# Censorship



## pappabee (Jun 22, 2010)

Censorship is a word that has been used a lot on this site recently. Just so we're all on the same page. 
Censorship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please understand that this is all my opinion.

Deleting posts that are in direct violation of the site rules is not censorship but managing the site. Saying that the poster is a fool and should be banned is breaking the rules and deserves to be deleted. That is not censorship but again just following the rules of the site. No one but the mods have the ability to delete posts. So no poster can censor someone else. Saying that you don't like what someone else has posted is not censorship but a statement of opinion. Saying that what was posted is incorrect and citing something to try to prove it is not censoring but the right of each poster to try to insure that facts are being posted and that opinions are labeled as such.

In many cases I've seen newbees have posts deleted only because they didn't understand the rules. I've also seen (and has happened to me) that us old farts get deleted because we become so engrossed in the thread that we forget what we are posting.

BUT, in no case is any of this censorship.


----------



## Ken Wood (Oct 22, 2011)

pappabee said:


> Censorship is a word that has been used a lot on this site recently. Just so we're all on the same page.
> Censorship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Please understand that this is all my opinion.
> ...


I agree that censorship, by definition, can be applied only by the mods, but, kind of like "what the definition of is "is", it is sometimes easy to hide behind a dictionary. To post an alternate opinion here is healthy and is why the forum exists, but to simply say that another's post, that they evidently put a lot of thought into, is without value and should not be here, is actually a form of virtual censorship. It is an effort to prevent then from posting what they feel is important information.


----------



## RPBHaas (Dec 21, 2011)

Ken Wood said:


> , but, kind of like "what the definition of is ".


Slick Willie! Gotta love him. To me, one of those "Where were you?" moments.


----------



## xabiaxica (Jun 23, 2009)

Ken Wood said:


> I agree that censorship, by definition, can be applied only by the mods, but, kind of like "what the definition of is "is", it is sometimes easy to hide behind a dictionary. To post an alternate opinion here is healthy and is why the forum exists, but to simply say that another's post, that they evidently put a lot of thought into, is without value and should not be here, is actually a form of virtual censorship. It is an effort to prevent then from posting what they feel is important information.


as mods, the only form of 'censorship' or editing or deleting of posts, that we do, is if the post contains info which is against the rules of the site

that might be sneaky, or even plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face advertising or touting for business

it might be insulting, racist, inflammatory or encouraging something illegal

none of which, I am sure you would agree, is 'censorship' by any definition

we _never _delete posts simply because we believe the info they contain is incorrect or which we don't agree with - that _would _be censorship

we would simply post that we don't agree, or post the correct info


----------



## pappabee (Jun 22, 2010)

xabiachica said:


> as mods, the only form of 'censorship' or editing or deleting of posts, that we do, is if the post contains info which is against the rules of the site
> 
> that might be sneaky, or even plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face advertising or touting for business
> 
> ...


Exactly, I never said that posts that I don't agree with have no value. Even totally incorrect posts have the value of showing just what ideas are out there. 

My reason for this thread was to show that there is NO censorship on this site just a requirement that we all follow the rules. All of us have the right to post what we feel and give our opinions of what we think. None of us have the right to tell someone else that they can not post something. If it breaks the rules then that's the job for the MODs.


----------



## pappabee (Jun 22, 2010)

Ken Wood said:


> I agree that censorship, by definition, can be applied only by the mods, but, kind of like "what the definition of is "is", it is sometimes easy to hide behind a dictionary. To post an alternate opinion here is healthy and is why the forum exists, but to simply say that another's post, that they evidently put a lot of thought into, is without value and should not be here, is actually a form of virtual censorship. It is an effort to prevent then from posting what they feel is important information.


I must take offense to your comment about saying that someone's post is "without value". No place did I say that nor did I infer that. 

Please when you quote or say that I said something be sure that you are correct. I didn't say it, nor did I mean it so therefor don't say that I did. Right here you have posted something that is completely incorrect, how do you suggest that I go about saying that without saying that you're wrong? 

I encourage "alternate opinions" they are the foundation of much conversation, so please do post opinions just make sure that they are not covered in a supposed quote.

If this whole thing makes no sense then blame my doctor.!!!!!!


----------



## RVGRINGO (May 16, 2007)

"Just the facts, Ma'am, just the facts"
Facts are hard to argue with, but that seems to be changing as education systems falter.
Opinions are the realm of religions, where nothing is provable and arguments abound without end. Amen.


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

Websites are private businesses to which we are invited to be participants provided we adhere to the site owner’s terms of participation, and we have no “right” to be here beyond that. Our participation is an extended courtesy. Site owners through their managers / moderators have the right to limit the content of what’s posted at their discretion and becomes the owner of what we post after we post it. More or less. If we disagree with the management / moderation of the forums we can take our ball, our bat and play the game elsewhere. We can start our own websites and forums, where we’re King of the Hill. This is not a democratic process; something many people fail to recognize.

My observation over the years has been that online communities comprised of mostly “regular” participants form and in their own loosely-knit standards which can be more restrictive than what the website owner has established. More often than not it’s done as an expression of the majority. At other times it’s done at the behest / enforcement of the most dominant / assertive of the individual regular participants. Provided conflict doesn’t arise, the mangers / moderators and site owners tend to let things be. Self-regulation.

I’ve further observed that this self-regulation oftentimes results in forms of censorship imposed or which are sought to be imposed by the majority/dominant personalities and evidenced by attempts to control the information and ideas posted and discussed. There are online communities where the adherence to a shared social code is a fact of life. We might describe that as censorship through consensus (by the dominant and/or most frequent participants). 

Infrequent participants typically will not know how to discern where the boundaries of expression are, and where they might be interfered with - objected to - in a consensus situation. 

In Ancient Rome freedom of speech was reserved for those in positions of authority. The poets Ovid and Juvenal were both banished, and authors of seditious writings were punished severely. The emperor Nero deported his critics and burned their books. And I don’t think the world functions much differently today. Those in power tend to decide, or attempt to decide, what the rest of us can say … how and when.

I’m no stranger to web forums. Particularly not forums which focus on Mexico. Though my time here has been short. There’s a cross-pollination / cross-participation linking most of the Mexico forums. People who post here can most likely be found regularly posting on other forums. The discussions which arise here are oftentimes similar to discussions posted across the span of the Mexico-specific forums. So we’ve discussed many of these issues over and over and over and during that process of reading through the many comments we’ve formed some opinions on the most frequently talked about things. 

Then someone comes along who is either new to the forum or is an infrequent poster or is someone who doesn’t spend as much time on these forums as some of us do, the regulars, and posts information or asks a question we’ve made our decisions about previously and now don’t want to discuss it further. We’re worn-out on the topic. 

That’s when I observe that censorship through consensus arises. Here on this forum. The most assertive in the group proclaim an issue has been talked about enough, or it’s unimportant, or they deflect a comment they don’t agree with by veering off-topic and even personally criticizing / attacking the poster. When someone lacks a thoughtful response to what’s been said then attack the messenger. These attempts to cut-off discussion are forms of intimidation, bullying and I believe they result in censorship. Mob rule. They’re inappropriate. Who wants to participate in a community where freedom of expression (within the guidelines established by the website owner) is looked upon as a bad thing? Nothing will render a forum useless as quickly as a cut-off of it’s life-blood … participation by a wide-range of persons who will engage us in a broad range of ideas and opinions.

Each of us should sit back and reflect on our participation here and elsewhere and determine if our behavior is appropriate so that the broader community flourishes.

Thank you.


----------



## Ken Wood (Oct 22, 2011)

pappabee said:


> I must take offense to your comment about saying that someone's post is "without value". No place did I say that nor did I infer that.
> 
> Please when you quote or say that I said something be sure that you are correct. I didn't say it, nor did I mean it so therefor don't say that I did. Right here you have posted something that is completely incorrect, how do you suggest that I go about saying that without saying that you're wrong?
> 
> ...


I assumed (yes, I know) that we both knew where this came from. From your post, I thought you were referring to the security thread of a few days ago and my response referred to the same. Re-reading my post, I cannot see exactly why you thought I was quoting you, but, this is a forum for entertainment/education/enlightenment, etc, it is not something that elevates to the level of real life concerns. As such, I apologize that I have created a situation where you felt offended.


----------



## xabiaxica (Jun 23, 2009)

Ken Wood said:


> I assumed (yes, I know) that we both knew where this came from. From your post, I thought you were referring to the security thread of a few days ago and my response referred to the same. Re-reading my post, I cannot see exactly why you thought I was quoting you, but, this is a forum for entertainment/education/enlightenment, etc, *]it is not something that elevates to the level of real life concerns.* As such, I apologize that I have created a situation where you felt offended.


isn't it?


----------



## Ken Wood (Oct 22, 2011)

xabiachica said:


> isn't it?


Gee, tough morning...in my opinion, forums are not on the same level as family health issues, employment issues, marital issues, foreclosures, etc. Can they shed light on such issues ? Of course, but, as an entity, they fall short. Of course, this is an opinion that I would not try to push on to someone who is a forumeer. And, a quick note regarding your earlier reply, I didn't say that mods practice censorship, my statement was that they are the only ones capable. Obviously, I don't spend enough time polishing my comments, but life is too short.


----------



## xabiaxica (Jun 23, 2009)

Ken Wood said:


> Gee, tough morning...in my opinion, forums are not on the same level as family health issues, employment issues, marital issues, foreclosures, etc. Can they shed light on such issues ? Of course, but, as an entity, they fall short. Of course, this is an opinion that I would not try to push on to someone who is a forumeer. And, a quick note regarding your earlier reply, I didn't say that mods practice censorship, my statement was that they are the only ones capable. Obviously, I don't spend enough time polishing my comments, but life is too short.


yes, I know you didn't say we DO censor, just that we could - & I _hope _none of us actually do, because that's not what we're here for

what I meant with my quote, was that the forum can *deal with* real life concerns, not that it is as important as real life concerns for most people


----------



## pappabee (Jun 22, 2010)

Ken Wood said:


> I assumed (yes, I know) that we both knew where this came from. From your post, I thought you were referring to the security thread of a few days ago and my response referred to the same. Re-reading my post, I cannot see exactly why you thought I was quoting you, but, this is a forum for entertainment/education/enlightenment, etc, it is not something that elevates to the level of real life concerns. As such, I apologize that I have created a situation where you felt offended.


All things forgotten, thank you for your post.


----------



## ExpatPumpkin (May 30, 2010)

xabiachica said:


> as mods, the only form of 'censorship' or editing or deleting of posts, that we do, is if the post contains info which is against the rules of the site
> 
> that might be sneaky, or even plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face advertising or touting for business
> 
> ...


I believe a more accurate statement would be "we _no longer_ delete posts simply because we believe the info they contain is incorrect or which we don't agree with..."

If you have any questions, you're welcome to send me a private message. But to say that it's never happened is simply untrue.

By the way, the only reason that I'm responding to this post is not to fan the flames but because I personally used the word censorship. Because that's exactly what happened to me.


----------



## FHBOY (Jun 15, 2010)

*My Two Cents*

An opinion is the statement of a persons belief or feeling, as such it is neither correct nor incorrect. When that opinion is placed on the table it becomes open to disagreement by people with other opinions. The first opinion is not, and should not be, an inroad to personal attack. That is just impolite. You can opine that the sky is brown (and over LA and Denver you'd be right), but the rebuttal of that opinion is a verifiable fact. (Now we can discuss the source of "facts" but the sun is out, it is a beautiful day and we all have better things to do.) But, if you drew your opinion of the color of the sky perhaps while you were wearing sunglasses in a building with tinted windows, you'd be absolutely correct. In that case, what you saw became your POV = opinion, and you weren't wrong, just color blind maybe.

The question is how do we, as a group, express opinions and counter opinions. That, in my opinion, is the crux of the matter. Again I sound like a broken record, there are ways to disagree without being disagreeable. There is a way, after the argument (not as assertion fight, but an argument) is over that the participants can "live to fight another day" without injury, without malice. I have disagreed recently with both RPBhaas and Longford in my threads, I still have the greatest respect for both of them, it is nothing personal it is their ideas that I may disagree with. To have either of them, for example, disappear from this forum would be a loss, just like anyone else.

Saying this, and the whole legal profession is built on it, a person with a very strong argument (not assertion) can intimidate and "chase away" and opponent. In the court system that is so the case can be won. But here, we have nothing at stake (except ego), what is to be gained by beating another person into submission just because their opinion is not yours?

Close with a anecdote: many years ago I worker for Wes Clark for President (as a volunteer). I was traveling to an event with another volunteer, he was a Vietnam War vet, I had been active in the student movements against the war. We sat a talked for an hour, I did not agree with me on my opinions, nor I with his, but we found common ground enough and our arguments were respectful enough that we worked to together to try and accomplish a common goal (which we didn't).

That is what we are striving for here, civility. Now as to passive censorship, yeah it can happen, but it appears that one only cries foul when the injured party's arguments are refuted by other intelligent arguments. That is not censorship, that is being out argued. Remember I define argument quite differently than the current usage - I assume most of you do also. Go back to the sky is brown example...should that person have cried "Censorship!"? Of course not, but the majority of discussants would have found his opinion generally false and crushed under the burden of proof.

Look, people. what we do here is supposed to be fun - whether it is quips and jokes, information dissemination and even lively discussions - and for the most part it is because we stick to the stated rules and the the generally accepted rules of courtesy, the unwritten rules we have agreed upon as a group. 

Hey, I've taken up enough of your time, go out and play!!!


----------



## Longford (May 25, 2012)

FHBOY said:


> Now as to passive censorship, yeah it can happen, but it appears that one only cries foul when the injured party's arguments are refuted by other intelligent arguments.


And who is to be the arbitor of what constitutes an "intelligent argument"? The person who asks about or comments, for example, on the very real problem of crime in parts of Mexico, or the responder who says it's time to move on and stop discussing the matter because the entire issue has been blown out of proportion by the "media" or that the issue has been discussed enough (for them)? Just because a person shouting the loudest to the rest that we "move on" or a majority of "regulars" wants to shut-down a conversation doesn't make those actions correct. Those aren't "intelligent arguments." Not on a fourm where the public has been invited by the owner to discuss topics regarding Mexico and expats. 

Thanks.


----------



## pappabee (Jun 22, 2010)

Longford said:


> And who is to be the arbitor of what constitutes an "intelligent argument"? The person who asks about or comments, for example, on the very real problem of crime in parts of Mexico, or the responder who says it's time to move on and stop discussing the matter because the entire issue has been blown out of proportion by the "media" or that the issue has been discussed enough (for them)? Just because a person shouting the loudest to the rest that we "move on" or a majority of "regulars" wants to shut-down a conversation doesn't make those actions correct. Those aren't "intelligent arguments." Not on a fourm where the public has been invited by the owner to discuss topics regarding Mexico and expats.
> 
> Thanks.


I'm sorry but this post makes very little sense to me. The quoted post was regarding someone who has become upset because something they said has been countered by another post. That's all. Your comment regarding who is going to arbitrate means that there is an argument. That's not necessarily the case. Can you not be shown that you were wrong with out having to have an argument? Or are you the person (like my father) who may not always be right but he's never wrong?

Repeating the same comment or just re-phrasing it ten different times could cause most people to say ENOUGH. And what constitutes "intelligent arguments" to me might not be the same to you. But that's just my opinion. I don't care what site I'm on. 

I'm very confused by your recent posts. Some of them are very to the point and have some great information and some of them are almost insulting. [deleted]


----------



## FHBOY (Jun 15, 2010)

Longford said:


> And who is to be the arbitor of what constitutes an "intelligent argument"? The person who asks about or comments, for example, on the very real problem of crime in parts of Mexico, or the responder who says it's time to move on and stop discussing the matter because the entire issue has been blown out of proportion by the "media" or that the issue has been discussed enough (for them)? Just because a person shouting the loudest to the rest that we "move on" or a majority of "regulars" wants to shut-down a conversation doesn't make those actions correct. Those aren't "intelligent arguments." Not on a fourm where the public has been invited by the owner to discuss topics regarding Mexico and expats.
> 
> Thanks.


No "regular" can shut down an argument. They can refuse to participate any further giving a reason, but that does not shut the argument down. If others find that they agree and no longer respond, then it is de facto shut down by consensus, but none of that has anything to do with censorship nor courtesy. The only "arbiter" is the consensus of the group assuming no posting rules are violated.


----------



## Detailman (Aug 27, 2011)

Ken Wood said:


> Gee, tough morning...*in my opinion, forums are not on the same level as family health issues, employment issues, marital issues, foreclosures, etc. Can they shed light on such issues ? Of course, but, as an entity, they fall short. *Of course, this is an opinion that I would not try to push on to someone who is a forumeer. And, a quick note regarding your earlier reply, I didn't say that mods practice censorship, my statement was that they are the only ones capable. Obviously, I don't spend enough time polishing my comments, but life is too short.


There are many reasons people come to Mexico. In the last number of years some are considering the move because their homes in the US or other countries have been foreclosed on, they see no opportunity of retaining their jobs or have already lost their jobs. Others have watched their life savings being decimated by the financial turmoil or other factors. Still others have been under so much pressure from the above they have experienced a deterioration of their health (both physical and mental). Some have experienced separation or divorce because of the above problems. Some of these people look to Mexico as a possible answer due to what they can rent or buy in parts of Mexico, the reduced cost of living, the more relaxed lifestyle that Mexico offers along with the reduced pressure from separating themselves from the bad memories of seeing their hopes for a secure and happy retirement fade away in their home countries.

So I would not lessen the importance of this forum in "life issues." Members have been and are dealing with family health issues (and the lack of/or the cost of health care in their home countries, employment issues, marital issues, foreclosures, etc.

Can we shed light on some of these issues. Yes, we can and we have. Despite their trepidation of relocating from their home countries they are willing to give it a try but they have questions. What are the first steps? How do you get a visa? What are the requirements? What is the cost? What is the medical care like and what does it cost? Are there good schools for my kids? Is the food safe? Reasonable? Can I get some items that I might be familiar with? Which route would you suggest I take? Should I bring my furniture or buy new stuff? Thousands of questions and every one of them very important to those that are considering what might be their first major out of country move.

So to some this forum might be a fun thing rather than watching TV. Or it might be slightly informative if one feels they already have most of the answers. Or it might be an opportunity to hone their argumentative skills or show their ability to razzle and dazzle with words. Whatever!! 

But to others this forum is like a life line. To them it is the best thing they have come across. (That was my case. Better than a number of books I first read.) They value it and cherish the fact that they found it. May all of us remember what it means to so many and provide the information and encouragement they need. And let us continue to encourage and commend those that have already made the move hoping that they maintain their course and contribute to others that are following in their footsteps.

As it states at the top of the forum: Mexico Expat Forum for Expats Living in Mexico.
 
And I believe it is understood that it would also be for those that *"want to be expats living in Mexico."*

Difference of opinions? Some debating?Arguing two sides of an issue? Challenging statements of others? Correcting others? Jesting?

All fine and good AS LONG AS WE DON'T LOSE SITE OF THE OVERALL GOAL because if we do that we going to go off track and miss one of the basic purposes of this forum which is to inform, help and encourage each other as expats.


----------



## mickisue1 (Mar 10, 2012)

The goals of a forum are, to my mind, the crux of the matter. This is a forum for those who live, or would live, as expats to discuss issues of daily life, the grand and the prosaic both.

There is another expat forum with the same general goals where, in the Ecuador forum, there is now a conspiracy theorist spouting antisemitic propaganda, and shouting "freedom of speech" when proven incorrect.

Why the Mods there have not banned, or at the least, warned, him, I have no idea.

Conspiracies are enough off topic to ban, but the hate speech should be a no brainer.

If one wants to call such actions on the part of Admins and Mods "censorship", so be it.

If one wants to call other posters objecting to such appallingly inhuman speech "censorship," so be it.

There is a saying in the US, "Your right to swing your arm ends at my face." The same goes, in any forum, on any topic: your right to say what you feel like saying ends when it harms me (or another poster). Disagreements, arguments about the usefulness of discussions, etc, all fall within the boundaries of reasonable people agreeing to disagree.

Personal attacks, attacks on race, religion (or lack thereof) gender or sexual orientation are not reasonable, nor should they be protected, by law or by forum management. From what I've seen so far, the management here has an exceptionally good handle on the differences between the two areas.


----------



## FHBOY (Jun 15, 2010)

Can we sum up the general tone of this FORUM as "maturity", not implying that it comes with age, but comes with experience? Just look at the length of the posts here, they exceed the one and two liners when there is a opinion or hint or such. It takes brains and maturity to put together more than two sentences.

In life we can choose our friends and acquaintances, and it seems that we have chosen them here. And like in life we will not always agree on everything (if we did one of us does not have a brain...but I digress) but we seem to agree that we all have "worth" otherwise we could choose the option to leave. Yes, there are those who have left, but I cannot say it was because of what I have seen posted in the almost two years here. The words and phrases that appear on "debating" blogs are absent here.

This is why I choose to stay.

[Although I may get disgusted at the thread on the Ecuador forum, can some one point to the thread title? I find I can learn from bad examples as well as from good ones.]


----------



## Detailman (Aug 27, 2011)

fhboy said:


> can we sum up the general tone of this forum as "maturity", not implying that it comes with age, but comes with experience? Just look at the length of the posts here, they exceed the one and two liners when there is a opinion or hint or such. It takes brains and maturity to put together more than two sentences.
> 
> In life we can choose our friends and acquaintances, and it seems that we have chosen them here. And like in life we will not always agree on everything (if we did one of us does not have a brain...but i digress) but we seem to agree that we all have "worth" otherwise we could choose the option to leave. Yes, there are those who have left, but i cannot say it was because of what i have seen posted in the almost two years here. The words and phrases that appear on "debating" blogs are absent here.
> 
> ...


+1

d


----------

