Originally posted by shavixmir
Obvioulsy it could be all the soft drugs, wine and whisky going to my head...but I'm condola sure there was a thread here, started by me, added to by more than 16 other people and recommended more than 10x...and now it's gone.
A whole thread.
And didn't that said thread mention the fact that you SHOULD REMOVE YOUR FINGER FROM THE ALERT BUTTON??? ...[text shortened]... t to someone? Why would you destroy someone's sole enjoyment in life?
I think you are sick.
shav -
I'd like to read it. Sounds interesting.
Any way that it can be RE-posted ?!?!?
I mean, if people are afraid or whatever, maybe the mods can put a caveat in the header or something.
Thanks for trying.
Regards,
turtlex
Originally posted by VargThat's possible of course, but considering the rec count and the in-thread responses I didn't think it likely.
Perhaps it had nothing to do with alerts/recs but just didn't fit with what Russ (or his mods) want for the site?
If it was manually modded, someone should have at least messaged Shav. The post obviously wasn't dashed off in a matter of seconds, and Shav's a well known forumer.
Originally posted by shavixmirawww shav...
besides the fact that you've wasted my time, besides the fact that you've hurt my feelings and besides the fact that you've wiped away something that was (20+ posts which were are now no more)...
YOU ARE DESTROYING MY CREATIVITY.
[b]MY creativity. The soul reason for my existence. You're destroying it. You don't care about it. You just wipe ...[text shortened]... hat to someone? Why would you destroy someone's sole enjoyment in life?
I think you are sick.[/b]
*hugs shav* Sadly, I was too late and didn't get the pleasure of reading it, but I'm sure I would have found it funny.
Don't feel bad.
Angie 🙂
Originally posted by dylI don't think they do notifications anymore.
That's possible of course, but considering the rec count and the in-thread responses I didn't think it likely.
If it was manually modded, someone should have at least messaged Shav. The post obviously wasn't dashed off in a matter of seconds, and Shav's a well known forumer.
Let me answer some of the points made.
First of all, Yes, I did back it up.
I’ve had so many posts removed that my paranoia has become reality.
That’s not the point though. I wrote it for the chess site. Anybody else, but people on the chess site, would miss out on 3 or 4 in-jokes which were made.
Second of all, the subject matter.
Children from the age of 4 talk about farting and burping. As children grow older they discuss all manners of things. Some bordering on bad taste, other subjects are just plain interesting.
I’m afraid it’s a horrible irony of life that matters which are embarrassing are matters which are actually interesting to people. I see no reason why to avoid such matters.
The programme I was referring to exists. I saw it. On the BBC. As anyone from Britain knows, the BBC isn’t really well known for its bad taste. The subject matter exists and as anybody who saw the documentary or read my post will verify…it is bloody interesting. The mere fact that people will do such sexual acts, but even more so…talk about it and even more so yet…to the media. It is truly mind-baffling.
Censorship in general
I’ve had various posts of mine removed, amongst others:
Tips for (young) men on how to impress women
Testicle shaving
Poetry
None of these were offensive towards people. All they did was touch on subjects which are generally hushed up. Going to the toilet, embarrassing personal moments and jokingly talking about seduction and how to kiss. Nothing racist. Nothing sexist (which wasn’t re-reflected in a joke) and nothing hateful.
Some people don’t like to talk about vaginas, yet they have no problems calling people towel-heads and such. I’m sorry. But 50% of the mammal population has a vagina. If you can’t talk about it then there’s something wrong with society. It’s just a part of a body. Wrap it up in all the bandages of mystery you want…it’s still just a part of the female anatomy.
A towel-head is a degrading term. That’s hurtful to some people.
It’s amazing that sexual acts, carried out by millions of people, are censored because they are deemed dangerous, unhealthy or misguiding to children, yet we can openly support the killing of thousands of people in a war.
I will have no part in this!
I’d rather your children heard from me that shaving your testicles can put you in an awkward and embarrassing position, than that your children hear from me that it is alright to strip people of their basic human rights and keep them in a detention centre in Cuba.
Encouraging homosexuality
Yes. I did say that I openly promoted homosexuality, because there are enough humans as it is.
Yes. You can take this seriously or you can take it as a dig at homophobia.
The basics, through-out the post though, is that I couldn’t care less what you did with your own body sex-wise. BUT…that telling people on TV was a tad strange. And the more outrageous the sexual act, the stranger telling it to reporters becomes.
That’s what the post was about.
Obscenity
Is outdated. It’s very Victorian.
In the 1920’s a naked ankle was obscene, much as it is now in some Middle-Eastern countries. Nowadays naked breasts are pictured in newspapers (if that’s what you dare call them).
The mere fact that a picture of a naked body or a sexual act or a description of such can be outlawed is sticking your head in the sand, hiding from the essence of humanity.
For instance: “Her round breasts are full and her nipples erect. Her face is that of an angel, yet your eyes are constantly drawn to her breasts; the way they cast small shadows on her ribs. Her face is certainly angelic, yet your eyes stray towards the ripped cloth tauntingly balancing on her hip, one side lower than the other, revealing just a little too much leg. It’s a pity her arms are ripped off at the shoulders.”
A basic description of one of the greatest works of art there is. There’s nothing obscene about the statue of the Venus de Milo and there is nothing obscene about the description. It’s just a description.
Nope. Obscenity is a thing of the past.
And good riddance for it!
Originally posted by angie88It was funny and it was close to the bone but I think it was valid. We live in a society where you can talk about things, pretty much anything and this is a GOOD THING. Yes pornography and obscenity are by-products of this free speach, but they are never too high a price to pay.
awww shav...
*hugs shav* Sadly, I was too late and didn't get the pleasure of reading it, but I'm sure I would have found it funny.
Don't feel bad.
Angie 🙂
The post may well have offended some people, but I don't think that was a good enough reason to have it removed. Shav raised some interesting points, and he will have got people thinking about a taboo subject which can only be good. I'm not saying that bestiality is good, but ignoring things because we find them unpleasent doesn't make them go away, (there are lots of crass comparisons to be made here about institutional rasicsm, child abuse within the Church or the Holocaust, whilst they are in a different league the point stands), nothing goes away because you don't like it. This is meant to be a forum, if you don't like something that's said then write an articulate and well thought out rebuttal. I'd rather see people arguing a point that I disagreed with than hiding their opinions.
Anyway, Shav it was funny, keep up the good work, (but would you let me get back on even terms in at least one of our games.)
Dear Sweet, Wonderful Shav,
You are far too intelligent to really beleive that that thread would not be alerted and censured. I am sorry for you that it was censored but not sorry it was censored. I found parts of it offensive. For the record, I did not alert the post. The title was enough to make me stay out of the thread, your excellent writing skills were enough to make me open it.......
Now, get over it and write something else...
Affectionately and Respectfully,
Aynat
Originally posted by dylAs regards Shavixmir's recent censorship, there is a pertinent sci-fi story by James P. Hogan.
The original post by Shav continually alluded to sexual acts that aren't most peoples' cup of tea, but it was hardly overboard. It was reasonably tastefully done (though I seem to remember a reference to furry little sheep’s bums), was very f ...[text shortened]... uld be knocked off by what is almost certainly a small minority.
In an apparent future dystopia, people are given the option to vote against people they don't like (in ubiquitous electronic booths). People who collect enough votes are then summarily dispatched by some sort of hi-tech people-dispatcher.
The tale revolves around a guy (a journalist, if I recall) who is getting very worried because he has been stirring up trouble, and thus getting people to hate him, though all in the name of a greater good.
The twist in the tale is that people are not actually zapped on the basis of being voted against; rather, people are secretly zapped on the basis of how frequently they themselves vote against others!
The tale ends when the hero realizes that there really are fewer and fewer nasty people around...
Hint, hint Russ...
Originally posted by shavixmirat least you can reuse your puns in your next post that should save you about 60 minutes🙂
Obvioulsy it could be all the soft drugs, wine and whisky going to my head...but I'm condola sure there was a thread here, started by me, added to by more than 16 other people and recommended more than 10x...and now it's gone.
A whole thread.
And didn't that said thread mention the fact that you SHOULD REMOVE YOUR FINGER FROM THE ALERT BUTTON??? ...[text shortened]... t to someone? Why would you destroy someone's sole enjoyment in life?
I think you are sick.
Originally posted by Pawnokeyholesooo... what you're saying is that the post got deleted because shav alerted someone else's post?
As regards Shavixmir's recent censorship, there is a pertinent sci-fi story by James P. Hogan.
In an apparent future dystopia, people are given the option to vote against people they don't like (in ubiquitous electronic booths). People who collect enough votes are then summarily dispatched by some sort of hi-tech people-dispatcher.
The tale rev ...[text shortened]... ro realizes that there really are fewer and fewer nasty people around...
Hint, hint Russ...
Well, already I've felt the mod's wrath, there seems to be some unwritten personal rules beteewn the mods and Russ, I wouldn't be surprised if this thread goes too, or at least my post does.
One big, no-no, it seems, is to merely question or criticize the mods and Russ' policies at RHP. For example, my first deleted post, was when I replied in the site ideas about what to do with starless members in tournies and clans, in which I awnsered the recent influx of starless players has to do with Russ permenantly, (and IMHO, and it's just an opinion) unfair permenantly banning paying members because a lot of people in the forums do not like them and find them "offensive", therefore they lose their stars and can simply not log on, draging the whole tourney process down. This is quite simply a fact, and there's no reason for the deletion, it's not an offensive post, it doesn't break the TOIS, it is critical of Russ, but is that against the TOS? While the real problem makers on RHP, the cheaters who I already know thanks to my ever trusty peice of software whenever I enter a chess site, are just coasting along, and some are even well liked by the community of all things!
While this is partly the mods fault, guys, we have to take some responsibility and become a more tolerant, prioriticizing and logical community. Yes, I know the Dodger's of the world are offensive and should probably get a forum ban, but all this massive campaigning to vote people off the island, and this same history was prevalent back at the time I joined RHP a year ago and I even fell victim to it, it HASN'T CHANGED, all this, is seriously a waste of time and effort. It simply does not help RHP to make such a fuss over individuals comments on the forums and geting them banned because they disagree with you. LET US FOCUS ON CHESS, CAMPAIGN/WORK on geting the cheaters banned, who cares about the forums? I mean seriously, I would rather we work on banning the chess devils rather then the forum devils, get priorities straight! And yes, I read the thread in question, good thread, and IMHO, Russ' staff has bigger things to worry about and are just wasting time yet again with useless stuff and not taking care of real problems. They are like Republicans who always focus on stupid issues like gay marriage and not what really matters.
Originally posted by shavixmirI appreciate the fact that you can discuss this in a rational manner without resorting to personal attacks on those who disagree with you. To address the points you made:
Let me answer some of the points made.
[b]First of all, Yes, I did back it up.
I’ve had so many posts removed that my paranoia has become reality.
That’s not the point though. I wrote it for the chess site. Anybody else, but pe ...[text shortened]... . Obscenity is a thing of the past.
And good riddance for it!
[/b]
1. Ok, you backed it up, so you can PM it to the people who have expressed an interest in reading it. Let me stress that in a way i agree with you - i think that such topics should be discussed and there is nothing wrong with doing so. Where we differ is that i believe these discussions should not be foisted on those who are uncomfortable with this. it is a matter of consideration for others as much as anything. i'll address this further under one of the other sub-headings. it's no use saying that people who are offended by such topics should not read the thread - the topic is already in their face in the thread title.
2. subject matter. you find it incredible that people will talk about such acts to the media. well, i agree with you. i saw a documentary series years ago that dealt with people who engaged in all sorts of bizarre sexual behaviour (i can't remember if anyone admitted the particular practice that inspired your original thread, but there was a girl who worked in a funeral parlour and...hmm, ok i won't go there). but i am wondering why you find it incredible that people talk about this to the media, and then are surprised that the topic is found unacceptable in a forum such as this?
3. censorship in general. i agree that censorship should be minimised. but that does not mean that everything is suitable for every publication. i imagine that your thread would have been more suitable for an .alt.sex forum. the point is that, as a community, we have to decide what is acceptable here and what is not. you and some others are ok with topics that yet others are uncomfortable with. there is no ultimate right or wrong here, but we have to find a compromise that most people can live with. the fact that your post was alerted means that some people felt strongly enough about it to register a protest. other people applauded your post. so here's a way of looking at it: the appearance of your post offended some people. it's non-appearance would not have offended anyone. so let's avoid needlessly offending community members. after all, it's only a chess site - deeper issues about freedom of speech etc do not really come into play.
4. encouraging homosexuality - as you point out, your thread was not really about this, so i'll make my comments about the point of your thread (the strangeness of people revealing their sexual behaviour to the media) under the other subheadings.
5. obscenity. is it really a thing of the past? there are some people who consider that nothing is obscene, but plenty that disagree. in fact, i believe that these are the vast majority. is obscenity a Victorian concept? no, it is a concept that arises in cultures all around the world, and in all periods of history (i'm not going to back that up with evidence, but if you can think of a counter-example, post it and let's see). you yourself mention Middle Eastern cultures. that's proof enough that the concept of obscenity isn't restricted to the Victorians. ok, maybe it is taken a little too far sometimes, but that's not wrong in itself. it's up to every community to find the level it is comfortable with. ultimately, that's what threads like this are about. is obscenity a thing of the past? i think not. that's why you can't walk down to the newsagent a buy a magazine discussing the topic you raised, although you can buy magazines about sailing, gardening, computers and so on. the concept of obscenity is alive and well. whether this is a good thing or not, i'll leave until another time.
EDIT: i just realised i forgot to return to the issue of consideration. oh well, next time...
I heard Rowan Atkinson say something yesterday which I can't get out of my head. He said "The right to offend is far more important than the right to be offended" I wish more people understood the world in a way that they can see the sense in this. Free speech is just about the only important thing modern society has going for it these days and provided that there are limits on things like racial hatred and incitemement to violence, censorship is wrong.
Voltaire once said "I disagree completely with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death, your right to say it."