I cannot participate in a forum where I am censored. The admins here are censoring my right to free speech out of a ridiculous sense of PC-soaked idiocy (based probably on requests for censorship raised by Reg the Fronkey Farmer and Gallup's Mirror)

The fact that the welfare state induces dysgenics based on IQ has been proven many times over. Human biological diversity is also true. If I am not even allowed argue my case, then what is the point of having a debate? I am not even allowed to reply to accusations of racism that have been levelled against me.

I have no doubt that Reg and Gallup will continue thinking of themselves as open-minded even after this incident - they have the ability to believe whatever it is they want to believe.

Views: 1003

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Pretty sure the only 'right to free speech' you have is that the government won't arrest you for what you say. Companies can stop you from saying it. Like what A&E did to the 'Duck Dynasty' guy.

EDIT: Online forums have every right to do as they please with comments they don't like. Don't like that? Try another forum.

EDIT 2: Obviously, it's entirely possible that you could be arrested if you threaten to kill or do harm to someone.

Thank you!

No one has censored you. You were called out by a mod for violating rules/ guidelines for posting racist remarks. Free speech has nothing to do with it.

When you signed up you agreed to the TOS and our rules. It is your responsibility to adhere to them. When a moderator calls you out on a violation ,as Reg did, it had nothing to do with free speech. There were several reports of your remarks from different members. Pointing fingers at a moderator and an upstanding member of our community does not make it right.



Free Speech does not entitle anyone to use terms that can be considered “Hate Speech”. Any speech that can be seen to disparage or intimidate a group of people based on their race or ethnicity is considered to be Hate Speech.

It was me that suspended any further commentary on your post. It was not because I was trying to censor your right to free speech on an open forum. It was because I was trying to prevent an escalation in what I considered to be Hate Speech.

As a site moderator I have a responsibility to decide when commentary is likely to be deemed offensive. In this case it was a clear cut decision. You used commentary that no fair minded person would consider to be anything but racist, especially when it descended into crude stereotyping of entire ethnic groups.

I also have a responsibility to ensure that this website is not considered to be a “Hate Site”.

Both I and Gallup’s Mirror are more than capable of engaging in sustained debates with anyone. I think you have probably noticed that. We have no issues telling people that their facts are false when they are false. We have no problem pointing out fallacious arguments and flawed reasoning in anyone’s arguments. We will do the same to each other’s arguments and have no qualms about doing so. In fact we would not have it any other way.  

That is the essence of mature and reasoned debate. Insisting ones argument is the truth because it is published in a book does not make it so. It certainly won’t work on an Atheist website where books get special pleading every day.  Repeating the same claims over and over does not make them correct. They are still just opinions. Repeating the opinions of other people whose work has being debunked should make you want to consider why it has been, especially in the world of academia.

The Right to Freedom of Speech is an entitlement that has responsibilities attached to it. Nobody on this site is trying to curtail that on you. If that was the case your account would have been closed. Instead it was left open and you were allowed to publish this post as a right to reply. We are willing to debate with you on this but without Ad hominem remarks. Anything posted that I deem to be hate speech will end it.  Apart from that caveat feel free to discuss anything you wish.


The term "Hate Speech" and it's attached description and required censorship has always disturbed me.

Because unreasoned ideas exposed to the light of day for all to see and hear will rot and die, unreasoned ideas pushed into the dark will fester and grow.

If members of a society find something offensive and ugly, then the worst thing they can do is label it, hide it away and pretend it's gone.

The only tested method for destroying unreasoned ideas is to expose them to reasoned argument for all to see, the light of logic is a powerful tool but only when turned on.

@GM and all:

"Reg showed restraint here. Cut the guy a little slack."

I wasn't intending to slam Reg.

I wasn't speaking directly to this case with Civ, I was speaking about the bigger picture of general censorship and the overall health of societies.

As far as the crybaby Civ goes the longer he went on the sillier he looked, there is value in exposure.

I'm also uncomfortable with banning hate speech because I don't believe institutionalized censorship can resist corruption over the long term. It's too much potentail power. I prefer private censorship. 

On the other hand, I don't think all hate speech deserves to see the light of day because it's redundant and toxic. After the general ideas behind hate speech are brought to light and rejected, we don't need to put up with people's malicious stereotyping, slurs, or threatening behavior. Social tolerance of hate speech perpetuates generational bigotry too.

I like the American system of legal freedom of speech and private/social censorship because it prevents government censorship and the type of heavy repression that leads to culturally stagnate societies. In my neck of the states, you can say anything you want but you're going to get hell for it if you cross certain lines. That's the social reprecussion of exercising your right to be vocal bigot. 

Unfortunately I cannot see the removed material, though to be honest I have had a look at a number of your other statements and I do feel a racist vibe Along with strong sexist undertones from them.

forum is a community and cam make whatever rules they wish on posting.  Here the 'right to free speech' is has limits, racism is one of them.  Perhaps there's a forum for chauvinistic white supremacists you could enjoy?


Oh come on Civ don't be a crybaby, I've been censored too, I didn't take anybody out to the woodshed for an ass-kicking, this is how internet forums work.

Personally I'm against censorship in all it's forms, I'm a fan of free speech, however, that said this site like most sites with a forum have a set of rules, big deal.

As forums go this one allows it's members to engage in conversations/debates without much interference, and that's a good thing, a very good thing. :)

Civ, you were making arguments from a racist POV all your links were from sources with the same racist POV, your arguments failed, you lost the debate, that's what is great about this site, lots of smart people to test your ideas with to see if the ideas are well reasoned, yours weren't.

Hate Speech is not only “censored” because it can cause offense but because it can incite hatred. When it is given a voice in fringe publications and garnished with pseudo-intellectual phraseology, it can appear as special knowledge to the uncritical mind. The people that racist abuse is being directed towards may not take offence to it. They probably look at racists with pity and scorn rather than feel offended. They have heard it all before and will probably hear it again.

I have been on the receiving end of ethnic abuse on a few occasions over the years. I am usually bemused by it. I could have taken offence to it but it would be too much trouble to sink to the depths of such ignorant fools. Having lived in different ethnic communities in different cities around the world over the last 30 years, I think most people, on hearing an abusive remark, just dismiss it and the abuser as pathetic. That is not to minimize the hurt it can cause immediately and that damages a person that has not yet learned to cope with it.

The most important reason though in closing down the platform to hate speech is to prevent borderline racists and bigots from going that extra step and using violence towards somebody based on their color, ethnicity, sexuality or even their religion. Some people have a rather myopic perception of ethical behaviour which can be easily further distorted. When they hear people speak with authority, even if that authority is completely misguided, they can be cajoled into taking actions that they might not have otherwise taken.

People tend to search for information that will confirm their biases. People with poor critical thinking skills will be selective in the way they interpret what they hear. We need to conduct our debates with a social conscience and an awareness of how it might impact those that may be listening.

Debates should help to open people’s minds and enrich us. We should be able to think freely in such a way that our moral awareness develops. Hate speech brings “facts” to the table that distort that awareness and narrow the vision of what is possible. It is a disservice not just to others but to ourselves if we engage in it.

It bothered me too. I don't think I complained (it's been a while, don't remember) but I am glad others did. 

Even knowing this type of speech is bullshit, and knowing there are people out there who avidly promote sexism/racism/classim, it can still be kind of depressing to see it in your own space.

I get enough of this from my crazy xtian family members. I don't want to hear it on TA, where I go to seek out saner company.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service