Apologies and an explanation

I would like to apologize to Ulrika, Kendra, Eugene and the whole nburg community. It seems that while trying to encourage restraint, tact, and prudence, I have not done so myself. I do not apologize for the essence of what I have said in the forums these last 2 days, I believe strongly that what I have express in these forums needed to be said. However, I could have expressed them with more care and less venom.

I would also like to apologize for the rest of this post, as I am sure it will be long and rambling. I feel that I owe the Nburg community an explanation for the things that I've said, particularly the two threads that were deleted and locked respectively.

In the first thread, which was deleted, I said something like "Next time you are in Neualtenburg, crash it with a scripted prim." I thought this was a funny and clever way to illustrate a serious point. I thought it was so much better than the long essay that I was about to write when I thought of that idea. Well, since no one seems to find it particularly funny or clever, and no one seems to have gotten the point, I will post here the long essay instead:

---

Many of you may have seen Ulrika's thread in off-topic titled "Destroy a Bible" In that thread she said "Next time you're in a hotel, take or destroy the bible." Ulrika and various other nburg personages seemed to find this hilarious. I believe that people only find this funny because they do not think the Bible has any value. That is, the people who find it funny bleieve that the bible is only worth the paper it is printed in, maybe even less. But to many many people, the Bible is the core of their system of beliefs, it is a tome upon which they have invested significant emotional and intellectual capital. To these people encouraging people to destroy a bible is not a simple act of vandalism, it is an act of extreme violence. It is akin to asking people to destroy themselves.

To illustrate the point better, take the statement "Next time you are in Neualtenburg, crash it with a scripted prim." To many of us, this is an extremely distressing statement. One nburger even characterized it as offensive. Many would find this statement hilarious. ("LOLZORZ, LETS GO CRASH THAT COMMIE SIM!" What is Nburg, after all except bits of colored dots in the ether? Crashing the sim does not even cause permanent damage, the lindens can restore it easily. Why then is this statement distressing to us? It is distressing because we have put emotional and intellectual capital into this little island that fits in 512MB of RAM. We *believe* in nburg. Now consider the millions of people that have put emotional and intellectual capital into the Bible their whole lives. Isn't asking people to destroy a bible a greater crime than asking people to destroy a sim with 20 or so residents? "It was just a joke," you might say. Then again others might say asking people to crash nburg was also a joke. It seems it's only funny to ask people to destroy property, if one does not have any attachment to said property.

---

There. Not quite as funny or clever as my original post, but perhaps more illustrative. So what does this have to do with the well-being of the city? Not much, other than the fact that I used nburg to illustrate a point. Eugene said yesterday that it might have been more preferable for me to post "crash nburg" in off-topic. Maybe so. (This brings up another interesting point... if I ask people to crash nburg in a non-nburg forum, should I be held responsible for those statements?)

So that post was deleted. I understand why it was deleted, though I do not agree that it should have been. So I started another thread. You can read it here. This thread was locked. I strongly believe it should not have been. In that post, I explained (though perhaps not clearly) why I wrote the first post, and why I thought the actions of nburg's prominent residents was detrimental to the city. I also stated categorically that "Encouraging people to commit acts of vandalism is never a good idea, whether you're serious or not." (yes I can see the apparent contradiction in that).

The locking of that thread made me really angry. Really really steaming mad. I could not sleep Tuesday night, and I fumed over it yesterday. I was so angry that I was going to ask the RA to impeach Ulrika.

Now, let me step back a bit, and explain why I was so angry. I come from a country where a dictator stifled every criticism of the government for 20 years. No newspaper could print anything critical of the government, no television station would show anything except how good and beautiful the country and its officials were. So now that we have our free speech rights back in the Philippines, I am firecely possesive of it. I believe that the right to criticize a government and any of its officials is a fundamental human right, one that is absolutely essential in any state.

I do not think it matters that the actions I found disappointing were not done in nburg or its forums. Let me give an analogy: Imagine John Roberts (Cheif Justice of US SC), and Hillary Clinton went on vacation together to Portugal. In Protugal, Roberts went on Portugese Television, and jokingly said "key an SUV!" then Clinton chimes in "No, that's wrong, key the driver!" Were those two within their rights to say such outrageous things? Yes they were. Had that happened, should the american people have stood up and said "What they said was wrong, we are very disappointed"? Absolutely.

I thought that post was well within the bounds of what can be discussed in these forums. So the locking of that thread set of a lot of alarms in my brain. "Ulrika is just like Marcos!" I thought, "any criticism of her or the government is squished like the proverbial bug!" Sure she provided a thread explaining the locking and deletion of my own posts, and allowed discussion there. But to my mind, that's tantamount to saying "you can have a debate, but only on my arena." This was compounded by the fact that Ulrika later on deleted and edited posts that were critical of her.

Let me go into another digression. I told Kendra last night that I thought of the forums like it was the marktplatz, it is a public space where people should be allowed to say what's on their mind. But I think the better analogy would be that the forums is like a newspaper. It is a good way to quickly learn and disseminate information about the news and issues surrounding the city. Thus, I believe that every poster in the forums is like a columnist in a newspaper, they should be allowed to write what they think. Of course, these rights are not absolute, you may not slander, or libel, etc. However, if any other resident or the state of nburg thinks that something is wrong with what the columnist said, I think the solution is not to summarily delete his words, I think the solution is to bring charges against him. Aliasi is right, our main responsibility is to take the consequence of our own actions.

Ok, so I was really angry. I thought my free speech rights were being trampled upon by an evil dictator (no, seriously, that's what I thought). I was preparing to make a case for Ulrika's impeachment. That was when I met Gwyn and Kendra and Eugene last night. By their actions, they have reminded me of a belief that I try to live by: a belief that all people are basically good. So there I decided that Ulrika is not the evil monster witch-queen, but someone who just had the good of neualtenburg in mind. After all, Ulrika is one of a few who has invested the most emotional and intellectual capital into the city, which would make my posts even more offensive to her than to anybody else.

So I decided not to ask for Ulrika's impeachment. But I was still troubled by the fact that any moderator can censor anybody. This is scary to me, no one person should be able to erase somebody else's words on a whim. Ulrika has thus far made one decision that I felt was wrong (and a couple that are marginal), and one could argue that is not so bad. But the fact still remains that a moderator can censor any criticism without due process or even notification. This, I believe has the potential for grave abuse. I am therefore seeking some sort of way to limit this power. It does not necessarily have to be a law, some sort of stated adminstrative policy would be fine. I am of the belief that the censor's power should be exercised with the utmost care, and only in truly dire circumstances.

I understand, and completely agree that there should be sanctions for people who have been deemed to have gone beyond the bounds of their right to free speech. We are all grown men and women, and we should have the spine to stand up and be responsible for what we say.

That's it. If you've read all that, I thank you for your time. If this somehow offended, I apologze, I just wanted to explain my actions, and in no way meant to offend anyone.

Marvelous post. Thank you, Roc.

Thank you, Flyingroc.


Sudane

Good post Roc. It explains a lot. I was actually enjoying the drama, but probably only because I wasn't directly involved. I'm sure you and others were not enjoying it so much. I'm glad you've got things worked out. It's easy to get upset about things when you are trying to guess other people's motivations. Communication and understanding are the keys to resolution.

Great post, it really explained a lot

- Eugene.

I don't think it's reasonable to equate the suggested symbolic destruction of an object with the destruction of a human. However, let's not get hung up on that point. In truth, the whole goal of my series of posts in the Off-Topic forum is to show that individuals invest more in objects (bibles, SUVs, and flags) than they do in actual human beings.

In the series of threads I spawned over three days, called "Key an SUV", "Destroy a Bible", "Burn a Flag" (unpublished), and "Destroy a Country", the outrage over the mere suggestion of vandalizing a car or destroying a bible was orders of magnitude above the outrage over the actual killing of hundreds of thousands people in war. These deaths are of course all in the name of oil (SUVs), religion (bible), and U.S. security (flag). See how carefully I crafted that? Well, not quite as carefully as I should have. I never got to publishing "Burn a Flag" because of the absolute mayhem that the "Destroy a Bible" thread created.

So that's my side of the story.



I recommend that you continue forward with forum moderation reform, working to define both regulations on moderation and the laws against bad posts. I think everyone would like to see some clear rules laid down (if only LL were so responsive). I'd also continue forward with discussions on impeachment, as it has revealed weak spots in the constitution.

Finally, I want to personally apologize for offending you and upsetting you during the moderation process. I've been pretty upset with some folks in the city in the past too, so I know how it feels. I also want you to prepare yourself, because as anyone can tell you, it won't be the last time.

~Ulrika~

LOL. The Shock and Awe approach to philosophy and politics.

I look forward to the continuing drama. It's better than reality TV.

I'm sorry to get hung up on that point, but I believe this is very important. Many people would rather have themselves killed than destroy a bible. In fact many people have *died* for refusing to destroy a bible. I think you seriously underestimate the deep significance of the bible as a symbol to religious people all over the world.

To many people, asking them to destroy a bible is a singular act of violence. It is asking them to deny the core of their beliefs. It is asking them to destroy the book that has shaped their lives, their community, and their culture. It is asking them to destroy their very selves.

Sorry for straying a bit off-topic here, but I believe it is important that the leaders of my community have some understanding of and show some sympathy for people of differing beliefs.

Isn't it great then that we have ways through our government of getting people who's values we agree with into office?

And great first post in this thread Flyingroc. I'm glad you posted it!

What's interesting is that you're not just protesting the destruction of a religious symbol but you're protesting the discussion of the destruction of a religious symbol, attempting to make the very discussion taboo. For someone who was protesting a perceived lack of free speech (which was in fact the right to disparage) less than a day ago, I find this ironic (in the true sense of the word). The only solution to this is to make remarks for the destruction of a religious text against the law, which would be in direct opposition to the U.S. Bill of Rights and the Universal Bill of Rights.

Do you support free expression or would you like a single clause placed in the world's Bill of Rights that prevents the discussion of your single book in a negative light?

It is critical there are leaders in the city that understand the concept of free speech and the how the discussion of the destruction of religious symbols is permitted but personal attacks and calls to violence are not.

~Ulrika~

I support free speech, and I will defend your right to say whatever outrageous things you want to say. I believe that that thread about the bible thing should *not* have been locked, just as I believe what I have said in these forums should not have been censored.

What I am advocating is personal restraint. As a public servant, you have to understand that your words reflect on the public you serve. I cannot force you to stop saying what you are saying, and I believe I should not be able to force you to stop what you are saying. What I was hoping to do (which obviously, I have failed) was that through logical arguments cause you to see how much pain you (and some others) have caused by your words.

I was hoping that you would have found in your heart sympathy for people who were horribly offended by your statements. I was hoping that you would realize that by horribly offending a lot of people, you are undermining the continued viability of nburg -- that is, you are making it less likely for outside people to want to be citizens of nburg. I was hoping that by realizing all these, that you would exercise caution in the future.

I believe there are respectful ways to express one's opinion against a holy symbol without causing undue ruckus. For example, I believe that a slavish literal interpretation of the Koran is detrimental to society. However, if I were the head of the Supreme Court of *any* nation, I would find it unwise to call for the destruction of the Koran in any forum, even if it were a joke.


I have failed once again to show how calling for the destruction of bibles can be seen to be both a deeply personal attack, and a call to violence. (and btw, yes, I believe that while *unwise*, personal attacks should in certain circumstances be permitted -- that is, for example, I should be able to say, for example, "George Bush is a Nazi" (even in front of George Bush himself) without fear of legal sanctions -- that statment is unnecessarily harsh, but should be permitted. "Destroy a bible" -- that is also unnecessarily harsh especially coming from a prominent public figure, but it should be permitted as well -- again, my personal philosophy is that between freedom and censorship, I would like to err on the side of freedom.)

So let me reiterate my position. I am *not* calling for banning certain things from being said. What I am calling for, what I am *imploring*, is that neualtenburg's public servants would find it in their hearts to act with restraint and prudence.

You make a sharp "black and white" distinction between an attack on a person and an attack on a person's symbol. A large body of opinion suggests that that is not a black and white distinction, and that, in fact, an attack on a person's symbol may very well be an attack on that person themself.

A symbol is a dumb inanimate object, having physically no significance whatever. What makes it a symbol is that the inanimate object contains substance invested in it by persons. For the persons for whom it is a symbol, it literally contains substance of their person-hood. The American flag contains substance of the values of Americanism, the Nazi flag contained (contains) substance of Nazi-ism. Likewise, the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, the Cross..... the list goes on forever. It seems obvious that publically destroying such a symbol is very much akin to attacking the person whose substance is contained in it.

In the 60's many of us publically burned American flags at anti-war and anti-draft demonstrations. It was an expression of attack against the people whose value set caused and sustained the war in Vietnam. To imagine that this was somehow an attack against a symbol and not against the people who were "invested" in that symbol seems naive. The evidence is very clear that those people who did indeed cherish the flag as a symbol of their deepest beliefs felt themselves very much attacked.

The most accessible and to my mind definitive analysis of symbols is provided by Carl Jung, and elaborated by countless others in his tradition. He proposes that indeed a symbol is an actual container, holding components of the human being which are collective, shared, but which are, *emphatically* part of ourselves. He proposed that symbols are "archytypes" of the "collective unconscious", sort of crystalizations of the actual substance/experience of the human being, the resevoir of elements of human-being-ness as much a part of the actual person as their brain and their stomach.

Seen in this light, there is absolutely no way to distinguish between An attempt to make this distinction is reductionism to absurdity. Rather, like the flag burners in the 60's, we must understand that we do indeed attack the person when we attack their symbol. The question is not establishing that somehow attacks on a supposedly inanimate symbol are permissable while attacks on a person are not; the question is what kinds of "attacks" on another persons "self", their feelings, beliefs, and opinions, are appropriate in the community we wish to establish, and which kinds of "attacks" are inappropriate.


Sudane

That is a long, persuasive body of text which puts forward the single philosophical argument that a symbol is as much a part of someone as their body. This serves to equate unpopular expression to physical assault, the purpose being (as seen in the next paragraph) to limit it.

Here you finish by stating that there are "appropriate" and "inappropriate" forms of expression without defining precisely what you mean. It leaves the reader to assume, that since you define an attack on one's symbols as an attack on the person, that you're saying the attack on one's symbols should not be permitted. This logical construct is precisely what is needed to ban political dissent (flag burning and protest), religious dissent (bible destruction and speaking out against the pope), and consumer dissent (boycotts and strikes).

Your entire post can be summarized in a single sentence. It seeks to interpret the philosophical tenet, that freedom of speech is unlimited until that speech harms another, such that "harm" is redefined in a way to include the attack on symbols (which is in fact not harmful but offensive). I would state that "harm" refers to slander, libel, contempt of court, threats, incitement to riot and other forms of expression that are unambiguously and immediately deleterious. This does not and never will include speech which offends.

I've got the Supreme Court on my side on that one (which slaps down Jung any day.)

~Ulrika~

I'm glad that we share the same philosophy regarding free expression. As can be seen by the text two posts above, it will forever be under assault.

I agree that there are business reasons why unpopular speech by prominent figures could damaging to the group as a whole. I believe my resignation should solve the problem.

You seem like a very bright person. Use it to do good things for the city.

~Ulrika~

That is exactly what I said .And that is exactly what I did not say, but rather what you are saying. I said nothing about what "should" be permitted, only that your "black and white" distinction between freedom to demean a person's symbols and freedom to verbally attack that person is illusory.
Hehe.. you maintain that it is a logical construct enabling such repression. I say that understanding human nature and the extent to which your words harm another is of profound importance to understanding human nature and change. The Freedom Riders caused profound harm to the people in whose communities they "rode". The flag burners caused real harm to those Americans who supported the war. The disagreements remain to this day over whether those "harms" were justified. Most people, on the other hand, accept that the SDS members who bombed the university buildings "crossed the line" into unacceptable harm. We must needs harm others in the course of our "free expression"; my appeal is that we come to a consensus of the community in what is acceptable and what is not.You speak as if this "philosophical tenet", since it exists, if it does exist, is therefore true and indisputable, which it is not.another distinction as statement of "fact", which it is not. I say that the distinction made in this "definition" is so vague as to be incomprehensible. Indeed, the catagories of "slander, libel, contempt of court, threats, incitement to riot" are clearly a subset of "speech which offends". "Slander"! Unambiguous? Come on! Millions of dollars of legals fees have been spent arguing the specifc application of that concept. Since Jung and his successors studied the nature of the human being as it reveals itself through the millenia of human existence, whereas the Supreme Court by definition makes determinations strictly within the narrowest bounds possible, I'll stick with Jung.


Sudane

You have the enviable ability of being able to generate hundreds of words without ever making a concrete point, as if by ambiguity seeking to make yourself impervious to logical argument.

Based on your text which states, "my appeal is that we come to a consensus of the community in what is acceptable and what is not", it sounds as if you seek an official or unoffical democratic referendum on what speech is permissible by citizens. Thank god the bill of rights was created to protect the public from people like you.

~Ulrika~

I think that is unbelievably harsh. Sometimes I wonder if you have any feelings at all.

That's who I am and it's why I have to leave.

~Ulrika~