Whatever this board is, it's no Voat. Moderators acting like big tech, deciding what you can and cannot discuss...wake up before you turn into the libtards you despise.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (126)
sorted by:
"If what you think is so dependent on what you read on a single internet forum that moderation of that forum prevents you from thinking for yourself, then you might need some serious mental support."
Wow gaslighting, cool.
Mod logs don't do shit for if I want to discuss something.
Sorry for wanting a forum with minimal moderation. Didn't think it warrants this kind of an attack on my character.
It feels like arguing with liberals more and more on this site.
I don't believe I have attacked your character whatsoever.
I was describing how there is zero good reason forum moderation should prevent someone from thinking for themselves. I never stated that you personally needed mental support, I am saying that a hypothetical someone that IS prevented from thinking freely by basic forum moderation does, because frankly, it's not that hard to "think for yourself" regardless of what you read. I went years with only hard left-wing media surrounding me and I still thought for myself; that's why I'm here.
I bring up the mod logs because it is there you can go to verify that the moderators have not been suppressing discussion of Q and current events. What they suppress is things that do not follow the rules, which are clearly stated on the right. They will not stop you from talking about whether or not George is valid, they're simply trying to cut down on the absolute flood of forum posts we've been getting for the past couple months every time they so much as blink, because said posts bury worthwhile content and, knowing what we know now, is promoting people who are, by virtually all evidence, thoroughly deceptive.
Moderation on this forum is fairly minimal in the sense that most discussion is allowed. There are multiple dimensions of enforcement going on here; you seem to be taking their actions as an indication that they will be heavily moderating in the sense that they will strictly control conversation; what the moderators' actions, statements, and logs would suggest is that they are firmly moderating the existing rules. Am I making myself understandable? It's kind of hard to express the distinction.
Here's another way of putting it; there are two kinds of "strict" or "strong" moderation: there is moderation that strictly controls conversations and content, and there is moderation which firmly enforces the established rules. A forum with a single rule can still be strongly moderated if the mods strictly enforce that rule. Does that make sense?
I apologize for offending your character; I did not intend to.