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.
A certain number of people will, and a certain number of people won't.
And that is the necessary lesson of the GA. I assert The Argument Will Out. You seem to believe that we need overlords protecting us.
This is a fundamental difference between our viewpoints, and I suggest also a fundamental lesson of the GA. Overlords/protectors, are not the path. One of the primary lessons of the GA is to learn to think for ourselves; to be our own agents in life. If we can't learn that here where we have support and people engaged in an honest attempt to route it out, where better is there?
It is important that we do set some spaces aside where the regular individuals in our society can find respite from the battle.
I suggest it is essential that we set up spaces where people can learn how to use debate and critical thinking to understand those who act against us. (Please read that link, I think it will help you.)
And, just to be clear, I am confident that you are arguing in bad faith to try and gain more access to this board to further harm our community.
What the holy shit!?!
This suggests your capabilities of perception are in dire need of good solid lessons in debate and critical thinking. I suggest you are exactly the type of person that needs to see such arguments against agents acting against the interests of We The People play out in the debate process.
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.
Insulting me because I choose to stand my ground to tyranny? That's rich.
Have fun being an obedient coward your whole life.
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.
And that is the necessary lesson of the GA. I assert The Argument Will Out. You seem to believe that we need overlords protecting us.
This is a fundamental difference between our viewpoints, and I suggest also a fundamental lesson of the GA. Overlords/protectors, are not the path. One of the primary lessons of the GA is to learn to think for ourselves; to be our own agents in life. If we can't learn that here where we have support and people engaged in an honest attempt to route it out, where better is there?
I suggest it is essential that we set up spaces where people can learn how to use debate and critical thinking to understand those who act against us. (Please read that link, I think it will help you.)
What the holy shit!?!
This suggests your capabilities of perception are in dire need of good solid lessons in debate and critical thinking. I suggest you are exactly the type of person that needs to see such arguments against agents acting against the interests of We The People play out in the debate process.