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.
Are the jew dislikers only a problem because of the number?
Mostly yes, provided that they express their views in a normal manner, and are not trying to recruit people 24/7 in unrelated threads. If the topic is 'the Jews', and people remark intelligently that they have a negative view of the way Jews act, that should not be a problem, any more than it is a problem to remark that the way blacks act can be a problem. That is quite different from hijacking any thread where someone black is discussed for one's own agenda.
Is theimpossible1 less of a problem because there's only one of him?
Yes. If you have 80% of a sub that's TheImpossible1's, then you can kiss that place goodbye.
Though his target is also not based on race, and therefore less of a problem in this climate. You could never get away with that if you were saying that about blacks.
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.
Mostly yes, provided that they express their views in a normal manner, and are not trying to recruit people 24/7 in unrelated threads. If the topic is 'the Jews', and people remark intelligently that they have a negative view of the way Jews act, that should not be a problem, any more than it is a problem to remark that the way blacks act can be a problem. That is quite different from hijacking any thread where someone black is discussed for one's own agenda.
Yes. If you have 80% of a sub that's TheImpossible1's, then you can kiss that place goodbye.
Though his target is also not based on race, and therefore less of a problem in this climate. You could never get away with that if you were saying that about blacks.