On our WIN these rejects get banned on sight. They add nothing to the conversation.
If these people weren't "banned on sight" we would get more practice at countering their narrative, and would be better prepared to engage in the debate in the more hostile environment of TDW.
That is the problem with censorship of opposing ideas. It never really works out well for anyone. The Debate is the path to the Truth. Censorship of ideas expressed in earnest, no matter what those ideas may be, prevent the debate. Preventing the debate can only ever prevent stepping forward on the path to Truth.
Is "two more weeks" a valid argument? What debate is there to be had here? I have no doubt this will take much longer than two weeks, but It is happening. I see it every day.
Dooming isnt opposing debate. Argue why you think speculation isnt true. Give counter ideas. Dooming with negative comments and not ideas, isnt productive to Q research.
I am talking about "ideas expressed in earnest". How hard is that to understand? If someone provides evidence that may be something we don't want to hear, isn't that something that should be debated? If someone gives an argument for something, and it is expressed in earnest, even if it isn't something "nice and pretty and confirmation biasy" is that something that should be censored or debated?
Let's look at the possible outcomes. What will censorship do for anyone involved? I assert it can only cause harm; it can only be a negative. No one benefits from such censorship. Try to find me a benefit, because I struggle to come up with one. There are fewer posts? I mean, meh. We aren't talking about that many posts engaged in earnest with opposing views.
On the other hand, what are the potentials if it is debated? People can learn things. Even if the "doomer" OP (who is engaging honestly) isn't convinced, any others that read the debate will likely learn something important (assuming any real debate was had). If no one decides to engage in debate on the other hand, the community self-censors and the result is the same as the best case scenario in censorship, except no harm was done.
"Fuck Trump" "Q is a larp" "there is no plan" are NOT opposing ideas.
Also, we have a sidebar with rules. Consider that the GAW Constitution. If you can't abide by it, you get deported.
The mods are more than patient with people articulating frustration. Do they make mistakes? Yes. They're still human and far from perfect. But I would rather deal with a few egos bruised than having to sift through doomfaggotry.
"Fuck Trump" "Q is a larp" "there is no plan" are NOT opposing ideas.
This is a strawman. It is so loosely associated with my argument as to be meaningless.
But I would rather deal with a few egos bruised than having to sift through doomfaggotry.
How are your feelings of "what you want to deal with" relevant to this conversation on the censorship of ideas? If you don't want to deal with it, no one is forcing you to read or respond to anything.
Censoring arguments and evidence that don't align with everyone's confirmation bias is not the path to the Truth. It is in fact, always the path away from it.
We don't censor opposing ideas, in fact, we're even known for stickying them. This is one of the richest destinations for debate and discussion on the entire Internet—but standards will apply. Doomers and other assorted losers posting low effort, low info comments and posts are the equivalent of streakers running onto the field naked for attention, and field security (ie, the mod team) will continue to tag, bag, and relocate these rehabs to the sidelines where they belong.
I know for certain that this is an untrue statement. I don't know how often it happens, but I know that it does, and have seen it happen at least a dozen times myself, whether you realize it or not.
Doomers and other assorted losers posting low effort, low info comments and posts
I am not talking about "low info" or "low effort" comments. I know for a fact that many ideas in opposition to the consensus beliefs of "pro-Q" people have been censored, and people banned for expressing them. These comments were engaged in earnest and were still censored. I have had some really good conversations deleted because of this censorship (I was not the one being censored in all of those cases, but was engaging someone who was in earnest). That is not the path.
Why are we calling people "losers?" How is that helpful? That very concept is the antithesis of the GA. If someone is a doomer, and their beliefs and opinions are in earnest, then help them see the evidence. Even if they don't see it (which is common) other's will, and that exposure is a potent weapon in the learning and awakening process for all the world.
I know for certain that this is an untrue statement. I don't know how often it happens, but I know that it does, and have seen it happen at least a dozen times myself, whether you realize it or not.
Yep, happened to me.
You and I have had our disagreements, Slyver, but we are united 100% on this issue.
GAW does, in fact, have mods who censor topics and opinions they do not like, having nothing at all to do with violating any terms of the website.
It's not about topics we don't "like," but topics which are clearly not on Q, such as Flat Earth, chemtard BS ("Spain" doesn't account for the lines over your house) and all other assorted garbage. This WIN rules because it is kept on track. Our mod log is open to the public.
I didn't say "censor nothing" I said we shouldn't censor opposing ideas engaged in earnest. Censoring people who come here specifically with the intent to harm, or AI's, etc. is a different thing entirely.
You need to draw the line somewhere.
Sure, "somewhere" is the key point. Censoring opposing ideas, which is exactly what this post states, simply because they are opposing ideas is not the right line.
I'd be more involved on this site and trusting if cats didn't delete my first post exposing a certain children show creator as a pedo. So cats will never not be sus to me. They sure are good at playing the long game, I'll give them that.
So I just lurk and comment occasionally. Been part of the movement since r/T_D 2015 but apparently that counts for nothing cause we have a glorified reddit mod who tries to personally be the face of the board out of ego.
I mean they can say I'm wrong but actions speak louder than words. Which is funny cause their go to deflection is my lack on involvement on the board. Intentionally ignoring the fact that they are the sole reason for it. 🤷♂️
Tl;Dr: overstepping your authority is a quick trip to eroding any hope of trust from fellow truth seekers, especially when done to those who have already endured hatred, harassment and censorship from every other tech platform under the sun. Plain and simple. You'd think they'd be more mindful.
I JUST CHECKED YOUR POST HISTORY. I ALMOST DIED OF ANEMIA.
Holy shit. Hey... remember this comment of yours from almost a year ago?
"Now the mod I dont like/trust is cats for reason #1. And now both the OP and Uhtred dodged my question why the OPs post kept getting removed because that threw uo a red flag for me. With a snarky response, mind you. Big mistake." 21.02
Please continue to lurk. And pls continue to view me as sus. I don't work for you—I answer to the hardest working researchers and decoders in the movement. Period. I DGAF what do-nothing low-info whiners like you think. Get to work or find another home.
Then someone with a bunch of bots spams this board with "opposing ideas," being obtuse in their arguments to defend it, and it drives people away.
I addressed this "hypothetical" specifically by suggesting that banning AIs was a good thing. You are creating an orange to compare to my apple.
One of the most effective ways of arguing with intent to harm is to simply ignore arguments against yours.
And people will come along and see the argument and will be able to think for themselves whether or not any point has been sufficiently defended. There is no need to censor under such nebulous circumstances.
Trying to catch all these "maybe they have bad intent" people will certainly catch people who don't. Any such "accidental casualty" will be a greater harm to the community and the GA as a whole. Will any positive effect occur from such a tactic? If someone wishes to do harm, though it's not really that easy to be sure they mean to do harm, and their argument is rebutted in debate, the argument has been seen. It doesn't matter what their intent is; the particular argument or tactic has been exposed. The community as a whole is improved.
There is nothing to be gained by censorship except in cases that are (actually) obvious. If we don't trust people to learn how to counter such subversive agents as you hypothesize, how can we possibly have a GA? That is the entire point of the GA.
If these people weren't "banned on sight" we would get more practice at countering their narrative, and would be better prepared to engage in the debate in the more hostile environment of TDW.
That is the problem with censorship of opposing ideas. It never really works out well for anyone. The Debate is the path to the Truth. Censorship of ideas expressed in earnest, no matter what those ideas may be, prevent the debate. Preventing the debate can only ever prevent stepping forward on the path to Truth.
Is "two more weeks" a valid argument? What debate is there to be had here? I have no doubt this will take much longer than two weeks, but It is happening. I see it every day.
Dooming isnt opposing debate. Argue why you think speculation isnt true. Give counter ideas. Dooming with negative comments and not ideas, isnt productive to Q research.
I am talking about "ideas expressed in earnest". How hard is that to understand? If someone provides evidence that may be something we don't want to hear, isn't that something that should be debated? If someone gives an argument for something, and it is expressed in earnest, even if it isn't something "nice and pretty and confirmation biasy" is that something that should be censored or debated?
Let's look at the possible outcomes. What will censorship do for anyone involved? I assert it can only cause harm; it can only be a negative. No one benefits from such censorship. Try to find me a benefit, because I struggle to come up with one. There are fewer posts? I mean, meh. We aren't talking about that many posts engaged in earnest with opposing views.
On the other hand, what are the potentials if it is debated? People can learn things. Even if the "doomer" OP (who is engaging honestly) isn't convinced, any others that read the debate will likely learn something important (assuming any real debate was had). If no one decides to engage in debate on the other hand, the community self-censors and the result is the same as the best case scenario in censorship, except no harm was done.
"Fuck Trump" "Q is a larp" "there is no plan" are NOT opposing ideas.
Also, we have a sidebar with rules. Consider that the GAW Constitution. If you can't abide by it, you get deported.
The mods are more than patient with people articulating frustration. Do they make mistakes? Yes. They're still human and far from perfect. But I would rather deal with a few egos bruised than having to sift through doomfaggotry.
This is a strawman. It is so loosely associated with my argument as to be meaningless.
How are your feelings of "what you want to deal with" relevant to this conversation on the censorship of ideas? If you don't want to deal with it, no one is forcing you to read or respond to anything.
Censoring arguments and evidence that don't align with everyone's confirmation bias is not the path to the Truth. It is in fact, always the path away from it.
Yeah I can't even stand to ready your comments anymore. Type like a normal person else others may ignore you too.
We don't censor opposing ideas, in fact, we're even known for stickying them. This is one of the richest destinations for debate and discussion on the entire Internet—but standards will apply. Doomers and other assorted losers posting low effort, low info comments and posts are the equivalent of streakers running onto the field naked for attention, and field security (ie, the mod team) will continue to tag, bag, and relocate these rehabs to the sidelines where they belong.
I know for certain that this is an untrue statement. I don't know how often it happens, but I know that it does, and have seen it happen at least a dozen times myself, whether you realize it or not.
I am not talking about "low info" or "low effort" comments. I know for a fact that many ideas in opposition to the consensus beliefs of "pro-Q" people have been censored, and people banned for expressing them. These comments were engaged in earnest and were still censored. I have had some really good conversations deleted because of this censorship (I was not the one being censored in all of those cases, but was engaging someone who was in earnest). That is not the path.
Why are we calling people "losers?" How is that helpful? That very concept is the antithesis of the GA. If someone is a doomer, and their beliefs and opinions are in earnest, then help them see the evidence. Even if they don't see it (which is common) other's will, and that exposure is a potent weapon in the learning and awakening process for all the world.
Yep, happened to me.
You and I have had our disagreements, Slyver, but we are united 100% on this issue.
GAW does, in fact, have mods who censor topics and opinions they do not like, having nothing at all to do with violating any terms of the website.
Those mods should be identified and rooted out.
It's not about topics we don't "like," but topics which are clearly not on Q, such as Flat Earth, chemtard BS ("Spain" doesn't account for the lines over your house) and all other assorted garbage. This WIN rules because it is kept on track. Our mod log is open to the public.
It’s ironic because MasterJediPepe calls out catsfive for this in the comment thread above.
I didn't say "censor nothing" I said we shouldn't censor opposing ideas engaged in earnest. Censoring people who come here specifically with the intent to harm, or AI's, etc. is a different thing entirely.
Sure, "somewhere" is the key point. Censoring opposing ideas, which is exactly what this post states, simply because they are opposing ideas is not the right line.
It is never the right line.
I'd be more involved on this site and trusting if cats didn't delete my first post exposing a certain children show creator as a pedo. So cats will never not be sus to me. They sure are good at playing the long game, I'll give them that.
So I just lurk and comment occasionally. Been part of the movement since r/T_D 2015 but apparently that counts for nothing cause we have a glorified reddit mod who tries to personally be the face of the board out of ego.
I mean they can say I'm wrong but actions speak louder than words. Which is funny cause their go to deflection is my lack on involvement on the board. Intentionally ignoring the fact that they are the sole reason for it. 🤷♂️
Tl;Dr: overstepping your authority is a quick trip to eroding any hope of trust from fellow truth seekers, especially when done to those who have already endured hatred, harassment and censorship from every other tech platform under the sun. Plain and simple. You'd think they'd be more mindful.
I JUST CHECKED YOUR POST HISTORY. I ALMOST DIED OF ANEMIA.
Holy shit. Hey... remember this comment of yours from almost a year ago?
Please continue to lurk. And pls continue to view me as sus. I don't work for you—I answer to the hardest working researchers and decoders in the movement. Period. I DGAF what do-nothing low-info whiners like you think. Get to work or find another home.
I addressed this "hypothetical" specifically by suggesting that banning AIs was a good thing. You are creating an orange to compare to my apple.
And people will come along and see the argument and will be able to think for themselves whether or not any point has been sufficiently defended. There is no need to censor under such nebulous circumstances.
Trying to catch all these "maybe they have bad intent" people will certainly catch people who don't. Any such "accidental casualty" will be a greater harm to the community and the GA as a whole. Will any positive effect occur from such a tactic? If someone wishes to do harm, though it's not really that easy to be sure they mean to do harm, and their argument is rebutted in debate, the argument has been seen. It doesn't matter what their intent is; the particular argument or tactic has been exposed. The community as a whole is improved.
There is nothing to be gained by censorship except in cases that are (actually) obvious. If we don't trust people to learn how to counter such subversive agents as you hypothesize, how can we possibly have a GA? That is the entire point of the GA.