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.
You are arguing for the removal of protections against dishonest arguments.
Really my entire argument is against censorship of honest (dissenting) arguments. If you think otherwise, I suggest you really haven't understood what I've said. In the previous post, when you were talking about hypothetical "subversive agents that are hard to catch" I was arguing for letting the community weed them out and learn from the engagement with them. That is not arguing for "removal of protections," so much as having a safe space to learn how to protect ourselves; an essential lesson to learn for the GA.
You seem to be suggesting that we "err on the side of caution" (where people with honest, but dissenting views will be caught in the crossfire). More important perhaps, you are suggesting that we must have overlords that "err on the side of caution" to protect us from our lack of critical thinking skills. I suggest nothing could be more harmful for the GA, or the individual. All paths to the most extreme fuckery lie on the road of Censorship sold under the banner of "For Your Own Good."
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.
I suggest you may not understand "the established knowledge" in that document (nor what that phrase really means).
I will never stop arguing against censorship of ideas engaged in earnest. I think that makes me smart (in the "aware" sense). YMMV.
Really my entire argument is against censorship of honest (dissenting) arguments. If you think otherwise, I suggest you really haven't understood what I've said. In the previous post, when you were talking about hypothetical "subversive agents that are hard to catch" I was arguing for letting the community weed them out and learn from the engagement with them. That is not arguing for "removal of protections," so much as having a safe space to learn how to protect ourselves; an essential lesson to learn for the GA.
You seem to be suggesting that we "err on the side of caution" (where people with honest, but dissenting views will be caught in the crossfire). More important perhaps, you are suggesting that we must have overlords that "err on the side of caution" to protect us from our lack of critical thinking skills. I suggest nothing could be more harmful for the GA, or the individual. All paths to the most extreme fuckery lie on the road of Censorship sold under the banner of "For Your Own Good."