slug.com slug.com

22 3

I'm curious as to how you fine folks feel about the differences between censoring ideas and censuring behaviour. I recently removed a pedant from a group I created. The individual in question was trolling the group with petulant cynicism which held no intellectual merit. I am vehemently opposed to the censorship of ideas, but I don't view instances such as this to be censorship. Removing a child from the classroom for asking a politically incorrect question is a far cry from removing a child for throwing a tantrum and preventing the other children from learning.
I know many disagree with my assessment and would view this as an example of censorship, and I'm not at all certain that they are wrong. I fervently believe that entertaining the drivel of someone who has proven to be incapable of civilised dialectic is simply a waste of time and intellect. I don't think this belief makes me in favour of censorship, but I am nothing if not a Socratic, so what the hell do I know? Thoughts?

Pre-Modernist 5 Feb 24
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

22 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

4

Have you tried ignoring them at first?

Ignoring someone who is blatantly provoking you seems rather foolish in my mind.

@Pre-Modernist I disagree. I think that by censoring them you give them a certain weight in the discussion whereas if you leave their comments which are built on nonsense and don't deserve to be engaged with ignored, they're the foolish ones. I'd like to remind here that the purpose of a troll is to upset - if you allow them to do so they have succeded and being banned is the highest medal a troll could achieve, victimising themselves and using this event as a reason to show how sensitive and touchy people can be on certains topics. It's more about the long term game than the short term satisfaction of shutting someone's stupid mouth.

@blul0tuus excellent response.

@blul0tuus I think we may have a slightly different approach to debate. I view it as an attempt to discover as much truth as possible. In that regard, I am selfish, my primary goal is to acquire knowledge and solve intellectual problems for myself; not to have an intellectual power struggle. I have no desire to prove anyone wrong(especially since that's a logical impossibility) or "win" and argument, I want to exchange ideas with interesting people in a rational and objective manner. If someone is intentionally and pugnaciously detracting from my ability to do so, it is well within reason for me to either move the conversation elsewhere or remove the troublesome individual from the conversation. If you're sitting in a coffee shop having a discussion with a few friends and someone came up to the table and interrupted everyone by yelling "I know you are but what am I?" style juvenile nonsense, you don't invite them to sit down and use superior reason to put them in their place. Someone with that approach does not recognise objectivity or rationality, they recognise slogans and yelling over their adversaries. Attempting to reason with a logical relativist is playing into their game far more than simply blocking and ignoring them. I don't care if they jerk off twelve times thinking about me blocking them, I hope it feels great; they're not disrupting me anymore and they're more than welcome to call it a victory if it helps them get off.

@Pre-Modernist I completely agree and still, I would use the nonsense said as an argument itself which does not even need my input, to support my argument and show how ridiculous the other person approach/intervention is which, in a way, brings you closer to the Truth (whatever that might be!) - always use other people's stupidity or silly behaviour as a weapon against them, if they care to play the game, they will end up burning themselves while you sit and watch, maybe even roasting a marshmallow on the fire.

@blul0tuus haha, I'll take your word for it. Like I said, the power struggle aspect of it isn't my cup of tea. Treating nonsense as an argument only serves to obfuscate the truth in my experience. Pwning someone might deliver a little endorphin rush, but compromising the integrity of rational discourse to do so isn't a fair tradeoff in my mind.

4

I tend to agree with your actions. I personally would draw the line at trolling other opinions without contributing anything. Also, I consider personal attacks counter-productive

4

I don't believe removing yourself from the presence of ignorance is censorship. Those trolls can still talk, just not to you.

Succinct in the extreme!

I may go back and edit my comment to..What SHE said! πŸ™‚

3

I believe you should have left it up to the group members to ignore the troll instead of policing the feed. This is what we do in the real world. Online existence should mirror reality. That way you do not risk trampling on freedom of speech and expression.

Imagine being in a discussion with a group of people in the "real world". An individual comes into the group uninvited and begins shouting nonsense, interrupting people, and acting in an overall bellicose manner. Would you truly simply ignore this individual and attempt to shout over him? Your idea of the "real world" sounds like a terribly chaotic chatroom in the early nineties.

Similarly, I am refuting your argument here, not your conclusion. As I originally stated, I'm completely open to the idea that I may be guilty of censorship as you claim, I just don't feel you've made a valid case for that conclusion. Ideas are independent of arguments and behaviour; censuring deviant behaviour is how societies and cultures maintain their viability.

I found that evil and ignorance are best kept in the light, hiding the dark sides of our society even though it may lead to disrupting the discussion in the moment. Personally I feel the long-term effects of displaying ignorance for what it is is more powerful than hiding it. Especially on a platform called intellectual dark web

That's a fair enough point. I don't fully agree, but I have no argument against your view. It may just come down to temperamental differences in personality.

@Pre-Modernist well, in that case I would not recommend, as you put it "ignore this individual and attempt to shout over him," but I would suggest turning your back to that person. In a civilized society if a person comes upon a conversation in public and expresses an opposing opinion, or even spews what we conceive as nonsense, we refute them, and give them an opportunity to learn. If that person on the other hand becomes a nuisance so much that they disturb the public peace, we have laws that can be enforced. In a online group, there should be publicly stated rules that identifies at what point they become a nuisance. That way it can be enforced. But those rules should be stated beforehand, so that the admin or moderators don't become despotic.

@BrianK Excellent point! I'm absolutely going to implement your idea of clarifying the rules before despotically banning people on a whim. Many thanks for giving what I consider to be the most reasonable refutation of my original thinking.

2

I would consider your action censorship. I understand why you would do it but it is still censorship. I would have rather you empowered or allowed the other members of the group handle it for you by either ignoring or confronting as they wished.

2

I find a few of these comments to be off topic, I certainly disagree with many of the conclusions, and some of them seem incredibly poorly reasoned. I have no desire to block any of them and I have done my best to address any of them that warranted a response. This is because all the comments here have been made in good faith as an attempt to answer my question or bring up a related topic. An argument made in good faith, even if poorly reasoned is always valuable in my estimation. I see no value in nihilistic attempts to derail and detract from a debate or discussion and I still can't see a valid reason to tolerate them. @BrianK hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that my flaw was in the subjectivity of my banning as opposed to the banning itself. Objectively setting forth acceptable and unacceptable behaviour would have been more viable than simply banning on a despotic whim. I will definitely implement that in the future.

2

I don't remove or censor anyone for anything in any group I've ever ran. No one has to engage them and by leaving them to be ignored they will see how stupid they are and change their position hopefully. Once u remove or silence they have the victim card and can say u are afraid of the real truth. Adults can scroll on by and those stupid posts don't hurt anyone.

But the thing is, I'm not attempting to prove how stupid they are, I'm not attempting to change anyone's mind, I'm attempting to acquire knowledge through conversation and debate. When someone is deliberately interfering with your ability to accomplish your goal, ignoring them is simply passive cuckery. People who want pure democracy where every moron with a keyboard can type whatever the hell they want can travel on over to your group; people who don't want to sort through 50 lines of dick jokes before finding a meaningful post can come over to my oppressive group where ability to communicate like a grown-up is a prerequisite.

@Pre-Modernist passive cuckery??? U got be kidding on that one. Don't bitch when u are the one that gets silenced and censored is all I can say.

I meant no offense, it was an accurate description of what I was attempting to convey. Instead of expressing outrage, why not use your big boy words and refute my ideas instead of my terminology? Just shouting your opinion louder than your opponent(metaphorically speaking) is precisely the chaos I hope to avoid by banning children unwilling or unable to participate in adult conversation.

@Pre-Modernist I didn't take offense, just stating when it happens to u just remember u support it.

@Pre-Modernist also, try not adding context to text. Not everyone is a snowflake who takes things personally an just says it how it is.

@george when I completely disregard the social expectations for the environment I'm in, I will offer no complaints if I am censured for being unruly and unreasonable. You seem unclear as to the differences between ideas and actions.

@george fair enough. Mea culpa for putting words in your mouth.

@Pre-Modernist actions and ideas are both forms of speech and protected IMO. I can respond to what I choose and allow others to be idiots all the same.

@george Actions are in no way a form of speech. Conflating ideas, actions, and speech is the type of dangerous thinking that the left has been using to censor ideas.

@Pre-Modernist I have to disagree on "actions are in no way free speech." What about burning the flag? Kneeling? Hunger strikes...marches etc. You can exercise free speech and never say a word

@Pre-Modernist burning a flag is an action and is speech

@george No, it is freedom of expression. The action of burning something is not illegal. Freedom of expression protects your right to express yourself through legal actions. Burning is the action, what you are burning is the abstract concept. If you attempt to burn the flag indoors or somewhere else where open flame is not permitted, freedom of expression does not protect you. It only protects your ideas, not your actions.

@george if you equate speech with actions, you are inherently claiming that speech can cause physical harm. If speech is the same as assault, you either have to be willing to allow assaults to go unpunished or allow speech to be treated as assault. You have to think through the consequences of your beliefs, my friend; what you are arguing is truly dangerous.

@Pre-Modernist speech can't be assault because there is no physical contact but threats are already illegal

@george yet it can be action? There's physical contact between you and a flag you're burning and you seem to think that flag burning is speech. Is there any consistency here, buddy?

@Pre-Modernist when it comes to physical contact between humans that is violence, not speech. Actions can be speech but not all actions are speech. It is called nuance. There is plenty of consistency but u are just looking for anyway to dismiss me.

@Pre-Modernist same as threats are actual speech but not part of free speech, there is nuance to everything and not cut and dry.

@george I have no intent of dismissing you, my friend. I enjoy your take on many of the other topics on this site which is why I am taking the time to try to understand you. What you are defining as nuance I would call subjectivity. If something is vague, hazy, and subject to interpretation, it is unreasonable to ask others to abide by it. I would refer you to my response to your claim that flag burning is speech.

@Pre-Modernist a flag is not a person and is symbolic is why it is speech to burn it.

@george Exactly, the abstract act of disrespecting the symbolism is what is protected as expression(not speech), not the physical act of burning.

@Pre-Modernist expression or speech either is acceptable from my point of view on it but it still is the same concept all around as far as I can tell. Guess it's just a difference in how me and u interpret things, maybe.

@george it could also be differences caused by an abstract vs a more practical approach. Either way, I'm sure we'll both survive the difference in opinion. Thanks for the back and forth, I genuinely enjoyed it.

@Pre-Modernist same here, look forward to more in the future

@Pre-Modernist @george you just completely yapped yourself into a corner. Lol. If actions can't be speech, then speech can't be actions...which means regardless of what the "troll" typed it wasn't an action..it was speech not a behavior. Censor not censure. ??

@Freeken1 I never said actions can't be speech, I said they can be speech but not all actions are speech.

@george no...you didn't. I just tagged you so you would see your point validated

@george I completely agreed with your points

@Freeken1 George and I took our disagreement apart to the very core pieces and discovered that it was based in fundamental differences in perception and thinking. Once we both realised that our differences were subjective and could not be objectively argued, we respected each other as individuals and didn't preach morality at one another. I responded to your comments and gave you your share of attention, jumping in here with some attempt to gang up like kids on a playground is the type of disruptive behaviour I would rather avoid. Please get yourself under control, I agree that George made some really great points, try following his example of behaving like an adult.

2

It would appear, if I understand your situation, that you have someone who contributes nothing positive to whatever discussion are in place yet insists on intruding. (Possibl y in an insecure effort to feel superior?)

Censorship is not removing someone who I assume understood the parameters of what the site was set up for.It is removing anyone who you fear will destroy your belief structure if allowed to express themselves freely. Censorship is about fear, not disruption.

So if I have read this correctly you are not censoring anyone; you are merely freeing them up to find a group their skill set will provide value to.

I really like this take! Beautifully put!

1

I think it would depend on the parameters of the group. If the group was about promoting free speech then I think you need to leave them and ignore their comments. If the group has some other stated goal which the person had to agree to to join the group and the disruptive member is disrupting that goal then you as the creator/moderator are free to remove them from your group...they are free to go create their own group to promote their points of view and anyone in your group is free to join or not join them. This is given the understanding that the comments are disrupting the agreed on goal of the group not just promoting alternate opinions and points of view. They are free to post off topic trolling comments, you are free to ban them! I think ignoring them because they might get their jollies out of being banned is kind of cutting your nose off to spite your face. You may be able to grit it out and ignore their bad behavior but I think it is better to ban and move on never giving them a second thought. IMHO

1

I know exactly what you mean. I've had to moderate a group as large as 90000 members at one point. It can be quite a daunting task. Sometimes I made grossly incorrect assessments a person and I was probably wrong for giving them a timeout or kicking them out. A person tends to look at things through his own subjective lenses, and that can easily become problematic via an internet discussion. There are just to many unknowns about a random individual on the internet. There are so many ways you can wrongly identify a situation when only reading text, especially on a large scale.

That being said, there are certainly trolls out there with nothing better to do than waste other serious peoples time. More than you'd think. You can only do the best you can do. A light touch, and a clearly defined set of rules for the group helps.

1

I'm inclined to agree with you on that. I too consider it a waste of time to debate someone who pretty much is the equivalent to an adult child, and some are involved in social media just to harass or heckle others. Everyone should have the right to free speech, but I have every right to ignore someone who is making a fool of themselves, and if they do such in a group I host/own they shall get banned from said group. It's a shame having to resort to such, but I would if necessary though.

This is pretty much my line of thinking on the matter, thanks for the feedback.

1

It doesn't seem unreasonable at face value I would like to know the particular details to give a more concise answer

1

For the most part, I agree with you. I am, however, curious if you possibly meant "dialog" rather than "dialectic?"

Nope, I meant dialectic.

@Pre-Modernist wel... that puts a slightly different spin on the ball, doesn't it?

@Jeeper752 I'm certainly not suggesting that we go around bashing anyone unfamiliar with formal logic. But I do believe that if someone is entering into an intellectual discussion or debate, they should either be familiar with rational thought or aware of their ignorance. An individual joining a football match would not be tolerated for very long if he were unfamiliar with the rules of the game and unwilling to learn them.

@Pre-Modernist, in the original post, you said you banned "a pedant" from one of your discussion groups.

I have read many of the conversation threads appearing before this one for a bit of context before coming back to this one.

You seem to be very interested in rules of logic, rules of debate and dismissive of those who see and understand those rules differently than you do.

I took the liberty of a Google search for "pedant definition" and copied the first entry that came up. Here it is:
"pedant (p?d?nt)?

n. One who pays undue attention to book learning and formal rules.
n. One who exhibits one's learning or scholarship ostentatiously.
n. Obsolete A schoolmaster."

It would appear to apply to one here...

I mean, you clearly weren't able to comprehend that definition. Unless you're incredibly clever and you're acting out the definition. But I doubt that. You're precisely the type I'm speaking of. I see no merit in you.

0

People dither back and forth too much. Nobody has balls enough to take decisive action anymore. Do what you have to do to move forward and leave the second-guessing to the people with nothing better to do.

0

To be more succinct: We may have the right to say what we want, but that doesn't mean we will be free from the consequences of what we say.

0

This is why good Judgement is important. I'm sure the anti censorship purists will have a fit over it, but someone who is that disruptive is indirectly interfering with everyone else attempting to utilize their right to free speech. And its not censorship to kick an Asshole to the curb. The individual in question was given a fair chance to speak and they abused the privilege. No set of rules or laws are going to perfect anything, or make anyone behave; That has to come from within the individual.

0

As with so many "definitions" in the political arena, censorship is probably in the eye of the beholder. The pedant you described may well see himself as the only sane member of the group. Ejecting him/her was apparently seen by the ejector as necessary to maintain some quality held to be of value. A debate between the two of you will probably not serve to clear the air. As creator of the group, I suppose you have the right to prevent it from descending into madness. But don't expect everyone to agree with you on that point, or, for that matter, a mutual definition of "madness".

0

The only reason this question has even occurred to you is because your standards for β€œfree speech” are so high that not even you can achieve them.

Of course you can remove disruptive people from groups; if you don’t then the group disintegrates. That is why a lot of places do not tolerate nazis, conspiracy theorists and so on. Because if you open the door to these things, they soon become the only thing people talk about.

So enough virtue signalling already.

Agreed with most. But if the discouse is civil, and whatever it is being brought to the table becomes, as you say, the only thing people talk about, then clearly there's a place for that conversation and if the topic of the forum or thread is not a proper place for it, then as the host, why not make it clear and suggest another thread be started to accomodate? In other words making every effort to respect the right before blocking or removing.

What he's referring to is a little different and invilves balligerance & intentional disruption to prevent dialog it sounds like to me. It's like a video i saw with D'Souza trying to speak at a college & this idiot kid was standing and completely stopping the speech while making a video of it on his phone. He should've been booted instantly as his intent was obvious, but it took them forever. One could call that censorship as well, and it was necessary to continue the speech.

@Tommy6915 I would say that even when discourse remains civil, you will find that some topics of conversation are inherently disruptive to the community at large.

One of the best examples of this is conspiracy theories. There is scientific research which indicates that people who believe in one conspiracy are likely to believe in others. This means that when you tolerate one, you will fairly quickly end up with discussion of others. Before too long people who are not interested in these discussions will leave, and then all that is left is people talking about conspiracies.

And because conspiracy theories are driven by the psychology of their believers and not evidence, there is absolutely no point in trying to reason with them. A decision needs to be made: exclude them, censor the topic, or allow the forum to rot.

@InternetDorkWeb i understand what you're saying and have indeed seen examples of just what you're talking about. However, it's been my experience that the term 'conspiracy theory' has been used primarily by the left to censor unwelcome speech as a result of cognative dissonance. It is normally a big red flag to me indicating the one using it is highly unlikely to engage in honest debate as they tend to have little substance behind their arguments and tend to fall back on labeling rhetoric to shout down their counterpart.

You sound like you may be an exeption to that rule, so i'm explaining myself so you have an idea of where i'm coming from in terms of censoring speech. Some may see censoring content a little differently, but i'm not one of those. Nevertheless, i do see your concern and there certainly is that risk with any forum. I tend to approach it online like i did running bars, it's the behavior i tend to bannish, the content can be admonished by the crowd & if it's not, then at the least there's tacit approval & that's on the crowd.

0

I'm in the ignoring bin with respect to trolls. They're seeking negative attention. If you either engage or ban them, they win. If you ignore there's no reward. It has a added advantage in that you're not reinforcing negative behavior. It requires self-disciple not the be drawn in as they are typically skilled at provoking. It helps if you have parenting skills and experience. Kids will behave the same way as trolls. An added advantage is you don't have to be the police. You're neither advancing or retreating. You're neutral while they fail around until exhausted and leave. Guilt-free.

0

Many thanks for all the replies(even those with which I disagreed), they've been quite elucidating. To clarify, I was not asking about the rights or the wrongs of my pedant banning policy; that's far too subjective and I'm not in any personal doubt over it. I was merely curious as to how other folks view the censoring/censuring issue.
So far, the arguments in favour of never banning anyone seem rather poorly argued. They often are based in an idea of the "real world" that seems incredibly unrealistic. By these same arguments, a disruptive child should never be removed from a classroom, a vagabond harassing patrons should never be removed from a store, an employee violating company policies should never be fired, etc. It seems to be the same unrealistic utopian dogma I see on the left. Differentiating between censoring an idea and censuring behaviour requires the ability to recognise nuance and from what I'm seeing here, many people would prefer to have a little rulebook that applies to all situations regardless of context. This is postmodernism, my friends; pushing a different goal than those you oppose while using the exact same tactics is fairly disingenuous.

My argument had nothing to do with real world...simply that unless it is actually abusive it is still discourse. If individuals can block members they don't like and not see their content...which they can on every platform I know of...wouldn't that eliminate the problem? At least for those upset

@Freeken1 no one mentioned you, my friend. I have addressed your points directly as I find them more nuanced and interesting than the real world arguments.

0

The fact you believe you can teach is an indication you have much to learn. Ideas and philosophies are not facts. They are opinions. People that believe they are facts have closed their minds and tend to want to be in an echo chamber. "Trolling" is a very generalized term. You say that there was no intellectual Merit? Are you sure? If it was a string of "your momma jokes", ok. If it was opposition to all your beliefs...that is an invite to debate. If your beliefs are fact based you will destroy the troll...if they are opinion then the "troll" has every right to "get your goat" everytime you tiptoe across that bridge. Would love some examples..this is a "straw troll argument" at this point

I have no desire to teach. I have a desire to learn. If someone is deliberately preventing me from learning merely to satiate their own nihilistic cynicism, I am certainly not going to maintain some hipster free-speech ascetic based on libertarian dogma.

But it's certainly not a strawman fallacy. I'm asking opinions on an abstract concept, censoring ideas vs. censuring behaviour. I am not presenting an argument against a fabricated opponent.

@Pre-Modernist again, I have zero context of conversation to work with. Do you have an example of the "trolling" you could screen shot? Otherwise this is a hypothetical discussion that can only be self serving in it's conclusion. I might completely agree or disagree with your assessment based on examination of both sides...but we only have one. The biggest problem with the written word is that the reader dictates the meaning not the writer. The tone and dialog is completely the reader's own voice in their head. A smartass remark typed while giggling for satire or irony read by an angry mind will have a totally different feel and meaning...but that says nothing about the writer and everything about the reader

@Freeken1 Again, I'm not asking for anyone to asses the specifics of my particular situation; I'm speaking in the abstract. I want to discuss the concept, not elicit advice.

@Freeken1 I also can't help noticing that you are arguing against my supposed belief that I am in possession of an absolute truth that I seek to impose on others. It would require a very active imagination to draw that conclusion from anything I have written here. You do not seem to be responding to what I have written, instead you have been responding to what you presume my intent to be. This is an example of a straw man, which is terribly ironic considering your initial response.

@Pre-Modernist well there are many unknowns in the initial statement/question. Do you have the right to control content on your page? Absolutely. Is that censorship? Absolutely...so what is the real question you are asking? Is my censorship justified? Well, without knowing what was censored that is an impossible question to objectively answer. What I was trying to point out is that you left no avenue of discussion that doesn't lead to the weeds

@Freeken1 darling, when I write that I'm not asking if my actions are justified and you conclude that I'm asking if my actions are justified, I have a difficult time seeing the merit of your comment. If you aren't able to differentiate between the abstract idea of censoring vs. censuring and the practicals of a specific situation, that's fine. I don't think any less of you for not getting my question, I do think less of you for repeatedly making presumptions that are the complete opposite of anything I have written. If you can't see any avenue of discussion that doesn't lead to the weeds, stepping into the weeds seems less viable than merely not entering the conversation. Just because you cannot see another option does not mean one does not exist.

@Pre-Modernist bitch, then your entire post was useless.. you asked for opinions on Banning content based on opinion versus Behavior. You give no real examples of either. So you asked for opinions but solely on your terms. What you consider somebody's Behavior may actually be them expressing their opinion. And then you want to get condescending with me? Where does that fall into Behavior? Don't know why Behavior keeps having a capital B but seeing as it's talk-to-text driving I can't fix it.

@Freeken1 breathe, darling. You're tough enough to survive some posho tosspot crassly critiquing your logical relativism online.

@Freeken1 and as I already stated, if you are not able to comprehend the abstract concept without specific examples, that's fine. Getting mad at me for not humouring your inability to grasp the abstract, however, is not fine, it's childish. You are under no obligation to answer my question, if it seems posed in a manner which you find unanswerable, simply not attempting to answer it is far preferable to insisting I change it to accommodate your limitations.

But if it does help clarify at all: Although I find your line of reasoning completely devoid of intellectual merit, I have no desire to block you. You are not being disruptive in any manner, you are being slightly insulting(which is entirely warranted by my provocations), but you are not disrupting the general discussion. Bad ideas such as yours should not be censored in my opinion, disruptive behaviour that detracts from discussion should absolutely be censured.

@Pre-Modernist and you are unable, or unwilling to grasp that I am simply pointing out that "grasping the abstract" is not the issue. Posing specific questions in the abstract is self serving.

@Pre-Modernist also I'm not mad at you "for not humoring..." I'm not mad at all. I just figured when responding to someone that is trying to be a condescending bitch I should point it out.

@Freeken1 I posed an abstract question in the abstract and provided context as to why I was posing the abstract question. That's a lot of abstraction, it's an absurd line of thinking that is incredibly frustrating to many people. It is entirely possible to divorce the abstract from the specific, it just may not be possible for you. If you don't want people to condescend to you, don't demand that they come down to your level.

@Freeken1 Many folks disagree with my thoughts on this manner(some of them have great points), but you are the only one who is unable to grasp the abstract concept. I am perfectly willing to believe that you see something that none of the rest of us see, but you seem unable or unwilling to communicate it in a cogent and objective manner. I can't just take your word for it and, although none of us think objectively, we do need to communicate objectively as mind reading is still in the development stage.

@Pre-Modernist exactly...mind reading doesn't work. The very reason I was trying to get an example of what YOU consider trolling. Without agreement on the parameters of your abstract and discussion is equally abstract. As far as "demanding people come down to my levet"...if you are so far above it you should understand it immediately and have no need to "adjust levels" or quaify it with an answer. Starting to think...as I have no examples...the "troll" was maybe just somebody calling you out on self aggrandizing condescension? Possible?

@Freeken1 I'm afraid we don't seem to be making progress here. I'm genuinely not interested in your opinion on me banning an individual from a group. I'm interested in discussing the abstract concept of censoring vs censuring. If your purpose is to call me out for being arrogant, congratulations, you've pointed out something I've known for over thirty years and with which I am completely content. Unless you have anything more interesting to add, I'm afraid I'm going to have to abandon this cyclical wank session.

@Pre-Modernist already had

0

Mange takk for the replies, it's always good to double check my reasoning.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:20665
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.