Kristen, thanks for being transparent about something that has been going on behind the scenes for a couple years.
Do you think it is condescending to lump all people of a certain skin tone into a category that must be "protected" by enlightened white people? I mean, if we are going to have open, honest conversations about this type of thing, let's do it. Censorship isn't helping anyone. It's also not helpful to assume that people with slightly darker skin tone than yours are so fragile that they can't handle someone questioning Black Lives Matter Inc or pointing out the Scriptural errors found in Critical Race Theory.
If Black Lives Matter Inc is such a great organization, you should be able to defend it without relying on heavy-handed censorship. Ditto for Critical Race Theory. Many people (including many BRILLIANT people of color such as Candace Owens and Thomas Sowell) would question the theories of white privilege and systemic racism. Are you admitting that those theories are so weak that they cannot withstand any level of questioning?
Hi Kristen, while I appreciate your attempt to explain the new censorship policy, I don't think I'm alone when I say the explanations have muddied the waters even more.
It sounds like certain things will be absolutely prohibited. And most other things will be very subjective and arbitrary. Would you be able to add some clarification to the comment guidelines?
For example, you have indicated that no white commenters or authors on The Network will be allowed to question the theory of "white privilege" or the existence of widespread "systemic racism." Am I understanding that correctly? And is it only white people who are prohibited from doing this? Or would people of color also be prohibited from expressing those ideas?
You said that a diverse group will be moderating/censoring people's posts & comments on The Network. Were these moderators/censors chosen by Synod? Or by the Council of Delegates? Or by Colin & Mark? Who is on this group?
Again, I appreciate your attempts to explain this new policy. It's like the proverbial nail and Jell-O.
So, white people are allowed to talk about "white privilege" and "systemic racism," but only in a way that affirms the lived experiences (i.e. the thoughts and opinions) of a person of color?
Or asked more directly...the next time a brother or sister of mine in the CRC posts something on The Network supporting the theory of white privilege and lamenting the existence of systemic racism, I (as a white American of Polish decent) would NOT be allowed to express my viewpoint that both of those ideas (white privilege & systemic racism) are not compatible with Scripture and CRC teachings?
Thanks, Kristen. And thank you for wading in & taking on all the questions we conservatives have posed. I gather you were not the sole decision-maker in the new policy for The Network, nor even the loudest cheerleader for it. But you have been taking the figurative arrows on behalf of others who wanted it to happen. It shows the strength of your character and commitment to your job. Thanks again!
I am very glad that Mark Stephenson has joined this conversation, as it is very important to have the initiators of this new policy on board to explain it. Thank you, Mark!
Mark, could you please address 2 crucial aspects of this new policy:
(1) The "fear" factor.
(2) The "other" person of color factor.
I will explain them both in a little detail. The "fear" factor is this...Kristen, Colin Watson, and you (Mark) have all cited "fear" among people of color as justifying censorship of certain viewpoints. Specific example: I have had 2 articles on The Network censored because they supposedly caused "fear" in certain readers. But what was never addressed was WHO and WHAT the fearful readers were afraid of. Fear is not always a bad thing. Scripture tells us that the fear of Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Proverbs 9:10). So the mere existence of "fear" should not be enough to silence & censor your brother in Christ. Who are the readers fearful of? Are they fearful of me? Are they fearful of a different point of view on Critical Theory? What are they afraid is going to happen? Are they afraid that I will try to silence them? Just the opposite! We need to be careful that "fear" is not being used as an excuse to lord it over our brothers & sisters in Christ. Or attempt to bind each other's conscience.
So if you could address the specifics of this "fear" that is being used, I believe it would help us gain a better understanding of the situation.
The 2nd crucial aspect of this dialogue is the viewpoint of the "other" person of color. By that I mean people like Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, Martin Luther King, Clarence Thomas, Walter E. Williams, Star Parker, Kevin & Keith Hodge, Larry Elder, Candace Owens, Jesse Lee Peterson, etc. These people of color are saying the same things that are being written by CRCers of a more conservative mindset (like me and others who have commented here). This new policy that you have enacted for The Network implies that ALL people of color agree with Critical Theory, "white privilege," systemic racism, and the narrative that police killings of unarmed black people is a widespread and overwhelming occurance. Clearly all people of color do not agree with you.
Could you please address this 2nd issue as well? Your new policy seems to be saying that anyone who wishes to join in any discussions must first acknowledge and agree with certain aspects of Critical Theory, as a sort of admission fee to the conversation. Would you also censor the viewpoints of people of color who refuse to make those initial acknowledgements?
Realizing that your answers to these questions will require sufficient space, I would suggest that you write a standalone response and post it to The Network. I believe that would keep things better-organized.
Mark, thanks for your response. If I were talking to your friend, I would encourage them to post anyway. Certainly I and many other members of the CRC have not just "felt" a negative spirit from The Network...we have actually received it! But we can't let that stop us from engaging in dialogue and conversation with our brothers and sisters.
For example, you did not address either of my questions. I could interpret that as a negative spirit and be discouraged. OR, I could maintain an attitude of positive persistence, which is in line with Scripture, and ask again.
1) Fear. I was not the one who first referenced "fear" as a reason for censorship. Colin, Kristen, and you did so. You stated that you were compelled to censor my viewpoints becuase "some readers felt fear." When they expressed this fear to you, did they clarify who they were afraid of, and what they were afraid was going to happen?
2) "Other" people of color. Would the new policy on The Network exclude the viewpoints of people of color who question the narratives of white privilege, systemic racism, and police brutality?
Mark, I don't necessarily agree with all of the underlying ideas and assumptions of the theory of white privilege and systemic racism. But I definitely agree with the goal of preaching repentance and forgiveness for the sin of racism (by the shed blood of Jesus Christ), the goal of removing obstacles that prevent people of color from achieving their full potential, and the goal of ensuring equal justice.
When I read things like the article you have written, or pieces authored by other people of privilege who are already entrenched in positions of power, it is sometimes difficult to discern what specific actions or changes are being recommended (other than general agreement with the author's fundamental assertions, and an acknowledgement of the virtuous nature of those assertions).
What would you say are the TOP 3 CONCRETE ACTIONS that white members of the CRC should take to help bring about an end to white privilege and systemic racism, and make things right?
You're saying "white privilege" is undeniably true and exists all over the United States in obvious ways.
I'm saying that's a theory of yours, and it's a bad one.
So let's see if we can understand each other better. You reference banking as an area where someone is at a disadvantage simply because their skin is slightly darker brown than somone else's. I do not believe you are correct in that. So, could you please offer 1 example where that is the case in banking today in America.
Aha! Now we are getting somewhere. So there is no actual banking policy that looks at a person's skin tone and requires them to pay more for a loan. Instead, the OUTCOME of a particular activity (in this case, loans) appears unequal, thus the belief of White Privilege is that there must be some inherent racism in the system which causes the unequal outcome. Is that a fair summary?
Posted in: "Censorship" on The Network
Kristen, thanks for being transparent about something that has been going on behind the scenes for a couple years.
Do you think it is condescending to lump all people of a certain skin tone into a category that must be "protected" by enlightened white people? I mean, if we are going to have open, honest conversations about this type of thing, let's do it. Censorship isn't helping anyone. It's also not helpful to assume that people with slightly darker skin tone than yours are so fragile that they can't handle someone questioning Black Lives Matter Inc or pointing out the Scriptural errors found in Critical Race Theory.
If Black Lives Matter Inc is such a great organization, you should be able to defend it without relying on heavy-handed censorship. Ditto for Critical Race Theory. Many people (including many BRILLIANT people of color such as Candace Owens and Thomas Sowell) would question the theories of white privilege and systemic racism. Are you admitting that those theories are so weak that they cannot withstand any level of questioning?
Posted in: "Censorship" on The Network
Hi Kristen, while I appreciate your attempt to explain the new censorship policy, I don't think I'm alone when I say the explanations have muddied the waters even more.
It sounds like certain things will be absolutely prohibited. And most other things will be very subjective and arbitrary. Would you be able to add some clarification to the comment guidelines?
For example, you have indicated that no white commenters or authors on The Network will be allowed to question the theory of "white privilege" or the existence of widespread "systemic racism." Am I understanding that correctly? And is it only white people who are prohibited from doing this? Or would people of color also be prohibited from expressing those ideas?
You said that a diverse group will be moderating/censoring people's posts & comments on The Network. Were these moderators/censors chosen by Synod? Or by the Council of Delegates? Or by Colin & Mark? Who is on this group?
Posted in: "Censorship" on The Network
Again, I appreciate your attempts to explain this new policy. It's like the proverbial nail and Jell-O.
So, white people are allowed to talk about "white privilege" and "systemic racism," but only in a way that affirms the lived experiences (i.e. the thoughts and opinions) of a person of color?
Or asked more directly...the next time a brother or sister of mine in the CRC posts something on The Network supporting the theory of white privilege and lamenting the existence of systemic racism, I (as a white American of Polish decent) would NOT be allowed to express my viewpoint that both of those ideas (white privilege & systemic racism) are not compatible with Scripture and CRC teachings?
Posted in: "Censorship" on The Network
Thanks, Kristen. And thank you for wading in & taking on all the questions we conservatives have posed. I gather you were not the sole decision-maker in the new policy for The Network, nor even the loudest cheerleader for it. But you have been taking the figurative arrows on behalf of others who wanted it to happen. It shows the strength of your character and commitment to your job. Thanks again!
Posted in: "Censorship" on The Network
I am very glad that Mark Stephenson has joined this conversation, as it is very important to have the initiators of this new policy on board to explain it. Thank you, Mark!
Mark, could you please address 2 crucial aspects of this new policy:
(1) The "fear" factor.
(2) The "other" person of color factor.
I will explain them both in a little detail. The "fear" factor is this...Kristen, Colin Watson, and you (Mark) have all cited "fear" among people of color as justifying censorship of certain viewpoints. Specific example: I have had 2 articles on The Network censored because they supposedly caused "fear" in certain readers. But what was never addressed was WHO and WHAT the fearful readers were afraid of. Fear is not always a bad thing. Scripture tells us that the fear of Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Proverbs 9:10). So the mere existence of "fear" should not be enough to silence & censor your brother in Christ. Who are the readers fearful of? Are they fearful of me? Are they fearful of a different point of view on Critical Theory? What are they afraid is going to happen? Are they afraid that I will try to silence them? Just the opposite! We need to be careful that "fear" is not being used as an excuse to lord it over our brothers & sisters in Christ. Or attempt to bind each other's conscience.
So if you could address the specifics of this "fear" that is being used, I believe it would help us gain a better understanding of the situation.
The 2nd crucial aspect of this dialogue is the viewpoint of the "other" person of color. By that I mean people like Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, Martin Luther King, Clarence Thomas, Walter E. Williams, Star Parker, Kevin & Keith Hodge, Larry Elder, Candace Owens, Jesse Lee Peterson, etc. These people of color are saying the same things that are being written by CRCers of a more conservative mindset (like me and others who have commented here). This new policy that you have enacted for The Network implies that ALL people of color agree with Critical Theory, "white privilege," systemic racism, and the narrative that police killings of unarmed black people is a widespread and overwhelming occurance. Clearly all people of color do not agree with you.
Could you please address this 2nd issue as well? Your new policy seems to be saying that anyone who wishes to join in any discussions must first acknowledge and agree with certain aspects of Critical Theory, as a sort of admission fee to the conversation. Would you also censor the viewpoints of people of color who refuse to make those initial acknowledgements?
Realizing that your answers to these questions will require sufficient space, I would suggest that you write a standalone response and post it to The Network. I believe that would keep things better-organized.
Thanks.
Posted in: "Censorship" on The Network
Mark, thanks for your response. If I were talking to your friend, I would encourage them to post anyway. Certainly I and many other members of the CRC have not just "felt" a negative spirit from The Network...we have actually received it! But we can't let that stop us from engaging in dialogue and conversation with our brothers and sisters.
For example, you did not address either of my questions. I could interpret that as a negative spirit and be discouraged. OR, I could maintain an attitude of positive persistence, which is in line with Scripture, and ask again.
1) Fear. I was not the one who first referenced "fear" as a reason for censorship. Colin, Kristen, and you did so. You stated that you were compelled to censor my viewpoints becuase "some readers felt fear." When they expressed this fear to you, did they clarify who they were afraid of, and what they were afraid was going to happen?
2) "Other" people of color. Would the new policy on The Network exclude the viewpoints of people of color who question the narratives of white privilege, systemic racism, and police brutality?
Posted in: "Censorship" on The Network
I wonder if Elon Musk would be interested in buying The Network and opening it up again?
Posted in: Jeremiah's Prophetic Words for Justice and Renewal in Our Communities
Thank you, Tyler!
Posted in: We Must Not Go Back to Normal
Mark, I don't necessarily agree with all of the underlying ideas and assumptions of the theory of white privilege and systemic racism. But I definitely agree with the goal of preaching repentance and forgiveness for the sin of racism (by the shed blood of Jesus Christ), the goal of removing obstacles that prevent people of color from achieving their full potential, and the goal of ensuring equal justice.
When I read things like the article you have written, or pieces authored by other people of privilege who are already entrenched in positions of power, it is sometimes difficult to discern what specific actions or changes are being recommended (other than general agreement with the author's fundamental assertions, and an acknowledgement of the virtuous nature of those assertions).
What would you say are the TOP 3 CONCRETE ACTIONS that white members of the CRC should take to help bring about an end to white privilege and systemic racism, and make things right?
Posted in: We Must Not Go Back to Normal
You're saying "white privilege" is undeniably true and exists all over the United States in obvious ways.
I'm saying that's a theory of yours, and it's a bad one.
So let's see if we can understand each other better. You reference banking as an area where someone is at a disadvantage simply because their skin is slightly darker brown than somone else's. I do not believe you are correct in that. So, could you please offer 1 example where that is the case in banking today in America.
Posted in: We Must Not Go Back to Normal
Aha! Now we are getting somewhere. So there is no actual banking policy that looks at a person's skin tone and requires them to pay more for a loan. Instead, the OUTCOME of a particular activity (in this case, loans) appears unequal, thus the belief of White Privilege is that there must be some inherent racism in the system which causes the unequal outcome. Is that a fair summary?
Posted in: The Network Turns 10! Two Giveaways
Yum. Timbits!