were they violating his free speech?

A forum is like a home. Not everyone is allowed to come into your home. That is not a Right that people have. It is not about "free speech" it's about invitation to a personal space. We don't have the Right to invade someone's personal space.

This discrimination does not extend to public forums though. Within the public forum, if someone wants to talk about Drag Racing or Toenail Clippings they have the absolute Right to do so. That is Freedom of Speech, because it is not a private venue. There is no invitation required. All are invited, because the conversation is about the Social Contract which applies to all. This is exactly what the filibuster is.

Freedom of speech, only exists within the sphere of places for which there is no invitation required to join, or if it is a public space, for which there is no agent contractually bound to manage it. (Social Contract, not city/state contract. This is the difference between a Constitution and "laws").

The distinction here is "space" and "invitation." In the case of the private forum, or the public forum under contractual invitation, there is a space that is being violated by behavior that is not a part of the invitation.

However, any acts of discrimination are a very tricky subject. In the case of a topical forum, I would suggest that asking someone to stay on topic is the best first step. If that does not occur, ignoring someone is likely the best second step. Banning should be an absolute last resort imo. Those are my personal views, because I have seen what can happen in a free forum to change a persons mind with patience and understanding, but that is not about the Rights. No one has the Right to come into your home and talk about Drag Racing; because it's your home.

If there is no contractual bounds on speech within a public forum, then removal for any speech is a violation which must be dealt with in another way such as debate. If all else fails, an end to the meeting may be the only way. It can reconvene in a private venue where "free speech" does not apply.

Of course in a private venue, no votes can be had, no laws can be made, etc. So it's tricky, but I suggest it leads to far less fuckery than any other path.

Anti-Q, shill and doom comments are off-topic for GA and don't belong here

And here's the thing. No they aren't. They are the opposite of off topic. They are exactly the topics we need to engage in. If we debate these topics, the results of those debates teach us how to form excellent debate responses to the exact same topics that come up in the outside world. There is nothing better than engaging in such debates to bring about the GA. This board's primary purpose is about the GA. The primary path to the GA is through debate of these topics. Silencing these topics keeps us weak, and unprepared for our main purpose (or at least my main purpose, one I believe I share with many others) which is to help others transition into a better world. To keep them alive and safe during this war for our minds.

You can't counter the brainwashing in others unless you practice countering that brainwashing.

Beyond that, such topics are reasonable. This is a disinformation war. There is no way to win such a war if we can't talk about anything related. The topics you are listing are undeniably related, they just may not be in agreement with Q, or your interpretation of Q.

Should such people really be silenced? Or should they be debated? Silencing keeps us weak, and helps no one. The strength of the mind is increased through debate, not censorship. Silencing dissenting views is a victory condition for the Cabal. It is the worst thing we can possibly do here.

If someone wants to talk about Drag Racing or Toenail Clippings, the door is over there, but if they want to talk about how Q is a psyop, or whatever they want to talk about that relates to the GA, or the war on The Minds of Men, then they absolutely should do so on this forum. We are well equipped to handle the debate. That debate will provide evidence for all to use in the war outside.

Most social media and probably GA itself have been infiltrated by this shill software.

Every time I have ever spoken about moderation (which is not THIS topic, so I'm not sure where this is coming from, but whatever) I have said explicitly that AI is not allowed. "Moderation as a last resort" does not extend to banning AI. Obviously computers have no Rights posting on a Human board.

Have you seen the literal clusterfuck that happens when there is zero moderation of shills?

I suggest that debate is the strongest path out of such behavior, but I recognize that it is not always reasonable to adhere to that path in the strictest sense. I suggest it as a guiding principle, not an absolute. This is about invitation, not 1A.

The problem that I was addressing in my OP in this particular thread was one of categorizing people as "shills", "doomers", etc. THAT drives division. Most "shill" or "doomer" posts are actually just people, not hired thugs or AIs. When we categorize them, and silence them, we harm them, and we harm the community.

The community is based on research and debate. Shunning or silencing such people, who are just trying to talk about their thoughts as they relate to the war is the opposite of what we need to do to win it. The GA is about unification (We The People) and freedom of thought / life. Silencing people because they dissent is the opposite of the GA, and thus should be the opposite of the GA.win.

were they violating his free speech?

A forum is like a home. Not everyone is allowed to come into your home. That is not a Right that people have. It is not about "free speech" it's about invitation to a personal space. We don't have the Right to invade someone's personal space.

This discrimination does not extend to public forums though. Within the public forum, if someone wants to talk about Drag Racing or Toenail Clippings they have the absolute Right to do so. That is Freedom of Speech, because it is not a private venue. There is no invitation required. All are invited, because the conversation is about the Social Contract which applies to all. This is exactly what the filibuster is.

Freedom of speech, only exists within the sphere of places for which there is no invitation required to join, or if it is a public space, for which there is no agent contractually bound to manage it. (Social Contract, not city/state contract. This is the difference between a Constitution and "laws").

The distinction here is "space" and "invitation." In the case of the private forum, or the public forum under contractual invitation, there is a space that is being violated by behavior that is not a part of the invitation.

However, this discrimination is a very tricky subject. In the case of a topical forum, I would suggest that asking someone to stay on topic is the best first step. If that does not occur, ignoring someone is likely the best second step. Banning should be an absolute last resort imo. Those are my personal views, because I have seen what can happen in a free forum to change a persons mind with patience and understanding, but that is not about the Rights. No one has the Right to come into your home and talk about Drag Racing; because it's your home.

If there is no contractual bounds on speech within a public forum, then removal for any speech is a violation which must be dealt with in another way such as debate. If all else fails, an end to the meeting may be the only way. It can reconvene in a private venue where "free speech" does not apply.

Of course in a private venue, no votes can be had, no laws can be made, etc. So it's tricky, but I suggest it leads to far less fuckery than any other path.

Anti-Q, shill and doom comments are off-topic for GA and don't belong here

And here's the thing. No they aren't. They are the opposite of off topic. They are exactly the topics we need to engage in. If we debate these topics, the results of those debates teach us how to form excellent debate responses to the exact same topics that come up in the outside world. There is nothing better than engaging in such debates to bring about the GA. This board's primary purpose is about the GA. The primary path to the GA is through debate of these topics. Silencing these topics keeps us weak, and unprepared for our main purpose (or at least my main purpose, one I believe I share with many others) which is to help others transition into a better world. To keep them alive and safe during this war for our minds.

You can't counter the brainwashing in others unless you practice countering that brainwashing.

Beyond that, such topics are reasonable. This is a disinformation war. There is no way to win such a war if we can't talk about anything related. The topics you are listing are undeniably related, they just may not be in agreement with Q, or your interpretation of Q.

Should such people really be silenced? Or should they be debated? Silencing keeps us weak, and helps no one. The strength of the mind is increased through debate, not censorship. Silencing dissenting views is a victory condition for the Cabal. It is the worst thing we can possibly do here.

If someone wants to talk about Drag Racing or Toenail Clippings, the door is over there, but if they want to talk about how Q is a psyop, or whatever they want to talk about that relates to the GA, or the war on The Minds of Men, then they absolutely should do so on this forum. We are well equipped to handle the debate. That debate will provide evidence for all to use in the war outside.

Most social media and probably GA itself have been infiltrated by this shill software.

Every time I have ever spoken about moderation (which is not THIS topic, so I'm not sure where this is coming from, but whatever) I have said explicitly that AI is not allowed. "Moderation as a last resort" does not extend to banning AI. Obviously computers have no Rights posting on a Human board.

Have you seen the literal clusterfuck that happens when there is zero moderation of shills?

I suggest that debate is the strongest path out of such behavior, but I recognize that it is not always reasonable to adhere to that path in the strictest sense. I suggest it as a guiding principle, not an absolute. This is about invitation, not 1A.

The problem that I was addressing in my OP in this particular thread was one of categorizing people as "shills", "doomers", etc. THAT drives division. Most "shill" or "doomer" posts are actually just people, not hired thugs or AIs. When we categorize them, and silence them, we harm them, and we harm the community.

The community is based on research and debate. Shunning or silencing such people, who are just trying to talk about their thoughts as they relate to the war is the opposite of what we need to do to win it. The GA is about unification (We The People) and freedom of thought / life. Silencing people because they dissent is the opposite of the GA, and thus should be the opposite of the GA.win.

were they violating his free speech?

A forum is like a home. Not everyone is allowed to come into your home. That is not a Right that people have. It is not about "free speech" it's about invitation to a personal space. We don't have the Right to invade someone's personal space.

This discrimination does not extend to public forums though. Within the public forum, if someone wants to talk about Drag Racing or Toenail Clippings they have the absolute Right to do so. That is Freedom of Speech, because it is not a private venue. There is no invitation required. All are invited, because the conversation is about the Social Contract which applies to all. This is exactly what the filibuster is.

Freedom of speech, only exists within the sphere of places for which there is no invitation required to join, or if it is a public space, for which there is no agent contractually bound to manage it. (Social Contract, not city/state contract. This is the difference between a Constitution and "laws").

The distinction here is "space" and "invitation." In each of these cases, there is a space that is being violated by behavior that is not a part of the invitation.

However, this discrimination is a very tricky subject. In the case of a topical forum, I would suggest that asking someone to stay on topic is the best first step. If that does not occur, ignoring someone is likely the best second step. Banning should be an absolute last resort imo. Those are my personal views, because I have seen what can happen in a free forum to change a persons mind with patience and understanding, but that is not about the Rights. No one has the Right to come into your home and talk about Drag Racing; because it's your home.

If there is no contractual bounds on speech within a public forum, then removal for any speech is a violation which must be dealt with in another way such as debate. If all else fails, an end to the meeting may be the only way. It can reconvene in a private venue where "free speech" does not apply.

Of course in a private venue, no votes can be had, no laws can be made, etc. So it's tricky, but I suggest it leads to far less fuckery than any other path.

Anti-Q, shill and doom comments are off-topic for GA and don't belong here

And here's the thing. No they aren't. They are the opposite of off topic. They are exactly the topics we need to engage in. If we debate these topics, the results of those debates teach us how to form excellent debate responses to the exact same topics that come up in the outside world. There is nothing better than engaging in such debates to bring about the GA. This board's primary purpose is about the GA. The primary path to the GA is through debate of these topics. Silencing these topics keeps us weak, and unprepared for our main purpose (or at least my main purpose, one I believe I share with many others) which is to help others transition into a better world. To keep them alive and safe during this war for our minds.

You can't counter the brainwashing in others unless you practice countering that brainwashing.

Beyond that, such topics are reasonable. This is a disinformation war. There is no way to win such a war if we can't talk about anything related. The topics you are listing are undeniably related, they just may not be in agreement with Q, or your interpretation of Q.

Should such people really be silenced? Or should they be debated? Silencing keeps us weak, and helps no one. The strength of the mind is increased through debate, not censorship. Silencing dissenting views is a victory condition for the Cabal. It is the worst thing we can possibly do here.

If someone wants to talk about Drag Racing or Toenail Clippings, the door is over there, but if they want to talk about how Q is a psyop, or whatever they want to talk about that relates to the GA, or the war on The Minds of Men, then they absolutely should do so on this forum. We are well equipped to handle the debate. That debate will provide evidence for all to use in the war outside.

Most social media and probably GA itself have been infiltrated by this shill software.

Every time I have ever spoken about moderation (which is not THIS topic, so I'm not sure where this is coming from, but whatever) I have said explicitly that AI is not allowed. "Moderation as a last resort" does not extend to banning AI. Obviously computers have no Rights posting on a Human board.

Have you seen the literal clusterfuck that happens when there is zero moderation of shills?

I suggest that debate is the strongest path out of such behavior, but I recognize that it is not always reasonable to adhere to that path in the strictest sense. I suggest it as a guiding principle, not an absolute. This is about invitation, not 1A.

The problem that I was addressing in my OP in this particular thread was one of categorizing people as "shills", "doomers", etc. THAT drives division. Most "shill" or "doomer" posts are actually just people, not hired thugs or AIs. When we categorize them, and silence them, we harm them, and we harm the community.

The community is based on research and debate. Shunning or silencing such people, who are just trying to talk about their thoughts as they relate to the war is the opposite of what we need to do to win it. The GA is about unification (We The People) and freedom of thought / life. Silencing people because they dissent is the opposite of the GA, and thus should be the opposite of the GA.win.

were they violating his free speech?

A forum is like a home. Not everyone is allowed to come into your home. That is not a Right that people have. It is not about "free speech" it's about invitation to a personal space. We don't have the Right to invade someone's personal space.

This discrimination does not extend to public forums though. Within the public forum, if someone wants to talk about Drag Racing or Toenail Clippings they have the absolute Right to do so. That is Freedom of Speech, because it is not a private venue. There is no invitation required. All are invited, because the conversation is about the Social Contract which applies to all. This is exactly what the filibuster is.

Freedom of speech, only exists within the sphere of places for which there is no invitation required to join, for which there is no agent contractually bound to manage it. (Social Contract, not city/state contract. This is the difference between a Constitution and "laws").

The distinction here is "space" and "invitation." In each of these cases, there is a space that is being violated by behavior that is not a part of the invitation.

However, this discrimination is a very tricky subject. In the case of a topical forum, I would suggest that asking someone to stay on topic is the best first step. If that does not occur, ignoring someone is likely the best second step. Banning should be an absolute last resort imo. Those are my personal views, because I have seen what can happen in a free forum to change a persons mind with patience and understanding, but that is not about the Rights. No one has the Right to come into your home and talk about Drag Racing; because it's your home.

If there is no contractual bounds on speech within a public forum, then removal for any speech is a violation which must be dealt with in another way such as debate. If all else fails, an end to the meeting may be the only way. It can reconvene in a private venue where "free speech" does not apply.

Of course in a private venue, no votes can be had, no laws can be made, etc. So it's tricky, but I suggest it leads to far less fuckery than any other path.

Anti-Q, shill and doom comments are off-topic for GA and don't belong here

And here's the thing. No they aren't. They are the opposite of off topic. They are exactly the topics we need to engage in. If we debate these topics, the results of those debates teach us how to form excellent debate responses to the exact same topics that come up in the outside world. There is nothing better than engaging in such debates to bring about the GA. This board's primary purpose is about the GA. The primary path to the GA is through debate of these topics. Silencing these topics keeps us weak, and unprepared for our main purpose (or at least my main purpose, one I believe I share with many others) which is to help others transition into a better world. To keep them alive and safe during this war for our minds.

You can't counter the brainwashing in others unless you practice countering that brainwashing.

Beyond that, such topics are reasonable. This is a disinformation war. There is no way to win such a war if we can't talk about anything related. The topics you are listing are undeniably related, they just may not be in agreement with Q, or your interpretation of Q.

Should such people really be silenced? Or should they be debated? Silencing keeps us weak, and helps no one. The strength of the mind is increased through debate, not censorship. Silencing dissenting views is a victory condition for the Cabal. It is the worst thing we can possibly do here.

If someone wants to talk about Drag Racing or Toenail Clippings, the door is over there, but if they want to talk about how Q is a psyop, or whatever they want to talk about that relates to the GA, or the war on The Minds of Men, then they absolutely should do so on this forum. We are well equipped to handle the debate. That debate will provide evidence for all to use in the war outside.

Most social media and probably GA itself have been infiltrated by this shill software.

Every time I have ever spoken about moderation (which is not THIS topic, so I'm not sure where this is coming from, but whatever) I have said explicitly that AI is not allowed. "Moderation as a last resort" does not extend to banning AI. Obviously computers have no Rights posting on a Human board.

Have you seen the literal clusterfuck that happens when there is zero moderation of shills?

I suggest that debate is the strongest path out of such behavior, but I recognize that it is not always reasonable to adhere to that path in the strictest sense. I suggest it as a guiding principle, not an absolute. This is about invitation, not 1A.

The problem that I was addressing in my OP in this particular thread was one of categorizing people as "shills", "doomers", etc. THAT drives division. Most "shill" or "doomer" posts are actually just people, not hired thugs or AIs. When we categorize them, and silence them, we harm them, and we harm the community.

The community is based on research and debate. Shunning or silencing such people, who are just trying to talk about their thoughts as they relate to the war is the opposite of what we need to do to win it. The GA is about unification (We The People) and freedom of thought / life. Silencing people because they dissent is the opposite of the GA, and thus should be the opposite of the GA.win.

were they violating his free speech?

A forum is like a home. Not everyone is allowed to come into your home. That is not a Right that people have. It is not about "free speech" it's about invitation to a personal space. We don't have the Right to invade someone's personal space.

This can extend to public forums as well. If someone engages in debate in a public town hall for example, and all they want to do is talk about toenail clippings, if the town hall is a contractual space, there is no Right being violated in removing the person from that public space, because they have violated the conditions of the contractual invitation. The town hall may be open to all, but the hall itself is managed by agents of the government (AKA agreed as a "use specific" place within the Social Contract). A person is contractually bound to adhere to the conditions of the invitation to remain in that space.

Freedom of speech, only exists within the sphere of places for which there is no invitation required to join, for which there is no agent contractually bound to manage it. (Social Contract, not city/state contract. This is the difference between a Constitution and "laws").

The distinction here is "space" and "invitation." In each of these cases, there is a space that is being violated by behavior that is not a part of the invitation.

However, this discrimination is a very tricky subject. In the case of a topical forum, I would suggest that asking someone to stay on topic is the best first step. If that does not occur, ignoring someone is likely the best second step. Banning should be an absolute last resort imo. Those are my personal views, because I have seen what can happen in a free forum to change a persons mind with patience and understanding, but that is not about the Rights. No one has the Right to come into your home and talk about Drag Racing; because it's your home.

In the case of a Town Hall, what is topical, and what is not, can be abused by the PTB. This is another reason that "removal" must be an absolute last resort. And if there is no contractual bounds on speech within that public forum, then removal for any speech is a violation which must be dealt with in another way such as debate. If all else fails, an end to the meeting may be the only way. It can reconvene in a private venue where "free speech" does not apply.

Of course in a private venue, no votes can be had, no laws can be made, etc. So it's tricky, but I suggest it leads to far less fuckery than any other path.

Anti-Q, shill and doom comments are off-topic for GA and don't belong here

And here's the thing. No they aren't. They are the opposite of off topic. They are exactly the topics we need to engage in. If we debate these topics, the results of those debates teach us how to form excellent debate responses to the exact same topics that come up in the outside world. There is nothing better than engaging in such debates to bring about the GA. This board's primary purpose is about the GA. The primary path to the GA is through debate of these topics. Silencing these topics keeps us weak, and unprepared for our main purpose (or at least my main purpose, one I believe I share with many others) which is to help others transition into a better world. To keep them alive and safe during this war for our minds.

You can't counter the brainwashing in others unless you practice countering that brainwashing.

Beyond that, such topics are reasonable. This is a disinformation war. There is no way to win such a war if we can't talk about anything related. The topics you are listing are undeniably related, they just may not be in agreement with Q, or your interpretation of Q.

Should such people really be silenced? Or should they be debated? Silencing keeps us weak, and helps no one. The strength of the mind is increased through debate, not censorship. Silencing dissenting views is a victory condition for the Cabal. It is the worst thing we can possibly do here.

If someone wants to talk about Drag Racing or Toenail Clippings, the door is over there, but if they want to talk about how Q is a psyop, or whatever they want to talk about that relates to the GA, or the war on The Minds of Men, then they absolutely should do so on this forum. We are well equipped to handle the debate. That debate will provide evidence for all to use in the war outside.

Most social media and probably GA itself have been infiltrated by this shill software.

Every time I have ever spoken about moderation (which is not THIS topic, so I'm not sure where this is coming from, but whatever) I have said explicitly that AI is not allowed. "Moderation as a last resort" does not extend to banning AI. Obviously computers have no Rights posting on a Human board.

Have you seen the literal clusterfuck that happens when there is zero moderation of shills?

I suggest that debate is the strongest path out of such behavior, but I recognize that it is not always reasonable to adhere to that path in the strictest sense. I suggest it as a guiding principle, not an absolute. This is about invitation, not 1A.

The problem that I was addressing in my OP in this particular thread was one of categorizing people as "shills", "doomers", etc. THAT drives division. Most "shill" or "doomer" posts are actually just people, not hired thugs or AIs. When we categorize them, and silence them, we harm them, and we harm the community.

The community is based on research and debate. Shunning or silencing such people, who are just trying to talk about their thoughts as they relate to the war is the opposite of what we need to do to win it. The GA is about unification (We The People) and freedom of thought / life. Silencing people because they dissent is the opposite of the GA, and thus should be the opposite of the GA.win.

were they violating his free speech?

A forum is like a home. Not everyone is allowed to come into your home. That is not a Right that people have. It is not about "free speech" it's about invitation to a personal space. We don't have the Right to invade someone's personal space.

This extends to public forums as well. If someone engages in debate in a public town hall for example, and all they want to do is talk about toenail clippings, there is no Right being violated in removing the person from that public space, because they have violated the conditions of the invitation. The town hall may be open to all, but the hall itself is managed by agents of the government (AKA agreed as a "use specific" place within the Social Contract). A person is contractually bound to adhere to the conditions of the invitation to remain in that space.

Freedom of speech, only exists within the sphere of places for which there is no invitation required to join, for which there is no agent contractually bound to manage it. (Social Contract, not city contract. This is the difference between a Constitution and "laws").

The distinction here is "space" and "invitation." In each of these cases, there is a space that is being violated by behavior that is not a part of the invitation.

However, this discrimination is a very tricky subject. In the case of a topical forum, I would suggest that asking someone to stay on topic is the best first step. If that does not occur, ignoring someone is likely the best second step. Banning should be an absolute last resort imo. Those are my personal views, because I have seen what can happen in a free forum to change a persons mind with patience and understanding, but that is not about the Rights. No one has the Right to come into your home and talk about Drag Racing; because it's your home.

In the case of a Town Hall, what is topical, and what is not, can be abused by the PTB. This is another reason that "removal" must be an absolute last resort. And if there is no contractual bounds on speech within that public forum, then removal for any speech is a violation which must be dealt with in another way such as debate. If all else fails, an end to the meeting may be the only way. It can reconvene in a private venue where "free speech" does not apply.

Of course in a private venue, no votes can be had, no laws can be made, etc. So it's tricky, but I suggest it leads to far less fuckery than any other path.

Anti-Q, shill and doom comments are off-topic for GA and don't belong here

And here's the thing. No they aren't. They are the opposite of off topic. They are exactly the topics we need to engage in. If we debate these topics, the results of those debates teach us how to form excellent debate responses to the exact same topics that come up in the outside world. There is nothing better than engaging in such debates to bring about the GA. This board's primary purpose is about the GA. The primary path to the GA is through debate of these topics. Silencing these topics keeps us weak, and unprepared for our main purpose (or at least my main purpose, one I believe I share with many others) which is to help others transition into a better world. To keep them alive and safe during this war for our minds.

You can't counter the brainwashing in others unless you practice countering that brainwashing.

Beyond that, such topics are reasonable. This is a disinformation war. There is no way to win such a war if we can't talk about anything related. The topics you are listing are undeniably related, they just may not be in agreement with Q, or your interpretation of Q.

Should such people really be silenced? Or should they be debated? Silencing keeps us weak, and helps no one. The strength of the mind is increased through debate, not censorship. Silencing dissenting views is a victory condition for the Cabal. It is the worst thing we can possibly do here.

If someone wants to talk about Drag Racing or Toenail Clippings, the door is over there, but if they want to talk about how Q is a psyop, or whatever they want to talk about that relates to the GA, or the war on The Minds of Men, then they absolutely should do so on this forum. We are well equipped to handle the debate. That debate will provide evidence for all to use in the war outside.

Most social media and probably GA itself have been infiltrated by this shill software.

Every time I have ever spoken about moderation (which is not THIS topic, so I'm not sure where this is coming from, but whatever) I have said explicitly that AI is not allowed. "Moderation as a last resort" does not extend to banning AI. Obviously computers have no Rights posting on a Human board.

Have you seen the literal clusterfuck that happens when there is zero moderation of shills?

I suggest that debate is the strongest path out of such behavior, but I recognize that it is not always reasonable to adhere to that path in the strictest sense. I suggest it as a guiding principle, not an absolute. This is about invitation, not 1A.

The problem that I was addressing in my OP in this particular thread was one of categorizing people as "shills", "doomers", etc. THAT drives division. Most "shill" or "doomer" posts are actually just people, not hired thugs or AIs. When we categorize them, and silence them, we harm them, and we harm the community.

The community is based on research and debate. Shunning or silencing such people, who are just trying to talk about their thoughts as they relate to the war is the opposite of what we need to do to win it. The GA is about unification (We The People) and freedom of thought / life. Silencing people because they dissent is the opposite of the GA, and thus should be the opposite of the GA.win.

were they violating his free speech?

A forum is like a home. Not everyone is allowed to come into your home. That is not a Right that people have. It is not about "free speech" it's about invitation to a personal space. We don't have the Right to invade someone's personal space.

This extends to public forums as well. If someone engages in debate in a public town hall for example, and all they want to do is talk about toenail clippings, there is no Right being violated in removing the person from that public space, because they have violated the conditions of the invitation. The town hall may be open to all, but the hall itself is managed by agents of the government (AKA agreed as a "use specific" place within the Social Contract). A person is contractually bound to adhere to the conditions of the invitation to remain in that space.

Freedom of speech, only exists within the sphere of places for which there is no invitation required to join, for which there is no agent contractually bound to manage it. (Social Contract, not city contract. This is the difference between a Constitution and "laws").

The distinction here is "space" and "invitation." In each of these cases, there is a space that is being violated by behavior that is not a part of the invitation.

However, this discrimination is a very tricky subject. In the case of a topical forum, I would suggest that asking someone to stay on topic is the best first step. If that does not occur, ignoring someone is likely the best second step. Banning should be an absolute last resort imo. Those are my personal views, because I have seen what can happen in a free forum to change a persons mind with patience and understanding, but that is not about the Rights. No one has the Right to come into your home and talk about Drag Racing; because it's your home.

In the case of a Town Hall, what is topical, and what is not, can be abused by the PTB. This is another reason that "removal" must be an absolute last resort. And if there is no contractual bounds on speech within that public forum, then removal for any speech is a violation which must be dealt with in another way such as debate. If all else fails, an end to the meeting may be the only way. It can reconvene in a private venue where "free speech" does not apply.

Of course in a private venue, no votes can be had, no laws can be made, etc. So it's tricky, but I suggest it leads to far less fuckery than any other path.

Anti-Q, shill and doom comments are off-topic for GA and don't belong here

And here's the thing. No they aren't. They are the opposite of off topic. They are exactly the topics we need to engage in. If we debate these topics, the results of those debates teach us how to form excellent debate responses to the exact same topics that come up in the outside world. There is nothing better than engaging in such debates to bring about the GA. This board's primary purpose is about the GA. The primary path to the GA is through debate of these topics. Silencing these topics keeps us weak, and unprepared for our main purpose (or at least my main purpose, one I believe I share with many others) which is to help others transition into a better world. To keep them alive and safe during this war for our minds.

You can't counter the brainwashing in others unless you practice countering that brainwashing.

Beyond that, such topics are reasonable. This is a disinformation war. There is no way to win such a war if we can't talk about anything related. The topics you are listing are undeniably related, they just may not be in agreement with Q, or your interpretation of Q.

Should such people really be silenced? Or should they be debated? Silencing keeps us weak, and helps no one. The strength of the mind is increased through debate, not censorship. Silencing dissenting views is a victory condition for the Cabal. It is the worst thing we can possibly do here.

If someone wants to talk about Drag Racing or Toenail Clippings, the door is over there, but if they want to talk about how Q is a psyop, or whatever they want to talk about that relates to the GA, or the war on The Minds of Men, then they absolutely should do so on this forum. We are well equipped to handle the debate. That debate will provide evidence for all to use in the war outside.

Most social media and probably GA itself have been infiltrated by this shill software.

Every time I have ever spoken about moderation (which is not THIS topic, so I'm not sure where this is coming from, but whatever) I have said explicitly that AI is not allowed. "Moderation as a last resort" does not extend to banning AI. Obviously computers have no Rights posting on a Human board.

Have you seen the literal clusterfuck that happens when there is zero moderation of shills?

I suggest that debate is the strongest path out of such behavior, but I recognize that it is not always reasonable to adhere to that path in the strictest sense. I suggest it as a guiding principle, not an absolute. This is about invitation, not 1A.

The problem that I was addressing in my OP in this particular thread was one of categorizing people as "shills", "doomers", etc. THAT drives division. Most "shill" or "doomer" posts are actually just people, not hired thugs or AIs. When we categorize them, and silence them, we harm them, and we harm the community.

The community is based on research and debate. Shunning or silencing such people, who are just trying to talk about their thoughts as they relate to the war is the opposite of what we need to do to win it. The GA is about unification (We The People) and freedom of thought / life. Stopping the first by stopping the second just because they dissent is the opposite of the GA, and thus should be the opposite of the GA.win.

were they violating his free speech?

A forum is like a home. Not everyone is allowed to come into your home. That is not a Right that people have. It is not about "free speech" it's about invitation to a personal space. We don't have the Right to invade someone's personal space.

This extends to public forums as well. If someone engages in debate in a public town hall for example, and all they want to do is talk about toenail clippings, there is no Right being violated in removing the person from that public space, because they have violated the conditions of the invitation. The town hall may be open to all, but the hall itself is managed by agents of the government (AKA agreed as a "use specific" place within the Social Contract). A person is contractually bound to adhere to the conditions of the invitation to remain in that space.

Freedom of speech, only exists within the sphere of places for which there is no invitation required to join, for which there is no agent contractually bound to manage it. (Social Contract, not city contract. This is the difference between a Constitution and "laws").

The distinction here is "space" and "invitation." In each of these cases, there is a space that is being violated by behavior that is not a part of the invitation.

However, this discrimination is a very tricky subject. In the case of a topical forum, I would suggest that asking someone to stay on topic is the best first step. If that does not occur, ignoring someone is likely the best second step. Banning should be an absolute last resort imo. Those are my personal views, because I have seen what can happen in a free forum to change a persons mind with patience and understanding, but that is not about the Rights. No one has the Right to come into your home and talk about Drag Racing; because it's your home.

In the case of a Town Hall, what is topical, and what is not, can be abused by the PTB. This is another reason that "removal" must be an absolute last resort. And if there is no contractual bounds on speech within that public forum, then removal for any speech is a violation which must be dealt with in another way such as debate. If all else fails, an end to the meeting may be the only way. It can reconvene in a private venue where "free speech" does not apply.

Anti-Q, shill and doom comments are off-topic for GA and don't belong here

And here's the thing. No they aren't. They are the opposite of off topic. They are exactly the topics we need to engage in. If we debate these topics, the results of those debates teach us how to form excellent debate responses to the exact same topics that come up in the outside world. There is nothing better than engaging in such debates to bring about the GA. This board's primary purpose is about the GA. The primary path to the GA is through debate of these topics. Silencing these topics keeps us weak, and unprepared for our main purpose (or at least my main purpose, one I believe I share with many others) which is to help others transition into a better world. To keep them alive and safe during this war for our minds.

You can't counter the brainwashing in others unless you practice countering that brainwashing.

Beyond that, such topics are reasonable. This is a disinformation war. There is no way to win such a war if we can't talk about anything related. The topics you are listing are undeniably related, they just may not be in agreement with Q, or your interpretation of Q.

Should such people really be silenced? Or should they be debated? Silencing keeps us weak, and helps no one. The strength of the mind is increased through debate, not censorship. Silencing dissenting views is a victory condition for the Cabal. It is the worst thing we can possibly do here.

If someone wants to talk about Drag Racing or Toenail Clippings, the door is over there, but if they want to talk about how Q is a psyop, or whatever they want to talk about that relates to the GA, or the war on The Minds of Men, then they absolutely should do so on this forum. We are well equipped to handle the debate. That debate will provide evidence for all to use in the war outside.

Most social media and probably GA itself have been infiltrated by this shill software.

Every time I have ever spoken about moderation (which is not THIS topic, so I'm not sure where this is coming from, but whatever) I have said explicitly that AI is not allowed. "Moderation as a last resort" does not extend to banning AI. Obviously computers have no Rights posting on a Human board.

Have you seen the literal clusterfuck that happens when there is zero moderation of shills?

I suggest that debate is the strongest path out of such behavior, but I recognize that it is not always reasonable to adhere to that path in the strictest sense. I suggest it as a guiding principle, not an absolute. This is about invitation, not 1A.

The problem that I was addressing in my OP in this particular thread was one of categorizing people as "shills", "doomers", etc. THAT drives division. Most "shill" or "doomer" posts are actually just people, not hired thugs or AIs. When we categorize them, and silence them, we harm them, and we harm the community.

The community is based on research and debate. Shunning or silencing such people, who are just trying to talk about their thoughts as they relate to the war is the opposite of what we need to do to win it. The GA is about unification (We The People) and freedom of thought / life. Stopping the first by stopping the second just because they dissent is the opposite of the GA, and thus should be the opposite of the GA.win.

were they violating his free speech?

A forum is like a home. Not everyone is allowed to come into your home. That is not a Right that people have. It is not about "free speech" it's about invitation to a personal space. We don't have the Right to invade someone's personal space.

This extends to public forums as well. If someone engages in debate in a public town hall for example, and all they want to do is talk about toenail clippings, there is no Right being violated in removing the person from that public space, because they have violated the conditions of the invitation. The town hall may be open to all, but the hall itself is managed by agents of the government (AKA agreed as a "use specific" place within the Social Contract). A person is contractually bound to adhere to the conditions of the invitation to remain in that space.

Freedom of speech, only exists within the sphere of places for which there is no invitation required to join, for which there is no agent contractually bound to manage it. (Social Contract, not city contract. This is the difference between a Constitution and "laws").

The distinction here is "space" and "invitation." In each of these cases, there is a space that is being violated by behavior that is not a part of the invitation.

However, this discrimination is a very tricky subject. In the case of a topical forum, I would suggest that asking someone to stay on topic is the best first step. If that does not occur, ignoring someone is likely the best second step. Banning should be an absolute last resort imo. Those are my personal views, because I have seen what can happen in a free forum to change a persons mind with patience and understanding, but that is not about the Rights. No one has the Right to come into your home and talk about Drag Racing; because it's your home.

In the case of a Town Hall, what is topical, and what is not, can be abused by the PTB. This is another reason that "removal" must be an absolute last resort. And if there is no contractual bounds on speech within that public forum, then removal for any speech is a violation.

Anti-Q, shill and doom comments are off-topic for GA and don't belong here

And here's the thing. No they aren't. They are the opposite of off topic. They are exactly the topics we need to engage in. If we debate these topics, the results of those debates teach us how to form excellent debate responses to the exact same topics that come up in the outside world. There is nothing better than engaging in such debates to bring about the GA. This board's primary purpose is about the GA. The primary path to the GA is through debate of these topics. Silencing these topics keeps us weak, and unprepared for our main purpose (or at least my main purpose, one I believe I share with many others) which is to help others transition into a better world. To keep them alive and safe during this war for our minds.

You can't counter the brainwashing in others unless you practice countering that brainwashing.

Beyond that, such topics are reasonable. This is a disinformation war. There is no way to win such a war if we can't talk about anything related. The topics you are listing are undeniably related, they just may not be in agreement with Q, or your interpretation of Q.

Should such people really be silenced? Or should they be debated? Silencing keeps us weak, and helps no one. The strength of the mind is increased through debate, not censorship. Silencing dissenting views is a victory condition for the Cabal. It is the worst thing we can possibly do here.

If someone wants to talk about Drag Racing or Toenail Clippings, the door is over there, but if they want to talk about how Q is a psyop, or whatever they want to talk about that relates to the GA, or the war on The Minds of Men, then they absolutely should do so on this forum. We are well equipped to handle the debate. That debate will provide evidence for all to use in the war outside.

Most social media and probably GA itself have been infiltrated by this shill software.

Every time I have ever spoken about moderation (which is not THIS topic, so I'm not sure where this is coming from, but whatever) I have said explicitly that AI is not allowed. "Moderation as a last resort" does not extend to banning AI. Obviously computers have no Rights posting on a Human board.

Have you seen the literal clusterfuck that happens when there is zero moderation of shills?

I suggest that debate is the strongest path out of such behavior, but I recognize that it is not always reasonable to adhere to that path in the strictest sense. I suggest it as a guiding principle, not an absolute. This is about invitation, not 1A.

The problem that I was addressing in my OP in this particular thread was one of categorizing people as "shills", "doomers", etc. THAT drives division. Most "shill" or "doomer" posts are actually just people, not hired thugs or AIs. When we categorize them, and silence them, we harm them, and we harm the community.

The community is based on research and debate. Shunning or silencing such people, who are just trying to talk about their thoughts as they relate to the war is the opposite of what we need to do to win it. The GA is about unification (We The People) and freedom of thought / life. Stopping the first by stopping the second just because they dissent is the opposite of the GA, and thus should be the opposite of the GA.win.

were they violating his free speech?

A forum is like a home. Not everyone is allowed to come into your home. That is not a Right that people have. It is not about "free speech" it's about invitation to a personal space. We don't have the Right to invade someone's personal space.

This extends to public forums as well. If someone engages in debate in a public town hall for example, and all they want to do is talk about toenail clippings, there is no Right being violated in removing the person from that public space, because they have violated the conditions of the invitation. The town hall may be open to all, but the hall itself is managed by agents of the government (AKA agreed as a "use specific" place within the Social Contract). A person is contractually bound to adhere to the conditions of the invitation to remain in that space.

Freedom of speech, only exists within the sphere of places for which there is no invitation required to join, for which there is no agent contractually bound to manage it. (Social Contract, not city contract. This is the difference between a Constitution and "laws").

The distinction here is "space" and "invitation." In each of these cases, there is a space that is being violated by behavior that is not a part of the invitation.

However, this discrimination is a very tricky subject. In the case of a topical forum, I would suggest that asking someone to stay on topic is the best first step. If that does not occur, ignoring someone is likely the best second step. Banning should be an absolute last resort imo. Those are my personal views, because I have seen what can happen in a free forum to change a persons mind with patience and understanding, but that is not about the Rights. No one has the Right to come into your home and talk about Drag Racing; because it's your home.

In the case of a Town Hall, what is topical, and what is not, can be abused by the PTB. This is another reason that "removal" must be an absolute last resort.

Anti-Q, shill and doom comments are off-topic for GA and don't belong here

And here's the thing. No they aren't. They are the opposite of off topic. They are exactly the topics we need to engage in. If we debate these topics, the results of those debates teach us how to form excellent debate responses to the exact same topics that come up in the outside world. There is nothing better than engaging in such debates to bring about the GA. This board's primary purpose is about the GA. The primary path to the GA is through debate of these topics. Silencing these topics keeps us weak, and unprepared for our main purpose (or at least my main purpose, one I believe I share with many others) which is to help others transition into a better world. To keep them alive and safe during this war for our minds.

You can't counter the brainwashing in others unless you practice countering that brainwashing.

Beyond that, such topics are reasonable. This is a disinformation war. There is no way to win such a war if we can't talk about anything related. The topics you are listing are undeniably related, they just may not be in agreement with Q, or your interpretation of Q.

Should such people really be silenced? Or should they be debated? Silencing keeps us weak, and helps no one. The strength of the mind is increased through debate, not censorship. Silencing dissenting views is a victory condition for the Cabal. It is the worst thing we can possibly do here.

If someone wants to talk about Drag Racing or Toenail Clippings, the door is over there, but if they want to talk about how Q is a psyop, or whatever they want to talk about that relates to the GA, or the war on The Minds of Men, then they absolutely should do so on this forum. We are well equipped to handle the debate. That debate will provide evidence for all to use in the war outside.

Most social media and probably GA itself have been infiltrated by this shill software.

Every time I have ever spoken about moderation (which is not THIS topic, so I'm not sure where this is coming from, but whatever) I have said explicitly that AI is not allowed. "Moderation as a last resort" does not extend to banning AI. Obviously computers have no Rights posting on a Human board.

Have you seen the literal clusterfuck that happens when there is zero moderation of shills?

I suggest that debate is the strongest path out of such behavior, but I recognize that it is not always reasonable to adhere to that path in the strictest sense. I suggest it as a guiding principle, not an absolute. This is about invitation, not 1A.

The problem that I was addressing in my OP in this particular thread was one of categorizing people as "shills", "doomers", etc. THAT drives division. Most "shill" or "doomer" posts are actually just people, not hired thugs or AIs. When we categorize them, and silence them, we harm them, and we harm the community.

The community is based on research and debate. Shunning or silencing such people, who are just trying to talk about their thoughts as they relate to the war is the opposite of what we need to do to win it. The GA is about unification (We The People) and freedom of thought / life. Stopping the first by stopping the second just because they dissent is the opposite of the GA, and thus should be the opposite of the GA.win.

were they violating his free speech?

A forum is like a home. Not everyone is allowed to come into your home. That is not a Right that people have. It is not about "free speech" it's about invitation to a personal space. We don't have the Right to invade someone's personal space.

This extends to public forums as well. If someone engages in debate in a public town hall for example, and all they want to do is talk about toenail clippings, there is no Right being violated in removing the person from that public space, because they have violated the conditions of the invitation. The town hall may be open to all, but the hall itself is managed by agents of the government (AKA agreed as a "use specific" place within the Social Contract). A person is contractually bound to adhere to the conditions of the invitation to remain in that space.

Freedom of speech, only exists within the sphere of places for which there is no invitation required to join, for which there is no agent contractually bound to manage it. (Social Contract, not city contract. This is the difference between a Constitution and "laws").

The distinction here is "space" and "invitation." In each of these cases, there is a space that is being violated by behavior that is not a part of the invitation.

However, this discrimination is a very tricky subject. In the case of a topical forum, I would suggest that asking someone to stay on topic is the best first step. If that does not occur, ignoring someone is likely the best second step. Banning should be an absolute last resort imo. Those are my personal views, because I have seen what can happen in a free forum to change a persons mind with patience and understanding, but that is not about the Rights. No one has the Right to come into your home and talk about Drag Racing; because it's your home.

Anti-Q, shill and doom comments are off-topic for GA and don't belong here

And here's the thing. No they aren't. They are the opposite of off topic. They are exactly the topics we need to engage in. If we debate these topics, the results of those debates teach us how to form excellent debate responses to the exact same topics that come up in the outside world. There is nothing better than engaging in such debates to bring about the GA. This board's primary purpose is about the GA. The primary path to the GA is through debate of these topics. Silencing these topics keeps us weak, and unprepared for our main purpose (or at least my main purpose, one I believe I share with many others) which is to help others transition into a better world. To keep them alive and safe during this war for our minds.

You can't counter the brainwashing in others unless you practice countering that brainwashing.

Beyond that, such topics are reasonable. This is a disinformation war. There is no way to win such a war if we can't talk about anything related. The topics you are listing are undeniably related, they just may not be in agreement with Q, or your interpretation of Q.

Should such people really be silenced? Or should they be debated? Silencing keeps us weak, and helps no one. The strength of the mind is increased through debate, not censorship. Silencing dissenting views is a victory condition for the Cabal. It is the worst thing we can possibly do here.

If someone wants to talk about Drag Racing or Toenail Clippings, the door is over there, but if they want to talk about how Q is a psyop, or whatever they want to talk about that relates to the GA, or the war on The Minds of Men, then they absolutely should do so on this forum. We are well equipped to handle the debate. That debate will provide evidence for all to use in the war outside.

Most social media and probably GA itself have been infiltrated by this shill software.

Every time I have ever spoken about moderation (which is not THIS topic, so I'm not sure where this is coming from, but whatever) I have said explicitly that AI is not allowed. "Moderation as a last resort" does not extend to banning AI. Obviously computers have no Rights posting on a Human board.

Have you seen the literal clusterfuck that happens when there is zero moderation of shills?

I suggest that debate is the strongest path out of such behavior, but I recognize that it is not always reasonable to adhere to that path in the strictest sense. I suggest it as a guiding principle, not an absolute. This is about invitation, not 1A.

The problem that I was addressing in my OP in this particular thread was one of categorizing people as "shills", "doomers", etc. THAT drives division. Most "shill" or "doomer" posts are actually just people, not hired thugs or AIs. When we categorize them, and silence them, we harm them, and we harm the community.

The community is based on research and debate. Shunning or silencing such people, who are just trying to talk about their thoughts as they relate to the war is the opposite of what we need to do to win it. The GA is about unification (We The People) and freedom of thought / life. Stopping the first by stopping the second just because they dissent is the opposite of the GA, and thus should be the opposite of the GA.win.