Free Flight, Free Speech

I notice that for some people free speech is too complex to handle. So i'll try to explain it a bit here.

Free speech means that every person is free to give arguments for something, and every other person is free to give arguments against the same thing. The keyword here is "arguments". This forum supports free speech in that no arguments are ever removed from the forum.

Some people confuse free speech with plain name calling, swearing or insulting. They have a very limited understanding of free speech, because they do not know that one should always give arguments for any assertion. Can such behaviour actually be called speech at all? Even though it is formally not free speech, no name calling, swearing or insulting has ever been removed from this forum, neither has anyone been banned for it.

There is for example someone on the forum who advertises in his signature that he has no clue about free speech.

"Free Flight, Free Speech".... as long as you only say what Der Fuhrer says is acceptable...

This signature states: "I do not like to get arguments against my arguments. And if i do get them, i will call that person Der Fuhrer". Such thinking is diametrical opposite to free speech: He wants to limit someone else in the freedom of exchanging arguments, and does name calling himself without giving any arguments.

Apart from the fact that such signature does not make one look very smart on a free speech forum, i wonder why such an anti free speech person likes to hang out on this explicitly free speech forum. Doing so can only cause him lots of frustration.

Kind regards, Vincent

Thanks Vincent, I really appreciate your started thread. I think it can give a good example of what you correctly point out is a problem in discourse on this forum. I think the following is key to what you mention:

This signature states: "I do not like to get arguments against my arguments. And if i do get them, i will call that person Der Fuhrer". Such thinking is diametrical opposite to free speech: He wants to limit someone else in the freedom of exchanging arguments, and does name calling himself without giving any arguments.

That's what you just wrote.

Are you following along so far? Pretty simple I think. You're basically saying that I don't want to exchange arguments, I just want to resort to name calling. So I don't want to give arguments. Clear? I don't want to have a discussion. No arguments. That's what you're saying. Can we move to the next point?

I'm building an argument here, so you have to follow point by point. Ok, moving on....

I'll just quote what the message was that I was given stated:

" our verdict is final and non-negotiable. Any attempt to discuss will be seen as not wanting to cooperate."

"Discussing or attempting to argue these points with us has no meaning "

So what you're saying is, in turn;

1. We don't want to discuss or argue with you what we say is true. So don't discuss or argue what we say.
2. You're to blame for not wanting to discuss or argue with us.

I think there's a more concise explanation of the above in your standard dictionary under "Hypocrisy". But hey, when you're the leader it's good to be able to both have and eat your cookie.



PS:

KL-666 wrote:if Jwocky wants to call someone Eichmann, that is his thing.

I'm confused..... to name-call or not to name-call, that's the question....



PPS: Did you even want a reply to this? I mean, did you want a discussion on this topic or did you just want to vent? Hard to tell these days...

Hello Lydiot,

Yes, obviously you are confused, as you say. I am sorry to see you having such limited understanding, so i'll spend some time on after school education for you.

There is a difference between discussing on the forum, and being moderated. In the latter case there is not a relationship of free exchange of arguments. The moderators have to assess your behaviour, and in the worst case impose sanctions (which were not imposed in your case as you know). Also it is a mistake to think that material from one domain is usable in the other domain.

Since you have now again pulled things out of context for the sake of winning a discussion on false premises, i need to give a bit more background to others here.

The moderators received a complaint about Lydiot. Unfortunately we are then forced to act in the role of moderator. We did our research, and found enough material for Lydiot to be banned. But we thought, hey, give the man a chance. Therefore we requested Lydiot to do some introspection, and gave him some advice about where he most goes wrong. And no, we are not prepared to waste more time on discussing mere advice. As much as people are free to discuss, they are also free to not discuss. We expected to see improvement in behaviour on the forum, generated from his own intelligence.

Unfortunately you demonstrate here that you were not successful with doing some basic introspection yet. One of the advices was to avoid misrepresenting someones words. Yet you still write posts consisting only of that.

Also the fact remains that if someone else does something bad in your perception, that should not be an excuse for doing something bad yourself. Thinking like that does not show much sophistication. No matter with how much trash you fill this thread, it can not cover up the fact that your signature expresses opposite principles to free speech.

In many respects you do not function well in a free speech environment. My best advice to you is to finally start the introspection. If you have no clue of where to start thinking, then make good use of the starting points already suggested to you.

Kind regards, Vincent

KL-666 wrote: i need to give a bit more background to others here.

Yes, let us go through what is really going on here, just in case someone doesn't already know what the deal is. You start:

KL-666 wrote:[i]The moderators received a complaint about Lydiot. Unfortunately we are then forced to act in the role of moderator.

It is worth pointing out here that the complaint admittedly was made by JWocky. This is his forum. He claims this is a forum for free speech, and he claims nobody gets banned for stating their opinions here, and he claims he won't be the one to ban users. So the second best thing he can do is to report me to the moderators. This way, he gets what he wants; he gets someone to try to moderate me, yet at the same time claim that this is a free speech forum. This is entirely hypocritical.

Now, some of you reading (obviously not the moderators or JWocky) might correctly think "Well, if what the original post implies is true, then the problem isn't stating opinions, it's demeanor". True. So, the question then is what demeanor is expected and accepted on the forum? And how do we know what that is?

KL-666 wrote: We did our research, and found enough material for Lydiot to be banned. But we thought, hey, give the man a chance. Therefore we requested Lydiot to do some introspection, and gave him some advice about where he most goes wrong. And no, we are not prepared to waste more time on discussing mere advice.

This is really misstating things grossly. The issue I brought up here in this thread wasn't about "discussing mere advice", the issue wasn't limited to your "advice", but to your "research".

KL-666 wrote:Unfortunately you demonstrate here that you were not successful with doing some basic introspection yet.

Logically, this is of course a win-win for the moderators. The authority proclaims that you are guilty of something, and if you "debate" or "discuss" or "question" it, then you not only prove that they were right in the first place but you're also guilty of more. So:

- You are guilty until proven innocent if we say so, and
- You are proven guilty if you try to prove yourself innocent.

In other words, guilty if you do, guilty if you don't. It's simple authoritarianism at its best.

KL-666 wrote:Also the fact remains that if someone else does something bad in your perception, that should not be an excuse for doing something bad yourself. Thinking like that does not show much sophistication.

There are two points to make here, and they're both relevant:

1. If that's true then are you justified in insulting me in the beginning of this thread? If you're not justified in insulting me, who do you I report your post to? Do I report your post to you? Will you moderate yourself and send yourself a PM?

This is just more hypocrisy by "you people'. You never have a problem with insults when they are dished out against someone you don't care about, but it becomes a matter of principle as soon as it is. You're a hypocrite Vincent.

2. The tone of the forum is surely set by the owner. If the owner of the domain engages in a certain type of demeanor, what are users to make of it? Clearly, if the owner acts one way it would be normal for people to presume that that is acceptable behavior. And this just brings us back to the previous point I made: JWocky is aggressive, calls people by names like "Eichmann", starts ad hominem attacks, and more. Yet rather than me reporting him to himself, I simply concluded that that's the type of forum he wants. After all, it's "free speech" and he says he's not going to moderate anyone, and he acts the way he acts.

The very fact that he acts that way and that you can't publicly slap him on the wrist just makes it clear what a hypocrite you people are. Now, I obviously don't have a huge problem with it because it's his forum and you're his underlings. So of course you do his bidding so you can have your little cirkle-jerk in peace. That's fine. Do as you choose. But I'm just pointing this hypocrisy out for anyone else here to see, in case it wasn't clear.

KL-666 wrote: No matter with how much trash you fill this thread,

Again you win, because the logic you're applying is simple:

1. You make a claim
2. If anyone disputes it is is "trash"

KL-666 wrote: it can not cover up the fact that your signature expresses opposite principles to free speech.

Do you not understand what irony and sarcasm is?

The signature absolutely expresses principles opposite to free speech, and by inference attributes it to JWocky and you people! Either your understanding of the concept is completely off, or you are just being tremendously disingenuous right now.

KL-666 wrote:In many respects you do not function well in a free speech environment.

And JWocky does?

KL-666 wrote:My best advice to you is to finally start the introspection. If you have no clue of where to start thinking, then make good use of the starting points already suggested to you.

Kind regards, Vincent

I would say the same to you Vincent. Consider the blatant hypocrisy of your own actions.

So J-wocky made a complaint to the moderators...

suggestion... lets see this complaint 'in full' uncensored.... and this community will be the judge.

This is ALL a bit weird.

Simon

Wow, wow, wow Lydiot, are we getting a little over paranoid here?

The fact that one of the moderators can be accused, we have provisioned for in that he is strictly excluded from the deliberations. So you do not need to fear to accuse me. If that happens i am not allowed in the deliberations. I have to wait patiently for my verdict, just like you do.

In the case of the complaint against you, Jwocky was indeed the one who complained. Thus he was excluded from deliberations, and had to patiently await his verdict. I am sorry that i can not go into someones personal details, but i can assure you that Jwocky got a verdict along the lines you got.

As you can see, we impose rules of conduct onto ourselves to assure that judgements we make are as fair as possible within the setting of a little club of not even 100 members. What did you expect? A full blown judicial system? That is not feasible, so we have to do with doing the best we can. Because our system is not a perfect judicial system, people will have to have some trust in that the people who do the work are honestly adhering to their self imposed checks and balances.

I see that you have a complete lack of trust. That is not going to work out well in a small community where unfortunately part of the deal between members and moderators inevitably must be based on some trust too.

So given your utter mistrust and the sheer hate you express for the people who do the work, i still wonder what you are doing at all on this forum. There are forums better suited to your expectations i suppose.

Btw,

I'm just pointing this hypocrisy out for anyone else here to see, in case it wasn't clear

You are not pointing out anything here. You only make wild and incorrect accusations. I do not need to get into the details of each of them. The answers are already in my posts on this thread.

But i can tell you one thing: Calling someone "a man who kills 6 million Jews" only based on fantasies about how the moderators group functions, is getting way out of line here.

Kind regards, Vincent

"But i can tell you one thing: Calling someone "a man who kills 6 million Jews" only based on fantasies about how the moderators group functions, is getting way out of line here."

Did I miss this ?

KL-666 wrote:

I'm just pointing this hypocrisy out for anyone else here to see, in case it wasn't clear

You are not pointing out anything here. You only make wild and incorrect accusations. I do not need to get into the details of each of them. The answers are already in my posts on this thread.

Right. Everyone can read for themselves and see what a hypocrite you are.

If you yourself really used the "introspection" you tell me to use, you wouldn't have doubled-down on your hypocrisy in full view of everybody:

Sat Jan 21, 2017

KL-666 wrote:But i can tell you one thing: Calling someone "a man who kills 6 million Jews" only based on fantasies about how the moderators group functions, is getting way out of line here.

Kind regards, Vincent

Last year however.....;

KL-666 wrote:Not really, i am kind of completely missing the point. if Jwocky wants to call someone Eichmann, that is his thing. My thing is different. yet in the mean time here people can cooperate peacefully. And that can not be said of the other forum.

kind regards, Vincent

KL-666 wrote:Oh come on, Stuart is just a simple minded guy what i know of his not so smart moderation. That does not immediately make him as smart as Eichmann.

Kind regards, Vincent

....last year calling someone Eichmann was ok, and you just brushed that aside by essentially calling the recipient not smart enough to qualify for an Eichmann.....

Yep, no hypocrisy at all Vincent.

Hello Bomber,

Please read the whole thread. Did you miss that Lydiots signature refers to "Der Fuhrer"? Did you miss that all Lydiots assumptions about the functioning of the moderators group are nothing but that, assumptions? Did you miss Lydiot declaring in his pre-latest post that Jwocky is "Der Fuhrer"?

Lydiot wrote:The signature absolutely expresses principles opposite to free speech, and by inference attributes it to JWocky and you people!

This all goes quite far, and i do not think it is appropriate at all. Do you really feel that Jwocky, or i for that matter, act like "Der Fuhrer"?

And there is another thing. Nothing personal, but we just have different opinions.

bomber wrote:suggestion... lets see this complaint 'in full' uncensored.... and this community will be the judge.

I have to disagree on this. I do not believe in "justice by the people". We have had too many witch hunts for that. No, i believe in protecting the privacy of the accused. We did not want to publish about Lydiots verdict. He started publishing himself, by selectively quoting out of it publicly. In response to that, i am not going to infringe the privacy of the other party in this.

What i believe in is a system in which the people who judge are elected. But they judge with respecting the privacy of the suspects. We do not have such "democracy" yet, but we are thinking about how to make that work. And everyone who has thoughts about that is invited to add their insight.

Kind regards, Vincent

Lydiot wrote:last year calling someone Eichmann was ok

I am not sure what your reading abilities are. But here they show definitely bad. The quotes of mine you come up with are against using "Eichmann", not pro as you want to twist it.

Kind regards, Vincent