Because of people like this:
I would say keep opinions to one side and just facts on the other. Kind of like what the news should do, just report facts and leave out the opinions.
Moderators as others put it would have an easy job going through stuff.
for somebody linking to a blog or making comments that doesn't call for violence against somebody or group, because when you do censor someone then you get the retaliation that can lead to division in our fight for Liberty. This is Michael's site where he can do what he wants, but censoring non-violent free speech is no what Liberty is about. You can agree with a post or disagree and let them know your opinion. I assume his post was censored, because he made a verbal attack pointing out an arrogant supremist Jew, who believes they are superior to a gentile, even though they are probably a gentile by documented DNA who follows the religion of Judaism. I'm still wondering who deemed Jews as the only group you can't question or allude to their nefarious practices or be called a racist? It appears this censorship was started by Trotsky aka Bronstein, who invented the word 'racism' during the Bolshevik takeover of Russia cementing the road to the Totaliarian Communist regime known as the Soviet Union. After this censorship of speech started, if you said something they didn't like, people would be sent to the Gulag where many perished. People are allowed to attack Christians and especially Muslims all over the internet, even on mainstream sites, but if something is made about Judaism, they are censored and possibly one of their attack groups (ADL, JDL, SPLC, ect) will come and try to ruin your life. Knowing where these tactics originated, shouldn't we question how these same tactics are being applied in this country and around the world? If every news publication would of censored Thomas Paine for his extremely negative attacks againt the British King and his court, we might have never become the Repulic created by our Founders.
The word is anathema to the DP community. I suggest you use the term 'moderation', that is less of an emotional trigger for people here.
Maybe you don't know the difference between censorship of opinion and fact. This site should ABSOLUTELY censor inaccuracy and wrongful conclusions (and there is certainly some of that), but I don't think you should censor opinion. There is a big distinction between that.
Too many times posts include statements of false information, usually do to misinformation and emotional reactions. We lose credibility if we do that. A lot of people don't even bother to check sources. They just post stuff after a knee jerk emotional reaction to something that MAY appear to be true, but in reality isn't.
If this was my site probably around 20% of the stuff here would have been removed. But that is just me.
However, there IS a difference between the THREAD and the comments under that thread. Comments can be whatever they want, but not the starting thread.
If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...
The government and mass media agrees. Daily Paul should be censored!
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
So what do you make of that?
That the owner is NWO :|
Like my dad used to say; "Howard Stern doesn't force anyone to listen to him, so why do it if you don't like what he says?"
I like to think the same thing applies here. If I don't like what a poster has to say, then I can either ignore it, or better yet, make my opposing view known to that poster. It's the same thing for the site itself; I'll leave when I no longer enjoy coming here, and don't plan on sticking around just to bitch about this or that.
The seemingly unavoidable problem with censorship, though, is that it never ends with "just X will be censored", and the fact that mods are human and fallible and will occasionally ban/censor out of emotion. Rest assured that Y, Z, and the rest of the gang will follow suit down the line.
One could argue with validity that it's a necessary evil, and perhaps it is, but from my POV it'd best work on an individual level.
With that said, I understand Michael's position (to a large extent), and I'd be willing to bet he's had similar thoughts. It's a damned if you do damned if you don't sorta deal, and it sucks for everyone involved. Running, heck even *modding* a website can be more far trying than it initially appears.
Damn...didn't realize I posted such a wall of text. D:
A signature used to be here!
... because this is a community.
To me, it is more like people keep pissing in the pool.
What I'm saying is that you don't have to listen to individuals on here if you don't want to-- there's a block button for that. (Though IMO, responding is a better option, as it creates an opportunity for both parties to learn and offers new perspectives on a given issue).
As far as the community aspect, like I say, if/when there's too much piss in the pool for me, I'll simply leave rather than rant about the stench of urine, likely in vain.
Do you think I'm wasting my time?
I'm on the side of those seeking it as well...is there any other side to be on!?
Father - Husband - Son - Spirit - Consciousness
I have been on and off from here for years....and being a business owner....for instance on facebook...I have to ban people frequently for posting crap. As with the DP...It should be censored...It is Michael s site...period. If the site starts to take a wrong turn, I want the moderators to guide it back. We are here for freedom....I am here in hopes that Rand runs.....then this site will light up like crazy....but for now, for me, I still jump here every day to read the headlines. I will read a few of your comments...not obsessed like I used to be, but I read your comments....and enjoy a mixture of new threads. If all of the threads are "Boston Bombers Conspiracy" threads..I go away, just like any person would. Thanks Mike. How is the cigarette thing going?
Thank you for that book.
How's Portland? I was out there a couple months ago scoping it out. Liked it a lot.
Boston is over.
Did you not watch Ron Paul get absolutely ^&%#ed out of the presidency?
What world are you observing?
Rand 2016? We already missed our opportunity!
“Censorship” is a term pertaining only to governmental action. No private action is censorship. No private individual or agency can silence a man or suppress a publication; only the government can do so. The freedom of speech of private individuals includes the right not to agree, not to listen and not to finance one’s own antagonists.
Since when is Rand a dictionary?
An objective approach - first learned in 1st grade when you were learning to read is to use a dictionary : "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable ".
Rand often redefined words, but no, in a broader sense, censorship does not have to just be done by a government agency. Perhaps Rand meant, the only objectionable kind, given xxx, is government censorship.
Government does not have a monopoly on force. Even objectionable kinds of censorship involving force or fraud, does not need a government to be objectionable. Force and fraud is used in the world by far more than merely government.
... eventually : these paid scumbags who sit in government web-trolling centers and practice endless bickering and tearing down ... always tearing down
abolish the NSA
abolish the CIA
abolish the FBI
Republic Broadcasting best talk radio in the truthosphere