It all depends on the context. When Peter Sellers reinforced negative stereotypes about Indians in the Party, it is arguable out of bounds and offensive. When Russell Peters or Chris Rock does it is not.

It is a very complex and subtle situation. I've worked in comedian and human rights law, and honestly my views are too subtle to communicate here.

The most important thing to consider is context. I think comedy should not and never purports to be taken seriously. This does not mean it cannot be hurtful.

I know you said what you said sincerely.

Well, I tried. Think I'll just stick to typing quote.

Thanks Susan. You have hit on a weak point of mine. I don't like arguments, and my daughter has even called me a people pleaser., especially when I sense any kind of futility in the exercise. (My daughter is a lawyer, grin grin and spends much time in data mining, or evidence finding, something which I am most pleased about leaving to her, grin grin).

These comments, as they are being 'allowed to be' posted on Strange Notions, will obviously be read by Brandon, and are not being deleted. That in itself gives me some 'hope' that there is some 'hope' in this whole exercise, and if it is a matter of conscience. that the 'evidence' is available and no party, particularly Brandon, is in relation to these ongoing developments, 'in the dark'.

Firstly, in matters of judicial proceedings, I must let you know of a particular bias of mine. It does fatigue me to constantly hear cries for evidence with respect to dialogue concerning faith issues. This, to my understanding is indeed a futile issue, and an emphasis that is misplaced. We speak of 'empirical evidence, for a 'reason'. Faith based statements are in contrast to concepts available to the 'understanding', metaphysical/supernatural concepts call them what you will. The only empirical evidence possible I would suggest would be the appearance of 'miracles', which could be described as faith based evidences which conform not to our mundane empirical realities, but to idealities, whether these be hallucinatory or 'real'.

But an 'apologetics' on this issue would take many many posts, and even then the possibility would be 'unbelievable' to a confirmed atheist. I simply feel that it is the case of the atheist flogging a 'dead horse' issue, although this is not saying that Catholicism, or indeed religion, or God, is 'dead'. Are there not other avenues of dissent that could produce more productive dialogues, and in which the quest is for more understanding. Empirical evidence should be directed towards 'testing' hypothesis within a particular scientific methodology which cannot incorporate all aspects of human life, as for example literature, art, etc. etc. as well as religion. The horse 'neighs'.

So it is with evidences regarding very often 'personal matters'. My original statements concerning 'warnings' goes back a long time, to the first purge. As in that case which I remember particularly well, the impetus was as I understand. to limit comments of a derogatory nature and I must assume that this is the continued motivation although I agree that there is 'no evidence' that public statements directed to individuals continues in this mater. You have given ample illustrations of your dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs, which means that the main question is whether or not this is a prevention of 'freedom of speech'. But I am not the person to adjudicate this controversy, as I have not even taken the time to 'read the guidelines' of what is 'allowed' to be spoken within the rules that govern discourse on this site.

It does seem though, that the matter is one of 'winning the argument'. In this case, too, there is questions possibly as to why the debate continues, and I do not want to speculate on all possible reasons why the atheist does not want to give up the cause. It could even be construed as complimentary to Brandon and the 'Catholic' (but not universal) situation this represents.that there is such a need to continue the protestations.

I do 'believe' you. It is indeed highly possible that Brandon has taken upon himself an idealized purpose of erasing from the annals of history all remarks that detract from making Strange Notions a paradigm of polite conversation. If recent tactics have indeed undermined the purvue of reason, it would i will again assert, be a matter of conscience, as to whether the 'evangelical' purposes of this blog maintain the ancient tradition of martyrdom in the cause of 'spreading the word'. But I suggest that the issue revolves around the characteristics of tone rather than content, and the futility of continuing to demand 'empirical' evidence for matters that are not 'scientific'
. I do not want to be a mediator in this regard, but in a posting which is directed towards the establishment of charity through the use of humor, I have already addressed this aspect of the dilemma in another combox. There is a sense in which all can be construed as 'evidence': every action, word and thought we take in the immediacy of the 'now'. But that would be 'evidence' within the broader context of 'final judgment' that is a religious rather than the 'scientific' paradigm of 'truth'. .In that context, I trust that this matter of conscience will be addressed by all, Brandon as well as your 'selves'. I regret that I cannot server as the 'Paraclete' in this matter.

Peace.

Hi Loreen,

I know you said what you said sincerely.

I simply must conclude that 'warnings' occur on an individual level, and are not made public

I see no reason to conclude that. The facts seem to indicate that everyone banned except for Amos and Solange (both banned very recently)received no final warning, or any sort of warning that would seem to justify their banning.

Another fact is that there was a huge overnight purge (the third, I believe) in which a month's worth of the purged's comments were deleted and Brandon claimed that was an accident, when Disqus doesn't work that way.

There is no reason to accept Brandon's statement on the subject when at least a dozen others agree unanimously that his statement is false and when Brandon refused to produce a speck of evidence when asked repeatedly to do so.

I know you mean well. I'm just suggesting that you not "assure" people that warnings were issued when they almost certainly weren't and you have no good reason to state that they were.

In either case, it is very difficult to come up with absolutely convincing evidence

I know you were being nice and would never willfully misrepresent things You're very nice. But if you think about it, why do you believe that people were warned? The evidence overwhelmingly suggest that they weren't and no evidence that they were has been produced.

I am sick of the subject but I can't stand a successful error.
I'm astonished how quickly untruths become accepted as truths if they are repeated often enough.

It's important that we remain vigilant or reason goes out the window.

I have been introduced to 'Outshine the Sun', although from a personal perspective I do not feel I have the energy to succeed in such a task. I simply must conclude that 'warnings' occur on an individual level, and are not made public, as they used to be many moons ago. I do believe in both empirical evidence and testimony of a witness however; the first being most important in scientific endeavors and the latter relevant more, I suggest, to religion. I can only hope that these differences can somehow be resolved. If not, perhaps I can visit you on occasion for as I have expressed I personally find estranged notions can be as interesting as those that are merely strange. In either case, it is very difficult to come up with absolutely convincing evidence. One has to rely on one's own judgment, and simply follow the 'rules of the game'. Namaste.

I assure you that there has generally been a warning, indeed several, before persons have been banned from the site.

Hi Loreen. I can assure you there has not. Lately, some final warnings have been issued but for most of the history of this site, that was not the case. Recently, Amos and Solange were banned and both had received final warnings. I have been issued a final warning. Those are on the record. The rest are made up out of whole cloth.
There are at least a dozen people out there who were banned who were given no final warning by their reports, people I have never known to lie. I've been here since the beginning and saw no final warning in a single case.
I know that's the story you were given repeatedly by Brandon but there was no evidence, just his word against at least a dozen intelligent, highly educated, thoughtful and honest people with no evidence to support it.

Ah Elson. I suspect now that you have been exploring many different religious philosophies/beliefs. I am with you there, in what you say. I trust this venture into humor shows that it is not only the argument that is important. That's all. And as you say, Namaste.

Thank you for encouraging us all to follow the "middle way"....as you seem to be setting the example. I suppose we could all try being a little less testy. and a bit more sensitive to the feelings of others....without kowtowing to one another. We still have to be real of course.
Namaste.

As I haven't seen it, I'll have to take your word for it (although I have heard about the big heartedness of "Derek" from other sources). Maybe you can answer this, but a perusal of episode summaries doesn't seem to show any mention of religious themes. Is Ricky capable of a humourous take on religion that isn't simply part of his regular dickish atheist persona?
"I honestly don't care if comedy builds comraderie or not" - I'm hoping you don't mean this as an approval of jokes at the expense of one particular group or individual (ie racist or sexist jokes). If it is not, then in fact there is an aspect of building camaraderie important to the craft. A comedian who tells jokes about the difference between men and women but only disparages women, is not as good of a comedian as one who touches a shared experience.

Laughter as a way to soften disagreement or insult in matters of religious debate is all well and good, but it requires a shared understanding and ability to laugh at oneself first. Ricky Gervais (and in my opinion many atheists these days) seem to lack those traits. This is not to say that theists always do a better job at it.

Have a look at Gervais series called "Derek" and you can see an example of his compassion.

I honestly don't care if comedy builds comraderie or not. It should make you laugh and if it does, great. If not, ignore it.