Official Off Topic Discussion Thread #1

[skjl47]

I visit a few online forums, MFK being one among them, that serve as excellent sources of information relating to various interests I have, as well as being convenient repositories or "libraries" for that information. Even so, there is much in them that is so completely useless and wasteful of time, such as most "Off-topic threads" , that I am always hovering on the verge of dropping them altogether. And these forums represent the "best" type of social media, IMHO.

But Twitter, Facebook, etc.? Not a chance...and I don't care who is running them. They are a constant reminder to me of the ongoing devolution of Homo sapiens as an intelligent species; and I already see enough evidence of that in day to day life, without seeking it out on the internet.

Censorship is generally not a good thing...but it is not always an altogether bad thing either. There are plenty of people who have nothing to say that is worth listening to, and whose only contributions to intelligent debate are those brief periods when they actually shut up. And don't even get me started on the trolls who actively seek to start arguments by posting inflammatory drivel...

Hello; Your comments show a truth about free speech and a problem with censorship. I get it. Many people have little to nothing worth listening to and often say/write their worthless drivel poorly. We will have to wade thru a lot of useless drivel to find the occasional gem. In the USA we have a cable sponsored set of TV programs on what are known as C-SPAN. One daily program on C-SPAN is a 7 AM to 10 AM show called Washington Journal. It is a public call in type show. So much of the comments that do get thru the station's censors are a waste of time.

The major problem with censorship is tied directly with its very existence. If someone gets to decide who can speak then the standards of those doing the deciding come into play. What may not pass muster to you may be just what I wish to hear and vice versa. There is a false notion that we can have a judgement on speech without some voices being silenced. It is who gets to do the silencing which becomes the problem.
Even on this forum that has happened. Happened to me not that long ago. I was confident that natural immunity in survivors of a Covid 19 infection was just as good a protection as the then pushed vaccines. Turns out to be the case after all. However, i was shouted down by some and a few threads were simply closed rather than allow a discussion. Same happened on the only other forum I frequent. On that forum I was simply not allowed to post in a particular thread. Now that the evidence is in about the vaccines, I am still not allowed to post and those proclaiming what is now known as faulty are still spouting. A reason i am allowed to stay around is I take care to stay within the rules in terms of language and such similar things.

As far as threads such as this one in a "lounge" type area, it is much like having channels on a TV. I do not have to participate in any particular thread and do only stay active in only a very small percentage of threads. As with my TV I change the channels if i do not like a program. Any thread a person does not like can be avoided. Thing is someone or some group with a set agenda or point of view winds up wanting all who oppose or have different view to be silenced. I have yet to be afraid to explain my stance on topics and can do so without vile or otherwise poor language. If someone has a stance i do not like, then they need to be able to express their points. I can rebut if i disagree or perhaps even be persuaded. It does happen.

 

[jjohnwm]

Well...we have hundreds of thousands of laws that curtail or limit or completely ban certain activities in which certain individuals would be prone to dabble; you know, things like murder, theft, extortion, terrorism...stuff like that. Some people still partake of these antisocial hobbies, and our criminal justice system is supposed to find and apprehend these ne'er-do-wells and take steps to re-educate them...or, failing that, remove them from society altogether by one means or another. I think that most people would agree that a set of laws and rules that are put in place for everyone's benefit is a good thing and generally serves to make our society safer, although there is naturally some disagreement as to how far some of these laws should go in pursuit of this goal.

Censorship is nothing more than an extension of this system, except that it controls the proliferation of ideas rather than actions. This tends to piss a lot of people off, and some of them are the very same people that applaud the proliferation of legislation that controls their activities. They apparently don't mind being told they can't do something, and in fact they quite enjoy laws that don't affect them personally but which curtail the chosen actions of others...but they get all lathered up if they are told they can't talk about something.

It's a quandary. Ideas are powerful things, often leading to unpleasant actions. So, should they be controlled? The hue and cry is always "NO! Censorship is always bad! There are no exceptions!"

Come on, let's get real. Nothing is always good or always bad, and there are always exceptions. I see and hear news stories constantly that seem practically designed to spread bad ideas to bad people, under the pretense of "The people have a right to know!"

Why? Why does everybody have a "right" to know everything? At what point does the right to know something segue into a harmful, negative thing? It's illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, if there isn't really a fire. Extending that to making it illegal to promulgate ideas that are harmful in a more insidious way seems inevitable. Is that wrong? Beats me.

And I of course agree that there is the issue of who should have the authority to make decisions about releasing potentially dangerous info to the public, or what ideas must be quashed before they come to the attention of the "wrong" people. But that's no different than the problem of who should be authorized to think up all those wonderful for-your-own-good laws that so many of us admire. We're all human, we all have failings, and every one of us is fraught with imperfections which ideally should keep us from having that kind of authority...but, hey, somebody has to do it...don't they?

 

[skjl47]

Well...we have hundreds of thousands of laws that curtail or limit or completely ban certain activities in which certain individuals would be prone to dabble; you know, things like murder, theft, extortion, terrorism...stuff like that. Some people still partake of these antisocial hobbies, and our criminal justice system is supposed to find and apprehend these ne'er-do-wells and take steps to re-educate them...or, failing that, remove them from society altogether by one means or another. I think that most people would agree that a set of laws and rules that are put in place for everyone's benefit is a good thing and generally serves to make our society safer, although there is naturally some disagreement as to how far some of these laws should go in pursuit of this goal.

Censorship is nothing more than an extension of this system, except that it controls the proliferation of ideas rather than actions. This tends to piss a lot of people off, and some of them are the very same people that applaud the proliferation of legislation that controls their activities. They apparently don't mind being told they can't do something, and in fact they quite enjoy laws that don't affect them personally but which curtail the chosen actions of others...but they get all lathered up if they are told they can't talk about something.

It's a quandary. Ideas are powerful things, often leading to unpleasant actions. So, should they be controlled? The hue and cry is always "NO! Censorship is always bad! There are no exceptions!"

Come on, let's get real. Nothing is always good or always bad, and there are always exceptions. I see and hear news stories constantly that seem practically designed to spread bad ideas to bad people, under the pretense of "The people have a right to know!"

Why? Why does everybody have a "right" to know everything? At what point does the right to know something segue into a harmful, negative thing? It's illegal to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, if there isn't really a fire. Extending that to making it illegal to promulgate ideas that are harmful in a more insidious way seems inevitable. Is that wrong? Beats me.

And I of course agree that there is the issue of who should have the authority to make decisions about releasing potentially dangerous info to the public, or what ideas must be quashed before they come to the attention of the "wrong" people. But that's no different than the problem of who should be authorized to think up all those wonderful for-your-own-good laws that so many of us admire. We're all human, we all have failings, and every one of us is fraught with imperfections which ideally should keep us from having that kind of authority...but, hey, somebody has to do it...don't they?

Hello; This post of yours is an example of why opinions ought to be allowed to be expressed in an open discussion. You made points without resorting to name calling or using foul language. I am able to follow the arguments presented. I do not agree with some points but feel you should be able to make those points.

I cannot equate the shouting fire restriction of speech to an ability to have a different point of view on subjects. Shouting fire in a crowded theatre can cause a panic rush in which people may be harmed physically. I imagine some other situations may exist along those lines. However, the current level of censorship is well beyond that needed to avoid a crowded theater sort of rush.
This discussion started about my question concerning censorship in Twitter and by default censorship on social media in general. What i write on this or any other internet forum is not going to have people running for their lives. What has been happening is devolved into some favored voices being able to shut down the voices of others simply because they disagree. That the one favored group is backed up by the power welders on a social media platform is part of the problem. On some platforms it is the Mods. I use the natural immunity example because it clearly shows how far what was called "cancel culture" and or "disinformation" has been used to silence some voices.
Back during the "troubles" had a few years ago on this site some new rules were made up about avatars which in hindsight appear to be directed at a set of images not liked by some. Happens my avatar at the time was among the disliked. So, I changed my avatar to meet the new rules. An image of a male betta in full flair of it's magnificent fins. I followed the new rules to the letter, yet my betta image was removed within the first day because an, at the time, favored voice did not like the colors of the betta image. I have not been using any personal image for an avatar since. Just a colored circle with an S. I will briefly change back to that betta avatar image for a day or few. I saved the post which got my betta avatar removed and we can have a more detailed conversation about such if any wish. My point being the censorship is and has been real well below the level of shouting fire in a crowded theater.

 

[esoxlucius]

I wonder if Elon Musk is a member of various forums, such as ours. I wager not, after all, he's an extremely busy man. If he plans to make Twitter an open platform for everyman and his dog to exercise their right to free speech, surely that isn't going to go down well for his new investment.

You just need to look at a few past snippets of our own forum to see what could go very wrong, and on a huge platform such as Twitter it would be spectacular! The COVID thread was closed down because literally a handful of people, mainly Jeff and dogofwar, had a difference of opinion. It went back and forth, back and forth, like two heavyweights slugging it out in the ring. The thread was going nowhere. If it hadn't have been nipped in the bud, it would still be going on now!

Censorship, as frustrating as it can be, and I know Jeff is extremely frustrated with the censorship on the forum, just has to be in place. Human beings, with strong differences of opinion on touchy subjects simply cannot play well together when "discussions" begin.

Differences of opinion are fine, it's when you start trying to change someone else's opinion that the trouble starts.

 

[Hendre]

The forum is monitored and 'censored' because people don't play nice, and after all as a privately owned platform the owner has final say in what is, and is not allowed to be discussed. Same for twitter, same for any social media platform. I don't really see the issue with taking away topics that had people fighting each other and getting banned.

Censorship, as frustrating as it can be, and I know Jeff is extremely frustrated with the censorship on the forum, just has to be in place. Human beings, with strong differences of opinion on touchy subjects simply cannot play well together when "discussions" begin.

This.

 

[skjl47]

The forum is monitored and 'censored' because people don't play nice, and after all as a privately owned platform the owner has final say in what is, and is not allowed to be discussed. Same for twitter, same for any social media platform. I don't really see the issue with taking away topics that had people fighting each other and getting banned.


This.

Hello; but I did play well and still do. I do not resort to name calling or such similar tactics. I make my points and stay civil. Is such not why I am still blue today and dog is on restriction along with others. My contention has been for a while to punish those who break forum rules and leave the threads and those who follow your forum rules to go on. We, Hendre and I, have discussed this in private a few times before. You, Hendre, as a representative of the boss get to decide how that works.

Here is a point to consider. I was essentially correct in my stance concerning the dispute between a Covid 19 survivor's natural immunity and the new mRNA vaccines. I presented my case clearly. Yet a group grew to dominate this and nearly all other social media with their opinion that all must take the new Covid19 shots regardless. That the clarion cry for well over a year was "a pandemic of the unvaccinated" has proven to be false validates my stance. The notion that my voice should be silenced to avoid online disputes (fighting) because some individuals cannot be civil does not sit well. Many folks lost their jobs after having survived Covid and refusing to take a new rapidly developed medication with no liability attached. My being correct is not a main point here although it certainly helps a great deal. That here and on another forum my voice was silenced is a main point.
Even had my stance proven to be all or partly incorrect I should have had the option to state an opinion in a civil manner. I did not call for others who have been proven incorrect to be silenced at any time during the discussions. Stances are either backed up or defeated by facts, not those in authority shutting down a discussion.
What is the clarion cry now about the vaccines? Something like " I took all the shots and boosters and have had Covid, but the shots prevented my having a worse illness." This has gotten little to no discussion under the conditions imposed and in effect. Enough of this as i do not wish to sidetrack a discussion about censorship. I made a point.

 

[jjohnwm]

...I cannot equate the shouting fire restriction of speech to an ability to have a different point of view on subjects. Shouting fire in a crowded theatre can cause a panic rush in which people may be harmed physically. I imagine some other situations may exist along those lines. However, the current level of censorship is well beyond that needed to avoid a crowded theater sort of rush...

Those are simply two extremes of the same issue; it's a matter of degree. Most would agree that it should indeed be disallowed to cry wolf regarding something like a fire...but there are a few who disagree, and even a few who go a step further and actually start those fires. Up to that point, we are dealing only with an idea...i.e. spreading a false and dangerous panic...so censorship is applied to curtail the problem.

Censorship on the forum is no different. The goal in this case is not to save lives, but to promote the smooth operation of the forum, and that goes right out the window when a thread turns into a fight. The forum administrators and mods aren't here to keep the world running safely; they're here to keep the forum running smoothly, and some censorship is required to achieve that goal.

No difference whatsoever in core concept. If you want to play in our sandbox...whether that means living in "our" country (for the government) or simply posting in "our" forum (for the admin/mods) you play by "our" rules. If not...there's the door...

There are those who make so many posts that seem to be intentionally inflammatory...and there are others (like me...) who rise to the bait so readily...that conflict is almost inevitable. All this crap seems to settle into the Off-Topics section of a forum; honestly, I don't know why forum admins even bother to have these sections.

 

[jjohnwm]

.....but I did play well and still do....My being correct is not a main point here although it certainly helps a great deal. That here and on another forum my voice was silenced is a main point...

Yeah...funny how that works, when you think about it...

That shiny spoon festooned with sharp treble hooks just trolled by again. I am defiinitely going to let it continue on its way this time...When I go fishing, I want to do it for my own enjoyment, not that of others.

 

[skjl47]

Those are simply two extremes of the same issue; it's a matter of degree. Most would agree that it should indeed be disallowed to cry wolf regarding something like a fire...but there are a few who disagree, and even a few who go a step further and actually start those fires. Up to that point, we are dealing only with an idea...i.e. spreading a false and dangerous panic...so censorship is applied to curtail the problem.

Censorship on the forum is no different. The goal in this case is not to save lives, but to promote the smooth operation of the forum, and that goes right out the window when a thread turns into a fight. The forum administrators and mods aren't here to keep the world running safely; they're here to keep the forum running smoothly, and some censorship is required to achieve that goal.

No difference whatsoever in core concept. If you want to play in our sandbox...whether that means living in "our" country (for the government) or simply posting in "our" forum (for the admin/mods) you play by "our" rules. If not...there's the door...

There are those who make so many posts that seem to be intentionally inflammatory...and there are others (like me...) who rise to the bait so readily...that conflict is almost inevitable. All this crap seems to settle into the Off-Topics section of a forum; honestly, I don't know why forum admins even bother to have these sections.

Hello; But the forums do have these sections. Here it is "off-topic" and it is similar on other sites. These non-fish hobby forum spaces invite a range of topics. I do not know why the two sites i use have included such options, but i use them.

QUOTE
"The forum administrators and mods aren't here to keep the world running safely; they're here to keep the forum running smoothly, and some censorship is required to achieve that goal."
Reminds me of something said back during the "troubles" couple of years ago. That I ought to be concerned more about the forum and what i can offer to it. That the forum itself is more important than the members. I look at it a bit differently. The forum needs to exist for the members, not the other way around.

 

[skjl47]

Yeah...funny how that works, when you think about it...

That shiny spoon festooned with sharp treble hooks just trolled by again. I am defiinitely going to let it continue on its way this time...When I go fishing, I want to do it for my own enjoyment, not that of others.

Hello; I think I get it. You are indirectly calling me a troll. Not subtle enough.