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 .
Not wanting to censor ideas is different from being OK with a group of people trying to hijack a place. Imagine if a bunch of communists decided "hey, this is a free speech place, let's swarm and take it over". Then just spam everything with Stalin quotes and downvote the rest us. Would you like that? Neither would I. This place is about Gamergate, which is resistance to unethical journalism, PC, SJ and censorship, not a recruiting ground for people's unrelated agendas.
I understand the intent is different, but the action is the same. Censor isn't an intent it's an action. To quote the article I linked, 'Censor is just Roman for “moderator.”'
I am pretty sure it means judge (note the actor suffix -or). Quite a specific sort of judge - namely the one appointed every five years, serving for 18 months, who would judge (censere) who did and did not belong in the Senate.
Regardless, preservation is the highest good of any community. That is why we impose totalitarian speech restrictions on the subreddit, because otherwise the Reddit admins will ban us. The calculus is that it is better to have a subreddit with these restrictions, but with generally free discourse otherwise, than to have none at all.
Here as well. How on earth can you let outsiders swarm and take over this place, and drive out the people for whom it was created?
Now, if 'censor' means 'moderator', or if we want to assume that it does, then any action taken is censorship. Even removing spam. So it does not seem like a very useful and productive idea.
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 .
I don't know the name, but I'll look at it.
Not wanting to censor ideas is different from being OK with a group of people trying to hijack a place. Imagine if a bunch of communists decided "hey, this is a free speech place, let's swarm and take it over". Then just spam everything with Stalin quotes and downvote the rest us. Would you like that? Neither would I. This place is about Gamergate, which is resistance to unethical journalism, PC, SJ and censorship, not a recruiting ground for people's unrelated agendas.
I understand the intent is different, but the action is the same. Censor isn't an intent it's an action. To quote the article I linked, 'Censor is just Roman for “moderator.”'
I am pretty sure it means judge (note the actor suffix -or). Quite a specific sort of judge - namely the one appointed every five years, serving for 18 months, who would judge (censere) who did and did not belong in the Senate.
Regardless, preservation is the highest good of any community. That is why we impose totalitarian speech restrictions on the subreddit, because otherwise the Reddit admins will ban us. The calculus is that it is better to have a subreddit with these restrictions, but with generally free discourse otherwise, than to have none at all.
Here as well. How on earth can you let outsiders swarm and take over this place, and drive out the people for whom it was created?
Now, if 'censor' means 'moderator', or if we want to assume that it does, then any action taken is censorship. Even removing spam. So it does not seem like a very useful and productive idea.