two kids, Husband, Retail Worker. Tiktok: @Askray Facebook: Askray113
I might have edited my post with some clarifications after you posted this. I'll respond to it anyway:
I agree that privately owned forums have the legal right to restrict people's expression. It's however still a violation of the principle of Freedom of Expression, even though it doesn't violate any laws.
I disagree. It is no more a "violation of the principle" than the example I gave of you kicking someone out of your house for offending you or your family. Not only is it your legal right to do so, you have no moral principle obligating you to let someone else stay in your house that is saying things you find offensive.
The problem with privately owned forums restricting speech, is that the Internet is in effect nothing but a collection of privately owned forums. This gives the forum owners the ability to direct the discussion to the direction they want, even to the detriment of the readers. And the end result is that Freedom of Speech doesn't exist on the Internet in any form for the average user, be it legal or in principle.
And the great thing about the internet is that any average joe can go over to proboards.com or any other similar website and create their own forum. If you feel like you do not have enough freedom here, there are a million other places you can go, or create your own. Just like if someone kicks you out of their house for offending them, you can "try your luck" in someone else's house...or just invite people to your house where you are the one in control.
Which is more or less how they handled it in the story. It's there. It's treated as about as interesting as the color of your shirt, and just a part of their characters. No clue why people make a fuss over a single line.
Because they are bored and have too much time on their hands.
The way I tend to look at it, the moment that one poster begins bullying another is the moment that a discussion has gone too far. "He disagrees with me! Make him STOP!" does not IMO constitute a legitimate bullying complaint. "He disagrees with me so he called me a @#%*, insulted my mother, threatened my job or my life, or stalker-trolled me from thread to thread," to give some examples, is a legitimate bullying complaint. Now, I have seen very subtle passive-aggressive forms of it that aren't always that blatant, but can be recognized by the attempt, however subtle, whether by fake appeals to authority, or silent masses, or attempts to divide people against each other, to intimidate the other person into shutting up for fear that the perpetrator will do something worse. I won't go any further, except to say that I know what I have seen when I have seen it, on all sides.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
The way I tend to look at it, the moment that one poster begins bullying another is the moment that a discussion has gone too far. "He disagrees with me! Make him STOP!" does not IMO constitute a legitimate bullying complaint. "He disagrees with me so he called me a @#%*, insulted my mother, threatened my job or my life, or stalker-trolled me from thread to thread," to give some examples, is a legitimate bullying complaint.
Pretty much, though I added to my post after you quoted it. Sorry!
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
About IDIC, though, I have to agree that it doesn't make much sense in the context of Vulcan culture, which was presented as internally uniform, xenophobic, and arrogant. The Trill, Betazoids, or humans would probably come closest to that ideal based on their representations in the show.
I always thought the Vulcan IDIC stands for a admiration of nature and of course Suraks teaching of keeping an open mind.
Regarding the two TRIBBLE Klingons, i'm really disappointed by some community members tbh and all the fuss about it.
But on the other hand it shows that Star Trek (as it is represented in the last years by Cryptic for ex.) has been changed to a universe about war and conflict only.
Some people seem to think that Trek always has been about that or never understood the point of so many episodes in the first place.
Anyways, disappointing.
"...'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured...the first thought forbidden...the first freedom denied--chains us all irrevocably.' ... The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. I fear that today--"
- (TNG) Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie
I disagree. It is no more a "violation of the principle" than the example I gave of you kicking someone out of your house for offending you or your family. Not only is it your legal right to do so, you have no moral principle obligating you to let someone else stay in your house that is saying things you find offensive.
And I disagree with you. A publicly visible forum where anyone can register to post, and where their whole presence is the content of their posts, is in no way comparable to someone's house. In fact, the concept is so new that there's nothing to compare it to. The closest analogy would probably be the Opinion section of a traditional paper magazine, where I've only ever seen letters edited for length.
And the great thing about the internet is that any average joe can go over to proboards.com or any other similar website and create their own forum. If you feel like you do not have enough freedom here, there are a million other places you can go, or create your own. Just like if someone kicks you out of their house for offending them, you can "try your luck" in someone else's house...or just invite people to your house where you are the one in control.
In addition to the house analogy being bad, this would just create a new privately owned forum, which would again be at the risk of being censored. Until the situation is somehow corrected, or a real public forum equivalent to going to a market/park and talking to people appears, the Internet continues to be broken by design.
You say that you would maintain freedom of expression but trust me, it never works out. I've done forums for years, and I've tried the whole "say whatever you want" and it always backfires. You HAVE to have some sort of rules on what is or isn't allowed to say or else it becomes a cluster TRIBBLE of problems, users being harassed, violations of the laws in your country etc. It's why there are rules here stopping say religious discussion. It always turns ugly and we have to step in before people start threatening.
I know that the wild west days are long gone. But I recall fondly when they existed on the myspace forums. There was one that I frequented for about 2 years every day for hours and have lifelong friends from there. Until the end it was a complete freeforall. Moderation began in the last few months and the forum turned into only how far can we push the moderator, then everyone left.
I understand that now corporations will never allow the wild west. This began with yahoo chat rooms that were also quite wild. And we see a coke logo next to pornography etc. So the yahoo sponsors pulled the plug on that. The idea of censored forums spread quickly from there.
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: "We think we've come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches, it's all ancient history. Then - before you can blink an eye - suddenly it threatens to start all over again."
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
You say that you would maintain freedom of expression but trust me, it never works out. I've done forums for years, and I've tried the whole "say whatever you want" and it always backfires. You HAVE to have some sort of rules on what is or isn't allowed to say or else it becomes a cluster TRIBBLE of problems, users being harassed, violations of the laws in your country etc. It's why there are rules here stopping say religious discussion. It always turns ugly and we have to step in before people start threatening.
Threats, harassment, stalking and other clearly illegal things are already illegal. Taking action when those happen is completely understandable, and doesn't violate anyone's rights.
I'm all for people having religious discussion myself, though my patience with it has waned a bit in the recent years. In my experience the the threats you tend to get with those are of the "X is an abomination unto Y, and he will surely burn in hellfire!" -kind, which aren't actual threats. If someone ends up actually threatening someone with violence, that's already illegal.
Threats, harassment, stalking and other clearly illegal things are already illegal. Taking action when those happen is completely understandable, and doesn't violate anyone's rights.
I'm all for people having religious discussion myself, though my patience with it has waned a bit in the recent years. In my experience the the threats you tend to get with those are of the "X is an abomination unto Y, and he will surely burn in hellfire!" -kind, which aren't actual threats. If someone ends up actually threatening someone with violence, that's already illegal.
I consider the hellfire thing to be in poor taste (at least for me, it is an arrogant claim of private knowledge of the individual's personal circumstances that we lack sufficient understanding of the whole person to make) and I am OK with the idea that on the forum one should not tell another poster, "You are going to hell!" To me, that is in a different category from saying, "I believe Idea X is wrong and it is against my faith."
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
You are talking about 2 different things: opinions and actions. You do not have to agree with someone's opinion to be able to acknowledge their right to have it. However if that person tries to stop other people from doing something, that is an action. So there is no need to conflate the two as if they were the same thing, when the are not.
I'm really not - just cutting things off before they're brought up. I've been down this road before.
You have the right to hold any belief you wish.
In public spaces or fora which you own, you have the right to express those beliefs.
You do not have the right to use that expression to intimidate others, or to incite violence against them.
You do not have the right to have your expression hosted on someone else's forum, to use the resources of that other person or entity to further your expression.
You do not have the right to not be judged for your expressed opinion - of you express something others find reprehensible, you should expect them to use their freedom of expression to tell you that, and be ready to defend you beliefs. A belief worth expressing is a belief worth defending.
So yes, being intolerant of people because of their sexuality is bigotry, but so is being intolerant of people because of their opinions.
Unless said opinon is itself bigotrous (is that even a word?); then qualifying the opinion as such is not itself also bigotry. Like pointing out someone is intolerant is not itself being intolerant. (Something to do with G
Comments
The game with Calhoun in it from the New Frontier Books? Whose crewman referred to as "Hir" had a kid with a Vulcan woman?
Or the Sulu family...with Demora being revealed as bisexual/pansexual in the last book?
Or any of the other examples from the books or the TV shows? Media that's enough of a part of the lore to have characters or their descendants included in the game?
This is the Trek'mmersion that's being "ruined" here?
"IDIC, You're a bigot, No YOU'RE a Bigot, WHADDABOUT MA KIDS???NONOJUNIORUPYOURCRITSOYOUCANSEETHEBODIESDISINTEGRATE!"
Give it a rest already and go eat a bowl of Grape Nuts. lol
I will in fact defend to the death their right to say what they think - as long as they are not inciting violence or attempting to intimidate, and as long as the force I am defending them FROM actually has the power to stop them.
Being told you are bigoted, retrograde, and wrong isn't censorship. Having your posts deleted or your access removed from a privately-owned forum isn't a violation of your freedom of speech. You have the right to say what you think, subject to the aforementioned issues of incitement and intimidation, but no one has to approve (or even withhold their expression of disapproval) and no one has to give you access to their resources to say it.
(Yeah, it's about that significant...
You are talking about 2 different things: opinions and actions. You do not have to agree with someone's opinion to be able to acknowledge their right to have it. However if that person tries to stop other people from doing something, that is an action. So there is no need to conflate the two as if they were the same thing, when the are not.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I have no idea who you are talking about here, or what you mean.
It absolutely is. You might be thinking of the 1st Amendment which restricts the US government from violating free speech rights. Free Speech doesn't exist because of the 1st Amendment, the 1st Amendment exists because of the universal concept of Free Speech, which has been codified by the UN as an universal human right.
I'm not saying that deleting someone's forum posts is a massive human rights violation. But is a violation of the principle of Freedom of Expression.
As an European social democrat, I'm troubled by the fact that many people claiming to be progressive, have been lately embracing censorship, as long as it's against opinions they dislike. Often using the same false "only the goverment can censor" line. This is a dangerous trend, as the right has been using Freedom of Speech as a weapon to paint the American left as authoritarian. An accusation which becomes increasingly harder to refute.
I'd suggest this article as some light reading.
The Internet is in effect a collection of private forums. If private forums silencing opinions isn't censorship, should we just accept that Freedom of Speech doesn't exist on the Internet? That sounds like something that'll bite us all in the rear at some point, as people's lives move more and more online.
I'm tempted to dismiss it as nonsense on wheels. Something tossed onto the Vulcan heap without much thought (except for the chance at making money) by Robbenberry (and in that, it seems I'm in agreement with Nimoy).
After all, Vulcan was the most tradition bound of all the Federation members, ruled by it's unbreakable laws, rituals, and codes of behavior, and bound to strict and unforgiving logic. Spock was in effect disowned by his father for simply joining Star Fleet. Clearly there was no happy IDIC in Vulcan culture itself.
However...
It does make sense if applied outside of Vulcan when dealing with other cultures. There IDIC would act to allow them to deal with (in their view) irrational alien races cursed with unrestrained emotion. Despite their lack of Logic, they were in practical terms successful species on par with their own. To the logical Vulcans, that is an odd outcome to say the less- but one they had to deal with.
In those terms, IDIC is a label for saying "You know, that's not logical and I want no part of it. But it seems to work for you. Now, how do I keep you out of my cheerios?".
The answer to that last question was of course "The Prime Directive". Those two concepts together allowed Vulcan to exist as a UFP member. Without either, membership would have likely been impossible.
It's an old and silly argument: "You're making me feel bad about my bigotry, which means that *you* are the real oppressor! I'm uncomfortable because I have to reconsider how I treat others, which is worse getting beaten up for holding your boyfriend's hand in public!"
This issue is not politics. It's about whether some people have the same value as everyone else. Nothing that the people who got a butthurt from B'Eler makes sense unless you believe that TRIBBLE/bi people are less than straight people.
The flaw in your logic is that free speech, even as a universal right, does not exist in *privately* owned locations. Want an example? Let's say you have a little party at your house. One of your friends bring someone you don't know(maybe a new boyfriend or girlfriend), but you decide to let them in since they came with your friend. However, before long this person starts saying things that offend you or your family. As the owner of your house, it is your RIGHT to kick that person out, effectively ending their "free speech" inside your house. And guess what? This forum is Cryptic/PW's house. That means they get to set the rules, and kick out people who don't follow them. So your argument about free speech does not apply in someone else's privately owned location.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I might have edited my post with some clarifications after you posted this. I'll respond to it anyway:
I agree that privately owned forums have the legal right to restrict people's expression. It's however still a violation of the principle of Freedom of Expression, even though it doesn't violate any laws.
The problem with privately owned forums restricting speech, is that the Internet is in effect nothing but a collection of privately owned forums. This gives the forum owners the ability to direct the discussion to the direction they want, even to the detriment of the readers. And the end result is that Freedom of Speech doesn't exist on the Internet in any form for the average user, be it legal or in principle.
If it were up to me(and it of course isn't), if you create a forum that's publicly visible, and anyone can register and post, you've just created a public forum, which makes it your responsibility to maintain the Freedom of Expression of the posters.
You too might have replied to an incomplete post. Apologies for editing the post so late.
Ya can't fool ME, Jons! Wheaties is a tool of the corporate sponsors and their...AGENDA!
So tired of having to be forced to walk by that in-your-face orange box with some athlete on it just so I can grab my box of Cinnamon Toast Crunch! FOODIE FASCISTS, I SAY! Stop ruining my childhood memories of my first steps to Age Onset Diabetes! :O
Which is more or less how they handled it in the story. It's there. It's treated as about as interesting as the color of your shirt, and just a part of their characters. No clue why people make a fuss over a single line.
Former Community Moderator, Former SSR DJ, Now Full time father to two kids, Husband, Retail Worker.
Tiktok: @Askray Facebook: Askray113
I disagree. It is no more a "violation of the principle" than the example I gave of you kicking someone out of your house for offending you or your family. Not only is it your legal right to do so, you have no moral principle obligating you to let someone else stay in your house that is saying things you find offensive.
And the great thing about the internet is that any average joe can go over to proboards.com or any other similar website and create their own forum. If you feel like you do not have enough freedom here, there are a million other places you can go, or create your own. Just like if someone kicks you out of their house for offending them, you can "try your luck" in someone else's house...or just invite people to your house where you are the one in control.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Because they are bored and have too much time on their hands.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
In other words, a "personal attack" or "threat".
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Regarding the two TRIBBLE Klingons, i'm really disappointed by some community members tbh and all the fuss about it.
But on the other hand it shows that Star Trek (as it is represented in the last years by Cryptic for ex.) has been changed to a universe about war and conflict only.
Some people seem to think that Trek always has been about that or never understood the point of so many episodes in the first place.
Anyways, disappointing.
And I disagree with you. A publicly visible forum where anyone can register to post, and where their whole presence is the content of their posts, is in no way comparable to someone's house. In fact, the concept is so new that there's nothing to compare it to. The closest analogy would probably be the Opinion section of a traditional paper magazine, where I've only ever seen letters edited for length.
In addition to the house analogy being bad, this would just create a new privately owned forum, which would again be at the risk of being censored. Until the situation is somehow corrected, or a real public forum equivalent to going to a market/park and talking to people appears, the Internet continues to be broken by design.
I know that the wild west days are long gone. But I recall fondly when they existed on the myspace forums. There was one that I frequented for about 2 years every day for hours and have lifelong friends from there. Until the end it was a complete freeforall. Moderation began in the last few months and the forum turned into only how far can we push the moderator, then everyone left.
I understand that now corporations will never allow the wild west. This began with yahoo chat rooms that were also quite wild. And we see a coke logo next to pornography etc. So the yahoo sponsors pulled the plug on that. The idea of censored forums spread quickly from there.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
Threats, harassment, stalking and other clearly illegal things are already illegal. Taking action when those happen is completely understandable, and doesn't violate anyone's rights.
I'm all for people having religious discussion myself, though my patience with it has waned a bit in the recent years. In my experience the the threats you tend to get with those are of the "X is an abomination unto Y, and he will surely burn in hellfire!" -kind, which aren't actual threats. If someone ends up actually threatening someone with violence, that's already illegal.
I consider the hellfire thing to be in poor taste (at least for me, it is an arrogant claim of private knowledge of the individual's personal circumstances that we lack sufficient understanding of the whole person to make) and I am OK with the idea that on the forum one should not tell another poster, "You are going to hell!" To me, that is in a different category from saying, "I believe Idea X is wrong and it is against my faith."
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
I'm really not - just cutting things off before they're brought up. I've been down this road before.
You have the right to hold any belief you wish.
In public spaces or fora which you own, you have the right to express those beliefs.
You do not have the right to use that expression to intimidate others, or to incite violence against them.
You do not have the right to have your expression hosted on someone else's forum, to use the resources of that other person or entity to further your expression.
You do not have the right to not be judged for your expressed opinion - of you express something others find reprehensible, you should expect them to use their freedom of expression to tell you that, and be ready to defend you beliefs. A belief worth expressing is a belief worth defending.
Unless said opinon is itself bigotrous (is that even a word?); then qualifying the opinion as such is not itself also bigotry. Like pointing out someone is intolerant is not itself being intolerant. (Something to do with G