"Proposal: No Political or Social Bias Expressed in Forums" Topic

I propose that TMP vote on adopt a policy that prohibits members from including or expressing a personal bias for or against any and all political or social issues.

The voting options available in the poll should only be "Yes" or "No".

I recommend that punishment for violating the rule, if passed, would result in a 30 day Dawg House visit, a second violation would result in a 60 day visit, etc.

Violations will be determined solely by the owner of TMP, who will act as judge, jury, and executioner with respect to this rule. All TMP members will acknowledge as a condition of their membership, that the owner of TMP has this right.

Ummmmmmm….. NO.

That's a big, NO!

Why anyone would be opposed to free speech is beyond me. If you don't like what someone is saying you can either challenge or ignore. Anyway the owner of TMP doesn't need a poll to tell him what to do. He's already dictator of his own site and can do as he pleases.

No!

No

It's a bad idea. If you don't like someone's opinion in a post, don't read it. Or Stifle them.

There are plenty of people on TMP who I disagree with at times but I'm not for Dawg Housing them.

Ha, that sheepish general tendency to want to muzzle down freedom of speech… Here at least, people should know many of our ancestors fought to have it!

As always with stuff you don't like, that is not forcibly unavoidable in front of your nose, ignore it. And be tolerant.;)

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes

No, war after is politics by other means

No.

No*

I don't think it should be the sole focus of threads though. This should be a forum for people of all political bents to discuss their shared hobby. Not a platform for Bernie/Trump 2020 posts.

Nope

No

No.

dull

No

No

No is my answer to the question above.

Didn't we just do this poll/query?

I thought murder and/or execution without a jury trial is illegal in this country. ;-)

No.
If you don't have a personal bias on political/social issues, then you probably aren't paying attention. If you have a bias, then you probably can't help but express it in some form.

+1 Stryberg.

Part of being an adult is dealing with people who are different/hold different opinions than you.

AKA "Tolerance" in the old-fashioned sense of the word.

A little while ago, I received a pretty volatile e-mail from a TMP member who I offended by proposing this poll. Curiously, he suggested that my desire to sensor people is so wrong, that I should not be allowed to propose such a poll. Despite his tone, I have to admit that I found some humor in that, though I imagine in his state of rage, the irony was not so readily visible to him. Additionally, his assumptions about my views from the proposed poll were incorrect.

Anyway, I'm going to offer some backstory about this proposal. For some time, I have found myself involved in a discussion that I can't seem to divorce myself from, and which has grown kind of stale. It started briefly on forum and ended up off forum with a small number of both current and former TMP members.

Over time it has been rekindled by various TMP posts, and has centered around the rules of the this forum, with some strongly suggesting that members would like to restrict the discussion in the way suggested (or similarly) by this proposed poll.

My own view of TMP, is that I like the broad view that is presented here, and I like that we can touch on things sometimes bigger than the hobby. We come from diverse background and share some common interests. I think that this allows many of us to build "profiles" of our peers here through our discussions that give some context to our views beyond just a surface comment. It is the internet, and who knows who is at the other end, but I like to believe that we are getting an honest view through other's eyes at least some of the time.

My view relating to the off-group discussion was centered around the concept that we are capable of sharing our bias without being insulting or condescending to those with conflicting or contrasting views. This concept has largely been dismissed in that discussion.

In any event, I proposed this as an outgrowth of that discussion started by, and about TMP by (I believe) TMP members and a few former members. I realize that there have been polls that at least overlap this subject, though I don't think that they were as specific or pointed to the issue of bias. I apologize if I am incorrect.

I pointedly did not express my own view or interest in the proposal. If TMP members want to hate me, be indifferent, or otherwise, I figure you should at least do it for what I do think, as opposed from what you infer from the proposal.

I think the dawghouse should have its own forum.

Since censorship is both a political and social issue, if I say "Yes", should the editor delete this thread?

If TMP members want to hate me, be indifferent, or otherwise,

Definitely the opposite. I've always found you, IS, to be a reasonable and friendly person, willing to share ideas and chat in an interesting manner.

It may be a nice idea, but no, as I don't think that "bias" can be measured in an objective way …

How about some history about free speech? Millions have fought totalitarian forces to insure we have free speech.

We don't need to invalidate their efforts and sacrifice here.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

I found some humor in that, though I imagine in his state of rage, the irony was not so readily visible to him

I, too, have found some exponents of "free speech" are happy only if they approve of what's being said.

I personally do not want to read the Terrorist's diatribe or the criminal's exculpations. "Free Speech" would mean, for example, someone could praise the efforts of those responsible for 9/11. Be careful what you wish for.

I, too, have found some exponents of "free speech" are happy only if they approve of what's being said.

That usually cuts both ways. In the same way people often assume that "free speech" means free speech that they think is acceptable (not necessarily what they like, just what they can tolerate), the same goes for censoring. "Well, no. I obviously don't mean we censor that…"

Of course, that's how any law works, anyway. All law is based on a set of moral standards of acceptable behavior (and goes wrong quickly when we try to regulate other things with law). The real question is how do you arrive on consensus about what is the social standard of acceptability.

I personally do not want to read the Terrorist's diatribe or the criminal's exculpations. "Free Speech" would mean, for example, someone could praise the efforts of those responsible for 9/11. Be careful what you wish for.

Whether I want to read or hear it is independent of whether or not I think someone should be allowed to express it. The right for you to say something does not equate to the right for you to force me to listen or watch.

That leads to the other substantive point on free speech – Where does your right to express yourself in public infringe on my right to be in public and choose not to listen/observe?

Personally, I have always advocated for open communication of ideas I am opposed to. And, of course, your right to run away when I speak after you're done is a form of expression and an indicator of your ability to support your convictions. Same goes for responding to a substantive argument with an ad hominem attack.

Your trying to start some here aren't you? Not a problem. I enjoy a good show as much as the next guy.

I found one has to be very careful here. There is a thin line between Freedom of speech vs. bias & opinion. I've found myself DH'd and even Lock'd out x2.

I'll freely admit, I am Very biased against jihadi terrorists, ISIS, the Taliban, AQ, BH, AS, Neo-Nazi, KKK, White Supremacists, etc. and their supporters. But as I saw … I had to walk a tight rope when discussing that.

I have been called a racist, fascist, a Nazi, etc., previously here. As I believed and still do … if you are not a jihadi, radical, fundamentalist, terrorist, Neo-Nazi, KKK, etc., then nothing I said should have offended, etc. And it has to be obvious I and I'm sure the overall membership here are not and don't support those groups/types.

Live & learn & evolve …

This is just an internet forum about miniatures for wargaming. No one is forced to, or required to, read anything said here.

If someone posts something with which you disagree or that you find offensive, you can ignore it or even stifle the author and never have to read any of that person's comments.

It's a private website, and the owner has the absolute right to delete comments and suspend or expel members.

For all those reasons, I don't support the proposed restriction.

n the same way people often assume that "free speech" means free speech that they think is acceptable (not necessarily what they like, just what they can tolerate), the same goes for censoring. "Well, no. I obviously don't mean we censor that…"

Of course, that's how any law works, anyway. All law is based on a set of moral standards of acceptable behavior (and goes wrong quickly when we try to regulate other things with law).

It seems to me that you've demonstrated the concept of "free speech'" is a social construct promulgated by a ruling elite and given a status of inviability.I would suggest that for any dogma, there is utility in occasionally challenging the assumptions that undergird it.

We're all conditioned by our environment, and what we want and think are really just products of social, economic, and psychological forces beyond our control. If so, then the "autonomy" defences of free speech are just wrong, and probably dangerous.

If we are, like all good philosophers, seeking the truth, some unthinking adherence to the seductively titled "free speech" is a dead alley.

Let's consider that bastion of trying to find truth: the court system. The striking thing about the court system is that it completely rejects "free speech". To discover the truth by just permitting people to express any view they want, make any claim they want is judicial anathema. In the court system, we impose massive restrictions on speech to facilitate the discovery of truth.

I think many Americans consider all utterances to be equal. Even John Stuart Mill, that great advocate of "free speech", hedged his championing of it by stating the caveat that people have to be educated and mature. That's a standard, I'd sadly claim, is not that often reached.

GOOD GAWD!!!!! who the hell would be posting, we'd all be in the frigging dawg house?!?!

That comes close to being the dumbest idea I ever heard… at least recently.

"free speech'" is a social construct promulgated by a ruling elite and given a status of inviability

No, I said it's defined by a society in terms of law. Individuals have varying degrees of freedom and subjugation within that society with respect to establishing those laws.

social, economic, and psychological forces beyond our control.

That's certainly a bleak outlook. My own cynicism is slightly different. I believe in the most part, we cede autonomy through laziness and disinterest. Those shaping forces are not beyond our control, if we decide they are not. Legitimate fear of repercussion is not insignificant, but not dominant.

In the court system, we impose massive restrictions on speech to facilitate the discovery of truth.

And massive restrictions on the speaking the truth when truth does not align with what we consider "fair".

I think many Americans consider all utterances to be equal.[/quote[

I see very little evidence of that.

The foundations of free speech doctrine in the United States are more aligned with Napoleon's philosophy of never interrupting an enemy when they were in the process of making a false move.

In which case, I won't interrupt you.

Oberlindes Sol LIC +10

This is just an internet forum about miniatures for wargaming. No one is forced to, or required to, read anything said here.

If someone posts something with which you disagree or that you find offensive, you can ignore it or even stifle the author and never have to read any of that person's comments.

It's a private website, and the owner has the absolute right to delete comments and suspend or expel members.

Totally agree ! That is why I reposted it !

Now there were a number of SJW, PC, etc., types here that Bill had to lock out IIRC a year or so ago. He even mentioned one of the most prevalent SJW "jihadis" that just didn't get that.

Adults agree to disagree and move on. Again there were a number of those that didn't get that. And now are no longer on TMP. Who were always making personal attacks, cyberstalking[new word for me !], etc., etc.

Acting like the "Mean Girls" in that movie. Completely immature and puerile, etc. activities. Many of them spew their vitriol, divisiveness, etc., elsewhere.

That is one of the negatives about the net. Trolls, etc., can make personal attacks, etc., from the safety of the protection of the other side of the net. I know full well they wouldn't say those words if face-to-face. And if they did … well … no need to go into that. I think we all know how that would end up …

In which case, I won't interrupt you.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

And, of course, your right to run away when I speak after you're done is a form of expression and an indicator of your ability to support your convictions. Same goes for responding to a substantive argument with an ad hominem attack.

I'm in my 50's now so I didn't grow up in the current climate of constant state of butt hurt nor, do I condone censorship of any kind.

The TMP site is about toy soldiers and War Gaming with toy soldiers. Why should were have forums about politics? This not about politics or religion. Thank you.

bigdennis

We study and play war games. War is an extension of politics. Shouldn't we know what powers the advent of war?

I'd also assert that religions and their differences often lead us into war. Shouldn't we know how religion factors into nthe advent of war?

No

No

DJCoaltrain +5

WAR gaming, by definition war IS about politics, you rarely have one without the other (note, I did not say 'never').

No to the original post.

We SHOULD be able to talk like adults, but history has shown that can be elusive (just take all wars/conflicts for example). Just look in the dawghouse to see it's apparently not possible on here, either.

No. It's human nature, you cannot "police" it to the extent implied here. Bill already deals with the major issues. I would like to see the occasional blatant troll like post be returned to the writer for a rewrite when Bill might surmise that someone is looking for trouble.

i get where the OP is coming from. It can get crazy. But if we did this we would spends years posting about the policy and citing all kinds of things, on and on.

Yes as this is should be a miniatures site

I hate trolls as much as terrorists …

I think Gata, Criminole, Suckeye, No Shame, Dokey, Meatchiken, Okie Dokey, Shorthorn, and many others, fans should be Dawghoused in perpetuity

Is this a new poll, SM? I rather like Meatchicken.

WHO ?!?!?