↪DingoJones I think this has been a rather robust discussion of the ethics surrounding the use of the word ‘defect’ with regard to gender (thanks to your efforts). Free speech somehow has a way of wriggling its way around pc. — Joshs

Well Im not really making the PC point. Im not even really sure PC is at work in a significant way among the mods. They seem to be concerned about guidlines, as they should be. If PC was a problem in this forum, wouldnt NOS be banned?
I even understand what that mod was looking for (homophobia), i just think he was mistaken about finding it.
Also, I get that this forum mod team doesnt have free speech as its highest priority, maybe its not even top 5. This isnt a platform for free speech, there are rules about what and how things can be said and consequences if those rules aren’t followed. They dont want this place to be filled with bigoted screwheads. I get it, I just think that a non-bigoted screwhead got caught in the crossfire. Maybe the mods disagree, but I think its very important to the forums quality and long term life span that we do not lose potential value (not necessarily for them, but for anyone less enlightened than them, who might benefit from a discussion they would find moral kindergarten) from discussions by casualties of that war with the bigots. Certainly the poster who was deleted would jave benighted from the discussion. That should mstter.

I don't know it is that straightforward. I just got a reply from my comment about philosophy and sex in which the person seemed to think that any discussion of sexuality on the forum was breaking the boundaries. So, I am not even making a jesting comment and I feel that I have broken a taboo. So, I am left feeling really confused. — Jack Cummins

No offense but I didnt find the masterbation thread compelling at all. Thats my point though, if people engage then it's probably worth keeping around, and let it die in its own. Even if its something I dont like or have interest n.

I don't think that any of this is about whether discussions are compelling or not to one another. I think it is more about whether topics are sensitive. The one on masturbation was different from this one because it began with an actual philosophical question about ethics and I don't think that it has been explored much in this way before. I am probably going to be remembered notoriously on the site for my passionate interest in the philosophy of masturbation, but I can live with that.

Maybe the mods disagree, but I think its very important to the forums quality and long term life span that we do not lose potential value (not necessarily for them, but for anyone less enlightened than them, who might benefit from a discussion they would find moral kindergarten) from discussions by casualties of that war with the bigots. — DingoJones

I’m thinking that it was all about the optics of the title, so basically PC in nature. Clearly far worse content is allowed, so the moral kindergarten defense doesn’t pan out. Also, a search suggests that homosexuality in general isn’t handled with kid gloves by the moderation team.

I even understand what that mod was looking for (homophobia), i just think he was mistaken about finding it. — DingoJones

Homophobia is a pc word. Why? Because It was created after standards of correctness emerged on the cultural scene following upon an evolution of thinking about gender, an evolution in which some segments of culture have participated more than others. Like all such standards of correctness, whether it is recognized as appropriate or censorious depends on where on that spectrum of development one finds oneself.

I’m not complaining. I understand that lines have to be drawn for convenience sake. I’m just reminding of their arbitrary nature. Who’s in and who’s out depends on who’s got the power.

Personally, I’d prefer the mods banned such speech because it doesn’t lead to philosophically interesting conversation, rather than using a moralistic rationale.

Lol. I had forgotten about it but you keep reminding us.
I dont think there should be such a thing as a topic being too sensitive in a discussion forum. Any topic should be able to be breached by mature adults.

That may be the way it emerged, I couldn't say, but thats not how I intend it nor do I think thats the way its generally understood today. Everyone knows what homophobe is, a person who hates or dislikes gay people, someone who holds being gay against someone. Thats whats not acceptable on this forum and thats what he was looking for.

Everyone knows what homophobe is, a person who hates or dislikes gay people, someone who holds being gay against someone. — DingoJones

Everyone knows what a homophobe is except the homophobe. The definition of a homophobe is someone else you accuse of having malevolent intent because you can’t understand why they think the way they do. Built into the definition is your assumption that they simply want to hate ,rather than that they have traditional
religious values , or believe that homosexuality is a perversion. Good lord , prior to 1970 the medical and psychiatric establishment held this as an official diagnosis. There were laws on the books in many countries punishing them for deviance. Was this society-wide belief motivated by hatred, or was the hostility a symptom of ignorance? If the latter, why is it so hard to accept that not all segments of culture evolve at the same pace? How does it help to demonize those who are still clueless?

Ok.

I have been a participant in this forum for only a couple months or so, and early on I noticed playful references to banning, “be careful what you say or you might get me banned”, and that sort of thing...

Then I started witnessing actual bans, and I still wasn’t alarmed because they seemed justified on the basis of whatever anecdotal evidence I received. I always felt I could say what I felt and give my reasons for it, even if it was controversial in nature...

Then, in this very thread, I posted an opinion based in reason and untainted by hate that was deleted almost immediately by a moderator (I prefer to call him a censor), @Baden, who not only threatened me, but lied that my post had not been taken off (the threat was proof of the lie).

But worst of all, after I gave an example of one of Aristotle‘s opinions that might, today, be considered offensive, Mr. Baden suggested he would have banned Aristotle from the “philosophy“ forum had he posted such scandalous material here! Wouldn’t that be sort of like kicking Michael Jordan off the basketball team because his play was too antiquated?

Mr. Baden said that we don’t live in Ancient Greece, that times have moved on. Well, we don’t live in Ancient Rome either, nor Machiavelli’s Italy, nor Locke’s or Shakespeare’s (an obvious anti-Semite’s) England, nor Rousseau’s France, who said he didn’t believe a woman could be unwillingly raped. It seems to me that to avoid unphilosophic behavior one ought to quit reading the philosophic tradition.

In fine, I perceive clearly that my days (or hours) as a member of this forum are numbered, and the number isn’t long!

What? I didn't delete your post or lie about anything. Posts aren't deleted before they appear. Another mod, I found out later, deleted your post after it appeared. Not going to respond to the rest.

But worst of all, after I gave an example of one of Aristotle‘s opinions that might, today, be considered offensive, Mr. Baden suggested he would have banned Aristotle from the “philosophy“ forum had he posted such scandalous material here! Wouldn’t that be sort of like kicking Michael Jordan off the basketball team because his play was too antiquated?

Mr. Baden said that we don’t live in Ancient Greece, that times have moved on. Well, we don’t live in Ancient Rome either, nor Machiavelli’s Italy, nor Locke’s or Shakespeare’s (an obvious anti-Semite’s) England, nor Rousseau’s France, who said he didn’t believe a woman could be unwillingly raped. It seems to me that to avoid unphilosophic behavior one ought to quit reading the philosophic tradition. — Todd Martin

:ok:

@Baden why won’t you respond to the rest, Mr. Baden? Did it strike you as too uncomfortably true?

@Baden So, some other moderator can work “at the speed of light”, but you can’t?

Just to be clear, I removed your post that suggested that homosexuality is against nature or somesuch. Do it again, and the next thing to be removed will be yourself. First and only warning.

@Baden If you’ll look back, I never said my post was deleted BEFORE it was posted, which your fellow censor just affirmed.

I don't know what you're on about or really care at this point. You seem to be intent on a nitpicky argument. Stick with what Street told you.

It would be helpful if you were to explain exactly what it is that you think you’re prohibited from expressing/discussing.

It really wouldn't.

I think it could be helpful towards resolving the issue equitably, though I realize that those in an advantaged position are rarely concerned with equitability.

It seems to me that to avoid unphilosophic behavior one ought to quit reading the philosophic tradition. — Todd Martin

I'm not a moderator, but my guess would be that none of them (or anyone else for that matter) would care much regarding what you read. For my part, you may read what philosophers of the past wrote about any number of things to your heart's content. It should be apparent, though, that what you choose to read and what you choose to post in a forum are two different things.

I am so fed up with this thread. I was up half the night before last, reading and writing on it. I don't blame anyone for that, as I was ridiculous by doing so.

Today, I started the thread on prejudice because I think that the topic needs to be explored in a far more constructive way, However, I am not sure that the intention of the thread was about prejudice as such, but it was about censorship. But, I do believe that attitudes and questions about prejudice and questions about assumptions because the idea of 'defect' was explored. But, currently this thread is just about moaning.

Edit:
Please don't take this as a response to your comment. It just feels so horrible when this thread keeps popping up, but I am coming from the angle of not liking the term 'defect' applied to anyone.

I was an active admin on the previous incarnation of the site, but have retired. An open site like this must expect to have homosexuals, women, and even white males posting and reading, and must be moderated or descend into flame wars. Talk of defective humans cannot be allowed to pass. It is also inevitably the case that some flaming will pass and some innocent insensitivity will be moderated. Justice is the aim, and even a generous budget cannot achieve it. Unpaid volunteers cannot be expected to even pretend to be interested in every petty complaint. But play nice, suck it up when you hit some mod's go-button, and thank the community and staff for a comsfortable place to discuss a wide but not unlimited range of topics.

Talk of defective humans cannot be allowed to pass. — unenlightened

:lol: Depending on the nature of defect, of course.

Well Im not really making the PC point. Im not even really sure PC is at work in a significant way among the mods. They seem to be concerned about guidlines, as they should be. If PC was a problem in this forum, wouldnt NOS be banned?

Am I not PC enough?

It reminds me of a Thomas Sowell quote:

“If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 50 years ago, a liberal 25 years ago, and a racist today.”

This thread wasnt intended to be about censorship, it was about the deletion of the thread, the weak reasons for that deletion and an overall point about how that sort of thing is detrimental to interesting discussions. (It destroys them)
There is a reason the most active topics are full of petty, pointless and dishonest back and forth. Its because that kind of behaviour is ignored or even championed (Streetlight for example) where as an honest question with no ill intention can get deleted because of a single word.
This “so what, fuck’em they're assholes” mentality is toxic and destructive to good discussions.

Certainly not PC, no. I think that if expressing unpopular or non-PC views was enough alone to get you banned then you would have been banned. Even though they despise you, you remain. That speaks to whether or not the bannings are bias/PC driven. They dont seem to be, but then again you could be a sleeper agent for the mods, so that they can execute their PC agenda while having you to point to as evidence they dont have one. Diabolically clever!
(Im kidding of course.)

I was rather relieved by your response and then saw the response, of someone trying to justify the whole question, with 'Depends on the defect. I thought that after a night that this thread would fizzle out, but it doesn't seem it will. I came to this forum because I wanted philosophy discussion and as far as I see it this thread is lowering the whole quality of the site. Even as I write this, I can see the originator of this post is writing an angry one to me, after I expressed my feelings about the thread earlier. It just seems that some people don't respect that it is a philosophy site rather than a dumping ground for hostility.

My astigmatism is a human defect and I would guess that few would hesitate considering it a defect. Homosexuality is different (assuming it can be considered a defect) because we may have a moral intuition that it's wrong. Politically it's not unlike abortion in that though we might intuitively feel that it's wrong we can still support it for rational reasons. It's irrational to deny our intuition, faulty or maladaptive as it may be.

I have astigmatism too and other eye problems which could be called defects in technical medical terminology, but I hope that this would just useful as part of my medical records and not beyond. I think that it depends on the context and how a term is used and when it is is used to categorise a group of people on the basis of a characteristic then it is another matter. On some level, none of us are 'perfect' but I still maintain that the word defect has a derogatory tone.

Do you not see that a title seeing a whole group of people as being defective is problematic? The whole point of this thread was to query why the original was deleted. Perhaps this thread is serving some purpose and that is why I am even writing an answer in it. But I do believe that it is unfortunate that this thread is necessary on a site like this.