Moderation, censorship and protectionism.

[Bubu]

Hello raf,

"Next to useless" in the sense that personal opinion and personal preferences is personal in its real sense. As everyone is unique every one is entitled to his/her own opinion. With him criticizing the gay is no different than you criticizing him. If you say he is utterly ignorant then that makes you one too.

Sorry just setting the record straight. good way of learning isn't it?

[RMorgan]

Posted by nature (here)
Hello raf,

"Next to useless" in the sense that personal opinion and personal preferences is personal in its real sense. As everyone is unique every one is entitled to his/her own opinion. With him criticizing the gay is no different than you criticizing him. If you say he is utterly ignorant then that makes you one too.

Sorry just setting the record straight. good way of learning isn't it?

Sure, there´s no difference...Following this precept, one can´t criticize anything otherwise he equalizes himself to the subject of his critique...Great...Great way to make everyone silent.

Let´s close this forum, then. There´s nothing more to talk about. You can´t criticize Obama, corrupt politicians, criminals, bankers, the new world order, myopic ideologies or anything else, because if you do that, you´re going to equalize yourself with the criticized part...If you say that Ben Bernanke is a scoundrel, then it means you´re a scoundrel as well...If you say that Piers Morgan is a joke, then you´re the joke instead...If you read a mediocre article in the newspaper, you can´t criticize it, or you´ll become mediocre yourself.

Sorry, but there´s no logic in this reasoning.

Oh, and personal opinion becomes something much more than personal when stating it becomes your job and you end up influencing a lot of people through your statements...In this case, there´s always much more behind opinions, which is commonly called agenda.

[naste.de.lumina]

This debate demonstrates perfectly how fear is a weapon treacherous and cruel.
The fears difficult to intercept and decipher because they are ingrained in our subconscious.
Fear of hurting.
Fear of losing.
Fear of regret.
Fear of exposure.
Fear of loneliness.
Fear of disappointment.
Fear of exceeding.
Fear of opine.
Some of them. They depend on the degree of related emotions.
Finally, fear of failure, despite being human and subject to many errors, because it is part of human characteristic and learning experience that provides the error.
Provides the experience of consciousness expansion and consequently decision making wiser.
And we make thousands of decisions every day, hours, minutes and seconds of our life.
Love without fear to all who can make mistakes (we all do).

[Bubu]

Hi raf,

I don't know if your fully awake now or still sleepy.

If I criticize obama for being ugly that does not make me ugly either.

But if you criticize others for criticizing others then that makes you same as him. There is a big difference can't you see it?

[nonesuch]

RMorgan has stated as clearly as I ever could what I was going to post on the original thread, but I didn't get there before the thread was shut down and critics of Doug Hagman's incendiary article were targeted by staff as the reason for doing so. Paul may have taken criticism of Doug personally or as an attempt to discredit him (Doug) for ulterior motives. I didn't see it that way. I took his judgement that the discussion was not worth enough to him to bother deleting a post equating gays with reptilians perhaps too personally as well. Our agreement on that isn't necessary. I doubt any discussion on Avalon about homophobia or God's Loving Word against gay people's 'false' identity and even their existence, which Doug unambiguously implied, will go over any better even if we don't name names.

[DarMar]

This is extra!

A dude came and judged some persons which he labeled as homosexuals. (for others to read)
Then other person judged his actions on forum. (for others to see)
Ofc, it wouldn't be fun at all if mods didn't decide to judge too (for caring of others again)
So new thread should be opened to judge the mods!

Can we lets say not read article if it hurts? Or maybe try read it and if something not feels right about person, send him a couple of good thoughts atleast?
Or we should bash him into the ground even more than he already is? You think any phobia state comes from healthy soul?

label homosexual has been made for purpose of manipulation, infact whole sex thematics is hot-button thematic as Dennis said in this thread.
You think aware persons should use labels made by others?

But i c the point you trying to make here Raf.
Im kinda in thoughts because i was off grid for some time, and when came back, human brain size reached pea size in no time!
Even small me got bashed for revealing some things over net to certain people, that's why i needed to lay off for some time...
Thing is ... from famous 21.12... people didn't start to ascend but to rapidly descend..
Friend which was growing in consciousness for 17-20 years degraded to almoust primate in this short time

So i wonder... even if i see where you point at.. Is it really important to argue about person which has some jugmental opinion?
Or would be more important to decode way out of prison planet?
because how things are ... this won't be fun at all

let's say he is ignorant fool. And lets say whole proect Avalon agrees on that 200%
What things that change?

or..

let's say he is god of journalism and god's messenger..
Really, what thing tat change.

Believe it or not we will be still in same life situation no matter which path we choose. Because that is what i call distraction.
Awaken soul NEVER takes offered possibilities, he rather makes his own. That way he can still see actuality above perception.

Stay sharp brothers.

[Ilie Pandia]

Earlier on this forum, Eyes Wide Open linked to one of Doug Hagmann's latest articles and pointed out the homophobic views expressed in there.

Unfortunately, the discussion was opened in such a way as to cause much divisiveness and arguments on the forum. The thread was closed and moved out of the public area.

But in doing so, a hidden implication was made, though not intentionally, and I write this to correct the issue.

The implication was that Doug's homophobic views are to be ignored because the troubles of the gay community are not as important as the testimony that Doug Hagmann has related to far.

So I want to acknowledge that after reading Doug's piece fully, his views are indeed homophobic. His article is an attack on the gay community and it should not be minimized in the light of his other articles.

At the same time, I want to bring to your attention that discussions about sexuality are a great trigger and they are being used to cause huge distractions and divisiveness on purpose.

It is my personal understanding that now the gay community is being used to cause a rift. There should really be not gay/straight talk, but only freedom of choice for all human beings (and other beings as well), but this issue is used to now to polarize the population some more.

So, I acknowledge Doug's homophobic attack, it should not be ignored or not discussed, but I also urge you to do your best and discuss it calmly, without emotional charge. As I've said I suspect that this issue is deliberately used to stir trouble. Shying away from it or fighting over it are not solutions.

[Sierra]

I look at it this way. 10% of the population is gay. After lifetimes as one gender, we switch. We switch gender, careers, nationality, race, religion, you name it, we do it. We are complete sl*ts when it comes to choosing our next lifetime, apparently even to the point we do evil to provide evolutionary growth to our nearest and dearest.

When we switch to bodies of a different genders, that lifetime tends to be same sex love oriented, because we have not yet switched mental gears to go with our new genders.

Every single one of us has been and done everything, yes we're all that.

As for Doug Hagmann, listen to the man. He has clearly and obviously been raised a Republican Christian, you cannot expect the man to be other than he is, according to his training and upbringing, a good God fearing man... And I would not want to be his gay son or daughter, but c'mon... His language is classic rattle off the categories without thinking hence no sight or seeing available to be aware of the unkindness or impact of his words. It is obviously canned programming, not vicious, vitriolic, hatred and malice as exhibited by the orcs of Westboro.

A little tolerance, a little kindness for all of us in our various incarnations goes a long way. Because whatever boat we put down the most, that is the next boat we'll be on.

Credit DH as a whistleblower, that is enough for one incarnation, and certainly more than most of us currently have on our plates. Let's not be ungrateful someone is putting themselves in a very dangerous position to keep us in the loop.

Let's save the subject of lifetime gender assignments for a good thread, treat the subject in itself as the point of discussion, not as an opportunity to personally drag someone through the gutter to be pilloried and burned. That is a very bad way to start a conversation on a topic that causes so much pain to so many, with pointing, accusing fingers. Ugh.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, evolutionary growth is the only way we are going to get through this lifetime we have served ourselves, and throwing stones while the planet is imploding is really stupid Orc/Troll behavior. I mean... THIS is what we're gonna squabble about now?

Really?

Believe me, if the **** hits the fan the way many of us assume it will, you are not going to give a rat's ass who is passing the ammunition.

Really. Big picture guys, big picture.

TigaHawk, thank you for the tone of your words, we are lucky to have you here. It sounds as if you have gone through hell, and kept your integrity intact.

Sierra

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

Posted by RMorgan (here)
As far as I can see, if that same article was written by someone else you didn´t personally care about, you wouldn´t interfere. It means that your personal bias is interfering with your work as a moderator, which opens a serious precedent.

Please, don´t take this as personal. It´s not. It´s my opinion and I stand by it until convinced otherwise.

I agree. Many of us are guilty of this. I see this from Mods and members alike. I include myself in this.

Posted by RMorgan (here)

Posted by WhiteFeather (here)
...To safeguard the members, i feel Bill did the right thing to Pull It! It could of gotten ugly, thats what i picked up from it anyhow. I could be wrong.

Hey my friend,

What I don´t get is: To safeguard the members from what? From realizing that the author is totally ignorant and narrow minded, and has absolutely no condition of assuming the role of opinion leader? From realizing that he´s a moralist right-wing extremist whose ideals are half an inch close to fascism? From realizing that, in his opinion, only those who share his opinions and moral principles deserve freedom?

Cheers,

Raf.

well said.

This is my last post on the article.


Last night I thought about contacting the mods to change the topic title of the Hagmann thread to something less inflammatory.
I wish I had followed through now as I see it has been locked.
As I said in the opening post in the other thread, I respect freedom of speech and everyone has their own opinions.
I was just expressing mine as Doug expressed his in his article.
I did not set out to start a fight.
I was just browsing his site as I do from time to time and was was shocked to see such a post from someone whom I formally respected.
The info from his insider I feel is very important and I am greatfull for Doug getting it out there.
I am not throwing the baby our with the bath water here.
I have gay friends so this subject is very close to my heart and I found that article very offensive as well as the authors views as did others in that thread.
However, I said what I wanted to say so will not post anymore regarding that article.
I am sorry if it came across as an attack. It was not meant to be.
My apologies to Bill and the mods.
It was an expression of my anger and I would have posted the same had I come across a similar article by some other author that I regularly followed.
I cant help but call out this stuff. I wish I was more eloquent like other posters here. But I am not. I don't really have a way with words.
I seem to get myself in trouble all the time here.

[sdv]

Thank you for posting that article EUES WIDE OPEN. I did not see it as an attack on Doug Hagmann, but as him revealing his opinions in his own words. Now that he has aired those views in public, supporting him and giving him a public forum can become a way of also giving his beliefs support (it's okay what you said Doug because you revealed insider information).

In South Africa, Eugene De Kock and Dirk Coetzee, among others, blew the whistle on Vlakplaas (they spoke to journalist and revealed the truth). Those journalists never forgot that they were talking to monsters. Those journalists made the truth public but never hid the fact that the truth came from despicable monsters, and never excused those monsters.

I'll see if I kind find an article from someone like Max Du Preez in which he maybe explains how you get the truth without compromising your own integrity by pretending that the person giving you the information is not despicable in some way and by not hiding that in revealing the truth.

[Lifebringer]

I think among the rules, they state if the comments or media permeate the peaceful hearts and minds here in short, upset people, then they use the discretion, like everyother site to have rules of respect or not be posted. It's really not about protecting or shielding the author or others that read his stuff off "his/her" site, but with all the people who come here to converse in calm rational and respectful manner, it's only fair that others respect the same rules to post, eh?

I've been here a but a minute in Galactic time, but have to tell you, I can get the other emotional baggage, elsewhere, anywhere in the lower unawakened mass propagandic media. Opinion pieces belong in the media circus. It's where we drop truth links to let others make their decision on whether they want to know more. If others want to expand their opinion, perhaps, I'm not explaining it right?

[EYES WIDE OPEN]

In a weird bit of timing, Natural News just published this article on weather or not its possible to have a calm debate on gay & race issues!

http://www.naturalnews.com/041029_so...nt_racism.html

After landing myself in some pretty hot water over the past few days running an online social media experiment, I've decided to halt the test and disclose what we've been doing here at Natural News. Yes, it's true: We've been running a social media "stress test" to find out whether internet users could have a rational discussion on edgy topics like race, gender and same-sex marriage. For this test, I personally penned several eyebrow-raising articles on topics we normally would not cover

The results of the experiment are mixed. Essentially, they reveal two very important things about America's online social media culture: People are SMART, but they're also sharply DIVIDED and become quite irrational on highly-charged issues like race, gender and sexual orientation. These results, in retrospect, aren't all that surprising.

We also discovered that the most touchy subject of all is anything involving a black woman. To criticize a black woman, regardless of the nature or the focus of the criticism, is to invite yourself to be immediately labeled a racist. The only way to NOT be labeled a racist is to only say complimentary things about women of color. This is unfortunate, because it means there is no possibility of rational discussion about any issue involving a woman who just happens to be black. So if the next President of the USA, for example, were a black woman, she could immediately become a complete dictator because no criticism of anything she does would be tolerated in our society.

(bolding not mine)

This is another disturbing discovery: People tend to react to the titles of articles, regardless of what the articles actually say. Apparently, the title is enough for people to draw a conclusion about the merit of an entire article these days. I think I could get a lot more stories published, by the way, if I only write the titles and don't bother with the text.

The conclusion to all this is mixed. When it comes to issues involving race, social media users are wildly irrational and impossible to communicate with. When it comes to issues involving sexual preference, however, they seem to be more grounded and able to think more critically. So race is the hot-button issue where people lose their minds more than anywhere else.

Pretty interesting stuff. I still find it very hard to not post straight away after reading something that winds me up. "Anger is an energy" as John Lydon sang once. But rarely is it a positive one.

[Fred Steeves]

Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
Many many people have sexual and racial baggage. Let's call it "douchebaggage." I can see your point, but I can also see Bill's point - and at this moment on Earth this particular guy isn't important for his douchebaggage, but he may be very important for the "insider" information coming through him. We weren't lucky enough to have this info come through someone with less douchebaggage, or even no douchebaggage at all. His un-Christian, intolerant, homophobic rant has been noted. We won't "fix" him - he can only fix himself, and only if he wants to. He is not a moral leader, but may have some valuable 'insider' insights.

I like your term there Dennis, "douchebaggage". (LOL) That's a zinger I won't forget. Anyway, I was actually rather stunned to see the thread closed, and interpreted as inflammatory last evening. I had been following it when taking breaks at work, and it caused me to do some meticulous thinking on the subject which had previously not been done. My first inclination kept being the old don't throw the baby out with the bath water, but then a second thought (a question) was always hot on it's heels. The man's judgment.

It's always helpful to have real life experience to draw upon when dealing with difficult matters, and I began asking myself what I would think/do if I knew Doug personally, and suddenly heard him speaking this way about my uncle who is gay, and married to another man. I love my uncle dearly, and he is a very thoughtful and spiritual person to boot. So on a personal and emotional level Doug would very quickly be exiting my life, and on the take a step back analytical level, I would be seriously questioning the man's judgment.

Of course this doesn't mean he has nothing useful to say, but if he has shown himself to be so blatantly off base on one thing, then the rest automatically becomes suspect. What other gaping holes are there in his logic and the way he sees the world???

So I just didn't see the thread as an "ad hominem attack on Doug Haggman" at all, I was actually thankful the information was brought to the forefront. It was an opportunity for some deep consideration.

Could it have been worded and presented more eloquently? Sure, I can grant that. But at the same time, I've seen very similar stuff fly through here without so much as a peep.

So it goes...

P.S. Hey Raf, if I were you brother I would let this go. There ARE certainly bigger fish to fry, and anyone who is supposed to see the information about Doug has/will see it. We generally have pretty free run of this place, and there is no other like it. Sometimes we simply have to agree to disagree, and the censorship topic is a sleeping dog that's best to leave lay.

[4Talismans]

I don't identify as lesbian although I live with another woman. I don't identify as American although I love this country and I was born here. I identify as a human being, and thats pretty much it. But that doesn't mean I don't care about homophobia. We have to care because our kids are dying every day from it. Every bit of homophobia that gets called out, and named for what it is is important. Thank you EYES WIDE OPEN. You don't know who may have read that, or who needed to read it. And you added to the energy of love and acceptance instead of hate and divisiveness.
As far as censorship and moderation go... it's a tough and thankless job. And there are times when the ad-hominem problems make it impossible to do the right thing as was explained so eloquently in the OP. I have not seen any attempt at censorship, personally. If there were this thread would not be open.

[Ernie Nemeth]

A person's opinions are their own. That said I do not hang around with bigots, nor do I attentively listen to what a bigot has to say, regardless of their claims.

[Lifebringer]

Hi Paul; Just read it. Got the yucky in the stomach feeling. Or the stirring of my chakra, just processing it. You were right to remove it when so many are working on shedding hatefilled intentions, which the Creator and God never wished us to use to harm. Thank you for your consideration and I understand about the temptation to go back into the "tit for tat bag" when it is read in the comments. It is another of the Willie Lynch divisions. Ole St Plantation himself. He said that to divide them in biases, is to conquer their spirit and remove their confidence in themselves.

Boy, that ole snakey rascal was devious to play on the emotions of taught hate or dislikes of color, to distract picking your pocket at the banks.
It would be wise to see who's buttering his babble online, but really to delve into the dark recesses/regresses just isn't my job. My job is to help people become aware of the snakey clauses that have been removed, or put in our governmental structures, to cave the American Dream, workers, women and minorities in this country and around the world. Follow the swastika tats, and you'll see a lot. The people helping to fund this attitude of ignorance of the colors of the rainbow, are the breadcrumbs to follow and the reason why Citizen's United didn't want to disclose.

They don't just fund elections, they fund the whole board with fiat money in exchange for the value in countries.
Perhaps "PRISM" equals People Reaping Ignorance Supporting Media.
They all merge together and use the strings to "Lynch" US/World.

[mgray]

If Bill believes Doug Hagmann's published words are important, that is his right. And with his knowledge we should take heed.
But Bill should not get to choose which published words are important and which should be disregarded.
We are not lemmings here, taking it at face value.
Research into Hagmann's thoughts on other subjects gives context to the author and his believe system, which could cloud his thoughts.
Most times you put a person on a pedestal, look out below.

[Bill Ryan]

-------

A brief personal note (having just woken up to read the thread, with interest, to see how it had developed overnight).

My thanks to all for the intelligent comments. It's an interesting and complex debate, and I support the open discussion. The thread that was closed showed all the signs of deterioration by normally high Avalon standards. This one is the opposite. I appreciate Raf for starting it.

[Carmody]

Posted by RMorgan (here)

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by RMorgan (here)
This isn´t about homophobia itself. It´s about mislabeling, censoring and locking a thread to artificially try to shield someone else´s reputation, to exempt him from his own responsibilities and consequences of his actions.

That's not why we moved, retitled and closed that thread.

But there's no sense in my attempting to say why we did that again. Several people have tried that already, to no avail, including just above.

If you could, please, at least quit misrepresenting our motives.

Paul,

I´m sure you know I´m a reasonable man.

As soon as you´re able to objectively and clearly explain your reasons to qualify that thread as an ad hominem attack, I will then be able to interpret your actions the way you want them to be interpreted.

So far, as far as I can understand, your premise for labeling it like you did is absolutely flawed, but I keep my mind open to the possibility of being convinced of the contrary.

As far as I can see, if that same article was written by someone else you didn´t personally care about, you wouldn´t interfere. It means that your personal bias is interfering with your work as a moderator, which opens a serious precedent.

Please, don´t take this as personal. It´s not. It´s my opinion and I stand by it until convinced otherwise.

Posted by WhiteFeather (here)
...To safeguard the members, i feel Bill did the right thing to Pull It! It could of gotten ugly, thats what i picked up from it anyhow. I could be wrong.

Hey my friend,

What I don´t get is: To safeguard the members from what? From realizing that the author is totally ignorant and narrow minded, and has absolutely no condition of assuming the role of opinion leader? From realizing that he´s a moralist right-wing extremist whose ideals are half an inch close to fascism? From realizing that, in his opinion, only those who share his opinions and moral principles deserve freedom?

Cheers,

Raf.

Raf,

There's always a fine line between getting it right and having people misinterpret what you are doing.

A line that also includes dealing with preconceived notions that ride within people, notions that they may feel are correct and logical, even though they are assigning logic to emotionally derived and cloaked projections.

One cannot shatter a community and it's growth, in the effort to be perfectionist in how one handles all aspects.

Time and time again, such a tactic of 'extreme purity' in actions and motives, has shown that it fails. As, after all, the given community is in the act of growing, and is not wholly perfect. And it never will be perfect.

Thus, perfection in presentation and act cannot be pursued. It never will be, in any functional scenario that includes many people at and in different stages of growth.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In the context of maintaining a stable space, group, or environment of growth for those who are not perfect, your demands are illogical.

[donk]

I appreciate the efforts Raf and eyes, Ilie’s post is dead on. I’d just like to interject this into the conversation:

If you are going to take the “conspiracy” angle on the homosexual “agenda” and care to maintain any credibility across the board--outside of your supporters and like-minded people, you tread with great care and sensitivity. It does not seem to me he did that.…just look at what happened here—nothing but division.

From my perspective, it seems he doesn’t give a rat’s ass about what people who don’t “understand” him think, so whatever message is not for you—you people that can’t get over yourself and your emotional attachment to hang-ups about sexuality—it is only for the enlightened, like him….and those that would protect us from his “misunderstood” remarks.

I ask his supporters: what purpose did the transmission of that “information” serve?