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.
Well sort of yeah. You can draw a line at machine generated spam or even post farm spam, but then there's NGOs like CTR where it is people posting and they may even believe what they are posting but they are paid for it, and then there's shameless self promotion. Are the jew dislikers only a problem because of the number? Can we keep one? Is theimpossible1 less of a problem because there's only one of him? I'm not even arguing against censorship at this point. I'm just saying if you're going to censor then censor.
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.
Well sort of yeah. You can draw a line at machine generated spam or even post farm spam, but then there's NGOs like CTR where it is people posting and they may even believe what they are posting but they are paid for it, and then there's shameless self promotion. Are the jew dislikers only a problem because of the number? Can we keep one? Is theimpossible1 less of a problem because there's only one of him? I'm not even arguing against censorship at this point. I'm just saying if you're going to censor then censor.