If you truly believe in 1A there should very few reasons for moderation. The only reason on a "free speech" platform would be direct calls for violence.
Calling names and shutting down conversations is nothing more than communist tactics IMO.
How about this? A church is being run by a community. A communist enters and wants to join and be part of the leadership, and to preach to the congregation about the evils of Christianity and all religion, and to advocate for a Marxist utopia.
Is it 1 A violation to decline the communists request? If not, why not? If yes, then why?
How about a lecture being run by a university to teach mathematics, but a student stands up and wants to argue about the political atmosphere of the university and the country, and ignores the lecturer's request to be quiet or leave.
Is this a 1A violation? If not, why not?
What, for that matter, is a "free speech platform"? Is it a platform that says anyone can say whatever they want, regardless of what it is, as long as it doesn't break any laws?
If the answer is yes, then what defines it as that "free speech platform"? The purpose. Such a platform would have a PURPOSE, and the purpose would be "free speech" aka to be a place where "anyone can say whatever they want". THAT is the purpose.
GreatAwakening.win is NOT a free speech platform (neither is Patriots.win, for that matter, I suspect). Its purpose is NOT to provide a venue where anyone can say whatever they want. It's purpose is to provide a forum for discussion of Q-related content, in a productive, uplifting and constructive way, aka a way that ADDS to the Q movement or it's direction. THAT is its PURPOSE.
Discussions, commentary and activity that does NOT adhere to, align with, or serve that purpose doesn't belong here.
If you want a free speech platform, go find one. GAW has a very clear purpose, but it is not to allow anyone to say anything or whatever they want, whether it is related to uplifting, developing the Q movement or not.
That said, naturally, critical thinking is a very important part of that development. So is discussion, advocating of differing viewpoints, and analysis. But also CRITICAL THINKING can and should have a purpose. If the purpose is destructive, to undermine, divide, discourage, mock or disparage, to inflate ego or vent personal negativity, then it's NOT productive.
In the end, PURPOSE is what determines value and what determines applicability. Failure to recognize PURPOSE is a fatal flaw that often leads to completely erroneous conclusions vis-a-vis how or what something is or should be.
Calling names and shutting down conversations
Obviously, calling names is not moderation. But what is and isn't calling names might easily be open to debate. What exactly constitutes "shutting down conversations" is open to debate (and bias).
The purpose of moderation in ANY forum or discussion venue is to MAINTAIN and uphold the PURPOSE. When something contradicts or violates that purpose, moderation can and should take any required action to ensure the purpose is upheld and preserved.
If someone doesn't believe in the purpose of a particular forum, they are free to leave. And, they should. Engaging with a forum whose purpose one doesn't believe in, or whose purpose one wants to alter, is really the definition of destructive. And yes, Communists certainly practice methods intended to destroy and undermine ANY purpose that doesn't serve or align with theirs. But they pursue that by INVADING other venues and purposes to undermine them.
the purpose of the college is not a free speech forum. The purpose of a church is not that of a free speech forum. The purpose of a school is not that of a free speech forum. The purpose of an online free speech platform, WOULD apply, but you never used that as an example. Why? Because it would break your argument down immediately.
Er, incorrect. Didn't you take the time to read properly?
I affirm below the possibility of "free speech platform". I didn't think "online" is necessary, as "platform" implies, at least to me, online platform.
What, for that matter, is a "free speech platform"? Is it a platform that says anyone can say whatever they want, regardless of what it is, as long as it doesn't break any laws?
If the answer is yes, then what defines it as that "free speech platform"? The purpose. Such a platform would have a PURPOSE, and the purpose would be "free speech" aka to be a place where "anyone can say whatever they want". THAT is the purpose.
I really don't think you've shown anywhere that my argument, as you put it, breaks down.
In my response to the commentator, I draw the contrast between non-free speech forums and free speech forums. Aka example of a church or college vs a "free speech platform", emphasizing that the former are NOT what the latter is, just as you have done.
I don't see how the argument doesn't hold, because even though you appear to have misread what I wrote, your point in fact reinforces and upholds what I'm asserting.
Which is that in an actual free speech platform, then indeed, "The only reason on a "free speech" platform would be direct calls for violence" which by and large I agree with the commentator on.
Perhaps I misunderstood, but the commentator appeared to be also saying that GAW, Patriots.win, etc, are "free speech platforms". I showed that they are not, by referring to purpose.
GreatAwakening.win is NOT a free speech platform (neither is Patriots.win, for that matter, I suspect). Its purpose is NOT to provide a venue where anyone can say whatever they want. It's purpose is to provide a forum for discussion of Q-related content, in a productive, uplifting and constructive way, aka a way that ADDS to the Q movement or it's direction. THAT is its PURPOSE.
If you can show me where I'm mistaken in any of my assertions, I'm willing to learn. But let's not make it into a battle of opinions, or some sort of competition for "haha, your argument is totally bogus, so there!!!" level of elementary school level.
i.e. "The purpose of an online free speech platform, WOULD apply, but you never used that as an example. Why? Because it would break your argument down immediately."
That directly asserts that I have some bad-faith intent to only win some argument and not actually offer productive discussion. Why on earth would you assert that?
I have been reading over there the last few days. Man I thought it was bad on the Philadelphia Eagles blog (bleedinggreennation.com) with the cursing and f bombs, but Patriots.win takes the cake. Wow. They get into some pretty amusing “scream” curse fights over there. We are a church group comparatively 😂
This place is weird 90% of the time.
Oddly enough, people are calling out Patriots.win for this same shit.
Claim people want talk, ban, remove, call out those that talk. Whether you like it or not.
Deleting of post with no clear reasoning as to why.
With half the time it simply offended the mods.
Dont' believe me, check it out? https://patriots.win/p/16ZXepeeak/house-republicans-release-their-/c/
Mods are getting too antsy banning people and pushing them out.
The forums are dying because no conversation is allowed. The ONLY THING YOU CAN DO IS AGREE
Lest you be called Doomer, Shill, Whatever word makes them feel good.
If you truly believe in 1A there should very few reasons for moderation. The only reason on a "free speech" platform would be direct calls for violence. Calling names and shutting down conversations is nothing more than communist tactics IMO.
That's a completely erroneous perspective. IMO.
How about this? A church is being run by a community. A communist enters and wants to join and be part of the leadership, and to preach to the congregation about the evils of Christianity and all religion, and to advocate for a Marxist utopia.
Is it 1 A violation to decline the communists request? If not, why not? If yes, then why?
How about a lecture being run by a university to teach mathematics, but a student stands up and wants to argue about the political atmosphere of the university and the country, and ignores the lecturer's request to be quiet or leave.
Is this a 1A violation? If not, why not?
What, for that matter, is a "free speech platform"? Is it a platform that says anyone can say whatever they want, regardless of what it is, as long as it doesn't break any laws?
If the answer is yes, then what defines it as that "free speech platform"? The purpose. Such a platform would have a PURPOSE, and the purpose would be "free speech" aka to be a place where "anyone can say whatever they want". THAT is the purpose.
GreatAwakening.win is NOT a free speech platform (neither is Patriots.win, for that matter, I suspect). Its purpose is NOT to provide a venue where anyone can say whatever they want. It's purpose is to provide a forum for discussion of Q-related content, in a productive, uplifting and constructive way, aka a way that ADDS to the Q movement or it's direction. THAT is its PURPOSE.
Discussions, commentary and activity that does NOT adhere to, align with, or serve that purpose doesn't belong here.
If you want a free speech platform, go find one. GAW has a very clear purpose, but it is not to allow anyone to say anything or whatever they want, whether it is related to uplifting, developing the Q movement or not.
That said, naturally, critical thinking is a very important part of that development. So is discussion, advocating of differing viewpoints, and analysis. But also CRITICAL THINKING can and should have a purpose. If the purpose is destructive, to undermine, divide, discourage, mock or disparage, to inflate ego or vent personal negativity, then it's NOT productive.
In the end, PURPOSE is what determines value and what determines applicability. Failure to recognize PURPOSE is a fatal flaw that often leads to completely erroneous conclusions vis-a-vis how or what something is or should be.
Obviously, calling names is not moderation. But what is and isn't calling names might easily be open to debate. What exactly constitutes "shutting down conversations" is open to debate (and bias).
The purpose of moderation in ANY forum or discussion venue is to MAINTAIN and uphold the PURPOSE. When something contradicts or violates that purpose, moderation can and should take any required action to ensure the purpose is upheld and preserved.
If someone doesn't believe in the purpose of a particular forum, they are free to leave. And, they should. Engaging with a forum whose purpose one doesn't believe in, or whose purpose one wants to alter, is really the definition of destructive. And yes, Communists certainly practice methods intended to destroy and undermine ANY purpose that doesn't serve or align with theirs. But they pursue that by INVADING other venues and purposes to undermine them.
the purpose of the college is not a free speech forum. The purpose of a church is not that of a free speech forum. The purpose of a school is not that of a free speech forum. The purpose of an online free speech platform, WOULD apply, but you never used that as an example. Why? Because it would break your argument down immediately.
Er, incorrect. Didn't you take the time to read properly?
I affirm below the possibility of "free speech platform". I didn't think "online" is necessary, as "platform" implies, at least to me, online platform.
I really don't think you've shown anywhere that my argument, as you put it, breaks down.
In my response to the commentator, I draw the contrast between non-free speech forums and free speech forums. Aka example of a church or college vs a "free speech platform", emphasizing that the former are NOT what the latter is, just as you have done.
I don't see how the argument doesn't hold, because even though you appear to have misread what I wrote, your point in fact reinforces and upholds what I'm asserting.
Which is that in an actual free speech platform, then indeed, "The only reason on a "free speech" platform would be direct calls for violence" which by and large I agree with the commentator on.
Perhaps I misunderstood, but the commentator appeared to be also saying that GAW, Patriots.win, etc, are "free speech platforms". I showed that they are not, by referring to purpose.
If you can show me where I'm mistaken in any of my assertions, I'm willing to learn. But let's not make it into a battle of opinions, or some sort of competition for "haha, your argument is totally bogus, so there!!!" level of elementary school level.
i.e. "The purpose of an online free speech platform, WOULD apply, but you never used that as an example. Why? Because it would break your argument down immediately."
That directly asserts that I have some bad-faith intent to only win some argument and not actually offer productive discussion. Why on earth would you assert that?
Stick to purpose.
I have been reading over there the last few days. Man I thought it was bad on the Philadelphia Eagles blog (bleedinggreennation.com) with the cursing and f bombs, but Patriots.win takes the cake. Wow. They get into some pretty amusing “scream” curse fights over there. We are a church group comparatively 😂