Private Message to a Liberal Moderator: Liberal Censorship

[Traditio]

So, I've been posting on a gaming forum, a subforum of which is a general "off-topic" forum, of which one of the threads is devoted to political discussion.

I made the claim that no muslim can be trusted because they believe it's OK to lie in certain circumstances. The moderator asserted that it's unacceptable to call a whole group of people untrustworthy.

I promptly responded that I refuse to be censored and that, indeed, the things that I am saying are true and supported by the evidence. I further PMed him and objected to the sheer liberal censorship he was effecting against me.

He wrote me back, either right before or after banning me from the site for a day:

It's not censorship, this is a private forum which you agree to follow the moderators of when you sign up. If you had said something along the lines of "radical Islamists are untrustworthy because of taqiya" then that would have been left alone, it was inaccurate and impolite generalisation which led to an in thread warning to pull your head in. And that warning stands

I just wrote an answer to him that I thought you guys would appreciate:

1. It's not just radical Islamists. It's a doctrine generally and historically accepted by Muslims of all sorts.

But let's ignore whether you are right or I am right. It speaks volumes that you're not willing to allow the matter to be publically debated. You're willing to ban and censor me simply for asserting that such and such a doctrine is held in Islam, and that this doctrine renders those who believe in Islam untrustworthy.

You're not even willing to debate the matter on its own merits.

If you think that my opinion is impolite or incorrect, then you should be presenting evidence that I'm incorrect, or else, encouraging others to do so. Instead, you are attempting to silence/censor my opinion.

That's not acceptable.

2. This is exacerbated by the fact that, if you actually read the thread in which you "warned" me, I took very special precautions to avoid being impolite to my interlocutor. I believe I said something to the effect of: "Nothing I've said is personal or directed at you in particular, even if you are Muslim. Rather, I am making a general claim about Muslims in general. You may or may not be being truthful, but I have no reason to believe that you are, given that you have claimed to subscribe to a religion in which x view is held."

Syllogistically, we may express this as follows:

1. Whoever thinks it's OK to lie may not be trusted to tell the truth.
2. Muslims assert that it's OK to lie in certain circumstances.
3. Therefore, Muslims may not be trusted in those circumstances.

Do I think that a Muslim might consider it kosher to lie to a so called "islamophobe" in order to counteract "islamophobia"?

I'll let you answer that.

At any rate, I wish to hammer in this point:

I was not being impolite. I took great care to avoid insulting anyone in particular. Fact is, you are censoring me simply because of the views that I've held, and the way that you are conducting yourself is simply authoritarian. Rather than allowing the matter to be openly debated and settled based on the evidence, you are iron-fistedly silencing the discussion.

The simple fact that someone might find a given opinion offensive does not make the expression of that opinion, in and of itself, impolite.

Let me be clear, [moderator]:

I am a Ph.D. student in philosophy. Simply in terms of intellectual merits, you are my intellectual inferior. I refuse to be intimidated or censored by someone such as yourself.

And frankly, the fact that you are averse to allowing my opinions to be debated openly, and the fact that you would prefer to censor and silence me, bears great testimony to the utter bankruptcy, not only of your own intellectual capacities, but of the liberal ideology of which you are an adherent.

You should be ashamed.

The moral of the story?

Liberals believe in freedom of speech.

Just so long as you agree with them. :nono:

 

[Rusha]

The moral of the story?

Liberals believe in freedom of speech.

Just so long as you agree with them. :nono:

Cool story ... however, I will remind you that their policy is no different than most other forums ... TOL included. BTW, it wasn't too long ago that you made a thread requesting that several long time members of TOL be banned by the moderators because you saw no value in *their* free speech.

The moral of the story? Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

[Traditio]

They have a "be polite" rule. Apparently, my saying that Muslims are not trustworthy because of their adherence to taqiya is impolite.

Ultimately, the site moderators can do whatever they want.

That said, it does speak volumes to the liberal mentality and why it would probably be socially disastrous NOT to vote for Trump.

Edit:

And let me be clear. I don't advocate that anyone be censored because of their views. I do think that moderator activity should be taken against people who devote themselves entirely to popping into threads and insulting people.

If you want to disagree with me, I take no issue with this.

If you want to ignore the issue and name call, I have a problem with that.

 

[Rusha]

They have a "be polite" rule. Apparently, my saying that Muslims are not trustworthy because of their adherence to taqiya is impolite.

It's fairly obvious they are trying to avoid a flame fest in their forum. Had the shoe been on the other foot and the comment was made about Catholics, you would have been outraged.

Ultimately, the site moderators can do whatever they want.

Yep ... there will always be a certain amount of bias and unfairness regardless of who is running a forum.

That said, it does speak volumes to the liberal mentality and why it would probably be socially disastrous NOT to vote for Trump.

That makes no sense. It is the CONSERVATIVES who are trying to keep Trump from running. The liberals LOVE the fact that the idiot may win the Republican nomination. :chuckle:

 

[Traditio]

It's fairly obvious they are trying to avoid a flame fest in their forum. Had the shoe been on the other foot and the comment was made about Catholics, you would have been outraged.

Rusha, really?

Are you really going to assert this?

How long have you been reading my postings?

How many flame fests have you seen me engage in?

How many times have you seen me become irrationally enraged because someone was mistaken on a matter of fact about the Catholic religion?

If I was in error about the Muslim adherence to Taqiya, then it's the prerogative of the Muslims and/or liberals to present counter-evidence to show that I'm in error.

Had someone made a similar mistake about Catholicism, that's what I would have done, had I bothered to write anything at all.

Yep ... there will always be a certain amount of bias and unfairness regardless of who is running a forum.

Yes, but I find that this particular form of unfairness/bias is more common among liberals. On two different sites (this one included), I've found that "be polite" is basically used as a guise to silence conservative opinions.

And it's a national trend at this point. What could be more common than liberals screaming "HATE SPEECH" about some conservative opinion? Liberals don't actually believe in freedom of speech. Simply look at liberal protestors at Donald Trump rallies.

That makes no sense. It is the CONSERVATIVES who are trying to keep Trump from running. The liberals LOVE the fact that the idiot may win the Republican nomination. :chuckle:

And yet liberals can't seem to steer clear of his rallies. Go figure.

And again, I wish to hammer in this point, Rusha:

They banned ME for saying what I did.

The generally polite, well mannered philosophy student.

Liberalism is a threat. It is a dangerous threat.

 

[WizardofOz]

Trad - do you believe it's ok to lie in certain circumstances?

 

[Traditio]

Trad - do you believe it's ok to lie in certain circumstances?

Never.

And even if I did, you would be right not to trust me in those circumstances.

Ultimately, however, this is beside the point.

The kind of liberal censorship in question simply is unacceptable.

 

[WizardofOz]

Never.

Good thing you were not alive to have Anne Frank and her family hiding in your house.

 

[Traditio]

Good thing you were not alive to have Anne Frank and her family hiding in your house.

Do you think it's OK to lie in that case?

Then the Nazis shouldn't trust you when you tell them that there are no Jews in your attic.

At any rate, you are trying to debate something other than what this thread is about.

What do you think about the censorship in question?

 

[patrick jane]

So, I've been posting on a gaming forum, a subforum of which is a general "off-topic" forum, of which one of the threads is devoted to political discussion.

I made the claim that no muslim can be trusted because they believe it's OK to lie in certain circumstances. The moderator asserted that it's unacceptable to call a whole group of people untrustworthy.

I promptly responded that I refuse to be censored and that, indeed, the things that I am saying are true and supported by the evidence. I further PMed him and objected to the sheer liberal censorship he was effecting against me.

He wrote me back, either right before or after banning me from the site for a day:



I just wrote an answer to him that I thought you guys would appreciate:



The moral of the story?

Liberals believe in freedom of speech.

Just so long as you agree with them. :nono:

I'm sure calling him inferior will go over well

 

[Traditio]

I'm sure calling him inferior will go over well

He is my intellectual inferior (i.e., inferior to me in education and intellectual thinking capabilities). Most people are.

This isn't hubris. This is just a fact.:idunno:

 

[CherubRam]

When push comes to shove, moderate Islamist will knuckle under to the radical Islamist. This being so makes even the most moderate Muslims a threat.

 

[TomO]

Simply in terms of intellectual merits, you are my intellectual inferior.

:rotfl:

View attachment 23892

 

[Town Heretic]

So, I've been posting on a gaming forum, a subforum of which is a general "off-topic" forum, of which one of the threads is devoted to political discussion.

I made the claim that no muslim can be trusted because they believe it's OK to lie in certain circumstances. The moderator asserted that it's unacceptable to call a whole group of people untrustworthy.

The moral of the story?

Liberals believe in freedom of speech.

Just so long as you agree with them. :nono:

Too bad. You actually had a point to raise and defend and instead you made choices that guaranteed its exclusion.

You should have simply stated your primary, noted your stated intention not to offend but to invite discourse and hear answers on a considered statement rendered in response to a particularly declared doctrine within Islam that you believed should give anyone outside of its strictures cause for concern. You could have avoided the "I can't trust" altogether and made the same point, as I inferred easily enough in sum.

That would have taken about a paragraph and put you in the earnest victim light. You're a philosophy student. You have to know questions are often an easier and less provocative means to frame that particular sort of dialogue.

Your second problem was in challenging the moderator, instead of simply engaging the mod with those same points. You'd already given the mod sufficient reason to wonder if you were trolling on the point by taking an inherently insulting and aggressive position that could have been approached amiably and while still making the same point. Then you repeated yourself when it didn't serve. Less here would have been more. It was already about time to end your letter, ideally with something evidencing humility and underscoring the sincerity of your intent. You know, like, "I'm sorry if my comments were misunderstood or the intent of them construed as little more than an offer of insult under the flag of opinion, but I felt in our current climate the issue itself had merit and that people outside of Islam needed to hear a response on the point or, if they weren't aware, to be made aware of the problem as many who read and consider Islam from without find it."

That sort of thing.

Instead you played the worst sort of card and one tailored to put the mod's obvious concerns in justifiable relief. You insulted him. Telling a stranger that you're smarter or have more intellectual merit does nothing reasonable for you or your case. Instead, it makes you look presumptive and arrogant, instantly undermining the idea that you weren't aiming to insult or, at the very least, aren't indifferent to the offer. It's also a statement that doesn't present evidence of its objective truthfulness for any number of reasons, potentially. He doesn't really know if you're a doctoral candidate. He doesn't know, accepting you are, that you're not a doctoral candidate in an online grist mill. He doesn't know that you aren't a marginal student within that discipline scraping by in route to a rejection of your thesis. And, you don't know that being in your program sets you at an intellectual advantage.

It was a hubris flinging waste of time and counter productive, at best.

To top it off with "I refuse to be" is the closest thing to a dare presented to the person who began reading your missive with the likely attitude that you were a divisive, hostile and presumptive doofi, only to be handed proof of it by you before being told what you aren't going to tolerate. lain: You could have cut out the middle man and killed your account. You've done as much to your reputation with this mod. And given that by your own narrative he tried to warn you off, not simply slap a ban on you and continue, you had someone who would at least listen to a defense of your position. Had you made it with a better approach you might have found some traction.

Instead, not only did you feel compelled to assume a superior position, contest your willingness to concede his authority, you doubled down on the mistaken moves by making absolutely certain that you left no doubt of that he should feel right about his apparent judgment of your approach and intent by offering a petulant repetition of your insult/feeling of superiority, expanding it to include his entire ideological base and put a "for shame" cherry on top of it.

Other than that you did great. lain:

 

[genuineoriginal]

Ultimately, the site moderators can do whatever they want.

Moderators on a site are given the power to do the will of the site owner.

Do you have a problem with that?

Jesus also has the power to do anything He wants.

What Jesus wants is to do the will of the Father.

Do you have a problem with that?

 

[Town Heretic]

He is my intellectual inferior (i.e., inferior to me in education and intellectual thinking capabilities). Most people are.

This isn't hubris. This is just a fact.:idunno:

Assuming you have at least the average IQ of someone in a doctoral program it is likely a fact that you have superior capacity for rational analysis and that you're faster at it. You almost certainly have a better memory and a wider base of knowledge to draw upon and your discipline has honed that to some extent. It's also true that if you have an argument that is founded in merit none of that needs to be stated. If you're a king in the moment the crown of your point will demonstrate it. If it isn't demonstrated by your argument than either you've done a poor job of presenting it or the other fellow, limitations notwithstanding, has found a better one.

Intelligence is an advantage, as is education, but people with both are not infrequently wrong about any number of things and people without impressive stores of either are not infrequently right about any number of things.

It is almost always a point of hubris to tell someone that you're smarter than they are. Unless your statement was proceeded by the person asking, "Honestly, do you think you're smarter than I am?" or some variation thereof. And even then the smarter course is to shake that off and get back to the real question.

 

[Rusha]

He is my intellectual inferior (i.e., inferior to me in education and intellectual thinking capabilities). Most people are.

This isn't hubris. This is just a fact.:idunno:

I can't imagine why anyone would take this type of insult personally. You do realize that there is more to being intelligent than sitting around in a college classroom for years, right Traditio. The way you express yourself alienates the listener/reader. Also, the only person I have ever seen agree that you are intellectually superior to most of us is .... you.

 

[patrick jane]

He is my intellectual inferior (i.e., inferior to me in education and intellectual thinking capabilities). Most people are.

This isn't hubris. This is just a fact.:idunno:

I have more street smarts than you, by a long shot. Weren't you the one that had a thread with the N word all throughout ? That shows real genius

 

[Quetzal]

He is my intellectual inferior (i.e., inferior to me in education and intellectual thinking capabilities). Most people are.

This isn't hubris. This is just a fact.:idunno:

Yeah I highly doubt that. Let's face it, if a peanut challenged you to a game of Jeopardy, you would lose to his daily double strategies.

 

[Traditio]

Too bad. You actually had a point to raise and defend and instead you made choices that guaranteed its exclusion.

You should have simply stated your primary, noted your stated intention not to offend but to invite discourse and hear answers on a considered statement rendered in response to a particularly declared doctrine within Islam that you believed should give anyone outside of its strictures cause for concern.

With all due respect, the burden shouldn't be on me to coddle and baby my audience in order not to be censored. The burden should be on the person taking issue with my claims to find a substantial/"legitimate" reason to censor me. Examples include: the use of vulgar language, personal attacks, etc.

This reeks of the general liberal advocacy of things like trigger warnings for college students, "safe spaces," and all of that liberal nonsense.

If I say something that you disagree with, then, barring any otherwise disorderly and objectively objectionable behavior on my part (e.g., using racial slurs to insult people), it's up to you either to show me that I'm in error, accept it, or else, simply ignore it. It's not my responsibility to restrict myself only to unobjectionable views, or else, to sugar coat things if I say things that are objectionable.

Fact is, I got censored simply because the moderator in question found my views objectionable. And just so that you don't think that I'm looking at things through rose colored glasses," here is the actual conversation:

Life imprisonment for knowingly hiring an illegal alien doesn't strike you as excessive?

Go ahead and try to amend the first amendment, but I doubt you will get very far.

As to my tone of condescension: considering your silly hashtags of
"#BuildThatWall
#RepelTheMuslimInvasion
#StopIslam"
on page 368 I doubt what I said will be all that frowned upon. Of course, if I truly offended you, I apologize. Would you apologize to me if I were to tell you I am a Muslim and a proud American?

I answered:

Life imprisonment for knowingly hiring an illegal alien doesn't strike you as excessive?

No.

Think about everything entailed by hiring an illegal alien. Why did he hire that illegal alien? How has that affected the body politic? What kind of person/character does it express on the part of the person doing the hiring?

Would you apologize to me if I were to tell you I am a Muslim and a proud American?

Absolutely not. Even if you were a muslim (and so offended by my postings in this thread) or black (and so offended by my comments in another thread to the effect that I like Johnny Rebel), nothing that I've said is personal or intended to disparage any individual person.

And see, this is where Muslim doctrines as dangerous come into play.

From what I understand, it's perfectly permissible in Islam for a muslim to lie to a non-muslim in order to promote Islam, or else, to preserve himself.

I have absolutely no reason to trust a muslim when that muslim is permitted by his religion to lie to me.

Note, of course, that this isn't personal.

Even if you were a Muslim, you might be completely truthful when you say that you are a proud American (and so imply that you prefer American law to Shariah law).

Nonetheless, as a Muslim (if you are a Muslim), I have no reason to think that you are being truthful.

To which he then answered:

Then you don't understand very much. Ignored.

And the moderator proceeded to jump in:

Panning a whole religion as "untrustworthy" isn't something that's ok here. Rein it in and be polite.

To which I answered:

I most certainly will not "reign in" such claims. It's true.

It's a well known Muslim practice. See here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya

If x believes that it's OK to lie, then x is not trustworthy. The very basis of trust is that I can expect that x will be truthful. If Muslims believe the tenets of their faith, they have to believe that it's OK to lie, at least in some circumstances.

Do you trust people who think it's OK to lie to you?

Answer me that, [moderator].


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And while we are at it, [moderator]:

After you are done reviewing the wikipedia article, I fully expect a retraction and apology on your part.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Furthermore, in protest, [moderator], I quote at length the words of St. Thomas Aquinas.

You want to accuse me of being rude? Then let's see you accuse the angelic doctor himself:

"On the other hand, those who founded sects committed to erroneous doctrines proceeded in a way that is opposite to this, The point is clear in the case of Muhammad. He seduced the people by promises of carnal pleasure to which the concupiscence of the flesh goads us. His teaching also contained precepts that were in conformity with his promises, and he gave free rein to carnal pleasure. In all this, as is not unexpected, he was obeyed by carnal men. As for proofs of the truth of his doctrine, he brought forward only such as could be grasped by the natural ability of anyone with a very modest wisdom. Indeed, the truths that he taught he mingled with many fables and with doctrines of the greatest falsity. He did not bring forth any signs produced in a supernatural way, which alone fittingly gives witness to divine inspiration; for a visible action that can be only divine reveals an invisibly inspired teacher of truth. On the contrary, Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms—which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants. What is more, no wise men, men trained in things divine and human, believed in him from the beginning, Those who believed in him were brutal men and desert wanderers, utterly ignorant of all divine teaching, through whose numbers Muhammad forced others to become his followers by the violence of his arms. Nor do divine pronouncements on the part of preceding prophets offer him any witness. On the contrary, he perverts almost all the testimonies of the Old and New Testaments by making them into fabrications of his own, as can be. seen by anyone who examines his law. It was, therefore, a shrewd decision on his part to forbid his followers to read the Old and New Testaments, lest these books convict him of falsity. It is thus clear that those who place any faith in his words believe foolishly" (Summa Contra Gentiles I.6.4).

You think that what I've said is rude?

You think that what St. Thomas says is rude?

Ban me if you want.

But first, why don't you show me your credentials and your exceedingly great education.

Seriously, man. Who are you to censor me?

You could have avoided the "I can't trust" altogether and made the same point, as I inferred easily enough in sum.

I shouldn't have to. Again, I shouldn't have to tailor my language about a given issue simply because liberals have giant man ovaries and skin so thin that you could read a newspaper through it.

At any rate, it's in this light that you should read the OP. Ultimately, my problems with this is:

It's sympatomatic of the thin-skinned liberal mentality of "Free speech only if nobody is offended; otherwise, it's hate speech, and no free speech for you.

There is absolutely no sense in which moderator action should have been taken at all. No PMs should have needed to be sent in the first place.

Frankly, this very much smacks of the time that Knight banned me for my "OSAS is a satanic doctrine" thread.

My problem with all of this is that I made a perfectly legitimate statement of fact, and instead of answering this statement of fact with counter-evidence, he attempted to silence me.

It's censorship. Pure and simple.