On 1/7/2015 1:41 PM, [email protected] wrote:
(Ben Kerensa said):
That being said as an atheist I disagree with much of what Gerv
posts but at the same time I welcome him being able to share a
glimpse into his life even if it is heavily Christian content.
Maybe I am a little old school but the reason Planet's exists is
not to promote content related to the project... If you think this
is the case you are very much mistaken.
I don't think posting heavily Christian content is the problem. Gerv
may do that whenever he feels the desire to do it, as long as he's
unobtrusive about it. But it doesn't look that way. Saying "all other
religions are false" is not unobtrusive.
I'm curious why you are singling out Gerv here, when Ben's comment "as
an atheist" could certainly be interpreted as "all other religions are
false". Doesn't belief in no God mean that you believe that those who
believe in God have false beliefs? Would you have us ban the word
"atheist" because someone might get offended that Ben thinks their
religion is false? Or is the offense only if Ben points out the logical
conclusions of his belief, namely the Gerv harbors false beliefs?
My point is not to criticize Ben, but to point out that limits on
stating what you believe are always very subject to the biases of those
doing the censoring. One hundred years ago Ben's comment would have been
more likely to be considered offensive than whatever you fear an
uncensored Gerv might say.
I second Ben's statement:
"Can we please not try to make our little corner of the web less open by
restricting views shared to whatever the most vocal thinks is
politically correct for Planet?
TL;DR Why can't we agree to disagree on topics and page down instead of
censoring individual views of Mozillians."
:rkent
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
