Political correctness = humanity towards others?

[moopere]

Originally Posted by acascianelli

[snip to sig in question]

"My will decides." ~ Adolf Hitler.


follow up message:

Originally Posted by dannemil
Ubuntu is supposed to be a welcoming and inclusive site. I believe in free speech, but as a Jew I find this quote incredibly offensive. I don't see why we even need to bring his poisonous views into a discussion of Ubuntu and Linux. Until now I've felt great about this community and the help that it provides, but imagine my shock when I read this quote by of one of history's worst murderer's. Whoever is moderating this forum should not tolerate such posts.


My followup to the above:

Originally Posted by moopere
You are joking right? You must be.

Are you trying to tell us here that the mere mention of this man's name, and perhaps a quote or two offends you? Should we also ban any statements by say Stalin, Amin, Hussein, Bush etc?

The thing with history is that you are bound to repeat it if you don't learn from it - learning from history as far as I can understand can't be done by pretending that certain things didn't happen or that certain individuals (or countries) didn't act in certain ways.

Racial/religious vilification is one thing, quoting innocuous historical statements is another (ever heard of free speech?) Perhaps a variation on the fiction "1984" where history is rewrittten to suit the present would be more to your liking and less likely to offend?

Cheers,
Craig


A couple of other posts sneak through before Azz (supermoderator) asks for discussion to be moved from the originating thread to a new thread as seen below :


I was just going to congratulate the members of the thread for not letting this derail the discussion....

Anyway, the issue is resolved. The code of conduct says to be respectful towards others and quoting that name, while not agaist any laws, is disrespectful to some and so I censored it.

This is a biggie, so if someone feels they need more than to just PM me to complain, we can open a thread about it in the forums discussion section. Use my name in the title, if you want.

So, on this thread, this issue is closed. Let's continue the topic at hand.


My response to Azz

"This is a biggie" (says Azz above)

You bet Azz, its huge.

I respect your decision to ask for closure of this subject on the other thread because it was a red herring introduced by Dannemil and was going to quite probably disrupt an otherwise useful thread. Sometimes moderators have to make a call, and you can't satisfy everyone in so doing.

Its a "You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't" scenario for which I have some sympathy, however, in a global forum, not one limited to the USA or to Israel, its probably not helpful to pander to people with sensitivities that are just unrealistic (precisely because of the global nature of this forum).

Was it the words quoted or the actual act of mentioning Hitler's name that caused the spark? As in my reply to Dannemil, should we all be somewhat sensitive to all the 'great satan's of our time? Stalin wasn't a very nice man, Amin certainly saw to the end of many Ugandans, Pinochet ruled Chile without a lot of empathy it seems.

This statement:

"The world is more peaceful as a result of Saddam Hussein not being in power"

Seems harmless enough until you realise it is a quote from George W Bush

"The world is more peaceful as a result of Saddam Hussein not being in power." ~ GW Bush Monterrey, Mexico, Jan. 12, 2004

The added commentary from http://www.dubyaspeak.com/ is fitting:

-- Yeah, it's amazing how peaceful the world is now

This could well be seen as offensive my many in the Arab world, or people who love peace in general. Should I be offended by any post with a sig attributable to GW Bush?

Anyway, I should be commending you on not banning or 'having words' with acascianelli the poster with the sig which started all this.

In my own way I'm now guilty of overreacting to Dannemil's overreaction to acascianelli :roll:

I look forward to a similar even handed response to anyone who finds offense at any sig attributable to anyone else who might be an 'offensive person' to them :wink: .

Cheers,
Craig

[XDevHald]

It is fully offensive and should be removed. I will not go into replying a long post in this as it's not necessary not worth the time as in short words "It's not tolerated nor accepted in this forum"

Thank You!

[Unregistered]

It is fully offensive and should be removed. I will not go into replying a long post in this as it's not necessary not worth the time as in short words "It's not tolerated nor accepted in this forum"

Thank You!


Steve, have you considered that a statement like yours above denying free speech, with no argument at all is like saying 'because I say it let it be so' or, another way to say that might be:

"My will decides."

Sort of makes you think doesn't it?

I really don't understand the responses to this and the original thread at all, almost all of them have been a pretty simple statement like above, which makes me think that most folks find offense in anything Hitler said or was reputed to have said. You know, he probably also said some things like "that was a nice piece of pie mum", and "can someone pass me another roll of toiletpaper" ....

Now, in my own mind (or reality, take your pick), free speech ends where racial/religous vilification starts, but we're not talking about that here, for example, if I say now "My will decides." and attribute it to myself like this:


"My will decides." ~ Craig

Would anyone take offense? If not, and I can't see how anyone could, why do innocuous statements that just happen to be attributed to famous historical figures offend?

Can anyone offer me an intellectual argument here? Or am I doomed to responses like "it just is"?

Cheers,
Craig

[moopere]

Oh damn, I see that I managed to post the above as 'unregistered user' - its me though.

Cheers,
Craig

[XDevHald]

In other words moopere, I was not going to bloat myself into a 4-6 paragraph of my thoughts on it. I don't need to express myself to show how I feel. The way I said it was short and simple. Freedom of speech is fine, but I don't see any point for "Myself" to prove a freedom of speech, I'm sorry if this pisses anyone off but I don't have to open my mouth to make everyone happy on my wording to show I am with this or against it.

To be honest, I am against the quote and don't like it at all. I'm leaving it at that, and no other words.

Thank You

[KiwiNZ]

moopere you are correct the words mentioned in the Hitler quote in themselves are not offensive . In fact "My will decides" could be said by any leader from a President to a Parent talking to a child .

It is the man himself that is the problem. Hitler has his equals in evil throughout history . However it has to be recognised that no person brings more emotion than Hitler. He is recent ,his affects are still felt by those living .I can personally attest to that .
His actions caused approx 30 million deaths . That equates to a lot of feeling, and rightly so .
I believe that anyone quoting Hitler is doing so knowing the affect that it will have and it is for that reason I would delete them .

As for the arguement of freedom of speech... With that freedom comes responsibility , the responsibility to use that freedom in a mature and sensible way taking into account the community that one lives in. So again quoting Hitler on a multi national , multicultural forum such as this is not exercising freedom of speech in a responsible manner . So again I would delete such posts.

[Unregistered]

As for the arguement of freedom of speech... With that freedom comes responsibility

And, of course, the logical way to have folks assume that responsibility is to outright deny them any ability to act (or not act) as individuals...

God, first thread I read in six months and I'm instantly reminded the many ways in which this place sucks.

Go ahead, delete that, too.

[matthew]

This reminds me of Usenet discussions in the 1990's and Godwin's Law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Frankly, Hitler was an evil, vile man who did atrocious things. The mere mention of his name ends all probablilty of sane and intelligent discussion continuing as the breakdown of all social interaction will be (nearly) immediate.

So, do I think the quote or even the mention of the name really violates the code of conduct? No. But any reference to Hitler will stop all discussion immediately regardless of the original topic.

For that reason I propose that there be no official reprimands issued or that sort of thing, but I also propose that we choose to use quotes that will prompt thought without provoking flamewars...in other words, I wouldn't censor you, but I would kindly request that you censor yourself or not be surprised when all hell breaks loose around you and your actual, valid input and points are ignored.

Final thought: from an artistic standpoint, if you were trying to provoke thought like a poet or performance artist might, the quote would be useful. That is something that is a bit beyond the scope and intent of these forums, though, so you probably want to save such thoughtful provokation for a more appropriate venue.

peace

[Unregistered]

This reminds me of Usenet discussions in the 1990's and Godwin's Law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Frankly, Hitler was an evil, vile man who did atrocious things. The mere mention of his name ends all probablilty of sane and intelligent discussion continuing as the breakdown of all social interaction will be (nearly) immediate.

So, do I think the quote or even the mention of the name really violates the code of conduct? No. But any reference to Hitler will stop all discussion immediately regardless of the original topic.

For that reason I propose that there be no official reprimands issued or that sort of thing, but I also propose that we choose to use quotes that will prompt thought without provoking flamewars...in other words, I wouldn't censor you, but I would kindly request that you censor yourself or not be surprised when all hell breaks loose around you and your actual, valid input and points are ignored.

Final thought: from an artistic standpoint, if you were trying to provoke thought like a poet or performance artist might, the quote would be useful. That is something that is a bit beyond the scope and intent of these forums, though, so you probably want to save such thoughtful provokation for a more appropriate venue.

peace


This is a good post IMHO. In particular, it seems to me that this bit:

"The mere mention of his name ends all probablilty of sane and intelligent discussion continuing as the breakdown of all social interaction will be (nearly) immediate."

Is the thoughtful response that I was looking for and didn't really see when I wrote my own responses to the originial thread.

I'm a pretty tolerant guy, but in a weird sort of way, I am intolerant of intolerant people (ha!, make sense of that if you can). However, I take the point that this is not a forum thats based, or needs to be based, on the tolerance of people to obvious social/historical pin pricks.

I sure hope that those folks who see red at the mere mention of the name of Hitler also find themselves suitably outraged when they see names like Alexander (the great!), Ghengis Khan, Bonaparte, bin Laden, Bush, etc etc.

Thanks for the post,
Craig

[moopere]

This is a good post IMHO. In particular, it seems to me that this bit:

"The mere mention of his name ends all probablilty of sane and intelligent discussion continuing as the breakdown of all social interaction will be (nearly) immediate."

Is the thoughtful response that I was looking for and didn't really see when I wrote my own responses to the originial thread.

I'm a pretty tolerant guy, but in a weird sort of way, I am intolerant of intolerant people (ha!, make sense of that if you can). However, I take the point that this is not a forum thats based, or needs to be based, on the tolerance of people to obvious social/historical pin pricks.

I sure hope that those folks who see red at the mere mention of the name of Hitler also find themselves suitably outraged when they see names like Alexander (the great!), Ghengis Khan, Bonaparte, bin Laden, Bush, etc etc.

Thanks for the post,
Craig


Damn I did it again, posted as 'unregistered'. Has something changed on the forums? Didn't it used to be essential to log in before you could post?

Anyway - I don't want to appear to be posting anonymously on this subject, please attribute the above to me.

Cheers,
Craig

[moopere]

In other words moopere, I was not going to bloat myself into a 4-6 paragraph of my thoughts on it. I don't need to express myself to show how I feel. The way I said it was short and simple. Freedom of speech is fine, but I don't see any point for "Myself" to prove a freedom of speech, I'm sorry if this pisses anyone off but I don't have to open my mouth to make everyone happy on my wording to show I am with this or against it.

To be honest, I am against the quote and don't like it at all. I'm leaving it at that, and no other words.

Thank You

Having your feelings felt, without explanation is fine, but you had better pony up an explanation if you're intending to censor someone as this snippet from your post above suggests you want to do:

"It is fully offensive and should be removed."

So the original post was offensive to you and you want to censor the original poster by removing his post?

Come on mate, a simple reponse would be fine, but censorship without any explanation is a police state mentality.

Best regards,
Craig

[matthew]

I sure hope that those folks who see red at the mere mention of the name of Hitler also find themselves suitably outraged when they see names like Alexander (the great!), Ghengis Khan, Bonaparte, bin Laden, Bush, etc etc.
Thanks for the kind words in the post this quote came from. As this is turning into an intelligent and beneficial sort of discussion I thought I would add that I have seen people fly of the handle at the mention of bin Laden and Bush (both liberals and conservatives, BTW). I think the others you mentioned don't get the outrage just because they are too far removed by time. I once had a close relative yell at me in vehement anger because I dared to suggest that the prison scandal at abou ghraib and the lack of trials for people being held at Guantanamo would end up hurting the cause of putting an end to terrorism far more than they would help. Some issues are so charged with emotion that it can be nearly impossible to have an intelligent, thoughtful discussion about them--especially with someone who has some sort of personal connection, either as a member of an oppressed people group or just a hurting, scared person unwilling to concede another person may have a point for fear that it will give them some sort of power over you. Anyway, I'm back to the "discuss controversial stuff in the proper place for it" argument again solely because chaos arises in public places when this rule of thumb is ignored. I'll argue/discuss/debate deep and controversial issues with anyone willing to do so, but I'm not willing to do it anymore with someone who has hurt, anger, bitterness or other emotional baggage clouding the discussion. It becomes a pointless exercise that ends in name-calling and never in actual mind-changing.

By the way, moopere, I thought your original post was clear, polite, and intelligently written. Since it in no way resembled flamebait I chose to participate in the thread. I'm glad I did.

[lerrup]

Umm, as someone whose post "slipped through" before the subject was rightly moved here I feel I should comment.

The point I made earlier is that quoting something in your sig. puts the quote automatically in a different position. It is assumed that you are agreeing and supporting the meaning of the quote and the person who is quoted. If I quote Darwin in my sig you are entitled to conclude that I am not a creationist. Likewise, if I quote the Bible it is fair to assume that I am a Christian.

Therefore, to quote a racist, fascist psychopath is bound to make the reader assume that there is support for the quoted. Before, I noted the irony that someone is doing so in a forum for an "OS" named "Humanity to All" in an African language. 24 hours later it still strikes me as either deliberately offensive, stupid or based on belief.

Should it be challenged? Yes it should. I don't want to live in a world that condones mass murder and denigration of the majority of the world's population by a few. Therefore, if someone brings it up, then there should be no surprise that it gains a reaction.

I am always confused therefore why the people who react are then criticised more than the supporters of fascism. It is not "political correctness gone mad" to wish to have a world that fosters and supports diversity and not a unity of views; it is what allows us to have our freedom of speech and this forum. For your information I would be against quotes of Stalin and Pol-pot.

The question is what to do about it? I would suggest that first we should be angry at the right people and find ways of sorting this out in the easiest way. In this case it seems easy - delete this sig. As far as I can see his comments are not questioned and so banning him would perhaps not be warranted at the moment. I would agree that a computer OS forum is not the proper place to discuss this, but then how did this all start?

Perhaps he should just quote Nietzsche.

[matthew]

lerrup--I didn't see your post on the other thread. You raise some valid points. Thanks.

BTW, I agree that Nietzsche would be a better quote source to make the same point.

[krusbjorn]

The point I made earlier is that quoting something in your sig. puts the quote automatically in a different position. It is assumed that you are agreeing and supporting the meaning of the quote and the person who is quoted. If I quote Darwin in my sig you are entitled to conclude that I am not a creationist. Likewise, if I quote the Bible it is fair to assume that I am a Christian.

I agree with what matthew said earlier, that quoting Hitler is a really bad move if you want the discussion to stay on topic and people to see your points. If you qoute Hitler, you should also understand that some people will be offended, and at least explain yourself so that people understand you're not nazi. It's kind of bad judgement not to include an explanation, but i dont think it should be cencored.

However, if i had seen that quote I would have assumed that the person in question was strongly disagreeing. I would also assume that the person was referring the quote to present happenings, in a way trying to say "Hey, look what happened back there, dont let it happen again. Dont you see the signs?". If course, this goes for quotes by Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Usama bin Laden, Slobodan Milosevic etc etc.

[Manny C]

Hitler has his equals in evil throughout history . However it has to be recognised that no person brings more emotion than Hitler. He is recent ,his affects are still felt by those living .I can personally attest to that .
His actions caused approx 30 million deaths .

Actually, Hitler killed about 6 million Jews plus another couple of million in the war. Stalin on the other hand killed 60 million. Yet Hitler causes more of a stir than Stalin. Now why is that? That is a serious question by the way...and I am in no way saying that you can say Stalin was better/worse than Hitler...they are as evil and despotic as each other.

The Turks killed 1.5 million Armenians, yet almost no-one knows about that. The Khmer Rouge killed about 2 million fellow country men, yet no-one seems to care about that.


That equates to a lot of feeling, and rightly so. I believe that anyone quoting Hitler is doing so knowing the affect that it will have and it is for that reason I would delete them .

I agree.


As for the arguement of freedom of speech... With that freedom comes responsibility , the responsibility to use that freedom in a mature and sensible way taking into account the community that one lives in.

I agree. I think the word you are looking for is liberty.


So again quoting Hitler on a multi national , multicultural forum such as this is not exercising freedom of speech in a responsible manner . So again I would delete such posts.

I don't think that quoting Hitler is productive nor helpful for other participants. If the guy quoting Hitler wanted to say "My will decides", but doesn't agree with Hitler, than he/she could just paraphrase that, and everything would ok. However, if quoting Hitler is intended to show Hitler support, then that is a bad move. However, censoring it is quite a superficial response. Yes, we should care for the sensitivities of our Jewish forum members, but I think we should be more concerned for the poster.

I am Aramaic/Armenian. I had a Turkish friend called the 1914-1915 genocide a "relocation". I did not froth at the mouth and demand he retract. Sure, I was upset, but not to the point where I wanted him smited.

Come on guys. A bit of care and tact on both sides. We are not kids (I think) ;)

[az]

Originally Posted by acascianelli

[snip to sig in question]

"My will decides." ~ Adolf Hitler.
A couple of other posts sneak through before Azz (supermoderator) asks for discussion to be moved from the originating thread to a new thread as seen below :


I was just going to congratulate the members of the thread for not letting this derail the discussion....

Anyway, the issue is resolved. The code of conduct says to be respectful towards others and quoting that name, while not agaist any laws, is disrespectful to some and so I censored it.



Anyway, I should be commending you on not banning or 'having words' with acascianelli the poster with the sig which started all this.

In my own way I'm now guilty of overreacting to Dannemil's overreaction to acascianelli :roll:

I look forward to a similar even handed response to anyone who finds offense at any sig attributable to anyone else who might be an 'offensive person' to them :wink: .

Cheers,
Craig


I immediately edited the sig and only remove Hitler's name, but left the quote, since in of itself, it is not offensive. I sent a Personal Message about this to discuss the issue. He answered me saying that he did hot realize the impact his signature would have. He chose to delete the whole quote. He said he was sorry.

This is how I dealt with the issue. I am opposed to censorship, but a violation of the code of conduct takes precedence until the original author can provide me with sufficient arguments otherwise. It is the best I can do to please everybody with the toold and the medium we have.

[rjwood]

Talk about a rock and a hard place. You handled it just right azzz.
I would though like to put another perspective on this.
It seems to me that what Hitler was saying is that he understands that he is fully responable for his actions and decisions.
What a horrible man!!!!!
And his quote is telling us that he knew what a vile human being he was. That is why his name should be attached to it.
Of course that is also why he had to kill himself!!! At least he made one humane decision..

[matthew]

azz, for what it's worth I know that was not one of the easier decisions and I think you handled it professionally and with grace. I also appreciate both moopere's and the original quote user's responses. This proves difficult things can be discussed and disagreements can happen and be resolved without erupting into childishness. Good job, guys.

[Deacon Nikolai]

This is true, many more depots like Pol-Pot and Stalin murdered more people than Hitler. I do think it si offensive if someone compares a current leader or situation to Hitler and Concentration Camps, but as a Russian Orthodox who have hear many stories of awful killings of people in Russian by Stalin, I am not not going to be offended over someone quoting Stalin.

These evil dictators did a lot of murdering, but each also did good things for their countries too. A name, to give credit to a quote, should not send people into a frenzy or into crying, "victim!", unless the quote is saying something like "Kill all (enter group of people here)".

There is freedom of speech in the rights given by the American Federal Rebuplic (IOW the gov't will not limit your speech outside of community standards) and there is no freedom from being annoyed, irritated, or offended. Nontheless, such a right as freedom of speech does not apply to a private forum, private business or any private property.

[uc50_ic4more]

It astounds me that there are those that honestly do not grasp the fact that relegating the evils and tragedies of the past (or, to an even greater extent, the present) into UNMENTIONABLE OBLIVION not only ushers us toward the repetition of history, but also ensures these words HAVE POWER *OVER* US. We are afraid to say words - WORDS, PEOPLE - for fear of (Heaven forbid) offending someone's sensibilities. It also strikes me as familiar to the methods of the man to which the original quote was attributed, no? I find that terribly offensive and disrepectful... Can we ban the users, then, that seek to restrict the language of others' signatures? They offend me, and that oppresive practice offends a considerable number of others, so they MUST GO.

Does it really, really, really create a better world for ourselves when people treat being offended as though it is the end of the world, or as though they have been given the right to never be offended? I find it embarassing that people's spines and intestinal fortitude is that lacking that they are unable to tolerate the views and actions of others. We are free to live our lives as we please - as long as you find it agreeable? What happens when someone finds fault with YOU?

Suck it up, Princesses... You and your world-saving/ controlling egos may find it futile to try to control and dictate to everyone, everywhere what they can and cannot say and do so as not to offend you.

I encourage everyone here to spend a few minutes researching information - NOT OPPRESSING IT - about these people. Read Mein Kampf (written by Adolf Hitler - There, I said it. I invoked the name of the benchmark against which all evil of our and several of the next generations is judged. Would the world be a better place if you forced me to STOP SAYING THINGS YOU DO NOT LIKE?)... Read about Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin. Only then will we be able to see them coming next time. (They usually start by telling people what they can and cannot say to restrict the open flow of information I am told... I think it helps to facilitate the institution of ONE RIGHT or something?)

Azz, this is a slippery, slippery slope. It will NOT stop with the names of people in signatures.

[jdong]

We are the official, Canonical-backed support community for Ubuntu. This corporate backing brings on requirements not typically associated with *nix/open-source communities.

We must enforce a welcoming environment as Canonical desires, both through interpretation of the Code of Conduct and the guidance/orders from our Canonical contacts.