Censorship, differing opinions, offense over maliciousness / Criticism

[mumblemumble]

I recently had an interesting exchange on here, where me and another user had a suprising exchange, on the topic of rape, and suicide as a possible addition to rimworld.

What made this interesting, is both of us were VERY pleasant to each other, and both were very SURPRISED by this. Both of us disagreed, both of us had different views, but neither of us insulted, called names, and were very pleasant to each other despite apposing viewpoints.

I will say, this came to make a realization for me : It was NOT so much that neither of us insulted each other, so much as neither of us PERCEIVED criticism as an insult. We both pointed out flaws in each others ideas, different opinions, different views on points we made, but at no point did it get hostile, and the perceptions of the arguments is the reason, I'm certain.

What do I mean by this? Here is an example.

Heres bob 

Bob is a nice guy overall, but dresses badly, not fitting, ect, not out of money being tight, but simply being unaware.

His friend, jim, might notice this, and as a friend, INFORM him of this.

Now, bob can take this 2 ways. One, bob can get highly offended that jim is suggesting he cannot dress, and cause a ruckus, OR, 2, Bob can take the criticism to heart, examine it, perhaps criticize the criticism, thank jim and move on...

This is the fine distinction I think MANY do not understand : The concept of "only a friend will tell you when your face is dirty". A friend has 2 choices in this scenario, to either tell you that your face is dirty, or leave you oblivious. Now yes, the friend COULD be mistaken, bob COULD be wearing clothes funny due to an injury or something, but should criticism be withheld on the off chance of these kinds of situations? NO! Such things cause highly superficial, and opaque relationships, where stuff is just not talked about, and nothing deep is mentioned. In a situation where bob say, has injuries which he dresses funny because, he can just sit jim down, and explain the situation.  Yes, this is scary, yes this makes bob  vulnerable, but it also makes bob and jim closer friends.

I think more people need to think this way, even for ideas which seem  offensive so long as they aren't presented in a vile way (ie "fuck you faggot" or "kill yourself retard") Should be considered. EVEN IF THEY ARE INCORRECT, or PERCEIVED as incorrect, this shouldn't shut down discussion. The best ideas come from discussions and an open marketplace of ALL ideas. The worst that might happen is someone is incorrect, you point out why, having a long discussion about it. And the person being criticized should take any points brought up into consideration as well, not as a personal afront to THEM, but a flaw of the IDEA being pointed out. Most importantly, objective things such as facts (water freezes at 32 degrees) Should be considered more than subjective opinions (this is offensive!), but even things PERCEIVED as facts should not be immune to testing. lets say a guy said he had proof he could get water to withstand  temperatures as low as -10 c without freezing using say, radio wavelengths... I would be skeptical, of course, but I would consider the information, and ask for results. I wouldn't IMMEDIATELY say "wow, you retard you think water doesn't freeze at 0 c? moron!", I would hear him out first, see his observations and findings, and go from there.

Guess this is a bit of a rant, relating to how I've been treated on other sites for a few of my opinions, but its still good to share I figure. Always examine new information people. As Einstein said, "many tests can prove my theory right, but it only takes 1 to prove me wrong".

[ruddthree]

That was well said.

[mumblemumble]

Thank you. Another thing I should add, is INTERPRETING WORDS HOW THEY ARE SAID!

This is a huge one...Often, arguements escalate, because people twist, or misinterpret words.

Lets say someone says "hey mumble, you lost weight!".

I COULD...interpret this as "ARE YOU SAYING I WAS FAT?!" or something else, and get offended, or assume this is a smart ass comment. If I react that way, I cause an escalation from ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, and cause a dispute, which was never intended.

Really, I should take the words at face value unless for some reason I cannot make heads or tails of it.

Its kinda like the argument of "most" being interpreted as "all". Like MOST steaks are delicious, this said, I guarantee I can find steaks which will make you puke. "most" dogs are nice, but we are cautious unless we have an idea about them. (granted, this argument is generally used when "most" is used in a negative light. I won't use a specific example, to prevent people getting upset, but imagine an illiterate town where 80% of people cannot read, and when you say "most people in this town cannot read", they scream at you and show you the 20% who can. Great, so 20% exists, what about the 80%?)

[BetaSpectre]

Censorship in media never makes sense IMO, the rating system should be all we need. IRL I get it that we need filters.

[mumblemumble]

Agreed, censorship is only really used for political reasons. Even though I understand censoring "tasteless" stuff (scat videos, stuff made to be disturbing, JUST to be disturbing, ect)  Censoring word, speech, hate speech, political opinions, and all of that serves no other purpose than to control people, and keep them from straying from the set narrative, or provide "immunity of criticism" to certain groups

[Kegereneku]

Here's a different point of views

Censorship and Filtering can easily end up as the very same thing. It may be unpleasant when we are on the wrong end of it but it also has beneficial utility beyond "evil population control", it can be used to protect what free-speech alone do not : Ethic, Context & Factuality.

Before, voicing opinion was ephemeral and short range, it only spread as your voice could reach, now we have written, lost-lasting and easy to copy/paste media.
Some people love to think that it should allow us to simply ignore, filter and live in constant freedom, but that would be forgetting we live in a real world with long lasting physical consequences from simple comments or that free speech is one ethic away from Propaganda.
Knowing that people can be influenced by the sheer amount of support (regardless of truthiness) an 'Evil group' can use free speech to drown dissenting or opposite opinion.
The Internet do not naturally act as a filter, it is also very efficient as a resonance chamber for lies against a group.

Yes, a claim of factuality should indeed be possible to challenge,
But how and for what end is important enough that if Self-censorship doesn't happen, it can be ethical and beneficial to have friends able to limit the reach of an opinion in order to prevent or at least mitigate the use of free-speech for hate-speech or propaganda against a minority group.

This is why you shouldn't dissociate an opinion from the context it was made in.
For a scientific example : you CAN prevent water from solidifying at -0°C, using pressure, or nothing.
The above is fact (I swear!), but someone can "abuse free speech" to spread "scientific" disinformation, creating false website that most people would consider legit providing "definite proof" of whatever only-they consider real like UFO, God's existence, Racist, Sexist "fact", transphobic smear...etc.

Hard science are difficult to falsify, but Social Science is a thing, Psychology and Sociology as well and with direct consequences on our life (just look up "Gender Roles Studies").
This should explain why exception to free-speech can be perfectly ethical, even if the method and success can leave dubious. Like banning a popular misogynist from twitter (but making the media spread his name even more).

The inability of some people to recognize their bias, control the reach of their speech, or to stay ethical is a major source of conflict in this world where internet allow any innocuous looking speech to spread & congregate on a worldwide level.


Let's take the little story from Mumble first post, from a different perspective.

'Jim find Bob to be badly dressed'
The idea that Bob is 'badly dressed' is not a fact, it is a subjective opinion. Jim may not be aware of that, or that Bob consider himself 'well dressed' and follow an established 'fashion'. Yet Jim may really believe it will improve Bob's life.

So Jim have several possibility :
- Jim could reconsider his opinion first. He may still feel Bob is "badly dressed" but censor himself (not say anything) because it would only create a ruckus and it is not worth losing a friend.
or
- Jim could tell Bob in private, maybe Bob will change, or Jim will change opinion. Maybe they'll fight and stop being friend. If Jim persist insulting his clothing despite those not being a problem for anybody, Bob could rightly feel harassed.
or
- Jim could tell Bob loudly in public, trying to convince his friend, even sharing on Forum & Facebook why Bob is 'badly dressed', Jim hoping that by convincing other people he will 'help Bob make a better decision'. Jim don't realize that he is shaming Bob everybody who dress like him (feeding numerous internet troll).

To prevent the worse we can try to introduce a mediator : Jane.
Jane know the situation. She know that the last solution would be horrible (because Jane know about cyberbully or being shamed for no intelligent reasons) so she would do what she can to prevent it or report the Forum post to moderator. She may also tell Jim that Bob will get only get angry, or dissuade Jim from insisting and harassing Bob because of his opinions.
Preventing a stupid squabble from causing long term problem.

Of course, the world will never be as well defined as those little fables, forum Moderator can have the worst job in the world.


ps : this topic is actually closely linked to the topic about The benefit of Freedom.

[mumblemumble]

Thing is, free speech goes both ways, and ALL parties are allowed in. Anyone spewing anything "unscientific" or "hateful" can easily be countered by people disagreeing, JUST AS YOU ARE RIGHT NOW.

So really, its about as impartial as you can get, and very balanced...compare this to censorship where you cannot criticize certain groups, or certain minorities...now anyone with anything to say about these groups is silenced, REGARDLESS if it was constructive, while the "defended" party is now protected.

Imagine if you will, if a group was protected by a catch all "no anti xyz" talk. Now lets say some of this group goes raping people and  murdering people... You can try to silence the protests with "THIS IS INFLAMMATORY ANTI XYZ!!!". This can VERY easily be done, and is even being done right now with several groups.

As for anti trans, "anti science", its a simple matter of PROVING to them, with facts and logic that its not true.

Lets say I was going around saying for instance, humans can live off eating dirt alone. (Silly, I know, but for the sake of argument, lets go with it) Would you demand I be CENSORED for providing an opinion you don't like? Or would you break down my idea and show me why it wouldn't work? (lack of calories, too many germs, toxins from the ground, ect)

I would HOPE this could be done this way, as using censorship is IMMEDIATELY saying "this is the way it is, you CANNOT disagree, even with evidence or we WILL punish you!"

This kind of stuff happened in nazi germany, you know. You doubted the state, hitler, the plans for the people, you were jailed, possibly killed.

Also, no hate speech is really harmful, short of full on call to arms (like BLM ladies saying its time to "kill cracker cops"). I don't think someones feelings ever warrant law intervention by itself, because feelings are volatile to BEGIN with, and less than concrete. If I beat your head in, its hard to argue if your head is "really beaten in" or not, because well, medical reports and pictures are difficult to argue with. With hurt feelings, we take someones word for it and nothing else. And people can easily claim it just as a way to get revenge by these very laws.

Interesting how you present your views on Jim and bob, with quite a bit of bias towards NOT talking. I think nothing should be off the table from being discussed, this is ignorance and leads to much psychological issues if things are refused to be addressed. And while you form the concept of public speech on someone in such a horrible light, you completely forget that this is THE best way to have transparency and prevent lies, or misunderstandings, is to have EVERYONE at the table, and discuss it. Everyone involved anyway, I personally prefer all these kinds of topics brought up around 4 or 5 friends, just so everyone has everyone else in check not to lie, or deceive. You also insist that the mediator immediately side with bob....you do not comprehend what a mediator is. And for all you know, bob might of never known he looks bad, and might REALLY appreciate someone letting him know, INSTEAD of seeing him dressed bad and choosing NOT to hang around him. (this happens so much its sickening, people should say these things....people cannot learn these things if they are never told, and hiding them under harassment or hate-speech only fragments community and alienates people more. I had a friend in high school with this exact situation pretty much, and everyone shunned him, but never explained it. I did one day, and he was really happy, changed it, and his social life turned around on a dime. Think this was rude to do?)

Also, the banning on twitter of milo (im assuming you mean this) was an utter shitshow. Twitter banned someone for making jokes about a FUCKING COMEDIAN. Do you realize comedians make a LIVING getting laughed at? Thin skinned comedians DO NOT EXIST, and this was merely a PR thing for that lady. Thankfully milo came out of it ok, but twitter and those in charge there are a bunch of idiots. Nobody should be beyond criticism, and nobody who is a celebrity should be treated like a delicate little flower.

Gender studies is a worthless class, just saying... and stoicism directly contradicts your idea. maybe, just maybe people should buck the hell up, grow thicker skin, and learn to maintain their emotions a bit BEFORE they burst into tears and demand censorship over criticism, or even teasing. Those things will NEVER go away in life, and by telling people its ok to get that upset, we are raising a bunch of massive failures. if people can honestly be broken down by namecalling past highschool, they are poor excuses for "adults". How can you lead the future if all I need to do to disable you is call you a bunch of nasty words?

And people don't NEED to be controlled in how they speak, the nice point about freespeach, is while you have every right to say something offensive and wrong, I have every right to disagree, and post WHY. You remove this, and you pick a few things to be "right" and close off arguments entirely. So it doesn't matter if these ideas are fatally flawed, because you will get jailed for questioning them...that sound good to you? not to me.

As for god, all Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Muslims, ect, all ADMIT its based on faith when theres nothing concrete (or at least, easy to explain) to base it on.... ...You guys DON'T. Like with the whole trans thing, you have no evidence its better to go through surgery and it cures it, yet suicide rates go up after surgery, Many, many people transition back, and countless people regret surgery, and later understand their psychological issues which caused it. And yet you still believe in this idea, and that all these problems are "because bullies", with no evidence...yet you say this isn't faith?.... Give me a break.

I know my thread, and yours are similar, but mine is the other end of the spectrum entirely. That censorship of words is 100% bad (again, outside iraq decapitation vids, scat vids, porn, and flat out name calling... anything which even remotely passes as "discussion" should be allowed)

Yes, a claim of factuality should indeed be possible to challenge,
But how and for what end is important enough that if Self-censorship doesn't happen, it can be ethical and beneficial to have friends able to limit the reach of an opinion in order to prevent or at least mitigate the use of free-speech for hate-speech or propaganda against a minority group.

....dafuq?

So, hypothetical for you... ...If someone, tomorrow said "the sky is blue" with somehow the motive, and end game to KILL ALL JEWS, should we censor someone saying the sky is blue? Are you really trying to go there?

I don't care WHAT the motive is, NO facts should EVER be censored. I don't care if someone has the motivation to rape my damn mother, no FACT, should ever be "Censored" based on motivation. Truth before all else. Now obviously, I would stop it SOMEWHERE, but never at FACTS. I would criticize plans of actions, predictions, ect, but not stone cold facts and observations.

Any scientist worth his salt would find this idea absolutely disgusting.

Lastly, a free marketplace of ideas is the BEST environment to learn, having an opportunity to examine, question, look at, critique ALL things, and see how all are. This is because dialog is FULLY ENABLED, and nothing is off the table to learn. As soon as you bring censorship, this is IMMEDIATELY crippled, by things people CANNOT question, examine, or talk about, as well as the general overhanging idea of "I need to watch my p's and q's" being more important than "I need to learn".

Motive should be entirely removed from debate almost entirely. Would you shun the idea about keeping windows closed in winter if say, someone did it somehow out of motivations to keep black people oppressed?

Would you refuse to drink water because a christian talked about water as an attempt to spread the gospel?

This is how silly that sounds. And besides that, you cannot "know" the motive anyway, so this is absolutely over the top asinine. Cmon man, you are better than that, I KNOW you can understand that cold hard facts shouldn't be censored because of a subjective "motive". Thats absolute crazy talk, that you would want to DENY facts because of a motive. That is literally denying reality, which IS a form of insanity.

The ONLY time motiv should EVER be a consideration, is when there ARE NOT facts, or, if someone wants CONTROL of a situation. IE if someone says something which is not even remotely provable, you might examine the motive to see if something is planned. Or, say if someone asks to enter your home, but is a known thief, keeping that in mind...

but you NEVER EVER EVER look at a guy who you think has bad motives, and deny a stone cold truth because "well his motives are bad".

If you honestly, 100% believe this... ....consider not eating food at all. Obviously food companies and farmers ONLY want your money, so its not worth it right? Nevermind the fact they say you need to eat to stay alive... Their motive is greed! (in all honestly, please don't take this serious, I don't want to be liable for a starvation death)

On a final note, a reminder : denying reality is a form of mental illness, and is NOT good for you....so PLEASE do not do that to yourself.

[Listen1]

I don't care WHAT the motive is, NO facts should EVER be censored. I don't care if someone has the motivation to rape my damn mother, no FACT, should ever be "Censored" based on motivation. Truth before all else. Now obviously, I would stop it SOMEWHERE, but never at FACTS. I would criticize plans of actions, predictions, ect, but not stone cold facts and observations.

Wow, I almost misunderstood what you said in there and wrote something wrongly. Facts are different than choices and opnions, opnions and choices may be censored at will, because they usually don't mean that much, and don't change a Stone cold fact.

For example, In my opnion, mumblemumble and Kegereneku write too much. I like short and keen responses instead of wall of texts, even though I fail to deliver them too. The before is my opnion, and expressing it or not, will most likely not change anything, specially when this is only a personal opnion.

But facts like "Everyone will die someday" should not be censored.

Yes, a claim of factuality should indeed be possible to challenge,
But how and for what end is important enough that if Self-censorship doesn't happen, it can be ethical and beneficial to have friends able to limit the reach of an opinion in order to prevent or at least mitigate the use of free-speech for hate-speech or propaganda against a minority group.

....dafuq?

So, hypothetical for you... ...If someone, tomorrow said "the sky is blue" with somehow the motive, and end game to KILL ALL JEWS, should we censor someone saying the sky is blue? Are you really trying to go there?

I didn't understood what you wanted to mean by this. Reading word by word what was said there, means that sometimes it is good to have friends, family and others to limit the reach of your ideas and make you question yourself.

I had a friend that said he would kill two men if they start kissing themselves in front of him. And for weeks we discussed over and over this idea with him making he understand the reason he spoke that, and why. Because there's no excuse to hate another human being to the point of taking it's life because of a gesture that didn't even envolve him.

I agree with the idea on that post, and can't understand what you presented in your argument. Could you explain a little better?.

[mumblemumble]

When he stated what he said in the quote, I interpeted this as "facts can be ignored, IF the facts are presented as a means of hate speech".

So, I presented these as examples.

Yes, they are pretty farfetched, but the premise is the same. As is the question. Question being, is it EVER ok to censor a fact, on the grounds of hate speech?

I'm mainly talking statistics, facts, observations, ect, which aren't exactly flattering to a lot of groups. Should THESE FACTS, be CENSORED because someone thinks its for the purpose of hate speech?

I don't think so. Regardless of perceived intent, as soon as we censor fact based discussion, we start removing the freedom of speech entirely.

Besides that, denial of reality is, and causes mental illness.... Even if facts aren't pretty, never deny them....you can investigate, and try to disprove it, but don't just pretend it doesn't exist.

For instance, if statistics are shown on trans people, you are free to look for other studies, discuss it, ect, but its kinda wrong to just act like they aren't a thing.

[Listen1]

No, of course it is not ok to censor anything. Good judgment and correct parenting should help kids that are still learining to sort things out, even if they are hate speeches. And as a adult you need to be critic about everything you hear/read. I would never censor anything.

[mumblemumble]

No, of course it is not ok to censor anything. Good judgment and correct parenting should help kids that are still learining to sort things out, even if they are hate speeches. And as a adult you need to be critic about everything you hear/read. I would never censor anything.

You won some points with me from that response.

Indeed, EVERYTHING should be questioned, even evidence of claims of truth.

[Kegereneku]

First thing : Check your stuff right Mumble, that "other thread" was not "my thread" (look at Flying Rockbass) I only linked to it for others because it is thematically similar to this one. So don't be overly defensive of "your" thread Mumble, we here to discuss not to preach.

Here I'm just exercising my freedom of speech with a differing opinions.
Starting by explaining that censorship can (and already do) do more to protect the "marketplace of ideas" than free-speech can.

It is thematically the same as "the benefit of freedom" because if (absolute) FREEDOM OF ACT applied then it would be "ok" to kill you for reasons 'completely unrelated' to your belief or freedom of speech. Same goes with opinions. Absolute freedom of speech mean anybody would be free to use it against you or twist fact, unless you planned some exceptions and rules.
Don't you rely on some "laws" to prevent a medias from "censoerasing your post from their private server because you agreed with the EULA ?", don't you rely on some sort of governing entity to "remove/filter claim/spam not scientifically factual and leave your 'fact' more visible ?".
Many effective methods of countering freedom of speech, repressing truth or differing opinions exist that cannot be called "censorship" or filter, they are even more effective than straight censorship because all along the people enjoying their "freedom" believe their voice are head.
But actual censorship is a tool, a non-evil tool that can in fact prevent/fight those, promote differing opinions, critical thinking and fact-based debate much more than a flood of free-speech ever will.

That's what moderation in themed forum is all about. It's a job and it can be a very hard job.

## Free speech alone do not protect facts or truth
On any scale bigger than person to person conversation, the quantity of support an opinion seem to get play a part in how "factual" that opinion look regardless of it's truth. With new medias it became easy to knowingly or accidentally FAKE how many people support an opinion or how important that opinion is. And we haven't started on twisting truth...

One persons may be telling a 'truth', but another one may be pretending or using actual fake-names to pretend that 1000 peoples support 'a lie', CENSORING in practice that truth even without erasing it.
In the example above, the person telling 'the truth' cannot easily get out of this sea of lies in an ethical way without either filtering the fakes (if it's possible) or censoring not the lies but the persons spreading 'the lies' on the basis that knowingly inducing people in error is well... not ethical for starter, and also a crime (whose gravity vary from insignificant to "it directly led to someone's death").

Telling something false/wrong isn't the problem, protecting how factual a claim is. And to do that Censorship (or filter) is only a tools, it can be used for nefarious purpose, social engineering, but also for perfectly good and ethical reasons to protect facts (and occasionally people) from the Imperfect nature of Media as well as the stupidity of some people.

Protecting factuality get much more complicated since all persons who have reason to be filtered/censored do not understand or recognize the reason they should be. Give those people enough time and not enough explanation and they'll falsely believe to be persecuted, even if the medias that censored them were just protecting scientific facts from morons who don't understand how wrong they are.

## The impact of opinion in the real worlds
How common it is to downplay when it serve someone's interest ! I'll let your search who said "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed."
And even small lies, repeated as dogma given the appearance of a fact can cause a lot of damage to people or even Nation. There was a time when people believed religions were "fact", much better than scientific fact.

But let's take a hypothetical example :
Poorly backed and unscientific claims that "homosexual or transexual are dangerous" and other baseless smearing, are not a problem if everybody knew how stupid it is to believe and spread them. But the limit of free-speech allow it to spread to dumb people who will act following those dumb claim and give an hard time to LGBT person who are as normal as you can get if not better to have around than anti-LGBT crow.

As for you Mumble underestimating "how harmful claim can be". Since it come from your lack of observation or empathy I can only hint at how it feel if it happened to you :

Imagine if you will, that you have something distinct about you that is rare, that distinct thing never ever impacted your life or made you any more bothersome than anybody else, the way you live literally make you no different from the way other lives. Even science see nothing wrong with that distinct things.
...but for some reason a group claim that this distinct thing make you and everybody like you dangerous lunatic who should get cured or shunned until they do. They don't seem to care to check if its in fact true before doing so, it's so "important" to them they want to spread this beliefs and convince everybody. Some even try to pass laws that would make you a criminal for doing things that fall under Human Rights. Yes, they want to make you criminal for acting like any human.
...and so, everywhere you go there's the chance you might get shunned by dumb persons who originally had nothing against you, you lose job opportunity because some persons trusted "those guy" ...even family member might hate you. Every time you do something you risk being blocked by someone who ask you to prove you "aren't a lunatic" before they get out of your way.

How it get worse ? you meet "victim blamer".
...other people harass you, call you name, but for that guy somehow "you are the one to blame", you are told that you should stop having that "distinct thing" if other make you miserable and if you can't you should go to the hospital to "get cured of it", even if science see nothing particular about that distinct thing 'that group' will insist it's the cause of many crimes and you SHOULD BE STUDIED like an animal.
All along you know all your problem would be solved if we prevented the baseless claims from looking "more factual than it actually is". But of course, every time you try to prevent those guy from spreading lies or have their propaganda erased they go claiming they are being persecuted by your "minority, pulling the string".

THAT is how harmful "hatespeech" and no media-safeguard can be.
If that example don't feel personal enough. Imagine the worst misunderstanding someone could do with you, and imagine you have to clear it every day with random people just become "some group" spread it.

In any case, the two errors mentioned are critical in deconstructing your questions.
## Mumbling section

Imagine if you will, if a group was protected by a catch all "no anti xyz" talk. Now lets say some of this group goes raping people and  murdering people... You can try to silence the protests with "THIS IS INFLAMMATORY ANTI XYZ!!!". This can VERY easily be done, and is even being done right now with several groups.

First, you are making a false correlation that "crime caused by xyz happened because they are xyz". It have to be real & proved first.
Leading to the assumption that "protest against xyz" are warranted. It is illegal / unconstitutional to blame any group unless you can legally demonstrate a causal link between their affiliation and the source of your protest.
And finally the other ignorant claim that "protection against defamation toward xyz" are only made for nefarious purpose. Rather than protection from defamation.

To put it in other words... it is as if you said : "Since a black person committed a crime" "it is normal to call black people criminal" or that "protest against (the existence of) black people are not inflammatory, anti-black (& racist)"
I bet the Ku Klux Klan would really love having you defend their right to "protest" against a "people trying to censor them"

If you learn any basic civil right, you would learn that in in a working democratic country (that respect peoples equally regardless of race and sexual orientation) : if someone's bullshit and protest against black or LGBT people are called inflammatory and banned, that's usually because that person's bullshit are in fact inflammatory and illegal.

Understand ? It is absolutely normal to protect any "groups" (minority or not) from morons who are attacking them for false/illegals reasons.
If you want to protest "against Transexual" you have to prove there is something with them to protest against in the first place

Lets say I was going around saying for instance, humans can live off eating dirt alone. (Silly, I know, but for the sake of argument, lets go with it) Would you demand I be CENSORED for providing an opinion you don't like? Or would you break down my idea and show me why it wouldn't work? (lack of calories, too many germs, toxins from the ground, ect)

Let's be clear, you are assuming that "I am" or "can suggest" a legal power/government entrusted to make those rules.
Answer : It would depend of how troublesome "you" are and how effective you are at making your claim look scientific.
- If "you" are just a guy on a Youtube Channel who claim that eating dirt / drinking piss is good for your health. You represent nothing, we just hope you die from it fast or Google/Youtube have a inside rules against unhealthy food advertisement.
- If "you" represent a Cult with a lot of blind followers, or an Mad doctor who use his real diploma to pretend that, you will start being flagged for a few crimes and every media outlet taking anything more than a neutral/detached stance on your claim can get into trouble.
- If "you" is directly responsible for a death and keep defending it, how boy you are in trouble...

Interesting how you present your views on Jim and bob, with quite a bit of bias towards NOT talking.
[...] You also insist that the mediator immediately side with bob

I assure you this only look a bias if you believed that "Jim" or "Bob" had to change.
Bob may not have to change.
Only Jim believe Bob have to change.
The role of the mediator is to "get opposing party "in conflict" come to an agreement; a go-between"
Jim stopping to force Bob to change is an acceptable agreement.
Same as Bob accepting Jim's clothes choices.
And I did also covered Bob changing. Jim can ask, but it's only Bob's choice.

I'll give you that the mediator would intervene in a conflict more clearly declared. The parable was assuming Jim has never been discreet in hiding his belief (since the mediator heard of it).

Everyone involved anyway, I personally prefer all these kinds of topics brought up around 4 or 5 friends, just so everyone has everyone else in check not to lie, or deceive.

We shouldn't be here to do counseling but you have a problem if you can't deal with a problem only with the person who are actually concerned in any practical terms.
No one goes fetching a person's friend to bring up a problem that only himself have with that person (and friend don't).

But, hey, let's assume you just wanted "second opinions". I'm wondering what would "Jim" do if all the people he asked see absolutely no problem with Bob's clothing, or even consider that Jim should STOP asking Bob to change.
Would "Jim" look for more people who share his belief until he make Bob change ?
What if the MAJORITY of people "Jim" will ever meet keep telling him that there is NOTHING wrong with Bob's clothes and that keeping on asking is harassment and Jim should stop ?

It's getting funny how hard you go to avoid admitting that "Bob" may be absolutely justified in his clothes choice and shouldn't have to change because "Jim" want it.
Does it even ring a bell for you ? "Jim discover he was factually wrong and Bob is entitled to his clothes choice ?"

Also, the banning on twitter of milo (im assuming you mean this) was an utter shitshow.[............]

Holy shit... I kind of expected that from you... "claiming that the victim was pretending" that it was a "PR stunt".
I'm not even going to bother asking and checking for factual evidence that everything you claimed is in fact true, I guess you will remove this part of your post since you are not backing it up with fact, right ?
"Mumblemumble : Victim blaming, the book."

As for god, all Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Muslims, ect, all ADMIT its based on faith when theres nothing concrete (or at least, easy to explain) to base it on.... ...You guys DON'T. Like with the whole trans thing, you have no evidence its better to go through surgery and it cures it

"MumbleMumble : preaching his faith that trans is a malady rather than a choice"
You have a confuse understanding of "faith". Faith literally mean "complete trust or confidence in someone or something.", "Complete trust" meaning that even concrete evidence against their belief would get dismissed.
Can I get HARD FACTS on "you guys DON'T (have concrete evidence)" on... what ? And "guys" plural ?

For the "trans thing" which you put apart, you have no evidence that there is anything to cure or that anything should be done to prevent, forbid, or "cure" normal person who by their own choice decided to go through surgery.
I'll just remind you it stay illegal to spread smear against anybody, just like it would be illegal to claim you are mentally deficient and kick little dog when no one is looking.

So, hypothetical for you... ...If someone, tomorrow said "the sky is blue" with somehow the motive, and end game to KILL ALL JEWS, should we censor someone saying the sky is blue? Are you really trying to go there?

I can't answer your "hypothetical example" because it doesn't reflect anywhere close to the point I made.
It's almost like you were trying to misrepresent what I said.

So to try to salvage your misunderstanding : a persons whose end goal is to "kill all jews" should have their attempt (if any) at preaching the actual "kill all jews" punished and censored, "hate speech" thing.
If we did not, I suppose that by your logic, terrorist preaching to kill all unbeliever should be free to be distributed in front of school because their motive is not important, because they believe those preach as "fact", or because each words of their hatespeech are not "offensive" if taken individually.

This is how silly that sounds. And besides that, you cannot "know" the motive anyway, so this is absolutely over the top asinine.

Say the guy making silly example because he didn't understand...
You can know the motive. When someone say "Jews are inferior being, kills all the jews" you know what he want.
Same when a idiot spread smear against LGBT people. You obviously know he want to make LGBT people look bad, that's a motive and it can be illegal for the same reason "harassment" is a crime.

Again, by your logic I suppose a DEATH THREAT isn't important because the motive isn't clear enough or don't matter...

On a final note, a reminder : denying reality is a form of mental illness, and is NOT good for you....so PLEASE do not do that to yourself.

Say the guy who want to deny some peoples' freedom of choice and replace it by his "reality". We all know you dream some of your belief weren't considered " unscientific ".

To be sincere, I doubt I'll continue this discussion for long, free time, Great wall of text and all...

For example, In my opnion, mumblemumble and Kegereneku write too much. I like short and keen responses instead of wall of texts, even though I fail to deliver them too. The before is my opnion, and expressing it or not, will most likely not change anything, specially when this is only a personal opnion.

Ok, you are next.
## Chapter One, Book One, The meaning of criticizing Kegereneku

...just kidding. I think we would easily agree on what we disagree.

[mumblemumble]

## Free speech alone do not protect facts or truth

The thing to cause this must be a CULTURAL shift, to investigate, question, and for everyone to act like scientists fact checking, and NOT be partial to supporting 1 side even against facts.

People should support truth above everything, this is THE best way to fix it.

## The impact of opinion in the real worlds

Its not a bad thing if it has a very real basis. You brought up homosexuals, and they DO have a significantly higher rate of many issues. This is fact. This does not mean ALL of them have this, but it should be considered.

going back to the first point, rather than calling for censorship, we should objectively look at arguemets, and dismantle them. Lets say a person said christians being in a neighborhood causes more cases of the flu.  I would first ask for any evidence, any cases of disproportionate effects, look into these cases, and possibly suggest another cause if this WAS the case , along with information to suggest that this was made by another cause.

I wouldn't censor the person, I would debate them down like an adult.

As for someone saying I was dangerous, it would depend. if I showed signs of schizophrenia? Sure! very true, and I acknowlege this IF I actually showed signs which could not be explained otherwise. This doesn't immediately justify me being crucified, but is a fact. if I liked camping? unlikely...

stupidity of some people.

See the cultural shift on point 1. If we view stuff objectively instead of defaulting to "you dont support xyz you biggot retard!" then people will be more likely to listen. If instead our argument is along the lines of "every test we do of water in a pure form, non pressurized environment at 32 degrees f leads to freezing, so what is your theory on 32 f NOT freezing water?" then we would have much better diolog.

We should all act like scientists, pretty much.

"victim blamer"

Fun fact : some situations aren't just "good guy bad guy".

Lets say a guy dresses up as a clown and decides to prank people, when in the news, people going around in clown masks are in the news for assaulting, stabbing, and killing people. He comes up on some guy at night, purpusely being creepy, and gets shot. neither party is strictly the ONLY one at fault. The guy who shot the gun might of been more hesitant to fire, and the guy in the clown suit might of been smarter than to wear a clown suit when people are being fearful of such attacks.

Neither party is free from fault, neither is a clear victim. We all make choices, and MANY choices we can make to ignore a situation.

Lets say I walk home and some guy starts talking trash, wanting a fight. I could talk trash back, or keep walking. Granted, I am being insulted, but if I antagonize him more, then hurt him, I won't be viewed as a victim anywhere near as much as if I ignored him, got attacked, then fought back. This is because I had the choice to walk away, but CHOOSE to pester him.

"crime caused by xyz happened because they are xyz"

Literally never said this.

Heres an example. Say you have a bowl of M&Ms candy. 50% have been injected with poison. Would you take a handful and eat them? No. Now, assuming it was with a big needle, you could carefully examine each one, and sort them out, but you would only eat several AFTER you make sure each is safe. Get it? Its not saying ALL are bad, but ASSUMING they might be, to prevent damage until you can tell.

"protest against (the existence of) black people are not inflammatory, anti-black (& racist)"

In recent memory, I have NEVER heard of a protest STRICTLY against black people. Maybe back in the KKK hayday, but not today. No, what happens TODAY is protests stating "xyz group has xyz issue, we must fix it!". This is like demanding we clean out the poisoned M&Ms, throwing out the poisoned ones, or otherwise fixing them, and keeping the good ones. Nobody ever protests "all black people" (I've literally never heard of this in the past 50 years) Its generally PARTS of the black community with major issues, and OFTEN this is even protested by OTHER black people, so how can one state this is against ALL black people? Compare this to much of the people claiming white privilege, and people claiming ALL white people are a problem, THIS is racist, as its saying no amount of choice can redeem someone.  THIS is messed up.

false/illegals reasons.

What if its true but illegal?

how effective you are at making your claim look scientific.

See point 1, and the culture change with open dialog about ideas and testing. This would fix this.

Oh and urine does have several chemicals in it which is used in medicine, even traditional Chinese medicine...not sure I would drink it, but the idea behind it is entirely without any thought behind it.

Bob may not have to change.
Only Jim believe Bob have to change.

I could (and perhaps will) go on a seperate thread about "need to change".

Need is not an encompassing all idea, needs are only to get something else.

Heres a few examples.

I dont need to drink water.
I dont need to shower
I dont need to respect people
I dont need to not steal
I dont need to get sleep.

Now, granted, I can choose not to do these, but THESE have consequences.:
I will be dehydrated, face health issues, possibly die
I will smell worse, and face hygiene issues
I will get less respect in return, and less social interactions
I will get people not to trust me, possibly arrested...I imagine god would be none to happy either.
I will have crippled mental performance, health issues, and spontaneous passing out.

In short, it reminds me of a very good quote my old teacher had. "The only thing you need to do is die". Very true. Everything else is optional, but I can expect consequences for anything. Which is why theres a talk BETWEEN bob and jim, bob is concerned for jims well-being, and perceives a negative consequence. Even if wrong, bob has a very good intention.

We shouldn't be here to do counseling but you have a problem if you can't deal with a problem only with the person who are actually concerned

Its called communication, second opinions, open discussion. Where 2 people can have a tooth and nail argument, a 3rd or 4th could help soothe the disagreements, and provide new perspectives. Its done BECAUSE jim isn't sure, and asks "listen, I might be entirely wrong, what do you think?"

What if the MAJORITY of people "Jim" will ever meet keep telling him that there is NOTHING wrong with Bob's clothes and that keeping on asking is harassment and Jim should stop ?

What if the MAJORITY of people "bob" will ever meet keep telling him that there is NOTHING wrong with Jims criticism and that bob DOES look a bit ridiculous, and knows of several people who DONT like bob because of it?

Besides that, analyzation and taking in arguments should be the bigger part, NOT asking opinions of people. In the situation we described, jim provided some compelling arguments for why bob should dress better. Granted, bob isn't forced to, but its quite likely that choosing not to means he is ACCEPTING those risks. If he does? Fine...but if bob then later complains about people giving him the cold shoulder without either explaining the medical situation (if there is one) or changing himself, he will get less sympathy, as the situation was laid out for him.

evidence

Keep in mind, you are just "a guy" right? how much heckling do you face on an average day online? very little I hope, as you are "a guy". Compare this to if you were a famous youtuber. You would get "you are an asshole, a dumbass, ect" all the time, since you are bigger, and MORE people have an opinion to state. 

I compare this to leslie jones, as she is very big, and many would consider not very attractive. This means that TONS of people are seeing her, and having this opinion, so MORE people will be saying "jeez, shes unattractive" to her than if she was a streetwalker.

Also being a comedian is never done by "thin skinned" people. Since shes a comedian, you can BET shes been called every nasty name in the book at some point.  This is why I say its unlikely : Would you expect for instance, a pro wrestler to press assault charges for a scrawny dude shoving him? or would you expect the wrestler to give a big laugh and say "you serious?". Even if he did call the cops, I think the cop would shake his head and tell them to move along. Leslie is the pro wrestler in this situation, shes been hit far, far worse before, and hits HERSELF far far worse, portraying herself as an awful stereotype as part of her job, so you must figure if she can do THAT, and function just fine, what would 1 guy on twitter possibly have a chance to cause emotional turmoil? Another example is tynan. He has been working on rimworld for a loooooooong tiiiiiiiime. Do you think he would be as sensitive to criticism as a guy who makes his first game? I doubt it, and he shouldn't be. If someone comes on here, or anywhere, and says "yo your game SUCKS!", first off, most would disagree, and 2nd, I GAURENTEE this is not the first time tynan ever heard this. Compared to a first time mod publisher being ripped in half, it might be much more personal to have his work destroyed and called sucky.

Can I get HARD FACTS on "you guys DON'T (have concrete evidence)"

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but EVIDENCE of absence should not be ignored.

Oh also, something HARDCORE DISPROVING > something which "proves" something.

I can get a million tests which "prove" an idea, but if something DISPROVES part of the theory which I stated, this is far more important.

EDIT : wait, I misread this... my bad  What did you want evidence on?

no evidence that there is anything to cure

Since YOU asked.
http://www.sexchangeregret.com/
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/item/23934-study-finds-no-scientific-basis-for-transgenderism
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/07/physicians-decry-pseudo-science-transgenderism-absurd-say-anyone-born-wrong-body/

If you want to challenge it, reply to the data provided. Theres plenty of statistics, like the suicide / drug abuse rate, the rate of transitioning back (I think its like 30% at least...but who knows, considering this could be easily off) and other stuff.

heres a quote from article 3 : Clinical case studies "suggest that social reinforcement, parental psychopathology, family dynamics, and social contagion facilitated by mainstream and social media, all contribute to the development and/or persistence of GD in some vulnerable children,"

terrorist preaching to kill all unbeliever should be free to be distributed in front of school because their motive is not important

Killing people is illegal, and sparsely justified. This situation would go like this.

Terrorist : The god is coming, you all must repent!
everyone: shrug, ignore, watch
Terrorist  : You have all sinned against him, and will be subject to punishment
everyone:  still nothing
Terrorist : Kill all infidels! *pulls out machete and charges old lady
everyone: *kills terrorist with extreme prejudice*.

This is because saying a god is coming and you must repent is FINE. Saying you will be punished by a devine god is FINE. Saying xyz is a sin, and you are dirty is FINE. Explaining why someone is destroying their lives by doing xyz is FINE. preaching and pointing out flaws to ways of living is FINE. Charging an old lady with a machete is NOT FINE.

know he want to make LGBT people look bad.... ....DEATH THREAT

Oh boy, lol.

Wanting to make a group look bad, especially if its done with facts, is completely normal, legal, and  for the most part moral. If I criticise someone for bad driving, and they are an AWFUL driving, this is not a problem.

And a death threat is illegal, and intimidation.. ...and happens to be done by a lot of LGBT people...fancy that. Besides that, saying "you have xyz problem" and "i'm going to kill you" are so massively separated, its not even funny. I'm free to say you poke holes in logic like nobodies business sometimes, but as soon as I threaten to kill you, I'm in hot water.

Say the guy who want to deny some peoples' freedom of choice and replace it by his "reality"

Every single person on the face of the earth believes in this. Do you believe in preventing murder? rape? harrassment? ect?

You believe in LIMITING choice for a higher cause. whether the cause is worth the limiting is up for discussion, granted, but wanting to limit a freedom by itself is not evil.

## Chapter One, Book One, The meaning of criticizing Kegereneku

Episode 2, revealations, empire stikes back, prequel, sequal, separate but equal?

[keylocke]

it's a bit tl;dr so i'm just throwing my 2 cents in. (and then run away)

people who are pro-censorship don't seem to get that the people who gets to decide which information gets censored or not, are often basing their assumptions mostly on personal bias. (ie : do they cater to the will of the masses, do they have a hard-line stance based on their religion/philosophy, are they working for a political agenda, etc..)

this is a problem, like in the prohibition era or the great firewall of china or the dark ages or whatever. mainly coz the people who thinks they're doing a "good thing" by manipulating or censoring information are actually just forcefully imposing their own personal bias upon others.

-------

so even though the alternative sounds chaotically anarchic, free-for-all, laissez faire form of information flow.

the same peril we have to face in a free-flow of information system is still about having to cope against people who would maliciously manipulate information for their own self-interest. (same thing with the censorship system, since censors themselves often succumb to patronizing their own bias and then forcing this bias upon others)

so the main difference is that people are now free to choose their own poison in a free system, instead of censors chugging their own brand of poison down our throats.

----

in both systems, there is no replacement for smart and independent thought.

hence, i'd always prefer the system that provides me more personal freedom.

[mumblemumble]

in both systems, there is no replacement for smart and independent thought.

hence, i'd always prefer the system that provides me more personal freedom.

I wish i could condense my points like this.  I need to work on that =x

Infact this is also a good point as to why someone's elses choices don't really limit your choices  https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=26718.0

[/shamelessthreadpromotion]