YOU FOOLISH PSEUDO JEDI

JamesSand wrote:
you're losing ground here...

This place it what it is, and whatever rough edges people find they try to adjust - either themselves, or the establishment, in subtle ways.

Coming in and kicking over the desks and spilling everyone's sandwiches and saying the whole premise of the activity is a sham isn't likely to have everyone suddenly become "woke" and grab their torches and pitchforks to march on city hall.....


but someone as smart as you already knows that, which leaves another reason as to your posts....

Yes, I certainly wouldn't want to upset the "sacred temple environment" in Open Discussions, now would I? The very idea is truly horrifying. *Sarcasm*

I'm not suggesting the entire forum needs to welcome free speech, I'm suggesting that the general discussion areas should. However, it's all just my opinion, whether it's acted on or not, I don't get a say. I'm just a "Guest" here after all.

Not everyone gets off of being a provocatrix

Rex wrote: Not everyone gets off of being a provocatrix

I had to look that up...

https://definithing.com/provocatrix/

Pretty certain this one doesn't apply to me... and what in the heck is "Skyfall" (other than the 007 film?)

The feminine form of provocateur. What does James Bond have to do with it??
According to the internets, provocatrice is the preferred spelling anyhow

Rex wrote: The feminine form of provocateur. What does James Bond have to do with it??
According to the internets, provocatrice is the preferred spelling anyhow

Perhaps you're just lazy, perhaps not. However, in the link I provided, there was a reference to "Skyfall". The only "Skyfall" I know of is a 007 film.

Here is a song from it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeumyOzKqgI

I think I've seen the movie, but the link doesn't say "it's a neologism from James Bond"
I'm not doubting that our favourite British double entendre dealer says it

Rex wrote: I think I've seen the movie, but the link doesn't say "it's a neologism from James Bond"
I'm not doubting that our favourite British double entendre dealer says it

You really didn't bother to read the word "Skyfall" over at that link, did you? *Face palm*.

If I may, allow me to drag this back to topic.

Back when I joined, all those billions upon billions of years ago, one of the core appeals of this place was the fact that - eventhough a "temple" by name - it was precisely not like any other church. There were no commanded beliefs, no prohibited ones, you didn't have to belong to any religion, you were not beholden to any one interpretation of the Jedi path or the Force more broadly, and you were allowed to follow them all. You were not expected to conduct yourself in accord with some unstated vague standard of moral righteousness and challenging the Empire in all its forms, including intellectual and moral critiques of organized religion and the political establishment as any Rebel would consider was welcome, even encouraged.

Now, back in that day I wasn't exactly entirely on board with that in its entirety. To be unguided in this way was uncomfortable to me. I kept inquiring what it meant to be Jedi, what is the "intended", the "correct" path, because it sounded like a label without a referent, and all I got for replies were platitudes designed to leave me to evolve as I naturally would. I was to choose myself what it meant to me.

Then the moral inquisition came. There exists now such a thing as "behaviour unbecoming", a set of rules written in deliberately vague terms so as to allow for which ever witch hunt the sovereign desires. The Temple used to be an educational organization. Now it has become a capital-T temple, church etiquette is now the law of the land. The Jedi thing to do is to spout platitudes for the sheer sake of it, fake smiles and "thanks for sharing" in place of any kind of intellectual discourse because heaven forbid someone might read something that is not entirely aligned with their own idea about how the world works. This is a Temple, after all, don't you know, and we embrace all... unless we make an exception and tell you to watch your mouth lest something interesting be said...

Little late to the party, thank you busy work day, but here are my two cents. Should free speech be allowed in a general sense: yes. However, I also think some rules should in place, depending on the context of the forum. EG, religious forums should be kept to religious debates. So I happen to agree with Phoenix in regards to Open Discussions allowing free speech. Not really sure how to prevent the trolls but creating chaos in them, but I'm just thinking out loud here.

Deimos wrote: Little late to the party, thank you busy work day, but here are my two cents. Should free speech be allowed in a general sense: yes. However, I also think some rules should in place, depending on the context of the forum. EG, religious forums should be kept to religious debates. So I happen to agree with Phoenix in regards to Open Discussions allowing free speech. Not really sure how to prevent the trolls but creating chaos in them, but I'm just thinking out loud here.

Ah... the trolls. Do we allow "the trolls" to hold us hostage? If so, they have already won. The moment we deny ourselves something because we fear "the trolls" or what "the trolls" might do, we have lost. Simple, isn't it?

Furthermore, fear of "the trolls" can be quickly likened to the fear some have of "dangerous ideas". They fear that such "dangerous ideas" will incite violence... or for minorities to be oppressed on mass scale. However, it's no wonder they live in fear... their minds are filled with images of a genocide that I'm rather sure didn't happen, fake history, and decades of propaganda.

Perhaps what those people who fear "dangerous ideas" actually fear... is change which goes against their desired outcome. Motivated by their fear, they demand censorship "for the greater good", despite the hellish reality they are manifesting as a direct result, (the very thing they claimed once to not desire) though ignore because they assume they are doing "good".

Funny thing about people who think they are "doing good", especially those who think they are doing what they are, "for the greater good", they are generally blind.

Funny thing about people who think they are "doing good", especially those who think they are doing what they are, "for the greater good", they are generally blind.

List your great successes, that have become from your application of your own wisdom, we can compare them to these "people" (the great "they" accused of oh so many things)

This is a Temple, after all, don't you know, and we embrace all... unless we make an exception and tell you to watch your mouth lest something interesting be said...

A fine sentiment at face value, however, and I know I am not privy to all things, nor do I delve as deeply or frequently into the temple activity as I might - but I would wonder if we have been at any great risk of many of the rabble-rousers saying anything interesting?

Being trod on by the great foot of the status quo and the mighty who may make such calls, does not, by default, make the recipient of said treading, an interesting person.

I suppose it becomes historically relevant - you are only the heroic underdog if you actually win and get to tell your tale of victory, otherwise I suppose you might be lucky to get a footnote as a notable nuisance.


I don't really mean to be an apologist for whomever at TotJO is the villain in this argument, I guess I just don't see the controlling devil at the wheel that others rail against?

But then, I've not yet tried to become a Knight, so who knows what odd hurdles and "in-groups" need to be appeased to advance here....

Gisteron wrote: If I may, allow me to drag this back to topic.

Back when I joined, all those billions upon billions of years ago, one of the core appeals of this place was the fact that - eventhough a "temple" by name - it was precisely not like any other church. There were no commanded beliefs, no prohibited ones, you didn't have to belong to any religion, you were not beholden to any one interpretation of the Jedi path or the Force more broadly, and you were allowed to follow them all. You were not expected to conduct yourself in accord with some unstated vague standard of moral righteousness and challenging the Empire in all its forms, including intellectual and moral critiques of organized religion and the political establishment as any Rebel would consider was welcome, even encouraged.

Now, back in that day I wasn't exactly entirely on board with that in its entirety. To be unguided in this way was uncomfortable to me. I kept inquiring what it meant to be Jedi, what is the "intended", the "correct" path, because it sounded like a label without a referent, and all I got for replies were platitudes designed to leave me to evolve as I naturally would. I was to choose myself what it meant to me.

Then the moral inquisition came. There exists now such a thing as "behaviour unbecoming", a set of rules written in deliberately vague terms so as to allow for which ever witch hunt the sovereign desires. The Temple used to be an educational organization. Now it has become a capital-T temple, church etiquette is now the law of the land. The Jedi thing to do is to spout platitudes for the sheer sake of it, fake smiles and "thanks for sharing" in place of any kind of intellectual discourse because heaven forbid someone might read something that is not entirely aligned with their own idea about how the world works. This is a Temple, after all, don't you know, and we embrace all... unless we make an exception and tell you to watch your mouth lest something interesting be said...

This is an excellent post.

There has been a dramatic culture shift.

First of all we used not to 'moderate', and we didn't get stupid amounts of reports.
We didn't have the 'think of the children' crowd.
We didn't have people making demands 'or else'.

ren wrote: I have used the internet from a young age. Kids don't belong on it.

Also we should be able to discuss things without that boundary. Adults don't mingle or have meetings where kids are.

Things were better before the anti free speech generation.

I agree with you.

Furthermore, if we follow the model of being a temple of Jediism, I would think that "unaccompanied minors" should in almost every case, not be permitted. How much do we or should we expect children, too young to hear adult language, possess the ability to separate Jediism from Star Wars fantasy, and get through the IP? That is almost a comical notion to me. We don't even have a "Jediism for Kids" section. So what actual kids are we concerned about? I'm more concerned about adults who can't separate science from religious theory. I'd like like to see what the number of actively participating children under 16 and then 16-18. If any.

ren wrote:

Gisteron wrote: If I may, allow me to drag this back to topic.

Back when I joined, all those billions upon billions of years ago, one of the core appeals of this place was the fact that - eventhough a "temple" by name - it was precisely not like any other church. There were no commanded beliefs, no prohibited ones, you didn't have to belong to any religion, you were not beholden to any one interpretation of the Jedi path or the Force more broadly, and you were allowed to follow them all. You were not expected to conduct yourself in accord with some unstated vague standard of moral righteousness and challenging the Empire in all its forms, including intellectual and moral critiques of organized religion and the political establishment as any Rebel would consider was welcome, even encouraged.

Now, back in that day I wasn't exactly entirely on board with that in its entirety. To be unguided in this way was uncomfortable to me. I kept inquiring what it meant to be Jedi, what is the "intended", the "correct" path, because it sounded like a label without a referent, and all I got for replies were platitudes designed to leave me to evolve as I naturally would. I was to choose myself what it meant to me.

Then the moral inquisition came. There exists now such a thing as "behaviour unbecoming", a set of rules written in deliberately vague terms so as to allow for which ever witch hunt the sovereign desires. The Temple used to be an educational organization. Now it has become a capital-T temple, church etiquette is now the law of the land. The Jedi thing to do is to spout platitudes for the sheer sake of it, fake smiles and "thanks for sharing" in place of any kind of intellectual discourse because heaven forbid someone might read something that is not entirely aligned with their own idea about how the world works. This is a Temple, after all, don't you know, and we embrace all... unless we make an exception and tell you to watch your mouth lest something interesting be said...

This is an excellent post.

There has been a dramatic culture shift.

First of all we used not to 'moderate', and we didn't get stupid amounts of reports.
We didn't have the 'think of the children' crowd.
We didn't have people making demands 'or else'.

This will probably not change until more of us who desire more freedom and less heavy handed use of force actually become moderators. I would do it but at the same time, since I post so much, I almost feel like it'd be a conflict of interest.

One problem we have is the mods/admin/council tend to do something when people complain. Unfortunately the people who complain about rules being broken do themselves break those same rules. We have seen 'warring parties' play a game of "who's the most victimised" and "who broke the rules first, last, the most", which is painful/annoying/a-waste-of-time to watch and take part in. The time and effort some people spend on such pointless activities is simply baffling.

99% of the time we (admin/council) spend looking into complaints results in a "its a bit far fetched" realisation, and that's with us actively looking for the violation.

ren wrote: One problem we have is the mods/admin/council tend to do something when people complain. Unfortunately the people who complain about rules being broken do themselves break those same rules. We have seen 'warring parties' play a game of "who's the most victimised" and "who broke the rules first, last, the most", which is painful/annoying/a-waste-of-time to watch and take part in. The time and effort some people spend on such pointless activities is simply baffling.

99% of the time we (admin/council) spend looking into complaints results in a "its a bit far fetched" realisation, and that's with us actively looking for the violation.

I've noticed that in many places, not just here.
Mods will claim free speech is a right, yet will not actually defend that when it results in their pm boxes being full of offended people's whining.

It's a problem resulting from overall emotional immaturity in society, I think. Someone is offended, they complain because they can't emotionally deal, so they try to have the source of their discomfort muzzled. It's lazy, it's childish, and it's a sign people just aren't being raised to understand that the price of freedom of speech means someone's speech might offend you... and you'll have to just deal with it.

However, as you likely know, "the right to not be offended" is a growing movement.

I realize I posted this in another thread too but it fits here also.

So, I think this leads to an interesting question in the idea of a public forum of any type. However, the implications online are more interesting due to the nature of services. One should be able to express their beliefs open and freely if they do not lead to violent expression, however, in a public forum of the past, say a square with soap boxes, people can just walk away. Eventually over time those espousing the hate would begin to see their preaching as a waste of time as no one congregates near them. Second the person in the square preaching will no doubt suffer consequences for their speech such as vendors in the area not wanting to do business, drawing the ire of their neighbors ect.

Now we get to the paradox involved in online, the internet allows a high level of anonymity this can in itself allow more free expression but can also allow for the escape of consequence for said freedom to speak, which is also an inherent to the cost of free-speech. Second the time investment into the posting of these ideas is much different than in days previous, meaning people are much less likely to give up on them when they are not received well to the public. Often times leading to more sensational attempts to get it noticed, which over time often skirts the line of inciting violence to get the point across. The combination of these factors tends to lead people to appeal to authority. This then leaves the authority in a damned if you do damned if you don't scenario. Its a difficult paradox, one I don't have a solution too besides issuing warnings watching the discussion evolve and once a line is crossed it has to be shut down. The issue is finding that line. Another issue involved is figuring out which side crossed the line and when. Second modding is often reactionary so the damage is done by the time there is a chance to fix it (Thanks, Rugadd that reminded me to mention this.). It's a real pickle.

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

Well, I suppose all of this makes sense....I wonder about scenarios where a person gets told to f*** off and die and then committs suicide...is that their fault for being so weak? Or is it because we allowed them to be talked too that way? Then again, moderation comes in as a response, so what will be said will be said...correction in this case by its nature would come after the fact. So then, why moderate at all?

rugadd wrote: Well, I suppose all of this makes sense....I wonder about scenarios where a person gets told to f*** off and die and then committs suicide...is that their fault for being so weak? Or is it because we allowed them to be talked too that way? Then again, moderation comes in as a response, so what will be said will be said...correction in this case by its nature would come after the fact. So then, why moderate at all?

Suicide isn't the fault of the person who tells another to "f*** of and die" on an internet forum... in those words... and I do believe such a phrase should be permitted. What I understand to be malicious is continual harassment of a person, especially after the person has made it clear they can't handle more.

Sure, that person could just hit the ignore button or leave the site but they rarely will. They are already too emotionally drawn in and aren't thinking rationally. Is this the fault of the one harassing?

Phoenix Vidensia wrote: Suicide isn't the fault of the person who tells another to "f*** of and die" on an internet forum... in those words... and I do believe such a phrase should be permitted. What I understand to be malicious is continual harassment of a person, especially after the person has made it clear they can't handle more.

Sure, that person could just hit the ignore button or leave the site but they rarely will. They are already too emotionally drawn in and aren't thinking rationally. Is this the fault of the one harassing?

No, but nor is it the person's fault that the harasser feels compelled to continue on after having been informed clearly and believably that it has been quite enough alread and that no good is to come of a continuation of that harassment. Are they allowed to keep saying the phrase? Yes, technically. Should they be forbidden from so doing? That is a very slippery slope to start on. I think we can agree on both points here. First, that the "legal" non-prohibition against phrase should not be lifted just because someone in particular feels driven to arbitrary measures of self-harm because of it, but secondly, that there is hardly a case to be made as to why morally speaking the harasser should carry on pursuing the harassee, at least without further context to justify or compel such action.