(2022-01-20, 02:15 PM)North Wrote: [ -> ]So I was trying to post some links to mainstream news and I got a message that it is only permitted to provide 3 links per week.
This does not facilitate informed discussion, it means reliance is placed on personal opinion.
I think it is fair to have rules on politeness of discourse. But this is not that.
I am saddened but not surprised that the march towards censorship of differing views has come to psciencequest.
My understanding of the spiritual life is that it includes the importance of ethical action and the deep personal deliberation on what is ethical.
Censorship contains both a rejection of free speech and an assumed authority to determine the truth. The moderators here have not yet earned that.
Psience Quest exists for a specific purpose, and that purpose is neither to discuss news, politics and questionable beliefs, nor is it to be "spiritual." The mods have to keep some kind of order and the mods here are far more generous and less authoritarian than in many other forums. If you are that desperate to discuss news, why not do it in another forum designed for that?
(2022-01-20, 03:28 PM)Brian Wrote: [ -> ]Psience Quest exists for a specific purpose, and that purpose is neither to discuss news, politics and questionable beliefs, nor is it to be "spiritual." The mods have to keep some kind of order and the mods here are far more generous and less authoritarian than in many other forums. If you are that desperate to discuss news, why not do it in another forum designed for that?
Brian, it was democratically voted on and agreed that the hidden forums would be available to us to discuss these topics you find so objectionable. So why the sudden rush to get rid of them? What has brought this to a head? Reading the first few posts in this thread I get the feeling that a lot sure has changed.
Could it possibly be that the subjects that I and others want to discuss are
so objectionable to you and others that you all want to see these topics
gone and simply want us
censored - using the ‘PSI only’ as an excuse for doing so? If that were true, wouldn’t it be an
authoritarian thing to do? Until Covid appeared these threads were hardly ever mentioned - why now? I feel that the excuses for changing the rules Ian has given are not line with the spirit of this threads original posts.
For one thing, who are the ‘owners’ of the forum?
(2022-01-20, 02:15 PM)North Wrote: [ -> ]So I was trying to post some links to mainstream news and I got a message that it is only permitted to provide 3 links per week.
This does not facilitate informed discussion, it means reliance is placed on personal opinion.
I think it is fair to have rules on politeness of discourse. But this is not that.
I am saddened but not surprised that the march towards censorship of differing views has come to psciencequest.
My understanding of the spiritual life is that it includes the importance of ethical action and the deep personal deliberation on what is ethical.
Censorship contains both a rejection of free speech and an assumed authority to determine the truth. The moderators here have not yet earned that.
Censorship vs free speech? Is it ethical/spiritual to promote racial or ideological hatred? Guns? White supremacy? Mob rule? Lynching? Disinformation - especially of such a nature as to discourage people from seeking effective healthcare?
These are all questions being discussed in the news media, in hundreds of forums, in YouTube comments and blogs all over the internet. I have my own feelings on those questions but I don't want this forum to be the place I go to to air my views on them. Some people see a correlation between the antagonism of scientists towards psi-related subjects and, for example, their position on climate change and/or vaccinations. But there is a difference - a very important difference.
Psi and spiritual phenomena do not lend themselves to scientific investigation which is bound by methodological naturalism (aka materialism). Most sceintists do all they can to avoid research into what they call the supernatural because, as the term specifically states, it is beyond naturalism. Therefore it is approproate for us to question the views of scientists on the (psi) subjects we discuss here because, quite often, we are better informed than they are on these subjects. It is not appropriate for us to claim that such criticism should extend to eveything else we might disagree with scientists about. Especially when such research is well within their area of expertise and within the confines of scientific naturalism.
(2022-01-20, 07:27 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]I have my own feelings on those questions but I don't want this forum to be the place I go to to air my views on them.
And no one is forcing you to. Just follow the rules that you helped create!
It’s simple, just stay out of the hidden forums.
None of the topics Kamarling mentions here are really relevant - apart from one - Disinformation. I think we’ll shortly see who’s been pushing the most disinformation, and those that can’t or won’t accept that will be shown up and the tables turned somewhat.
Upon re-reading my last response I feel that I should make a couple of things clear.
Firstly, and importantly, I am not commenting as a moderator or administrator because I am neither (nor ever have been). I only comment on the moderation policies just like everyone else is entitled to do although I am one of a group of founder members which means I can communicate in private with other founders. However, there is facility for anyone to communicate in private should they wish to do so.
Secondly, when I listed those topics I was doing so to question whether it is ethical to promote any of those things in the name of free speech, not that I was suggesting that those topics are relevant to discussions going on here. I don't take part in the Opt-in forums so I don't know what is discussed. The point I was making was about free speech in general.
(2022-01-20, 07:27 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]Censorship vs free speech?
“That’s why free speech is so necessary, it’s not another right - it’s
the right!”
Jordan Peterson
I agree with Jordan.
As it’s a ‘discussion’ thread, I might as well add something about this sentence.
Quote:Disinformation - especially of such a nature as to discourage people from seeking effective healthcare?.
I think it’s vitally important to know that ‘Disinformation’ in fact comes from many sources - the government, national Broadcasters like the BBC, scientists and unlimited others that we used to trust.
(mod: deleted for not respecting forum rules).
As Kamarling says, he “doesn’t take part in the Opt- in forums, so doesn’t know what is discussed” yet he’s made a reply to a post by North which is complaining about a new rule which has been introduced in the hidden forums without any discussion by ‘ordinary members’. He may say he ‘doesn’t know’ - but as a founding member (like I am, but I’m not invited to these discussions) he
has been involved in conversations about me, and he knows a lot about my ‘story’ and has strong feelings about my views. I would bet my mortgage (if I had one) that he hasn’t been a silent observer!
Frankly, it stinks.
Please keep posts here free of details regarding non-psi issues reserved for opt-in forums.
(2022-01-21, 05:51 PM)Ninshub Wrote: [ -> ]Please keep posts here free of details regarding non-psi issues reserved for opt-in forums.
As this is a discussion thread about Moderation, and you have again deleted part of my post I want to make an official complaint against you.
I want to know who the forum ‘owners’ are. This is new.
The part you deleted was in answer to Kamarling, and in my view was directly related to the moderation of the opt in forums and what is happening with regard to me. Where else can I talk about the moderation of the subject which has been the basis of bias against me? So far it has been done in private, with no neutral observers - only a bunch of your rules to be obeyed by me have come out in email form. If they are not, I run the risk of being permanently banned by you. It is unfair.
That you have taken it upon yourself to act as judge, jury and executioner where my posts only are concerned is nothing short of bullying, authoritative and definitely NOT in the spirit in which this forum was founded.
You have refused to discuss this with me. I have tried to be reasonable, but have been met with a blanket refusal to discuss our behaviour. It’s ironic you know, that I have received most likes for my posts from you (305 - equalled by Typoz, with Laird in third place) over the years.
I haven’t fundamentally changed over the years in the forum. I wonder what has?
(2022-01-21, 05:51 PM)Ninshub Wrote: [ -> ]Please keep posts here free of details regarding non-psi issues reserved for opt-in forums.
Yep. I got drawn into that with my comments on free speech ... sorry.
Ninshub,
Reflecting on my time moderating Skeptiko, I would say that if you want to rule a subject as not suitable for this forum, you should do so explicitly - not try to restrict posting in arbitrary ways.
So in particular, if you don't want COVID to be discussed, you should say so, and maybe give a reason for that decision. I do appreciate that moderating is hard, but at least you don't have Alex who didn't always back me up!