javaneh29

Dear Javaneh, Rosie,

I am very glad we have reached a consensus. I look forward to seeing how we put all this into practice. 

Thank you all. 

Princess 

Princess and Rosie

My feelings are this: 

Because we have a consensus i.e. that freedom of expression and speech is our human  right and we include use of the internet, this site within that,  that anyone can post anything they want within their own blog. Other options for blogging here are more liable to moderation, but personal blogs are less liable to censure.

Sometimes what ppl write will offend, hurt or upset some or many, for whatever reason.When this happens every indiviual also has the right to respond in which ever way they choose. But if we respond and express our feelings strongly, through civil exchange, we are far more likely to effect some awareness or change. Bigoted, discriminatory views are usually always written out of ignorance and the inablity to see the bigger picture. Rude, accusatory replies are not helpful in these situations and only serve as fuel to a fire.

As we have seen through Cameron's blog ' shame on you', as a recent example, its not always possible to keep opinion polite or impersonal. But we have come to the conclusion that it's understandable when ppl are passionate about their views. Here in this particular cyber exchange, we seem to have reached a plateau now. Ppl responding to Camerons latest blog, are unstanding and supportive.

Everything written in cyber time is potentially open to misinterpretation because it is almost written in a vacuum: the reader may not know where the writter is coming from, what has influenced him/her to hold the views he/she does. What experience that writter has in that area. The writter may not even understand themselves. Blame and accusation doesn't promote growth.

I don't think I agree about removing blogs unless the blogger is exceptionly, consistantly and blatantly offensive. I don't know yet how it would be possible to implement this.

I also think that if ppl are only able to express themselves from behind an avatar of the goldfish, that's ok. They have their reason and I don't have any issue with it..... its a choice we all have.

If we can at least agree to challenge rather than to attack ppl, then we have made good progress here.

When I started this blog, it was not with reference to any blogger in particular. JJ used that blogger as an example for his view. However I think the blogger must get the point ... that his/her use of the distorted avatar is not welcome and does nothing for his motives except alienate others. Hopefully in the light of the responses, next time he/she will show a more respect if they want to be taken seriously,

Javaneh

Thx Princess for reading, actually I felt that

by the end most of us kind of agreed about the necessity for this k ind of dialog challenging offensive posts.

My main point is this last post of mine was for us to start organizing (which really means just doing what we're doing here, paying attentin and flagging and blogging and so on) to get rid of those posts which DO trangress the legitimate bounds of "civil discourse", not just to focus on the offensive ones which don't.

It has a threefold function:

It rids us of these horrible creatures.

It prevents us from having to waste our energies on them in the long run,because the moderators will soon catch on,and the transgressing ones will just vanish. So then we can focus on the others.

It consolidates us as a group of people seriously dedicated to proper site oversight which in turn keeps the dialog visible between publisher, moderators and regular bloggers, as well as spurs others on to follow our example by shouldering their responsibility and being vigilant.

We will always have to shoulder our part of the burden in helping j. and the moderators do their job the best they can. But it'll get better and better. And then there will be OTHER issues of site oversight to deal with...for instance I would like to have a section called How This Site Works prominently displayed. Things like that..

At the end of the day maybe the most important thing is that to organize together (loosely, informally, I mean..) builds community. And ain't that what it's all about?  ;o) 

.

Thx again,

Rosie

PS You don't really have to read all those things I wrote. This is enough. You don't even have to bother referring to my last post here again. Dpare yourself...

Dear Rosie,

Just to let you know that I read your post (only this one, not your blog, which I will read later tonight when I get home) and agree with you in principle, that one way for us to deal with posts that bother us, but are within the limits of "free speech", is through engaging the perpetrators in a dialogue if at all possible. 

I have to run now, but will try to read your other posts later and make comments.

Thanks. 

Best wishes,

Princess 

Dear Princess, ALL pls read carefully if possible--rosie

I did not get to talk to you or even read you all that carefuly until now because I was until today in a pay per minute I'net cafe but I did scan your posts to get the general idea. We seem to concur.

The point now is also that it is time to organize. Several of us have emerged who have the patience and commitment to see this moderation system through to its true potential.

The problem is that sometimes j. in his efforts to safeguard free speech permits things which TRULY violate the guidelines and even worse.. This avatar of Covenant's is very challenging for some people to cope with but by Western standards of free expression it is within legitimate parameters. However other things are not, which still j lets slip by and they foment much discord.

In particular are the goldfish. I like goldfish. And I also understand that for j. they are a symbol of his vision and they inspire him and it is both pointless (as he won't budge) and unempathetic to his needs for people to keep insisting he abolish them on so many moderation blogs. it's a waste of energy and only serves to cause friction. 

However people have good reason to complain. Some of these fish ruin the good name of most of them. Of course it's not only fish but it's particularly distressing when a coward hides behind the PRIVILEGE of complete anonymity to harass a reg user. And again, in certain burning ideological conflicts sometimes it seems one side is favored over the other in terms of who gets deleted more easily.

None of this is intentional on the part of j. or the moderators. It is simply that he and they like all of US need support and guidance in doing our jobs to make this site achieve its TRUE potential.. So it's up to us, it's on our shoulders, and the main instrument is blogging. But until now it just wasn't time, it just wasn't time to organize...

Now it is. We can do it. You see, if we can make intelligent judgements after conversations like these about what is REALLY unacceptable and join forces to get these things gone once and for all then we will have a much clearer path to follow in learning to confront those posts which DO fall within the legitimate parameters of civil discourse but yet are so objectionable. And dangerous if allowed to multiply unchallenged, here or anywhere.

So we need to organize. It's not difficult. This blog is a form of organization. Now if you check Q's last blog, my last post //iranian.com/main/blog/q/can-we-all-agree-cease-fire-now you will see another form of organization that is easy to do. If I don't get the moderators to do the right thing, I can blog this and we can insist together and anyone can write such blogs, and THE MORE THE MERRIER once the process gets rolling. Actually I don't intend to  do this at this immediate time because I think some of us need time to digest it all, including j. But I will start doing it soon and I will do it regularly for as long as I have to and I hope other people will too.

It is interesting btw to note that in defending DK on Q's blog I am defending someone who in this case I don't particularly agree with ideologically. But that's the whole point of it all. The whole point.

Again, it's not ONLY the goldfish but the goldfish are SUCH a source of discord. And again it's part and parcel of paving the way to focus on the LEGITIMATE problems of challenging the people in the grey area through discourse.

Finally I don't want to be misunderstood based on my long post here about First Amendment absolutism and my recent satirical blog on establishing rules for what constitutes abuse //iranian.com/main/blog/ticket-valid-one-way-only-way-jan-1-2009/ten-proposed-rules-civil-discourse-and-moderation-rosie (my point is always guidelines, guidelines, and common sense, not rules...) I am a First Amendment Absolutist in terms of the media at large, however everything has a context. Pornography doesn't go on childrens' sites. Atheism doesn't have to go on religious sites, and vice versa. This site has looser parameters than some, but it's a context AND IT HAS PARAMETERS.

Let's get the damn ball rolling. It's been over a year.

Roxane

Dear Javaneh

I was out running errands all day and although I am exhausted, I would like to sum up my thoughts on this topic and share with you what I have learned so far through our dialogue on this thread.

First of all, thank you again for blogging about this topic and for sharing your thoughts.

Like many others, I value the right to free speech immensely and believe it to be a privilege we can easily take for granted. At the same time, we have seen repeatedly that this issue comes up for discussion on this site, because someone or a group of people in the community feel offended by somebody else’s way of expressing themselves. At this point, I must again stress that to me freedom of expression doesn’t involve personal attacks directed and private individuals or anything that would compromise a person’s or community’s wellbeing.

I have also noticed that the cases, which cause offence and regularly put the topic of free speech back on the table tend to be about when people’s long-held beliefs are challenged and taboos are broken. As already mentioned I believe that our very traditional society and culture would benefit a lot more from challenging these long-held beliefs and breaking taboos than from “politely” maintaining the status quo. Needless to say, I see breaking taboos tightly linked with concept of freedom of expression, which is why I have introduced it in this thread.

After exchanges of thoughts with Alborz about this I was left with the question of how to break taboos respectfully. Alborz was kind enough to patiently describe his point of view, by using an example to illustrate how one could break a taboo without being disrespectful. He used the example of how, breaking away from the old tradition of never disagreeing with one’s parents, some in the newer generation broke that taboo by disagreeing with their parents “respectfully”.This is an interesting example, because although to us as third party observers today, their disagreement might seem “respectful”, I doubt that at the time it would’ve been perceived as such by the parents involved. So whether one feels disrespected or not depends on who is “targeted.”

Breaking taboos is always initially shocking and very insulting to the people who believe in upholding that taboo. As time passes, and the more often the particular taboo is broken, the less shocking and the less insulting the act of breaking that taboo becomes. 

Now, I understand that freedom of speech is not always about breaking taboos. I also concede that in the case of the particular blog and avatar, which prompted you to write this blog, the motivation of the person in question, remains dodgy. However, egardless of whether a taboo is broken or not,  he or she has insulted a religion or belief and as such indirectly insulted the followers of that belief.

So the question still hovering in my (very tired:)) head right now is whether we, as a community, will ever be willing to accept an indirect insult (as opposed to personal insult directly addressed to us) as a cost for the greater good of challenging the status quo and growing as a community. While making that decision, we have to remember that sooner or later our turn will come, when our own beliefs and the person’s /thing’s we revere might/will come under attack.

For me these comments and discussions have been very thought provoking, that's why I decided to share them with you. I would like to thank you for writing the blog and thank other friends, in particular, Alborz for being patient and sharing their thoughts on this topic.

I know that I have taken us back to the core of freedom of expression, as opposed to dealing with particularities of the case that triggered this discussion, but I don’t believe I have veered too far off.

Now I am knackered and have no clue how much sense I’ve made. I will find our, soon enough, I guess. :)

Best wishes,

Princess

Well taboo, Bahai, whatever...the point is we are human (-Rosie)

and so what DO you say when someone desecrates something you hold sacred to yourself? I have had a saying for myself for a long time here:  people you connect with you can melt, if the connection is more distant, you must erode, if it is very distant or not at all you will probably have to chip away...

I think I would probablly start by saying something to a person like this like, you know this person here in this image you distorted  is really important to me and this picture really hurts me, I know you don't know me and maybe you didn;t really think about it that way because you have issues with my religion, but the fact is you are hurting me and I wonder if you really want to hurt people? Also maybe you are not religious or maybe you have a different religion from me but even if you profess to be an atheist like the publisher does, you must hold some things sacred, or very close to sacred, like your family or maybe your profession and so on. I wonder how you would feel if I printed an image of your  spouse or child or sibling or parent in a transposed photo to ridicule them, would you be hurt or angry? How would you feel about that? Is that something you would want someone to do to a relative of yours or to you? Please think about it...

okay I know I know, I typed it quickly and it's not EXACTLY what I'd say but it's the general gist of it really and well...to be honest with you, you DON'T know this person Covenant, Princess, Tahirih, etc.You might be surprised, sometimes you can melt or erode people you never would've dreamed of...or at least as far as chipping goes...

hard for someone to come up with a comeback to something like that that makes them seem even half-human unless they eithere concede or just...keep quiet... I'm good at this game...been playing it for a loooooong time here...and also, like I said below...learned half my tricks from...the Bahai...

Roxane

Thanks Javaneh ...

... for this blog and your thoughtful responses and the summary.  While the rage goes on on so many other fronts, it is good to see that this blog can be counted amongst an increasing number of blogs on this site where comments are characterized by their civility and respect.

Perhaps at another time, we can have a discussion around how freedom is maximized for all, through concern for others.

Best Wishes,

Alborz

Princess jaan

Im not going to write anything lengthy and complicated because for me this is simple and doesn't apply just to Bahai's but to all races, religions etc. regardless.

We do not have the ability to change the behaviour of other ppl... fact. But we have the ability to change our own... fact.

Re I.com, we can't stop ppl from expressing their views here even if as an individual or even all of us don't like what we read because we all have the right to 'freedom of expression and speech'.  But we can change the way we choose to respond to them. Hopefully through our responses, stated with respect, they will think about how they put their views forward or where those thoughts are coming from in the first place, and learn something about them selves. In my experience of human behaviour, this is the most effective way to promote change in others. 

I could give you many examples of this, for example a child enters this world and is totally self consummed. All it thinks about is when it is hungry or in pain: the child is the world and the world is the child. Over time as that child develops it learns that the world is a much bigger place: it has a place in it, but it is not the whole. It learns this through it's behaviour and the responses it receives from others and the childs consciousness develops. The majority of children/ ppl want to conform to 'normals'.... some are unable to because they have never been taught, or they have some psychological or social  inadequacy. If that child is met with hate or violence, that is what it will learn.

To give this process a name, its called behaviour modification. In our everyday lives, we all do it all the time without even being aware we are doing it.

I hope that explains where Im coming from at least.

Javaneh

Dear Anonymousforever,

Empathy, dear friend, empathy. Nobody is perfect, but sometimes it's helpful to try to understand where the other person's coming from. In my humble opinion, that's really what's lacking in our dialogues on this site. We don't always have to agree with one another, but we can always try to learn. 

I don't know about you, but I know that I would feel bitter and angry if my people were experiencing the same thing Baha-ees are experiencing in our motherland. 

Best wishes,

Princess 

Dear Alborz and Tahirih,

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. In a way, you both did and did not answer my question. But then again, maybe there is no real answer to what I asked.

In any case, I am sorry about what is happing to our Baha-ee countrymen and women in Iran. Let's hope light will return to that land soon. 

Take care of yourselves.

Princess 

Dear Princess...sorry for the delay in my response !

Let me begin by stating that my response is based on my understanding of the subject matter and my stated views reflect that understanding.  The statement made by other Bahais, may in fact be different from mine and in no way means that there is a contradiction as each of us are entitled to our own views and our expression is expected to be consistent with the lofty station that every human being holds.

"A kindly tongue is the lodestone of the hearts of men...” - Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah

The topic of taboo was, as I recall, introduced by you in one of your comments.  I also believe that none of the responses that criticized this blogger and his/her avatar made reference to either the word taboo or characterized as a sacrilegious act.  The concept, in the Baha'i Faith, as I understand, is in fact quite foreign.  We have no sacraments, nor do we have any rituals that attempts to normalize the expression of respect amongst Baha'is from different cultures.  In my experience the expression of respect is either made in our communication (oral or written) or in our behavior toward those that we revere.  None of the central figures of the Baha'i Faith, including the Prophet founder, Baha'u'llah, did not demand or require or expect that he be treated with reverence.  His Son, Abbas Effendi, was titled Abdu'l Baha, meaning the "Servant of Baha".   His desire was to be known as such despite the fact that his responsibility, amongst many, was to expound on the teachings of His father, Baha'u'llah.  During his travels to Europe and North America, in 1912, the early believers, which primarily had come from the Christian faiths and with very deep understanding of the aforementioned concepts, came to love him so deeply because of his humility and ability to exemplify the qualities that we all should and can strive for in our lives.  He was referred to as "The perfect exemplar" of Baha'u'llah's teachings.

I have shared the above background with you so that you are assured that the critical responses by the Baha'is were not about the blogger committing a sacrilegious act.  This stands in contrast to the response that Moslems had when Prophet Muhammad was depicted in a Danish cartoon.  Far from it, the essence of the objection, while expressed with varying shades of passion, was that it violated the very "rules" based on which this site has on record and even if it did not, this blogger intended to "insult, incite, and provoke".  While I cannot and will not speak on behalf of others, Baha'is or not, I can tell you with utmost sincerity that even if it had been a photo that was affront to another human being or a community, my response would have been the same.  As you know, my response to JJ was strictly focused on getting him to "relate" and reminding him of his utter disregard for the site's rules.

The desire to break and trample taboos is understood by me. Any Baha'i, first and foremost, is the target of harm in any Moslem country because they believe in something that is contrary to a fundamental understanding in Islam that Muhammad was the "Seal of the Prophets" and since Baha'is believe that Baha'u'llah is the latest (not last and final) of God's Manifestations, are considered to be heretics because their belief is a "taboo".   So you can see that Baha'is today,  and before them the Babis, were considered as "instigators of social unrest" during the 19th century, and ever since as thorn in the side of the clerical establishment.   While the Baha'is have been peaceful and commitment to the betterment of societies in which they live, their belief have been and continue to be considered as a taboo. So in reality we are well versed in breaking taboos !  The approach that has been honed in this Faith is in "Asking Questions".  In fact we believe that "Asking Questions" is the only legitimate challenge to fundamentalism, which today has become synonymous with many of the ailments in Islam.  It is precisely this inability of not being able to ask questions that has led Islamic societies into conformity in all realms of life.  This conformity has also led to very strict boundaries being formed to the point that the responses are so explosive that they beget further "violations" of this strictly enforced rules and norms.  So, today, someone like you believes that by breaking taboos, that societies will change and advance.  I don't believe that this is the case.  While breaking the container of a pressurized container frees up the content, it also results in a big mess, literally.  Examples of this are prevalent in the East and the West. The differences are in the way that they make themselves manifest based on cultural norms.

So, to sum things up, Baha'i first and foremost are responsible for  themselves and are expected to know and practice the principles that they believe in and associate themselves with. 

"The essence of Faith is conscious knowledge, and the practice of good deeds".

If I were to react to the avatar that this blogger has used, in such a way that it violates the principles that I associate myself with, then essentially my progress towards practicing my beliefs has been hampered.

So perhaps I can finally answer your question by saying that the question of "how one does that when the actual taboo subject is "never to commit sacrilege, desecrate a holy image or blaspheme?"  becomes moot from a Baha'i perspective. The question assumes that there is an expectation and that there is an observer/judge that has the ability to make such a determination.  In the Baha'i Faith, we have no clergy and no Baha'i is in a position to make such a determination with regard to any other person's behavior.  We are expected to respond with loving kindness in all circumstances and I have to say that each person's ability to do so is simply a reflection of that person's spiritual progress in this temporal world.  Please consider the reality that a woman's husband has been taken away and after some time she is informed that her husband has been executed by a firing squad.  She is then asked to come and collect his corpse and to also pay for the bullets used in carrying out the execution.  This is not a ficticious story, but a repeated reality in the life of many Baha'i families in Iran.   The magnanimity that is exemplified by these faimilies is a testament to the transformative power of their faith.  Now, how can I act any less when I feel hurt by the "intent" of the blogger in this case.  There is no taboo here.  The blogger is simply a soul that is ailing and has expressed itself by insulting that which a community respects.  The relationship is simply that and no more. There is no sacrilegious act here (at least in a Baha'i context) and my responses were all directed at JJ and not the blogger.

So while I hope that I have answered your question, I fear that I may not have done so directly (this is a an understatment, ofcourse!) At the very least I hope that you my perspective, which is founded on my understanding of the Baha'i principles, is clearer. 

Be well, Princess !

Alborz

Dear princess:

In Bahai faith you can ask any questions , and non bahais can ask any question too.Sorry if I was not clear about it.We are encouraged to investigate the truth.

As far as breaking taboos, I can use alborz's example of disagreeing with our parents. Or if you like, to bring it to the issue at hand, people can ask us questions and challenge us, but , no need to act so childish and use a profane avatar.

In many religions , even asking questions are taboo , but bahais do not mind, and it is encouraged.But this should not be confused with questions, that the seeker has no pure  intention , and is only after hurting and abusing, just like this  "Covenant" .

My dear, if my answer is not  satisfying , I hope you write to Alborz personally.

With most regards,

Tahirih

Princess

veery good question! the more i read from tahirih, the more i wonder about her godly spirit. she sounds bitter and angry and not at all what i consider a peace loving person to be. there have been many topics discussed. many people insulted. many people called names. but tahirih is so sensitive? no. you can't have it for one and not the other.

"Love your enemies" (Matthew 5:44, Luke 6:27), "Do not resist him that is wicked; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5:39) and, alternately, "To him that strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also" (Luke 6:29)?

i guess that philosophy doesn't apply?

Dear Tahirih,

Thanks for your response and kind comment on my avatar. And yours looks very fresh and pure. :)

Please excuse my ignorance about Bahaism, but is it taboo to ask the question why Abdubaha said something? Otherwise, if it isn't the case, I fail to see how a taboo is broken. Can you help me understand?

Best wishes,

Princess 

Dear princess this is how I look at it.

By the way I love your avatar, so fresh and healthy:)))

I do not have Alborz's eloquent tongue but I try to give you an example. Lets look at the issue at hand , this person chooses a profane picture of Bahaullah as an avatar, then she twists some information and accuses Abdulbaha( son of Bahaullah ) to be this racist person.

What could have happened to make the process respectful, would be : if the motive of " covenant" was pure , she could have a normal avatar, anything but that choice, then she could have presented the information , but without using profane language, asking questions as why Abdulbaha said this? and WOOLAH, a breaking of a taboo could have happened.

Regards,

Tahirih

Dear Alborz, Javaneh or anybody who might have an answer:

I don't mean to drag this on and on, but following your (Alborz's) last comment on this thread, I have an honest question that maybe you or somebody else might able to answer.

If we agree, in principle, that it is good and healthy to break taboos, but ideally this should be done respectfully, could you please explain how one does that when the actual taboo subject is "never to commit sacrilege, desecrate a holy image or blaspheme?"  

I appreciate your thoughts on this. Thank you.

for the second time today

I respond to eroonyman. I dont know what happened to the first post. Anyway, I wrote something along the lines of this:

That we are behind the safety of our computer screens matters not. some ppl have been hurt by some of the comments made here. And the whole point of this conversation was to work out and try to establish some kind of agreement or consensus about how we manage the blogs we find offensive.

What ever your thoughts about JJ are, and what ever your assumptions about his motives.... this is also our community. So lets leave him out of this for the moment.

Given the logistical difficulties in all of us meeting, we have to do the best we can with the limitations that exist.  

Yes you're right Tahirih I think many ppl reply under the guise of the goldfish avatar but I think those ppl must have their reasons for doing so... maybe they lack the confidence of their convictions.... why does it matter? Let them be ...  What they write is what we respond to, not who they are.

best wishes

Javaneh

eroonman what an interesting point you have raised!

The fact that we hide behind our computers and , feel really courageous and speak our minds!!! It is , very interesting to see how as soon as a sensitive issue comes out all comments go into a gold fish mode???? we are not even that brave to use our made up registered name. or we jump into  another fake new made up character and bad mouth a group, or I should say one of our many made up registered characters!!!!

Why? why can't this " covenant " thing !!! use the name and avatar that we know her by??? why?? and then state his or her opinion about bahais?

Because she wants to be loved by others, and not to be out in the open looking like a bigot , ignorant thing!!!!

As long as we hide , behind our gold fishes or new made up characters, we will stay were we are, which is not pretty!!!

Tahirih

The problem with freedom...

While Iranians have shown that they are eager to embrace this forum, namely a largely uncontrolled free for all discussion on any topic, the reality is that all we have really developed, is the mere courage to post and pose arguments with each other. The precise weakness of this format, anonymously posting clever comebacks from behind a computer screen, is in it's safeness. Conveniently being able to post a rebuking of another's opinion, is nothing to be proud of. Real debate is done face to face. The courage to look an opposing viewpoint in the eye, is when the other side can see the conviction in your face. This is missing from our pseudo-debate.

And this faceless, eye-less, screaming from the safety of the internet is possibly the primary reason why nothing substantive has come from our many emotion-laden and passionate outbursts. In the end, until we can confront each other face to face, and remain civil, and respect a well put opposing opinion, all of this, including this, is nothing more than zeroes and ones, temporarily kept lit, by the generosity of JJ's commitment to remaining in a state of poverty.

I smile to think that all of this would come to an end, if JJ ever got a real job!

In summery then .......

It was a discussion well worth having, even though this is a subject that has been discussed before.  And more thanks for actively demonstrating that we can all have and express our diverse opinions, without resorting to vilification and derisive retort.

I think the conclusion I have come to is that we all want to maintain the right to our freedom of expression on  i.com but that we do it with respect and remain mindful that we do not need to sink vicious and spiteful condemnation of each others views and differnces, whatever they might be.  Furthermore that when we encounter things we disagree with, such as prejudice, bigotry and intolerence, we dont turn away and ignore it but challenge it through respectful argument. Respectful argument doesnt have to exclude our resentment, irritation or even fury but anger is only constructive if choose to convey our response in positive and productive terms.

I think the other thing that has become clear is that we don't understand the rationale applied to the editorial judgements made. Im sure JJ and the moderators have some guideline other than their gut reaction and perhaps they aren't at liberty rather than unwilling to disclose or discuss that with us. Fair enough. It doesnt exclude us from rasing the issues as they arise.

Again thank you all for your contributions to this blog. I have been following it's progress closely and I feel we have successfuly reached a census of opinion re the standard by which we wish to evolve.

best wishes

Javaneh

Thank you sweet Rose

Thank you sweet Rose water,
I am glad to see you too.
Gulls like you are a sure sign that truth is universal.
Best wishes,
Seagull

Dear Alborz,

Again, thanks for sharing your thoughts. We are on the same page about striving to set higher standards for discourse and be respectful of each other's different view points. But there is also another school of thought which believes that respect has to be earned and should not be handed out indiscriminately. Sometimes people who have been suppressed for a long time need to go to the other extreme before they find their balance. 

Best wishes,

Princess 

This was a positive thread....javaneh jan

I want to thank all my friends for all information:
1-javaneh:merci.merci.
2-zion:hava nagila.
3-Rosie:hava nagila too.
4-Daived ET:learn patience from jj.
5-all Bahais:Thanks to all of you,for being tolerant with me.
6-JJ& the IC crew:Thank you for being tolerant. You respect and tolerate all of us.

last but not the least i want to thank my husband & 2 sons for tolerating me all these years.
best wishes
Tony award winner 2009

Seagull, write your beautiful poetic and philosophical and

spiritual observations beneath the offending submissions, and blog em, write articles...and drown out the hate with your love...
:o)
good to see you,
rosie

Here are examples of free speech that we dont care for

It was not to long ago that a paper published a cartoon that depicted map of Iran with a sewer at its center and roaches crawling in and out.
Was that justified! How about the 300 or not without my daughter. How much misrepresentations of us by Hollywood!
How about when they call us Sand something, should we tolerate that collectively!
We don't need the spreading of hate, and crulety but if thats what JJ thinks of free speech and the majority are ok with it in the disguise of free speech then I am sorry for us because we will reap what we sow.

Rosie...got it this time...Thanks!

Alborz

Dear Princess...respectfully breaking taboos is...

...possible.  As I said, I consider any reference to JJ's daughter would be an abhorrent act.  You are also correct that I consider the depiction of the Prophet Muhammad as an afront to a community of believers and not because Prophet Muhammad would be any less because of it.

An insult under any circumstances, is NOT acceptable. Period ! The Baha'is of Iran continue to suffer in every aspect of their lives and yet not once have they rebuked those that instigate their persecution nor protect them from the harm of the general public.  They have and continue to seek to air their grievances with facts and reference to their legitimate rights, but not once have they insulted, either by words or by image, those that sanction the acts against them.  They practice a principle that they believe in under dire circumstances.  How far and removed are we from these standards here on this site?

That is the standard to which we should aspire and yet be in a position to express our views and respectfully debate differences in "ideas" and "concepts".  People can and have been able to ally themselves with Khomeini and Hitler.  The world is riddled with such instances.   The principle of objective and respectful criticism and analysis remains the same even in these instances.  After all how has a cartoon of Khomeini or Hitler changed the course of history and Man's blunders?  Certainly when Bush was elected into office, he neither wore a turbin nor a crew cut and a mustache.  His seemingly "normal" appearance later became the object of ridicule because of the decisions he made and their consequences.  Again, do you think that these depictions were the cause of the American people's revolt during this last election, or was it his policies?  The answer is clear to me.

"Taboos" can be broken respectfully.  It used to be that you could not disagree with your parents.  Today, kids do so regularly.  Those that do so respectfully and those that do so in revolt end up at completely different places in their lives.  While driving, you can have a different destination on the same road that many people drive on, but you are still  expected to abide by the rules of the road in order to get to your destination safely and not cause harm to the other drivers on the road.  Examples of this principle are numerous. This is the standar to which we need to aspire and yes, practice.

What is at stake here is not to reach consensus on all subjects or view-points, but rather the approach we take in discussing our views needs to improve.  The process is far more important than the content or its resolution.  Clearly if you want to harm and seek vengence, then your approach would be different than when you want to exchange viewpoints and learn and become better informed.  All of the expressions that violate these principles are injurious to the entire body of our online community.

Again thanks for your kind words and at this point I hope that JJ does not remain aloof and above it all.  Everyone that has positively contributed to this dialogue deserves to be heard.  We are only trying to play in a clean sand-box, free from odeous refuse.  Just remember that we as human beings can get used to foul smells and will no longer sense it.  I know that this is not what you are adovcating but it may be the consequence unless you, I and others set a higher standard of discourse and assure JJ that we are not in the minority and that he need not fear the loss of half his readership.

Alborz

PS my last words (oh god oh god I hope so..and so do you...)

MODERATION IS AN ART, NOT A SCIENCE.

MODERATION IS PROCESS, NOT PERFECTION.

"Perfection is terrible. It cannot have children"--Sylvia Plath, American poet

And...in celebration of this blog and this website as a collectively run democracy:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLQJ4toj-JY

--American Woman
:o)

To Alborz from Rosie Unreg. /Souri, j.

My post was cryptic, Alborz? Okay I'll explain. In my LONG post preceding the shorter ones to you and David, I referred to there being GUIDELINES here for what is not permissible on this site. In my view, although I may be the first person to mention this here, they are best articulated in the "flag as offensive" button under every post, available to reg. users. When you "flag" a post for being offensive (i.e. refer it tothe moderators for deletion) there are five categories (listed below). I assume these categories ALSO apply to blogs AND any other practices onsite. Eg your suggested use of avatars. I state that this falls under the "flaggable" category of "contains personal information." J's daughter is personal. She does not belong on anyone's avatar. Legal or not.

As for rules, I TOTALLY agree with J. If you refer to his Consider Respect blog of June last you will find GUIDELINES (click on his name under avatar and find blog). The blog was written in response to a blog on moderation by Jimzibund which I participated in extensively. You can click on it at the beginning of J's Respect reply blog. There you will find my views on rules and guidelines.

RULES are possible for the STRUCTURE a moderation system and I proposed some POSSIBLE rules for the moderation system (i.e. how many moderators, what is the hierarchy, are they contactable, etc.) I have several times publicly and/or privately asked J and Foaad to delineate and publish such rules. They haven't. That's show biz.

In the same blog as well as others I REPEATEDLY have discouraged implementing too many RULES for delineating EXACTLY what constitutes abuse. Most extreme example I gave to explain my rationale is found on end of last month's blog of J's So You're Psoting On Your Own Blogs, Are You? I said Geneva Conventions did not define torture and torture once defined in subsequent international agreements only provided loopholes to allow certain tortures because didn't fit definitions. Extreme example but applicable I said.

Have you ever heard the joke that if a thousand monkeys typed forever at random on computers eventually one of them would type the entire works of Shakespeare. That is the nature of language: infinite, always evolving, TOTALLY UNPREDICTABLE..

HOW CAN YOU IMPOSE NUMEROUS HARD AND FAST RULES ON LANGUAGE ITSELF. That is what discourse is: LANGUAGE, zabaan zaboon...

I hope that clarifies things for you. My last post to you implied knowledge of my previous ones and oviously the conversatin is extensive, one can't read everything, neither could I.

I agree with Souri. THis was VERY productive. We ALL have a lot to chew on. Alborz if I may quote your last post with some additions of my own: WE hope that these comments provide enough fodder for him and ALL OF US to chew on and in the spirit of continuously improving this site, by raising its standards, he and W reconsider his and OUR approach and PERSPECTIVES.

best,
r