Some people just want a place to exchange ideas not being censored, without being flooded by crypto-Nazis who want to make everything about the nefarious Joooz.
The bad drives out the good, because very few people will want to join a forum where most people are whining about an ethnic group, and not intelligently at that.
Some people just want a place to exchange ideas not being censored, without being flooded by crypto-Nazis who want to make everything about the nefarious Joooz.
That is self defeating. If you want a place where you aren't censored then that implies that no one is censored- otherwise you are censored but its okay somehow because you didn't want to express those ideas anyway. And as an example on the Jew hate subject where do you draw the line? I don't hate Jews. I don't think Jews deserve hate. But I do notice. I'm a bit of a noticer. On which side of noticing do you draw the line?
If you want a place where you aren't censored then that implies that no one is censored
I would like that. The problem is that any place that allows free speech, attracts a significant contingent of the 'dregs of society' who are not allowed to express their views in any other place. They swarm any free speech community and wreck it with their BS.
If they were not swarming such places and trying to dominate them, or trying to turn them int recruiting stations/another Stormfront, there would not be a problem.
We live in the world there is, not in the world we wish to have. And the reality is that no one wants to post in a place where 80% of users blame the Jews for everything. So you can either commit suicide to stick to ossified principle, or you can argue that principle is not a suicide pact. And I am firmly of the latter. (I'd have a much greater objection if these people had anything of value to contribute, which is almost never the case. It's constant meme'ing, insinuation, and generic nonsense, almost no intelligent argument to see.)
And as an example on the Jew hate subject where do you draw the line? I don't hate Jews. I don't think Jews deserve hate. But I do notice. I'm a bit of a noticer.
I think we all know that Jews are over-represented among 'problematic' people. That doesn't mean that any thread where someone has a Jewish name has to be made a discussion about how nefarious Jews are, or with BS like 'oy vey' and 'STOP NOTICING THINGS'.
If you want to create an intelligent thread to have a discussion about it, that is of course always welcome. But the abovementioned BS just ruins a forum.
I'm finding it difficult to argue since I made basically the same argument in the lolbertarian thread. I would drop the idea of "ideas not being censored" thing altogether because it isn't what you want, and you may be right not to want it, but saying you want it when you don't is going to make it hard to formulate a real plan. You can't get what you want if you don't admit to yourself what you want. Do you ever read Curtis Yarvin? He's just wrote an essay that seems relevant to the conversation https://graymirror.substack.com/p/censorship-a-21st-century-approach .
TL;DR; I want a progressive version of reddit but like the 90s version of progressive not the 20s version of progressive.
looooooooooool, he's the pebbleyeet "the democrats are the real transphobes" comic.
I don't see that at all.
Some people just want a place to exchange ideas not being censored, without being flooded by crypto-Nazis who want to make everything about the nefarious Joooz.
The bad drives out the good, because very few people will want to join a forum where most people are whining about an ethnic group, and not intelligently at that.
That is self defeating. If you want a place where you aren't censored then that implies that no one is censored- otherwise you are censored but its okay somehow because you didn't want to express those ideas anyway. And as an example on the Jew hate subject where do you draw the line? I don't hate Jews. I don't think Jews deserve hate. But I do notice. I'm a bit of a noticer. On which side of noticing do you draw the line?
I would like that. The problem is that any place that allows free speech, attracts a significant contingent of the 'dregs of society' who are not allowed to express their views in any other place. They swarm any free speech community and wreck it with their BS.
If they were not swarming such places and trying to dominate them, or trying to turn them int recruiting stations/another Stormfront, there would not be a problem.
We live in the world there is, not in the world we wish to have. And the reality is that no one wants to post in a place where 80% of users blame the Jews for everything. So you can either commit suicide to stick to ossified principle, or you can argue that principle is not a suicide pact. And I am firmly of the latter. (I'd have a much greater objection if these people had anything of value to contribute, which is almost never the case. It's constant meme'ing, insinuation, and generic nonsense, almost no intelligent argument to see.)
I think we all know that Jews are over-represented among 'problematic' people. That doesn't mean that any thread where someone has a Jewish name has to be made a discussion about how nefarious Jews are, or with BS like 'oy vey' and 'STOP NOTICING THINGS'.
If you want to create an intelligent thread to have a discussion about it, that is of course always welcome. But the abovementioned BS just ruins a forum.
I'm finding it difficult to argue since I made basically the same argument in the lolbertarian thread. I would drop the idea of "ideas not being censored" thing altogether because it isn't what you want, and you may be right not to want it, but saying you want it when you don't is going to make it hard to formulate a real plan. You can't get what you want if you don't admit to yourself what you want. Do you ever read Curtis Yarvin? He's just wrote an essay that seems relevant to the conversation https://graymirror.substack.com/p/censorship-a-21st-century-approach .
You know you can say rockthrow's name, right?