# Who Are The Brain Police?



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

In case you didn't know, the thread title was lifted from a famous Mothers song from their 1966 debut, Freak Out.

But I am also asking the question in regards to this forum. Why was the religion in secular society thread closed? There is a lot of interesting discussion and ideas going back and forth there, and why do the forum police close threads here? Is there a threshold that cannot be crossed concerning topics and ideas expressed? I didn't notice any personal attacks, so what's the problem?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I was a bit surprised myself. For awhile I thought the discussion would get out of hand, but it stayed contained and there were quite a few interesting issues. I just assumed that it was a preemptive attack, but the hopefully the moderators will enlighten us.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

What would you do if the people you knewwwwwww
Were the plastic that melted and the chromium toooooooooooo


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I think it went off topic quite a bit. I did as well, I wasn't strictly on topic. We were not really talking to the interview you posted with Alain de Botton. It was becoming too general. But I agree, there was minimum nastiness there compared to similar threads we've had. & I liked the way you did the opening post, which is just open it up for discussion, not put your own spin on things. Maybe the mods are worried, we've had a number of trainwreck threads about two or so weeks ago, & I can understand if they don't want that to happen in the least, it caused a big stink.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

I'd like to express the utmost respect for our moderators and their decisions. They have been patient, reading tons of posts before making their decisions, always expressing their reasons with even temperament and clarity. I do hope that the provocative title and basic thrust of the OP, doesn't invite impiety in this thread. Of course, I empathize as well with the confusion of some of our members here.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Off-topic is only a problem when the topic is religion or politics. 

However, there are a religion discussion group and a politics discussion group, essentially unmoderated, and it seems the deal is we're not supposed to discuss those topics here, though the moderators don't want to say it like that. So they let the threads go awhile, and then lock them. 

The instructions on this sub-forum explicitly say not to discuss anything serious, and though I can't resist jumping into a serious discussion or two, I try to abide by that rule. 

Even now I'm pretty sure that this post is a violation of some rule and I'm going to get a warning, but hopefully my "warning status" thing has enough room for one more. But I should say that this forum is a much better place to hang out than the more loosely moderated forums that I've seen. (Please don't ban me, mods! I'm trying to be good!)


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^Things like religion, politics and also eg. sexual preference are really private things. I find it odd a bit to discuss them with anonymous people over the internet. So I think I try to keep that in mind. Would I say a certain thing in real life? If the answer is no, then I don't say it, or at least try to reword it to make it acceptable to a wide variety of people.

But there will always be taboos and boundaries with these things especially. I know people in reality who I know not to say what I think or feel to be true. But with others, I am fine, I can be myself. Problem is, on the net, you are exposing your opinions to many people, and some of those at least will not be happy with your opinion. It's not like the private spheres of our lives, that's what I'm getting at. & I think the mods know this when deciding to lock a topic.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Of course we can barely even admit to liking Vivaldi, Bach, Mozart, a Viennese waltz, Schoenberg, Glass, Stockhausen, or eRikm without getting verbally assaulted, so there are problems enough without moral or spiritual discussions. I don't know. When the era of video posting arrives, we will probably be less vicious to each other. Of course that will only mean that the underlying problems--the scramble for status and power, the need to legitimize our ambitions--will be more effectively sublimated, as in normal conversation.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

science said:


> ...When the era of video posting arrives, we will probably be less vicious to each other. Of course that will only mean that the underlying problems--the scramble for status and power, the need to legitimize our ambitions--will be more effectively sublimated, as in normal conversation.


I would just keep text posting in that case. I'm a near Luddite for one thing.

But your phrase _normal conversation _is the key here for me. If someone asks me a question in real life, I can do a number of things. eg. I can say I don't know the answer now, I'll find out and get back to you. I can ask questions to further clarify your question. I can ask why you are asking the question. I can say I don't know, but I can get you onto someone who might know. I can answer off the top of my head, and say I'm doing that. These are possible options, there are many more.

Thing is, on those trainwreck threads of about two weeks back, what was happening was people veering to far away from the original question/s of the OP. Or coming back, half a dozen or more times to try to convince the other person they're wrong, etc. (see my new signature below by the very witty Oscar Levant). If you don't agree, just say it in one or two posts. I don't see the point of doing 6 or in the case of one member near 12 posts to ram home a point. Claim some type of moral high ground in being open minded, then constantly pick at the words a person chooses to use, very pedantic. I've just had a gutful of that and it appears a number of people have voted with their feet.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Sid James said:


> I would just keep text posting in that case. I'm a near Luddite for one thing.
> 
> But your phrase _normal conversation _is the key here for me. If someone asks me a question in real life, I can do a number of things. eg. I can say I don't know the answer now, I'll find out and get back to you. I can ask questions to further clarify your question. I can ask why you are asking the question. I can say I don't know, but I can get you onto someone who might know. I can answer off the top of my head, and say I'm doing that. These are possible options, there are many more.
> 
> Thing is, on those trainwreck threads of about two weeks back, what was happening was people veering to far away from the original question/s of the OP. Or coming back, half a dozen or more times to try to convince the other person they're wrong, etc. (see my new signature below by the very witty Oscar Levant). If you don't agree, just say it in one or two posts. I don't see the point of doing 6 or in the case of one member near 12 posts to ram home a point. Claim some type of moral high ground in being open minded, then constantly pick at the words a person chooses to use, very pedantic. I've just had a gutful of that and it appears a number of people have voted with their feet.


Are you talking about the "modern music" discussions?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Things were starting to get personal. _ Poley_'s mind control plan was criticized, causing verbal spasms, and there were other sources of heat. I do believe that the thread was closed at _the precisely necessary moment._

:devil:


----------



## Guest (Apr 12, 2012)

In response to the original question . . .


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Well I still think it's kind of wimpy to have these rigid rules and guidelines. What is this? Grade school?


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

starthrower said:


> Well I still think it's kind of wimpy to have these rigid rules and regulations.


Rufus Wainwright


----------



## Guest (Apr 12, 2012)

starthrower said:


> Well I still think it's kind of wimpy to have these rigid rules and guidelines. What is this? Grade school?


No, this is an online forum that is maintained by the efforts and money of others who have decided that they will set rules of decorum and conduct in order to maintain a certain standard of discussion and make it as welcoming a place as possible.

Quite to the contrary, I don't view this as wimpy. I think wimpy would be to just let everything slide and not police at all. Think of all the grief the moderators take in policing the forum, and the backlash they get whenever anything is shut down - setting up rules and consistently applying them is not easy work. I often feel a pang of guilt for my part in making their jobs that much harder. They play the same role as the ref in a boxing match - they try to keep the fight clean and above the belt. Sometimes they have to step in, and ultimately somebody is always guaranteed to not like the call they made. But nobody wants to take their place as the ref.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I think it's right that the moderators do a hard job and that they have to make decisions that some people won't like, but I've seen worse threads than the one in question continue, and think it was really unnecessary in this instance. I don't remember seeing anything untoward (except _Hilly's_ brain-melting rubbish :tiphat: ). The idea of a separate group where we are not so hardly moderated is good, and I have posted there, but, really, if I want to have a discussion about something, I'd like for more members than science and DrMike to read it, and it's not often that anyone else is looking at the groups.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

OK, they've got their rules. But I don't see what they found offensive about the thread in question? It was an interesting give and take of ideas and opinions. I expected the thread to peter out after a few pages, but people were passionate about the topic. Ideas were presented and attacked, shot down, debated, but their was no personal mudslinging.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I never bothered to check, but is this a British site? Maybe they needed an extra tea break?


----------



## Guest (Apr 12, 2012)

I believe the owner is in the Netherlands, but not 100% certain.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

starthrower said:


> I never bothered to check, but is this a British site? Maybe they needed an extra tea break?


We _can_ multitask, you know!


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

starthrower said:


> I never bothered to check, but is this a British site? Maybe they needed an extra tea break?


Moderators please close this thread and severely reprimand starthrower for such a disgusting remark.

I don't even drink tea.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> I don't remember seeing anything untoward (except _Hilly's_ brain-melting rubbish :tiphat: ).


'Rubbish is in the nose of the sniffer.' (old wise saying - well, maybe it's a paraphrase). Your proposal stank of *1984* or *Brave New World*, or maybe both; it's been a few decades since I read them.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> 'Rubbish is in the nose of the sniffer.' (old wise saying - well, maybe it's a paraphrase). Your proposal stank of *1984* or *Brave New World*, or maybe both; it's been a few decades since I read them.


Hilly, for goodness' sake! I don't know what you read, but I actually didn't propose _anything_. I promoted secularism - that well-known foundation of U.S. politics - and I said I'd get rid of racism and other harmful ways of thinking. Now, just because I used the words "stamp out" does not give your imagination licence to go imagining that I'd have people punished for thinking certain things. Unlike many religious conservatives, I would _never_ legislate thoughts and speech - but you'd know that if you actually took the time to ask me how I'd implement such things instead of jumping to conclusions based on absolutely nothing.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Hilly, for goodness' sake! I don't know what you read, but I actually didn't propose _anything_. I promoted secularism - that well-known foundation of U.S. politics - and I said I'd get rid of racism and other harmful ways of thinking. Now, just because I used the words "stamp out" does not give your imagination licence to go imagining that I'd have people punished for thinking certain things. Unlike many religious conservatives, I would _never_ legislate thoughts and speech - but you'd know that if you actually took the time to ask me how I'd implement such things instead of jumping to conclusions based on absolutely nothing.


Personally, as I am about to convert to Christianity, I feel oppressed just by the thought that you are planning to grind my fellow theists and I to dust under your steel heel.

Your total lack of political power at present assures me not at all. When you have triumphed and begin the torturing and executions, I beg only for the mercy of being shot summarily, and having my family informed that I died from a rare, potent, and incurable form of ironic hilarity.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Lukecash12 said:


> I'd like to express the utmost respect for our moderators and their decisions. They have been patient, reading tons of posts before making their decisions, always expressing their reasons with even temperament and clarity. I do hope that the provocative title and basic thrust of the OP, doesn't invite impiety in this thread. Of course, I empathize as well with the confusion of some of our members here.


Impiety ? That sounds like a term from the Inquisition, you have to believe in religion to think something is impious don't you??


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Hilly, for goodness' sake! I don't know what you read, but I actually didn't propose _anything_. I promoted secularism - that well-known foundation of U.S. politics - and I said I'd get rid of racism and other harmful ways of thinking. Now, just because I used the words "stamp out" does not give your imagination licence to go imagining that I'd have people punished for thinking certain things. Unlike many religious conservatives, I would _never_ legislate thoughts and speech - but you'd know that if you actually took the time to ask me how I'd implement such things instead of jumping to conclusions based on absolutely nothing.


Your posts are engraved in granite now (according to TC policy), even if we cant see them now. Seems like - as I recollect - In *Brave New World* the 'corrections' are imbedded in the social fabric, whereas in _1984_ they are still a work in progress. Your "harmful ways of thinking" are not amenable to gentle correction; the spin doctors haven't developed their science that far - yet. Jackboots, rifle butts, black helicopters and more must be employed. The churches, temples and mosques must be leveled, priests and rabbis must bleed. Even then, the scourge of Religion will remain in the minds of the dastardly Believers; a pogrom, the Pogrom of Pogroms, must ensue. Only then will the human race be purified.

Sorry, I can't wish you good luck with that.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Your posts are engraved in granite now (according to TC policy), even if we cant see them now. Seems like - as I recollect - In *Brave New World* the 'corrections' are imbedded in the social fabric, whereas in _1984_ they are still a work in progress. Your "harmful ways of thinking" are not amenable to gentle correction; the spin doctors haven't developed their science that far - yet. Jackboots, rifle butts, black helicopters and more must be employed. The churches, temples and mosques must be leveled, priests and rabbis must bleed. Even then, the scourge of Religion will remain in the minds of the dastardly Believers; a pogrom, the Pogrom of Pogroms, must ensue. Only then will the human race be purified.
> 
> Sorry, I can't wish you good luck with that.


Yes, _obviously_ anyone who hopes to defeat bad ideas through good argument must end by breaking dissidents on the wheel.

Even more obviously, the principle of charity does not apply to Polednice. If he says he wants to eliminate an idea, what he must mean is that he hopes to disembowel heretics. Heck, it's in line with the rest of his principles anyway.


----------



## Guest (Apr 12, 2012)

What of where that idea is written down? How would we eliminate ideas that have been printed? We have, for example, some fairly egregious examples of anti-semitism put down in ink - Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Definitely hateful ideas in those. How would we eliminate those? Or what about religious texts - the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Torah, etc. So long as those texts remain, you will always have the possibility that someone may pick them up and accept their ideas. I'm not accusing anybody of anything here - I want to know how one would propose to eliminate such ideas without resorting to extreme measures. See, religious individuals often are blasted for their belief in unrealistic things, but some of the biggest proponents of unrealistic utopias are atheists, thinking they can generate uniform thought that will completely be void of anything they believe to be harmful. Religious individuals are content to let you have choices and accept the consequences of your actions. Atheists, at least the ones chiming in here, seem to want to completely eliminate in our minds the choices of how to think - presumably in the most kindly and loving way they can conceive.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Your posts are engraved in granite now (according to TC policy), even if we cant see them now. Seems like - as I recollect - In *Brave New World* the 'corrections' are imbedded in the social fabric, whereas in _1984_ they are still a work in progress. Your "harmful ways of thinking" are not amenable to gentle correction; the spin doctors haven't developed their science that far - yet. Jackboots, rifle butts, black helicopters and more must be employed. The churches, temples and mosques must be leveled, priests and rabbis must bleed. Even then, the scourge of Religion will remain in the minds of the dastardly Believers; a pogrom, the Pogrom of Pogroms, must ensue. Only then will the human race be purified.


I clicked "like" on that, not because I want to get involved in this dispute--but because, although Sid James and I both had some thoughts about the difference between the societies depicted in the two books, this strikes me as ALMOST as valid an interpretation as mine.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

DrMike said:


> What of where that idea is written down? How would we eliminate ideas that have been printed? We have, for example, some fairly egregious examples of anti-semitism put down in ink - Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Definitely hateful ideas in those. How would we eliminate those? Or what about religious texts - the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Torah, etc. So long as those texts remain, you will always have the possibility that someone may pick them up and accept their ideas. I'm not accusing anybody of anything here - I want to know how one would propose to eliminate such ideas without resorting to extreme measures. See, religious individuals often are blasted for their belief in unrealistic things, but some of the biggest proponents of unrealistic utopias are atheists, thinking they can generate uniform thought that will completely be void of anything they believe to be harmful. Religious individuals are content to let you have choices and accept the consequences of your actions. Atheists, at least the ones chiming in here, seem to want to completely eliminate in our minds the choices of how to think - presumably in the most kindly and loving way they can conceive.


I hope you're recycling those straw men for later use. It'd be a shame to waste all that effort.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Polednice said:


> harmful ways of thinking


Clear your mind and read this a few times.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

DrMike said:


> What of where that idea is written down? How would we eliminate ideas that have been printed? We have, for example, some fairly egregious examples of anti-semitism put down in ink - Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Definitely hateful ideas in those. How would we eliminate those? Or what about religious texts - the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Torah, etc. So long as those texts remain, you will always have the possibility that someone may pick them up and accept their ideas. I'm not accusing anybody of anything here - I want to know how one would propose to eliminate such ideas without resorting to extreme measures. See, religious individuals often are blasted for their belief in unrealistic things, but some of the biggest proponents of unrealistic utopias are atheists, thinking they can generate uniform thought that will completely be void of anything they believe to be harmful. * Religious individuals are content to let you have choices and accept the consequences of your actions. Atheists, at least the ones chiming in here, seem to want to completely eliminate in our minds the choices of how to think -* presumably in the most kindly and loving way they can conceive.


Yeah and Christians want people to get 'treatment' for acting in a way that doesn't conform to God's law.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/12/anti-gay-adverts-boris-johnson?fb=optOut


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

DrMike said:


> Atheists, at least the ones chiming in here, seem to want to completely eliminate in our minds the choices of how to think - presumably in the most kindly and loving way they can conceive.


Personally, I'm an atheist, but I don't expect everybody else to be one. I'm a secularist. I have no interest whatsoever in any form of mind control. All I ask for is that church is kept separate from state in the political arena.

It has to be that way, for democracy to work. Secularism protects everyone's beliefs, not just mine.

Is the concept of secularism so difficult to grasp, you guys? Or will you only start to miss it once you've lost it?


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

DrMike said:


> Atheists, at least the ones chiming in here, seem to want to completely eliminate in our minds the choices of how to think


By "choices of how to think" what you really mean is the choice _not _ to think.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

As far as I can tell people are missing the general idea here. You don't need to eliminate ideas completely, and of course, that would be impossible. Consider slavery. Two thousand years ago people generally thought slavery was not only fine, but that some individuals were innately slaves. Slavery continued to exist, but over time the idea that certain people are innately slaves has pretty much ceased to exist. Today in most countries slavery is _extremely_ rare, and furthermore, almost no one talks about slavery as anything but barbaric. The _idea_ still exists, but society has changed enormously such that overwhelmingly slavery is considered bad, undesirable, and criminal.

Slavery as a practice has essentially been eliminated from the US, Europe, and many other countries. Most of us believe that is wonderful progress. Hopefully most of us want to continue to change views such that slavery ceases to exist altogether. The change in slavery had _nothing_ to do with practices discussed in Brave New World or 1984. People were educated and _came to choose_ the absence of slavery over slavery. My understanding is that Polednice is advocating that approach.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

science said:


> Are you talking about the "modern music" discussions?


Yes. Words/phrases like modern or contemporary music, or atonal music, etc. seem like a red rag to a bull to some people here. So do these non musical things -eg. religion, politics, etc. It's coming to the stage of me censoring myself. Eg. in my Easter 2012 thread last week, I made great pains not to make my opening post too religious. Which sounds a bit paradoxical given the subject. However, I did genuinely want to invite everyone to respond, religious or not. But I could have posted an image of Christ riding to Jerusalem on a donkey, since I did a spiel about donkeys. But again, I thought it would be like red rag to a bull, so desisted.

Re the thing of secularism & religion, they are not incompatible. They both just have to be moderate. There are laws that prevent people stepping outside the mark.

Attempts to ban religion or stomp it out have ended up as disasters or basically in killing sprees. I discussed that in relation to various dictators of 20th century on that other thread, as well as other things like the anti-clerical extremism that emerged during the French Revolution.

Also, I talked of the strong social justice component of many religions, incl. Christianity. Eg. re the ending of slavery, a Christian did a good deal to end that in Africa - "Dr. Livingstone, I presume?"

To end, a phrase attributed to Stalin, the ultimate reason why things that on paper look good can end up being horrible in reality -

_"You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs." _


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

The only religion we need is Scriabin.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Philip said:


> Rufus Wainwright


I like the sidebends.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

moody said:


> Impiety ? That sounds like a term from the Inquisition, you have to believe in religion to think something is impious don't you??


No sir, you don't. Filial piety and religious piety are just examples of piety. What piety is, is reverential respect. It comes from the Latin term _pietas_, which essentially means "dutifulness". Our moderators are in a position that demands a certain amount of respect and reverence. I don't mean reverence in anything of a worshipful or religious sense, I mean reverence as in a mix of obedience, respect, and admiration.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

We've veered a long way from the topic matter, here...


starthrower said:


> But I am also asking the question in regards to this forum. Why was the religion in secular society thread closed? There is a lot of interesting discussion and ideas going back and forth there, and why do the forum police close threads here? Is there a threshold that cannot be crossed concerning topics and ideas expressed? I didn't notice any personal attacks, so what's the problem?


To answer the question, the thread was "closed pending review." Lots of posts have been made from the underlying assumption that the thread cited was to be permanently closed. Believe us, if we wanted a thread to be permanently closed, we'd tell you (e.g.: *this one*). Sometimes, we close a thread "for repairs" and it stays closed, not through any malign intention but through simple oversight.

Here again, linked for your convenience, are the Forum Guidelines & Terms of Service. The guideline we wish to cite for specific focus is


> Be polite to your fellow members. If you disagree with them, please state your opinion in a »civil« and respectful manner. This applies to all communication taking place on talkclassical.com, whether by means of posts, private messages, and visitor messages.


 Once this topic careened inevitably off-course, "civil and respectful" went out the window, again.

If we can add a personal note, we'd like to thank those contributors who had kind words for the Moderation & Administration Team. We'd also like to thank those contributors who followed the Guidelines concerning complaints about users and posts being addressed via Private Messages.

(To add my own individual perspective, as "Chi_townPhilly" and speaking strictly for myself)... the vast bulk of the time, serving in Moderation & Administration is a pleasure. I enjoy reading many of the posts from our broad spectrum of contributors. It's also significant that I serve on a Moderation and Administration Team that contains a "Baker's-Half-Dozen" active members from five countries and five time zones. I daresay that we have the most diverse (in a good way) Leadership Team in the entire Classical Music Message Board Community. This diversity comes with some ramifications, one of which is that betimes, we'll take some time to discuss issues before coming to a resolution. It's not a good arrangement for those accustomed to instant gratification. Boards that have one "Sayer-of-the-Law" will render decisions much more quickly. However, in this format, only one perspective will be considered- the perspective of the autocrat.

I like the way we do things here better- even if it means that we have to appeal for patience from our users, sometimes.

As always, all of us staffers can be accessed via Private Message, if there are any further questions concerning Moderation & Administration issues.

[This thread is closed...]


----------

