Hi, Nick,
The need for the rule may have been TRIGGERED by the choices of a specific member, but are NOT meant merely to "target a specific member", but to decide whether a thing may be done in general or not.
If that is the intent then it should've been done with a spirit of consensus to try and work out among the active posters
including the member in question how TAW can accommodate a variety of political beliefs without allowing the endorsement of un-christian organisations. Instead an already-baked proposal that will very obviously (down to even a specific mention of logos and avatars in the proposal) result in the banning of that specific unpopular member was unveiled essentially for rubber stamping by an already willing majority. Forgive me but I feel I'm being asked to exercise extraordinary levels of naivete to accept that its all about generalities and the effect on this member is just happenstance. Particularly considering the vehemence we can see even on this thread that explicitly target this member by name.
But anyway its probably not profitable for me to speculate on motivations any further; I was merely expressing how I feel it looks from an outside perspective.
EDIT: I've been informed that this is in fact a CF-wide change and not TAW specific so I apologise and retract what I said above, although I still find the vehemence shown in this thread against the specific poster disturbing.
The issue of an avatar that is at once political and that is decidedly connected by a great many people with anti-Christian and anti-American acts in recent months and a definite, well-known, and well-funded organization that is open about its anti-Christian beliefs. WE have already proposed multiple ways that any member who believes in "systemic racism" could legitimately express that (though I think that it is unwise for any of us to use our avatars to make political statements) while completely disconnecting themselves from the evil associations. "Black lives are sacred, too" would do it; tell me why that is unacceptable. Adhering to the specific wording means insisting on the association, which is the whole problem.
And "trademarking" is irrelevant. Is the swastika trademarked? Is Che Guevara's image under copyright? The trouble with the lawyerly approach is that it ignores natural associations in people's minds. Setting aside the proposition that lawyers are not real people, people are not lawyers. If you fly a flag, we're not going to ask if you have a license for that. We're going to take it that you mean what the most well-known actors flying the flag have meant, and that you agree with and support them. We're not going to inquire into your articles of incorporation.
The trouble with talking about "disagreeing" and "other voices" and "variety of opinion" is that flying a flag connected to evil action and belief constitutes supporting it. It means countenancing the actions and beliefs by effective silence (where is one going to fit loud disclaimers on that same flag disassociating them from the evil?). It is trying to serve two masters. Riots are bad. Anarchy is bad. Sexual anarchy is bad. It ought to be as plain as a pig in a poke that we must not appear to support such things. That's why we have to forbid an avatar of the Ku Klux Klan or Guevara. There is no room for disagreement, or other voices, or a variety of opinion. Guevara or Communist supporters ostensibly desire good things; they hate particular evils created under capitalism and desire to end them. But despite the good intentions of many, the leadership has consistently shown their commitment to evil ends. So it is with BLM. Many people of good intention and will who hate racial injustice and desire to help end it. Their good intentions are irrelevant to what is actually done loudly and with great fanfare in their name. That's why there's no room for it.
This is how it seems
to you, but it is important to realise that others do not make this association. I have many friends, both Christians and non-Christians, who are vocally supportive of the broader Black Lives Matter movement and I had never even heard that there was such a thing as a "BLM organisation" until I came onto this forum. Much less that such an organisation held anti-christian views. The associations that you and other posters who share the same political opinions as you have on this matter might seem entirely "natural" to you but as several posters have stated they are not "natural" to others. Refusing to specify and simply relying on the "natural" instinct of a certain like-minded group will only have the effect of silencing those outside of that group since they will likely find themselves under frequent accusations for not having the same "natural" repulsion against certain phrases.
This is in fact quite similar to the political correctness we see damaging public life these days. Vague, yet seemingly sensible, rules are put into place forbidding something everyone can agree is bad, but precisely because of their vagueness they can easily be used to accuse any opinion that the majority disagree with. It should not be that simply because
I associate something with un-christian beliefs I can call on the mods to get it banned- there should be clearly set out objective criteria that everyone can conform to. I only mentioned trademarks because that is the wording already used in the proposal but even just something like "any slogan used in an official publication by said group" would be much better than a very vague term like "supports". Or even just saying "any reference to the recent protests must be accompanied by a specific disclaimer disavowing support for this specific group".
If there is a specific vision behind this proposal as to what phrases do or do not have "evil associations" (as you have given examples of in this thread) then this should be explicit in the wording of the rule itself so those who do not happen to share your specific knowledge of what does or does not have certain associations do not unintentionally get themselves into trouble with the mods. I should be able to comfortably have a discussion about my views on the wider discussion about systematic racism without having to constantly second guess what associations others might make with my words that I do not. Simply adding clarity on specifically what phrases/opinion/images are intended by this rule count as "support for the BLM organisation" avoids this and allows discussion to continue.
It's FINE to be against racial injustice, especially if you have been racially unjust yourself. Joseph Pearce was a white supremacist advocating violence against minorities who did prison time, met Chesterton, became Catholic, and now blasts white supremacism. But protesting against an attitude in people's hearts is vain. There is sin in our own hearts. Protesting a specific injustice is NOT vain. You can hope to achieve justice. But when you do protest against something specific (and a huge portion even of people who peacefully protest are protesting against a general attitude and avoid being specific) you have to be sure you are disassociated from those openly doing and advocating evil. A refusal to do that IS to associate yourself with them. Claiming that you are not is as silly as a person flying a swastika denying connection to the Nazis. If, say, a violent organization arose to combat abortion using known logos or symbolism, and I adopted that symbolism because I think abortion the one political issue on which there is no doubt - immediate abolition is the only answer, I would be just as guilty, however right I am to hate abortion.
I don't have a problem with demanding disassociation. I am simply saying define what this entails. For example I would not think its problematic or association with evil to say:
"While I certainly disagree with the anti-Christian agendas that the "official" BLM organisation and its affiliates promote, I am pleased that so many people have come out around the world to express their opposition with racism and hope that this movement carries forward into a lasting change against systemic racism in our society, as indeed it already is in some places with regards to law enforcement."
However it is unclear to me whether such a statement would fall foul of the new rule, since while I have disavowed the official organisation I am still supportive of the wider protests which technically they are a part of. If I am simply being paranoid then I apologise, but this is exactly my concern with this kind of vagueness.
