Fifty Plus (50+) - How can the Serious Question thread be closed?

Are we now accepting censorship?

Road Fan

That was funny,,,

Yep, censorship is alive and well at BF. I posted on the S. California thread about someone complaint about Pres. Bush and the helicopters in the LA area. They brought up water boarding and I posted a list of experiences while in a POW Camp for Escape and Evasion Training for Army Helicopter Pilots. I then asked that they remember that we have troops in harms way and: All Gave it Some and Some Gave it All.

It got moved to the Politics and Religion Forum and I was banned from posting there. Good thing I don't frequent the place.

The mystery of BikeForums.net and the "Establishment" I must have insulted someone's political sensibilities to far to the Right?

^^^

You weren't banned from posting in P&R, you simply have to PM a mod and ask for permission to do so.

It looks like the original poster asked for it to be closed. I think it's OK to close a thread under those circumstances, and don't think of it as censorship. Rather, that is more along the lines of I really wish I had not opened that can of worms, can you please help me close it?

I agree with T-Man, the moderators simply provided the original poster a requested service. Hats off to them being responsive.

Well, yes, I can see that since the thread was going in a direction Big Paulie had seemingly not wantted to be in, and it felt uncomfortable to read. But the action struck me as odd when the thread was discussing censorship openly.

Road Fan

fthomas, I didn't even see your situation occurring! too bad, and regrettable.

Well, yes, I can see that since the thread was going in a direction Big Paulie had seemingly not wantted to be in, and it felt uncomfortable to read. But the action struck me as odd when the thread was discussing censorship openly.

Road Fan

I have mixed thoughts about this. I recently posted some information about a project I did with my students in this forum. However, it got picked up in the Road Forum and currently has four pages of responses, much more than here, and very little of it related to my original intent. Here's where my mixed thoughts come in....

On one hand I can appreciate having the opportunity to "take something back" that one has said or started. There have been numerous times in my life when I wished I could undo something. It is a real gift when this can happen.

Yet, my experience in cyber space has forced me to censor myself more often and be much more thoughtful before making a post. This has been a good thing for me. As a person with Attention Deficit Disorder, I often say things without thinking about them first.... this usually gets me in trouble with someone.

Finally, I wonder if this could set a precedent that might not be a good thing. For example, would it be reasonable for the OP of a thread to request the thread be closed because it has been hijacked and is now headed in a direction far away from what the OP wanted? What about those threads that breakdown in banter, humor, or highly casual remarks completely unrelated to the topic? Should I be able to request closure and have my request granted?

As I said, I have mixed thoughts about this.

Whenever I start threads that get out of hand, I just quit reading them. I do that all of the time on any thread I get tired of, and feel no obligation to continue participating in a thread solely due to my having started it.

fthomas, I didn't even see your situation occurring! too bad, and regrettable.

P & R is restricted because things can get out of hand - if something starts getting political, it is sent there - and you have to read and agree to the rules to continue to participate. Sort of the like the idea that most of the time in forums people are talking about things that don't cause people strap on bombs and blow themselves up (not sure in among the roadies, but we hope) but when the subject goes into politics or religion, it is like running with scissors - it gets a bit dicey. The powers that be have determined that those who do, need to know what is acceptable and what isn't - since in the past it has gotten very nasty, up to threats of lawsuits even.

For example, would it be reasonable for the OP of a thread to request the thread be closed because it has been hijacked and is now headed in a direction far away from what the OP wanted? What about those threads that breakdown in banter, humor, or highly casual remarks completely unrelated to the topic? Should I be able to request closure and have my request granted?

As I said, I have mixed thoughts about this.

I'm less mixed. Just because someone starts a conversation doesn't mean they should get to own or control the discourse. I've posted things that go in directions I didn't intend, and directions I don't think are good. But that's life. The open marketplace of ideas (and stupid humor) is a messy place. Sometime it works for us, sometimes it doesn't. But the tighter it's controlled the less the opportunity for surprise, serendipity, innovation, exploration and plain 'ol fun.

When a thread goes south, I think we should just roll our eyes and move on.

The alternative is to adopt the philosophy that one of my students sarcastically suggested:
"Free speech. Too important a right to give to just anyone."

I'm less mixed. Just because someone starts a conversation doesn't mean they should get to own or control the discourse. I've posted things that go in directions I didn't intend, and directions I don't think are good. But that's life. The open marketplace of ideas (and stupid humor) is a messy place. Sometime it works for us, sometimes it doesn't. But the tighter it's controlled the less the opportunity for surprise, serendipity, innovation, exploration and plain 'ol fun.

When a thread goes south, I think we should just roll our eyes and move on.

The alternative is to adopt the philosophy that one of my students sarcastically suggested:
"Free speech. Too important a right to give to just anyone."

Your student's insightful thought was not new, the early democracies (Greece, for example) had the concept of electors who were citizens, distinguished from non-electors who may or may not have been slaves. Electors were educated and seen to be responsible and capable of responsibly attending to the decisions of the state. This same idea was considered by the Founding Fathers in the creation of the United States. The countermeasure to this political exigency is to enable every citizen to be adequately educated to internalize and understand the issues of the state and hence contribute responsibly. According to Mortimer Adler of the University of Chicago, that's why liberal public education is so important.

but except for the necessity of education, I don't think I agree with the Greek stratification. We need to keep our discourse open.

See what I mean about gabbling off-track? I'll stop now. Need a bike ride - now we're back on track!!!

Road (and book) Fan

If it is any consolation to those who oppose censorship, it creates a huge burden upon the censORS, encourages righteous rebellion among the censORED, and provides high drama for ALL; win-win if ever there was!

Your student's insightful thought was not new, the early democracies (Greece, for example) had the concept of electors who were citizens, distinguished from non-electors who may or may not have been slaves. Electors were educated and seen to be responsible and capable of responsibly attending to the decisions of the state. This same idea was considered by the Founding Fathers in the creation of the United States. The countermeasure to this political exigency is to enable every citizen to be adequately educated to internalize and understand the issues of the state and hence contribute responsibly. According to Mortimer Adler of the University of Chicago, that's why liberal public education is so important.

but except for the necessity of education, I don't think I agree with the Greek stratification. We need to keep our discourse open.


This is intuitively obvious to the most casual of observers.

This is intuitively obvious to the most casual of observers.

This is not only not obvious but also ambiguous.

...

Yet, my experience in cyber space has forced me to censor myself more often and be much more thoughtful before making a post. ...
You don't mean "censor",

you mean "edit".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doing to yourself, is editing.

Gov't doing, is censoring.

Private entity doing in a voluntary medium, ain't exactly censoring. But it is imposing the private entity's rules, guidelines, restrictions, whatever. But one agrees to the rules, etc. when one joins, posts, etc..

You don't mean "censor",

you mean "edit".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Doing to yourself, is editing.

Gov't doing, is censoring.

Private entity doing in a voluntary medium, ain't exactly censoring. But it is imposing the private entity's rules, guidelines, restrictions, whatever. But one agrees to the rules, etc. when one joins, posts, etc..

Interesting distinction. I see editing as an attempt to make what one says more understandable or to more clearly express something. I see censorship as the suppression of comments which may seem objectionable to others. While censorship may more often be experienced as an outside entity imposing rules, restrictions, etc., I can see no conflict with recognizing the one can have an internal censor. Not that anyone gives a rats arse.

is removing threads at the OP request really a BF policy?