Uncivil Dialogue

[Scott Mayers]

Sorry ?

This was the one thing I asked for and you haven't provided it.

"some guy" said all forms of dissent were unacceptable. I'll just say it: I don't believe it. If he did say it, he should be fired.

I don't have a means to provide that. It was on yesterday's news on CBC with Wendy Mesley when it first occurred. It is still irrelevant. The link in the OP raised says:

We've seen thoughtful, insightful and moving comments on our pages. We've seen ignorant, ill-informed and objectionable comments as well. All of it is acceptable, in our view, in a marketplace of ideas where the issues of the day are freely debated and tested. For that to work, the debate must be respectful, even if it's vigorous and pointed.

But as our guidelines make clear, we draw the line on hate speech and personal attacks.

While there are a number of subjects and groups of people who seem to bring out higher-than-average numbers of worrisome comments, we find ourselves with a unique situation when it comes to indigenous-related stories.

We've noticed over many months that these stories draw a disproportionate number of comments that cross the line and violate our guidelines. Some of the violations are obvious, some not so obvious; some comments are clearly hateful and vitriolic, some are simply ignorant. And some appear to be hate disguised as ignorance (i.e., racist sentiments expressed in benign language).

This comes at the same time CBC News has made a concerted effort to connect with indigenous communities in order to improve our journalism and better reflect these communities to a national audience. The success of our Aboriginal unit and our investigative journalism around missing and murdered indigenous women are just two examples of that commitment.

The first paragraph asserts a 'sincerity' and then backs out of it (just as their own claim of "hate disguised as ignorance" by others?) The last bolded comment above is what I was referring to but she was not the one Wendy was interviewing. The sentiment of this and its justification is based on their own personal and biased views of which is considered hate speech. See:

8. Any of Your Content that is offensive and likely to expose an individual or a group of individuals to hatred or contempt on the basis of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age or mental or physical disability is prohibited.

9. The following kind of Your Content is also prohibited:

Pornography, vulgarity, obscenity or sexually explicit content

Anything illegal

Hate speech

Threats, harassment

Personal attacks, insults and defamatory statements

Threats or suggesting committing a criminal act

Attempts to mobilise people for any purpose outside of a CBC event

These terms lack any means to define what is considered "hate speech". They can opt to ban those who publish or suspend them. They can't excuse their problem as about insufficient staff for moderation as none of our posts automatically allowed publication until moderation. But it is moderation itself that is questionable anyways. They already have the capacity to track those in violation regardless and they ALSO have a right in the same guidelines to require REAL (non-anomymous) names. So it is secure.

The arguments to support the ban is already problematic as they even HAVE an "Aboriginal Unit" of CBC which makes their preference non-democratic and by default intentionally racist or discriminatory against all others. [i don't see a "Greek Unit" or a "Spanish Unit", etc.] AND the issue they add specifically on "missing and murdered Aboriginal women" also add more force to prove their own IGNORANCE AND DISCRIMINATION. On the latter issue, the nature of their race nor their sex is relevant accept in the delusion of the minds presuming that the unknown cause of some vacant criminal or criminals are actually targeting these people on such a basis. Without knowing this, all we CAN logically say is that there are 'missing' people and 'murdered' people. To state these in terms of some mental cause is itself ignorant, racist, and inappropriate behavior.

What about 'missing men' or 'non-aboriginal missing persons' or etc. These claims and their point of imbalanced representation are thus PROOF that the CBC is in violation of its mandate to even serve the people as a medium. It's claiming to serve specific people only. And it makes their ban even more hateful in reflection and non-productive as it will only foster more 'hatred' by all sides.

EDIT REFERENCE: the reference to the same guideline speaking on their capacity to keep accountability to the poster reads: "CBC: Your username links to your profile and will appear alongside any of 'Your Content'. We reserve the right to identify your real name and city of residence from your profile when using Your Content (ie. John Doe from Vancouver says...). Adopting the identity of another person with the intention to mislead or cause harm is a serious violation which may lead to expulsion of the user."

Edited December 2, 2015 by Scott Mayers

[Scott Mayers]

"I'm sorry for the length of this. ..."

Sorry ?

I'm not apologetic for the length, I am apologizing for how some opt to ignore based on my depth in respect. If the majority are simply NOT concerned about the depth of this in sincerity, why should they bother being here?

That was my point about the comment tl;dr (too long; didn't read). If people want simple readings, go to Twitter. Its designed for those favoring cell phone screens and simple-minded responses.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Scott Mayers

[Michael Hardner]

I don't have a means to provide that. It was on yesterday's news on CBC with Wendy Mesley when it first occurred. It is still irrelevant.

No, I don't think it's irrelevant. That comment would be something that I would agree with you on, if it had really happened.

These terms lack any means to define what is considered "hate speech".

They don't have to define terms for common use. Why don't you complain that they didn't define 'harassment' ?

The arguments to support the ban is already problematic as they even HAVE an "Aboriginal Unit" of CBC which makes their preference non-democratic and by default intentionally racist or discriminatory against all others.

They don't have a 'Greek Unit' or an 'esperanto department' or a lot of things. If you don't agree that certain groups can be treated differently, based on context, then we just have different values.

I was interested in your posts momentarily, though, and I would support your cause earnestly if you had any evidence that a CBC News Editor railed against generic 'dissent'.

[Scott Mayers]

Michael, read the above in detail. I showed the particular comments by the chief that the person on the news was referencing. It's not my fault that I cannot find the CBC link. I saw this on television and as much as I tried to seek the interview, I could not find it. The sites don't even list all coverage. I used the date "December 1", specified "Wendy Mesley", "The National", and others and still there is nothing!

But I DID show above the exact quote by the chief editor there which indicated this: "Some of the violations are obvious, some not so obvious; some comments are clearly hateful and vitriolic, some are simply ignorant. And some appear to be hate disguised as ignorance (i.e., racist sentiments expressed in benign language)."

Their act to ban based on merely "some" minority views doesn't jive with their actions to ban ALL unless they are biased to those particular 'minority' views even being remotely seen.

"They don't have to define terms for common use. Why don't you complain that they didn't define 'harassment' ?"

They should, including things like "harassment". This is done in regular law-making with clarity by defining the terms up front. Choosing NOT to do this specifically only enables them to judge terms on their own biases of interpretation. We don't have PROOF neither that they are privileged NOT to provide to us to justify what they are claiming as 'abuse' IS abuse.

And

I was interested in your posts momentarily, though, and I would support your cause earnestly if you had any evidence that a CBC News Editor railed against generic 'dissent'.

I DID provide this above. But you too have the option to ignore it as "evidence" by simply claiming I don't have it.

EVIDENCE: They assert a special consideration at the CBC for "aboriginals" by providing a special unit for them as if they are intrinsically more relevant than other groups distinctly.

This comes at the same time CBC News has made a concerted effort to connect with indigenous communities in order to improve our journalism and better reflect these communities to a national audience. The success of our Aboriginal unit and our investigative journalism around missing and murdered indigenous women are just two examples of that commitment.

This comment from the chief's letter to us clearly indicates they serve this bias. While it may be 'legal', I argued above why our country's mentality is intrinsically racist from above...the ones forming our constitution and why they cannot expect such a system to treat those in defiance of it to comment on it regardless of any degree of kindness nor abuse. By default, anyone against our Constitutional views ARE considered 'abusive' no matter what they say. So it places added question as to the sincerity of the CBC respecting the Constitution. Why is it a 'concerted effort' needed for the indigenous community and how is it linked to the function of journalistic integrity above and beyond those complaining, no matter how 'abusive' they may even seem?

EVIDENCE:From the above quote: "The success of our Aboriginal unit and our investigative journalism around missing and murdered indigenous women are just two examples of that commitment."

I expanded on this above to show that the very attention to dignify that some unspoken motivator(s) including their 'causes' are not qualified as being due to discrimination against the logical classes "indigenous", "women", nor that there has even been determined "crimes" committed for the missing. These clearly indicate that we are being TOLD that these are true even without their own evidence one way or the other. It also suggests (by the CBC, not me) an inverse and hidden agenda in the population who conspire against these groups AND that it is based certainly on their associated race rather than to the more logical classes, "poor people" and "segregation of people"[like reserves, for instance]. In other words, it creates a smokescreen to solve the real problem, "missing people" and/or "murdered people", by dressing it up as a racial discrimination against the general population unqualified [without directly pointing fingers yet implying 'white' and 'men' in context to most other explanation of causes.] If and only if there IS some root of causation owned by the 'white men', it is specifically the ones who created the segregation (reserving of indigenous people) and the abuses that lead to their impoverishment.

"Impoverishment" alone is a discriminated class. But it doesn't matter who the wealthier classes who define them are as the cause because it ALWAYS occurs in all people generically throughout time and place. If the vast majority of our wealth resided in the Native population and a minority, say Europeans, were reserved in camps, the exact reversed situation would be true. That is, there is nothing intrinsic about 'white men' to be abusive AND that 'indigenous women' are the victims. This contingent reality is not subject to racial or ethnic considerations. It is only about economic differences of power AND to the very intrinsic beliefs of those who are deluded into thinking roots matter who create the assumption that it is about race.

So those complaining against this are NOT the ones who are necessarily being racist, discriminatory, nor hateful. It is the very ones maintaining the accusations (like the CBC here) who are framing the context AS racist when they report that certain issues are relevantly racial issues and even go as far as setting up subcommittees in their office granting such groups authority. This is NO different than Hitler's Germany setting up offices in their government to foster the German aboriginals or indigenous population in media as requiring special privilege. The European's (and usually the 'men' of these more specifically) are targeted like the Jews were in Germany. And just as the supposed unified 'Jew' was originally indirectly implicated as the cause, many of the disenfranchised 'white', 'male' and 'European' are targeted these days here in the same way.

Should it be any surprise that you find a disproportionate amount of complaints by this class? This again, contrasting it historically to WWII Germany, the supposed 'Jew' who complained would have been interpreted as being the representative class who were being vile, abusive, and racist themselves. And to those 'Jews' for whom the discrimination against them was derived [the ones who DO believe in segregation and discrimination], even while in minority of their own class, allowed the Germans to persist against those who did complain AND whom were not even the benefactors of the supposed wealth nor "Nationality" lovers for which Hitler excused such legalized discrimination in law.

We are having continued events of just such backlash by many here and around the world. The Muslim ISIS terrorists react against the discrimination WE in the West have caused indirectly to the point they've responded. Their minority status even within their own communities against them have forced them to isolate just as expected.

And if we continue down this road we are doing here, while those supposedly complaining are considered too 'abusive', while even momentarily non-volatile now to decide to ignore them, this will force them to BECOME the class of people who are forced to collectively make a stand (become the very 'abusive' class they are accused of). And yet, this feeds into the very mentality of the segregationist policy of Multiculturalism that causes it.

We NEED to stop Multiculturalism in its tracks. I assure you that if we don't, no amount of censorship will improve our conditions for any group.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Scott Mayers

[eyeball]

Could we please get a condensed summary of the main points? If I had to condense my own sense of things, focusing on the last sentence above will suffice: The best cure for multiculturalism is to simply become an Earthling.

Apparently that's to monocultural though, even more so to the anti-multiculturalists oddly enough.

Edited December 3, 2015 by eyeball

[Scott Mayers]

Could we please get a condensed summary of the main points? If I had to condense my own sense of things, focusing on the last sentence above will suffice: The best cure for multiculturalism is to simply become an Earthling.

Apparently that's to monocultural though, even more so to the anti-multiculturalists oddly enough.

I have to trademark "multiculturalism" to indicate the legal intentions of this word as it hides that it actually means is what it says. Summary:

(1) CBC bans commenting by declaring too much abuse by comments emotionally driven that appear anti-Indigenous

(2) I say the comments deserve to be heard because they are likely only reflecting a sincere intellectual feedback based on our Multicultural policies entrenched in and throughout our Constitution.

(3) Because our Constitution defines privileged people simply because those cultures had been there at the beginning of our formation, and the very people in power to create these laws are themselves of those classes and are responsible for all cultural distinctions which lead to both their privileges and the problems, they

-> (a) intend to preserve their own fortunes while recognizing their faults,

-> (b') but choose to disperse their 'debt' from their guilt upon the rest of society rather than absorbing it personally and potentially tainting their love of segregated and sacred cultures,

-> (c') opt to promote laws that maintain cultural segregation but in the guise of lawmaking privilege to FAVOR diversity

-> (d) by requiring to also permit their past enemies (like the Indigenous) to cooperatively conspire in kind to a degree they won't rebel against them but towards others instead

(4) Solution suggestion: Stop Multiculturalism by changing our Constitution to eliminate the rights of any privileges based on race, ethnicity, and advance limitations to inheritance in general

-> (corollary) CBC would then not be able to reflect a Multicultural bias by limiting freedoms of speech to preserve it

Edited December 3, 2015 by Scott Mayers

[eyeball]

Did you think all this up on your own? I'm pretty sure I've seen it smeared all over hundreds of threads and thousands of posts in this forum alone.

Anyways, good luck with it.

[Michael Hardner]

Michael, read the above in detail.

I really don't have that kind of time. I pointed out a few parts of your argument that I fundamentally disagree with, and that's the best I can do for you.

I showed the particular comments by the chief that the person on the news was referencing.

You didn't find somebody who dismisses all dissent, though. That would be something I could get behind you on.

But I DID show above the exact quote by the chief editor there which indicated this: "Some of the violations are obvious, some not so obvious; some comments are clearly hateful and vitriolic, some are simply ignorant. And some appear to be hate disguised as ignorance (i.e., racist sentiments expressed in benign language)."

That's a different thing than a dismissal of all dissent.

Their act to ban based on merely "some" minority views doesn't jive with their actions to ban ALL unless they are biased to those particular 'minority' views even being remotely seen.

...being seen on their site. Yes, I agree.

I DID provide this above. But you too have the option to ignore it as "evidence" by simply claiming I don't have it.

Provide what ? You said that somebody dismissed ALL dissent, then you're in this long dissection of CBC online policy. They're not the same thing.

We NEED to stop Multiculturalism™ in its tracks.

I disagree.

People have been saying that multiculturalism will destroy Canada for decades now, and I would say there's still no significant opposition to it. It's not going away soon, at least.

[Scott Mayers]

"Dismissal of 'all' dissent?" (Michael asked of me above)

They banned ALL commenting, Michael. While you might technically think this is insignificant since it includes even preferred comments too, the point of commenting is to serve the people a democratic outlet regardless of favor or not. I also believe that the very ones commenting within a community have the burden to speak up within these forums to speak against those supposedly abusing. It's often just a subjective perception of the reader in their own dissenting views. With regards to news and its politics, this is expected. But to censure and now banning it, is more aggressively abusive an act than anything one could possibly say.

On Multiculturalism, do you or do you not think this concept merely on principle alone is discriminatory? Your claims of it NOT being a problem is NOT even qualified itself but only suggests your own existence here has not been affected OR is affected in a positive way by contrast to others who are affected.

The root of 'culture' is "cult". They have a common factor to what we recognize of abusers in the following way:

Use isolation techniques to control how and what a person or group thinks.

Language isolation is one. In Multiculturalism, they legitimize the right of groups to speak distinct languages to both control the in-group and to prevent the out-group from influencing their member(s).

Enhance in-group policies to strengthen the cohesiveness of its members and create an us versus them mentality.

Create cultural identity even where none may exist before to fit with conformed stereotype behaviors in common with one another.

Since other cults also have this advantage, the idea of supporting Multiculturalism serves to keep the groups who believe in this mentality to work together to approve laws that permit their segregation, enhance the out-side groups to agree to keep away from theirs, and to prevent the progress of individuals separate from these from fostering a common ground.

Multiculturalism initially is favorable but always leads to eventual problems. Each 'group' is actually Nationalistic (not patriotic to the whole) and only acts like a coalition of gangs who agree that gangs should persist and agree in common to territorial boundaries of influence. To me, all distinct cultures are criminal as they are most discriminatory against the perfect minority, the individual, and to the collection of such individuals as a whole.

Individuals are forced to join a cult as identified by their genetic ancestors and ONLY to those specific ones even permitted by the coalition of present groups in power. We also lack the right to choose our groups (regardless of our Constitution's claim that we have a right to at least 'think' it, as if this matters or could easily be prevented otherwise).

Edited December 3, 2015 by Scott Mayers

[Michael Hardner]

"Dismissal of 'all' dissent?" (Michael asked of me above)

Here is your quote again:

" The editor also commented that for ALL comments of dissent, they were either (1) outright hate, (2) 'ignorant' but still hateful, and (3) 'ignorant', hideously dressed up as friendly but still hateful"

You're unable to back that up.

The other comments you have made here aren't interesting to me. If you could prove it, as I said, I would have got behind you.

On Multiculturalism, do you or do you not think this concept merely on principle alone is discriminatory?

No.

Your claims of it NOT being a problem is NOT even qualified itself but only suggests your own existence here has not been affected OR is affected in a positive way by contrast to others who are affected.

I think it's a small effort to ensure a polite society.

[Scott Mayers]

Here is your quote again:

" The editor also commented that for ALL comments of dissent, they were either (1) outright hate, (2) 'ignorant' but still hateful, and (3) 'ignorant', hideously dressed up as friendly but still hateful"

You're unable to back that up.

Again, I indirectly proved it but you're demanding that I directly prove this. I am only guessing that the reason the Wendy Mesley interview could not be found may be for this very reason. But of course, I still can't DIRECTLY prove this now.

Because it is in the interest of politics to be cautious of their wording, you have to show most acts 'indirect'. The indirect evidence in this case I've proven above. I can't help whether you can infer this or not. But you are also trying to distract from the actual points in depth by attending to the one word, "ALL" that I wrote. In kind, this is no doubt why Jennifer McGuire opted to use indirect innuendo to create her formal message.

Their ACT to ban ALL comments is sufficiently proof of the discrimination at play here. It says that no matter how its audience of the public actually think, they don't count. By simply labeling them all (all of the 'set' of 'severe majority' to which they accuse of being 'abusive', ignorant, or hideous) is itself proof that the CBC doesn't represent the vast majority interests. And then to also state that those commenting are also somehow of a 'minority view' is also NOT accounted for the supposed evidence which makes them contradictory.

The other comments you have made here aren't interesting to me. If you could prove it, as I said, I would have got behind you.

The 'other comments' are the argument to which you won't attend to to determine whether I've proven anything or not. They are not disconnected 'comments.'

[Michael Hardner]

Again, I indirectly proved it...

That's odd wording. "Indirectly proved". I don't think you did that. I want the quote, not a different kind of critique of the CBC's policy. If you can't provide that then we don't have anything to talk about with that point.

By simply labeling them all is itself proof that the CBC doesn't represent the vast majority interests.

Or *would* be if you had proof that the CBC was against all dissent.

[Scott Mayers]

That's odd wording. "Indirectly proved". I don't think you did that. I want the quote, not a different kind of critique of the CBC's policy. If you can't provide that then we don't have anything to talk about with that point.

It's logic. Direct proof is what you're demanding. It is like the Holocaust deniers who might argue that they couldn't believe it unless they personally saw it directly.

Or *would* be if you had proof that the CBC was against all dissent.

I don't believe this would actually matter to you. It doesn't make sense why you would be AGAINST a direct comment that specified universal abuse when it seems to slip your mind that they've banned ALL commenting, period. Is it simply more relevant that the staff might abuse the public by banning them than that we should determine this by their words as sufficient evidence for the abusive act?

The whole context of their option to choose to ban is in question regardless of what they would say to justify it. The very FACT that they censure public responses at all is already a crime against the people. Banning is even more extreme. And if they were overwhelmed with such apparent abuses, it alone is enough to suggest that the only reason they are troubled is because they accidentally let the views of the people they disagree with get past the censures.

[TimG]

I think that's a broad slag. Surely there's a political doctrinaire tradition on the right too.

The right has their bugbears but the right is generally willing to tolerate dissent (although the question of how much do you can tolerate intolerance does come up).

I'm starting to see the broad slags of the left and right as lazy thinking. I'd also like a cite that proves this news editor has dismissed all of the dissent from his point of view.

I thought it was clear I was expressing a opinion/possibility and that I don't know for sure that this is the case. It just know from numerous other examples (e.g. Wynne calling opponents of Trudeau refugee plan racists) that it is quite likely that my speculations are correct.

[Michael Hardner]

Direct proof is what you're demanding.

Proof in any form would be welcome.

Here's the official CBC comment, which took me 1 minute to find:

http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/community/editorsblog/2015/11/uncivil-dialogue-commenting-and-stories-about-indigenous-people.html?cmp=abfb

We believe our comment section helps answer our mandate as a public broadcaster to reflect the country and its regions to itself. We believe it's important to provide the public with a democratic space where they can freely engage and debate the issues of the day.

Research shows that our audience not only expects comments on a news site like ours, but values them -- even if readers don't participate directly in the comment threads. Those who do leave comments consume far more of our content than average users, so they're a highly engaged segment of our audience.

We also have one of the most active comment spaces of any media organization in the country. In the last few months, we set records for the number of comments left on our pages, topping one million comments in September and October.

We've seen thoughtful, insightful and moving comments on our pages. We've seen ignorant, ill-informed and objectionable comments as well. All of it is acceptable, in our view, in a marketplace of ideas where the issues of the day are freely debated and tested.

It is like the Holocaust deniers who might argue that they couldn't believe it unless they personally saw it directly.

No. Deniers ignore evidence. You haven't provided any evidence. I just provided the official response, so that should be enough on that topic unless you provide said evidence.

[Michael Hardner]

The right has their bugbears but the right is generally willing to tolerate dissent (although the question of how much do you can tolerate intolerance does come up).

Right, depending on where you focus then I agree with you. The pervasiveness of media, though, add pressure to conform to norms in every social circle there is. I suspect that this effect reflects the inherent politics of the region so ... yes, it seems to me your assessment seems accurate for our region.

I thought it was clear I was expressing a opinion/possibility and that I don't know for sure that this is the case.

Ok. I have been trying to get details from another poster on this thread who claims a CBC editor stated that all dissent is bad or somesuch.

It just know from numerous other examples (e.g. Wynne calling opponents of Trudeau refugee plan racists) that it is quite likely that my speculations are correct.

Right. It's more like people feel free to make statements about statements about statements.... Wynne is a politician so she spoke weaselly about the need to be vigiliant about statements that some may make to mask their true intentions blah blah blah...

Her statement, from what I can find is, "What we can't give into, I think is allowing security to mask racism."

How we would allow people to dissent to a hastily-assembled plan such as Trudeau's without appearing to be racist is unclear.

[TimG]

"What we can't give into, I think is allowing security to mask racism."

Wynne suggested that people are racists for disagreeing. That quote does not make it less true because that quote is open ended.

How we would allow people to dissent to a hastily-assembled plan such as Trudeau's without appearing to be racist is unclear.

WTF?!? We don't need to "allow" people to dissent - people have that right no matter what their opponents say. What is needed is for people like Wynne be ridiculed for attempting to shut down debate by labeling her opponents instead of addressing the substance of the arguments. Edited December 3, 2015 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Wynne suggested that people are racists for disagreeing. That quote does not make it less true because that quote is open ended.

"suggested" maybe but didn't say it outright. My point is that she implied that being against the policy could mask racism, which is perhaps true, but didn't explain how you can be against the policy and not be racist.

WTF?!? We don't need to "allow" people to dissent - people have that right no matter what their opponents say. What is needed is for people like Wynne be ridiculed for attempting to shut down debate by labeling her opponents instead of addressing the substance of the arguments.

Yes, that's the problem with her statement.

[Scott Mayers]

Proof in any form would be welcome.

Here's the official CBC comment, which took me 1 minute to find:

http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/community/editorsblog/2015/11/uncivil-dialogue-commenting-and-stories-about-indigenous-people.html?cmp=abfb

I've been quoting from it above and this is precisely the very link of the OP's. I was commenting initially on the interview with Wendy Mesley to which I have not found but exposed more clearly what I was saying. The rhetoric is ALWAYS going to be two-faced when the head of the department in question is defending an unfavorable position. Her words to 'say' she and their staff is somehow compassionate for the democratic views of the site are NOT true when you even HAVE any need for moderation in that forum, is contradictory.

It is purely logical: If it is 'true' that

(1)"We believe it's important to provide the public with a democratic space where they can freely engage and debate the issues of the day.", as this chief editor says,

AND that

(2)"...we draw the line on hate speech and personal attacks.",

the question is ambiguously lacking required quantification in (1). It means either "They" believe we can "freely engage and debate" in ANY "issues of the day" or just simply SOME "issues of the day". Their act to ban proves they mean SOME, but the wording is intended to convince the masses (including yourself) that the lack of quantification can be openly and freely interpreted!

And, given they actually banned ALL free speech for the sake of the SOME "they" don't approve of, they don't approve of ALL "free speech".

So, to reduce this logically to its real meaning, this is what the logic COMMANDS here by interpreting the words with their acts consistently:

(1) "Some specific freedoms to speak is acceptable."

AND

(2) "Some specific freedoms to speak is Not acceptable."

These are called "subcontrary" in logic, which means that both may be 'true' but that both cannot not be 'false'.

So Either (1) is 'true' alone, OR (2) is 'true' alone, OR both (1) AND (2) are 'true'. That is,

"Some freedom of speech" is true OR "Some freedom of speech" is not true.

YET, they've positively PROVEN by suspending all speech, that "All freedom of speech" is not true NOW and that enforced with the power of moderation, that at least "Some freedom of speech" is not allowed regardless. They suspended it, in other words because they DON'T approve of 'some' free speech.

So, it begs what "free speech" even means! "Moderated speech" is NOT not "free speech". But their suspension in ACT proves even on the question of someone yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater, that no toleration for any dissent that affects their own default favoritism* even in where in minority is allowed. [* their standards of etiquette and their sole 'right' to adjudicate this]

Thus this LOGIC according to even the very words in that letter by the editor to us in defense of her decision assures us that she has no sincere argument for her act and alerts us that her only reason to delay is precisely DUE to the 'free speech' she doesn't approve of. I have no doubt that what one thinks is abusive is in direct opposition to others and why even the concept of "free speech" is ever mentioned. It has no value if it is partially 'true'.

It's like George Orwell's quote, "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." [Animal Farm]

No. Deniers ignore evidence. You haven't provided any evidence. I just provided the official response, so that should be enough on that topic unless you provide said evidence.

I'm hoping you can follow this. But I'm still doubtful you'd actually indicate this if you did. That's you're "freedom". But imagine if I had the power to not simply assert your own speech as "hate", or some secretly hidden aggression as such, and then opt to BAN all speech until I can manage a staff who could eliminate your views effectively! I'd be clearly indicating that I am NOT for "freedom of speech".

[-1=e^ipi]

The moderators were having difficulty in keeping up with the necessary moderation of racial, prejudicial and hate postings. It appears that anonymous opinion boards seem to draw xenophobes, racists and hate mongers

According to the standard of neoprogressives. All dissenting opinion is xenophobic, racist and hateful.

Anyway, the CBC is an LPC propaganda machine that has serious issues with cronyism.

[-1=e^ipi]

Racist?

According to Ben Affleck, you count as racist.

[eyeball]

According to the standard of neoprogressives. All dissenting opinion is xenophobic, racist and hateful.

I think victimhood, like bad breath, just blows just back in some people's face a little harder than others is all. Most dissenting opinions are just plain ridiculous and even more so they're when they're clung to with the tenacity a pit bull exhibits. Most people can only put up with so much before the exasperation starts to show.

I can see how having one's nose rubbed in their own crap would start to get tiresome. Perhaps if people thought just rolling their eyes would get the message across that's what they would do but...been there done that I guess.

Edited December 9, 2015 by eyeball

[Guest]

According to Ben Affleck, you count as racist.

Hey, me and Ben are like two peas in a container for peas. I'll forgive him, as he knows not what he does.

[Boges]

Toronto Star doing it too

http://www.thestar.com/news/2015/12/16/toronto-star-closing-commenting-on-thestarcom.html

The internet ruins everything.

[eyeball]

The people leaving the comments that are at issue are what's ruining things.

I suspect when more news outlet forums shut down we'll see forums like our's become busier noisier places.