New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Political Censorship

EvMetro

Mayor
My intent is to define insults as inappropriate and rightly deleted.
This is what lefties do INSTEAD of posting superior arguments and logic. If you have the winning hand, there is no need to redefine your opponent's comments as inappropriate or as hate speech.

Redefining content on political boards and social media as "inappropriate," hate speech, misinformation, or against site rules is a classic way that site rules get exploited to justify censorship. Otherwise altruistic site rules are used as an excuse to use censorship once the content is REDEFINED as being against the rules. You are not the first lefty to look at rules as something that can be exploited to justify censorship. This kind of cheating is natural, all you have to do at your level is bring exploitable content to the attention of those who can make use of it.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
This is what lefties do INSTEAD of posting superior arguments and logic. If you have the winning hand, there is no need to redefine your opponent's comments as inappropriate or as hate speech.

Redefining content on political boards and social media as "inappropriate," hate speech, misinformation, or against site rules is a classic way that site rules get exploited to justify censorship. Otherwise altruistic site rules are used as an excuse to use censorship once the content is REDEFINED as being against the rules. You are not the first lefty to look at rules as something that can be exploited to justify censorship. This kind of cheating is natural, all you have to do at your level is bring exploitable content to the attention of those who can make use of it.
Who here has had posts deleted for containing misinformation? Trump has had a problem with numerous social media sites for the false accusations he has posted.
Has that happened here?

So here you are defending offensive name calling and insults, as if that is a necessary part of political dialogue. It is not evidence of superior logic. It is a sign that the poster is running on fumes. When right wing posters here have nothing else to use as an argument supporting their opinions, they will frequently resort to calling someone gay or an azzhole. That doesn't happen when someone believes they are winning the debate.
 

EvMetro

Mayor
Who here has had posts deleted for containing misinformation? Trump has had a problem with numerous social media sites for the false accusations he has posted.
Has that happened here?
This thread is not about Trump, J6, or specific censorship actions that have occurred on this site.

Just to make it clear:

1. You have completely evaded the redefining of content in order to exploit rules, even though you quoted it.

2. Your intent on this thread is to support and defend censorship. You are prepared to introduce unlimited new thread derailing arguments, and you are on the look out for anything that can possibly be used to marginalize the premise of the thread.

So here you are defending offensive name calling and insults, as if that is a necessary part of political dialogue.
Name calling and insults ARE standard political discourse, and political discussion IS ugly. This ugliness is not something to defend, it simply is what it is. Name calling and insults are certainly better than killing, torture, and prison. Remember that millions have died because political discourse is so ugly.

It is not evidence of superior logic.
The winning hand is superior logic and arguments. Censorship and redefining content as against rules in order to exploit the rules doesn't get done by those holding a winning hand.

It is a sign that the poster is running on fumes.
Censorship gets used for this.


When right wing posters here have nothing else to use as an argument supporting their opinions, they will frequently resort to calling someone gay or an azzhole. That doesn't happen when someone believes they are winning the debate.
Start a thread about this.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
This thread is not about Trump, J6, or specific censorship actions that have occurred on this site.

Just to make it clear:

1. You have completely evaded the redefining of content in order to exploit rules, even though you quoted it.

2. Your intent on this thread is to support and defend censorship. You are prepared to introduce unlimited new thread derailing arguments, and you are on the look out for anything that can possibly be used to marginalize the premise of the thread.



Name calling and insults ARE standard political discourse, and political discussion IS ugly. This ugliness is not something to defend, it simply is what it is. Name calling and insults are certainly better than killing, torture, and prison. Remember that millions have died because political discourse is so ugly.



The winning hand is superior logic and arguments. Censorship and redefining content as against rules in order to exploit the rules doesn't get done by those holding a winning hand.



Censorship gets used for this.




Start a thread about this.
"redefining"? You pretend that an insult is subject to some redefinition. It isn't. When someone throws an insult, it is obvious. It is quite simple. If you wish to participate in a site like PJ and they have rules about unacceptable content then it is hardly an attempt to eliminate dissent when posts are deleted for crossing the line.
 

EvMetro

Mayor
"redefining"? You pretend that an insult is subject to some redefinition. It isn't. When someone throws an insult, it is obvious. It is quite simple. If you wish to participate in a site like PJ and they have rules about unacceptable content then it is hardly an attempt to eliminate dissent when posts are deleted for crossing the line.
When posts are deleted on any site, it is called censorship. Regardless of if the censorship was done to enforce rules or to exploit the rules, deleting posts is still textbook censorship. What you are attempting to navigate around is that rules really DO get exploited to justify censorship.

Remember, your intent on this thread is to support and defend censorship. In every thread about censorship on every site, lefties show up to support and defend censorship. This is your subjective mission in all threads about censorship, including this one.
 

EvMetro

Mayor
My intent is to define insults as inappropriate and rightly deleted.
This is the profound take away. What we have here is a lefty speaking his true intentions. He is not in the position to do the actual censorship himself, but this profound admission tells us how lefties think. If he had a moderator badge, he would be acting on this intent. Look how natural redefining content is for lefties!

While this guy may not have a license to censor, keep in mind that when a lefty gets a badge, he absolutely WILL use it to redefine content so that it doesn't fit site rules. The exploitation of rules to justify censorship is NATURAL for lefties, they don't even know they are doing anything wrong.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
This is the profound take away. What we have here is a lefty speaking his true intentions. He is not in the position to do the actual censorship himself, but this profound admission tells us how lefties think. If he had a moderator badge, he would be acting on this intent. Look how natural redefining content is for lefties!

While this guy may not have a license to censor, keep in mind that when a lefty gets a badge, he absolutely WILL use it to redefine content so that it doesn't fit site rules. The exploitation of rules to justify censorship is NATURAL for lefties, they don't even know they are doing anything wrong.
No. The profound take away is that you recognize that right wingers tend to go to personal attacks, insults, name calling...basically unable to carry on a civil conversation if someone disagrees. One poster here was banned because he threatened to come to my home and burn it down. To you that is just an acceptable part of political dialogue.

You seem to refuse to accept there is a line that shouldn't be crossed. If you have a strong argument, you don't need insults. The intent of those insults is to discredit someone you disagree with. If you need to do that it is because you are losing the debate on the merits.
 

EvMetro

Mayor
As we can see here, a lefty has repeatedly quoted me differentiating the concept of exploiting rules to justify censorship from the concept of enforcing rules when appropriate. He will NEVER differentiate these two concepts, nor will he ever acknowledge the concept of exploiting rules to justify censorship.

The notion that one could go on having a discussion about the difference between these two things while one party is unable to demonstrate an understanding of both concepts is obviously not possible.

Suggesting that I endorse posts from members threatening to burn down his house is not just vile, but he will also NEVER substantiate his claim that I endorse posts threatening violence. He will also NEVER be held accountable for making such a claim about me. Same for his claim that I "accept" lines that should not be crossed.

His vile claim against me is a strawman and a red herring, meant to derail discussing what he keeps evading, which is differentiating the exploitation of rules to justify insidious censorship from altruistically enforcing rules when appropriate.

I see that somebody clicked the "like" button for the post 67 where this guy claimed that I endorse posts that threaten violence, and that I accept lines that should not be crossed. It's absolutely disgusting that this guy actually has a fan club.
 

EvMetro

Mayor
...One poster here was banned because he threatened to come to my home and burn it down. To you that is just an acceptable part of political dialogue.
You seem to refuse to accept there is a line that shouldn't be crossed. If you have a strong argument, you don't need insults.
I consider it an insult for you to claim that I find it acceptable for people to threaten violence against you, and that I don't accept that there is a line that shod not be crossed. Especially in a thread where I have even endorsed site rules that forbid such things. Your insult is vile and unsubstantiated, but I hope that it is not censored. You've crossed and ugly line with this unsubstantiated insult, and it is a picture worth a thousand words. I hope it stays up so everybody can see what you and whoever hit "like" on it are about.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
I consider it an insult for you to claim that I find it acceptable for people to threaten violence against you, and that I don't accept that there is a line that shod not be crossed. Especially in a thread where I have even endorsed site rules that forbid such things. Your insult is vile and unsubstantiated, but I hope that it is not censored. You've crossed and ugly line with this unsubstantiated insult, and it is a picture worth a thousand words. I hope it stays up so everybody can see what you and whoever hit "like" on it are about.
I can only go by your own words. Your logic, or lack of it, is clearly in evidence in the zigzag claims that insults and name calling are just the normal part of political debate and then claim deleting such posts is censorship...now saying you support such censorship.
 

EvMetro

Mayor
I can only go by your own words.
You will NEVER be able to do this, since you cannot quote me saying that I consider it an insult for you to claim that I find it acceptable for people to threaten violence against you, and that I don't accept that there is a line that shod not be crossed. It never happened. I can sure quite you vile and untrue insults.

Your logic, or lack of it, is clearly in evidence in the zigzag claims that insults and name calling are just the normal part of political debate
They are. This can be seen by your vile and untrue assertion that I find it acceptable for people to threaten violence against you, and that I don't accept that there is a line that shoud not be crossed. You've violated site rules, but your personal insults did not need to be censored and you did not need to be held accountable.

then claim deleting such posts is censorship...now saying you support such censorship.
Deleting posts IS censorship. I do not support insidious censorship where site rules are exploited to justify it.

Remember that you are still evading the discussion that we have been having about differentiating enforcing rules from exploiting rules. Just because you evade acknowledging that these two things are different doesn't mean that the one you ate evading discussing doesn't exist. Your incredible efforts to evade differentiating these two things is actually a picture worth a thousand words. There is absolutely no doubt that you have read my posts about this over and over, so the picture is of you refusing to reply to what is too politically inconvenient to talk about. You've even broken site rules with your personal insults, just as a red herring to evade discussing it.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
As we can see here, a lefty has repeatedly quoted me differentiating the concept of exploiting rules to justify censorship from the concept of enforcing rules when appropriate. He will NEVER differentiate these two concepts, nor will he ever acknowledge the concept of exploiting rules to justify censorship.

The notion that one could go on having a discussion about the difference between these two things while one party is unable to demonstrate an understanding of both concepts is obviously not possible.

Suggesting that I endorse posts from members threatening to burn down his house is not just vile, but he will also NEVER substantiate his claim that I endorse posts threatening violence. He will also NEVER be held accountable for making such a claim about me. Same for his claim that I "accept" lines that should not be crossed.

His vile claim against me is a strawman and a red herring, meant to derail discussing what he keeps evading, which is differentiating the exploitation of rules to justify insidious censorship from altruistically enforcing rules when appropriate.

I see that somebody clicked the "like" button for the post 67 where this guy claimed that I endorse posts that threaten violence, and that I accept lines that should not be crossed. It's absolutely disgusting that this guy actually has a fan club.
Why lie? I did not say you endorse such posts. You simply don't want them deleted.
 

EvMetro

Mayor
Your post 67.
...One poster here was banned because he threatened to come to my home and burn it down. To you that is just an acceptable part of political dialogue.
You seem to refuse to accept there is a line that shouldn't be crossed.
I can always quote what I claim. You have made unsubstantiated and vile personal insults against me. They were even witnessed by the guy who clicked the like button.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Your post 67.




I can always quote what I claim. You have made unsubstantiated and vile personal insults against me. They were even witnessed by the guy who clicked the like button.
Your words.
Name calling and insults ARE standard political discourse, and political discussion IS ugly. This ugliness is not something to defend, it simply is what it is.

Are you now saying it is acceptable to delete posts that include insults or name calling?
 

EvMetro

Mayor
Your words.
Name calling and insults ARE standard political discourse, and political discussion IS ugly. This ugliness is not something to defend, it simply is what it is.

Are you now saying it is acceptable to delete posts that include insults or name calling?
I'm saying exactly what you just quoted of me.

Do you have a quote if me saying that I find it acceptable for people to threaten violence against you, and that I don't accept that there is a line that should not be crossed?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
I'm saying exactly what you just quoted of me.

Do you have a quote if me saying that I find it acceptable for people to threaten violence against you, and that I don't accept that there is a line that should not be crossed?
Sheesh...what was the term describing someone who chases his own tail so furiously that he disappears up his own ass? Cuz you are there.

Name calling and insults ARE standard political discourse, and political discussion IS ugly. This ugliness is not something to defend, it simply is what it is.

So even though they are standard in political discourse, they are ugly, but they are what they are....should they be deleted/censored?
 

EvMetro

Mayor
Sheesh...what was the term describing someone who chases his own tail so furiously that he disappears up his own ass? Cuz you are there.

Name calling and insults ARE standard political discourse, and political discussion IS ugly. This ugliness is not something to defend, it simply is what it is.

So even though they are standard in political discourse, they are ugly, but they are what they are....should they be deleted/censored?
Why are you quoting this?

We can have this new discussion when you can demonstrate that you understand the difference between enforcing rules and exploiting rules to justify insidious censorship.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Why are you quoting this?

We can have this new discussion when you can demonstrate that you understand the difference between enforcing rules and exploiting rules to justify insidious censorship.
I quoted your post. Now you seem to have forgotten writing it. If you can't muster the short term memory to continue a conversation then why would I waste my time?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Why are you quoting this?

We can have this new discussion when you can demonstrate that you understand the difference between enforcing rules and exploiting rules to justify insidious censorship.
We can continue the conversation when you can demonstrate the actual evidence that rules are exploited to censor political opinion and not because they include offensive insults, name calling or threats.
 
Top