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.
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.
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.
Hi, Nick,
You're something of an outsider, an admitted lurker. I've been active here for fifteen years. You really don't know what we've tried to do in the past to achieve consensus, attempts at private communication ignored or spurned. You are wrongly assuming that none of those attempts ever happened.
There are both religious and secular reasons to oppose what BLM is leading, and its defenders are willingly following.
On the religious side, the apostle Paul said that meat was OK, but he wouldn't eat it if it causes his brother to stumble. What does one do if something that might have at one time been OK now causes people to stumble left and right, and someone refuses to stop causing it? And I shouldn't have to say anything about sexual anarchy, but what do you do when a member says that opposing sexual sin is not Orthodox teaching, something that BLM promotes?
On the secular side, that you didn't know that there is an organization uniting and using the people you DO know is an issue of... not knowing about it. There's a Latin word for that.
That you do not see the deadly danger of the swift tearing down of the nation from promoting racial divides is another matter. A nation collapsed into anarchy or the totalitarianism that is sure to follow cannot fight racism. You will fail even in your own aims. In seeking to do good, you can destroy what you love.
You guys don't seem to see that racism is SIN. Why in the heck aren't you out there marching against sin? Why is there no national movement "Holiness matters"? It is actually not intelligent to protest racism in the abstract, or to accuse an entire race of being guilty of it with terms like "white privilege", "systemic racism" (refusing to define what "the system" is in any meaningful way) - it is in fact itself racist, it's just racism in reverse. People in my time understood that; it was called "reverse racism", plain and simple, expressed by "the Black Panthers" and we knew it was twisted logic then, too. But the point is, you can protest actual and specific injustices - as long as justice was not being done (which was a matter of...hours? A few days on the outside?) it was right to protest. But beyond that, you have to take things on a case-by-case basis. Preaching about "white privilege" (an idiotic concept - the idiotism is obvious to all peoples living outside the United States; it is NATURAL for a local majority to be treated as the norm, and courtesy is NOT a privilege, but normal behavior expected everywhere) and other blanket accusations turns potential allies into enemies. This ought to be as obvious as the sunrise on a clear day.
So do you have a right to be a patsy for the organization that is using you if you want to, because you believe you'll somehow defeat racism that way? It's foolish, and thoughtless. Martin Luther King did what BLM will never do - he refused to blame all whites for the sins of some, and did not demand "apologies" from people who never did anything wrong. BLM spits on King's legacy, and says, "Throwing the racism charges in reverse will stop racism!". When the nation is threatened with immediate danger and imminent collapse, there is no room for toleration of the opinions that are bringing that collapse on. That's the secular side. On both sides, backing BLM is very short-sighted and not well thought-out. It is mainly a right sentiment hating racial injustice turned to evil ends by those who know how to use your righteous anger in a bad way.