Author: Chris Whittington
Date: 14:38:56 07/01/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2000 at 07:59:54, Marcos Christensen wrote: >On June 29, 2000 at 23:13:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On June 29, 2000 at 20:11:57, ujecrh wrote: >> >>> >>>This is the first time in 7 years that I take part to a moderation thread >>>because I am very disapointed here. Not about this particular moderation but >>>about this rule in CCC (that I was not aware of) which forces people to identify >>>themselves. >> >> >>Sorry, but it is a _good_ policy. "Anonymous posters can get away with saying >>anything they want with no fear of reprisal of any kind."(snip) > > Sorry me, but isnt wonderful that people can say anything they want with no >fear? I think that free speech was one of the pillar of democracy. Who said >"Sir, I do not agree with your ideas but, will fight to death for your rights to >say them.", or something like that? Said by an Englishman. I forget who. The saying is the cornerstone of liberal democracy and the unwritten British Constitution. Liberal democracy is not well understood in the wider world, but its essence is that the majority may not oppress a minority. Unfortunately, this ideology is on the way out in common culture as political correctness increases its influence. Political correctness basically says that free speech should be limited if the speech offends. This ideology comes to us as a reaction to the nazi time, when, as the PC argument goes, if Hitler had not been allowed to speak and organise then WWII, Jewish pogroms etc. would not have happened. Hence now PC ideology says no platform for racists, male chauvinists etc. It is then a short step from making unpopular political speech illegal, to making unpopular political thought illegal. IMHO a similar process happens here. Free speech is forbidden on two grounds: a) it might offend someone (unsurprisingly, usually someone of 'importance') b) it might stir up trouble (again, unsurprisingly, usually with someone of 'importance') The next short step, which has already been taken, is that if you are the sort of person who might stir up trouble by your very existence and thought patterns, without actually doing anything, then you are forbidden as a person. Also with good intentions, but a little worried by how to operate in these circumstances when it is quite obvious that PC ideology is used here to support quite unacceptable personages, their opinions and freedoms, at the expense of practically everybody else. Especially when minor critcisms are responded to with massive doses of trouble, which then get blamed onto the initial critic. Very cunning. Chris Whittington > With good intentions > Marcos
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.