YOU FOOLISH PSEUDO JEDI

JamesSand wrote:
you're losing ground here...

This place it what it is, and whatever rough edges people find they try to adjust - either themselves, or the establishment, in subtle ways.

Coming in and kicking over the desks and spilling everyone's sandwiches and saying the whole premise of the activity is a sham isn't likely to have everyone suddenly become "woke" and grab their torches and pitchforks to march on city hall.....


but someone as smart as you already knows that, which leaves another reason as to your posts....

Yes, I certainly wouldn't want to upset the "sacred temple environment" in Open Discussions, now would I? The very idea is truly horrifying. *Sarcasm*

I'm not suggesting the entire forum needs to welcome free speech, I'm suggesting that the general discussion areas should. However, it's all just my opinion, whether it's acted on or not, I don't get a say. I'm just a "Guest" here after all.

Not everyone gets off of being a provocatrix

Rex wrote: Not everyone gets off of being a provocatrix

I had to look that up...

https://definithing.com/provocatrix/

Pretty certain this one doesn't apply to me... and what in the heck is "Skyfall" (other than the 007 film?)

The feminine form of provocateur. What does James Bond have to do with it??
According to the internets, provocatrice is the preferred spelling anyhow

Rex wrote: The feminine form of provocateur. What does James Bond have to do with it??
According to the internets, provocatrice is the preferred spelling anyhow

Perhaps you're just lazy, perhaps not. However, in the link I provided, there was a reference to "Skyfall". The only "Skyfall" I know of is a 007 film.

Here is a song from it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeumyOzKqgI

I think I've seen the movie, but the link doesn't say "it's a neologism from James Bond"
I'm not doubting that our favourite British double entendre dealer says it

Rex wrote: I think I've seen the movie, but the link doesn't say "it's a neologism from James Bond"
I'm not doubting that our favourite British double entendre dealer says it

You really didn't bother to read the word "Skyfall" over at that link, did you? *Face palm*.

If I may, allow me to drag this back to topic.

Back when I joined, all those billions upon billions of years ago, one of the core appeals of this place was the fact that - eventhough a "temple" by name - it was precisely not like any other church. There were no commanded beliefs, no prohibited ones, you didn't have to belong to any religion, you were not beholden to any one interpretation of the Jedi path or the Force more broadly, and you were allowed to follow them all. You were not expected to conduct yourself in accord with some unstated vague standard of moral righteousness and challenging the Empire in all its forms, including intellectual and moral critiques of organized religion and the political establishment as any Rebel would consider was welcome, even encouraged.

Now, back in that day I wasn't exactly entirely on board with that in its entirety. To be unguided in this way was uncomfortable to me. I kept inquiring what it meant to be Jedi, what is the "intended", the "correct" path, because it sounded like a label without a referent, and all I got for replies were platitudes designed to leave me to evolve as I naturally would. I was to choose myself what it meant to me.

Then the moral inquisition came. There exists now such a thing as "behaviour unbecoming", a set of rules written in deliberately vague terms so as to allow for which ever witch hunt the sovereign desires. The Temple used to be an educational organization. Now it has become a capital-T temple, church etiquette is now the law of the land. The Jedi thing to do is to spout platitudes for the sheer sake of it, fake smiles and "thanks for sharing" in place of any kind of intellectual discourse because heaven forbid someone might read something that is not entirely aligned with their own idea about how the world works. This is a Temple, after all, don't you know, and we embrace all... unless we make an exception and tell you to watch your mouth lest something interesting be said...

Little late to the party, thank you busy work day, but here are my two cents. Should free speech be allowed in a general sense: yes. However, I also think some rules should in place, depending on the context of the forum. EG, religious forums should be kept to religious debates. So I happen to agree with Phoenix in regards to Open Discussions allowing free speech. Not really sure how to prevent the trolls but creating chaos in them, but I'm just thinking out loud here.

Deimos wrote: Little late to the party, thank you busy work day, but here are my two cents. Should free speech be allowed in a general sense: yes. However, I also think some rules should in place, depending on the context of the forum. EG, religious forums should be kept to religious debates. So I happen to agree with Phoenix in regards to Open Discussions allowing free speech. Not really sure how to prevent the trolls but creating chaos in them, but I'm just thinking out loud here.

Ah... the trolls. Do we allow "the trolls" to hold us hostage? If so, they have already won. The moment we deny ourselves something because we fear "the trolls" or what "the trolls" might do, we have lost. Simple, isn't it?

Furthermore, fear of "the trolls" can be quickly likened to the fear some have of "dangerous ideas". They fear that such "dangerous ideas" will incite violence... or for minorities to be oppressed on mass scale. However, it's no wonder they live in fear... their minds are filled with images of a genocide that I'm rather sure didn't happen, fake history, and decades of propaganda.

Perhaps what those people who fear "dangerous ideas" actually fear... is change which goes against their desired outcome. Motivated by their fear, they demand censorship "for the greater good", despite the hellish reality they are manifesting as a direct result, (the very thing they claimed once to not desire) though ignore because they assume they are doing "good".

Funny thing about people who think they are "doing good", especially those who think they are doing what they are, "for the greater good", they are generally blind.