libreplanet-discuss
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ‘censorship’ (was: libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 114, Issue 8)


From: David
Subject: Re: ‘censorship’ (was: libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 114, Issue 8)
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 23:29:23 +0100

On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 23:10:25 +0100
David <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 23:47:42 +0300
> Dmitry Alexandrov <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > David <address@hidden> wrote:  
> > > Calling such actions "censorship" is a very extreme reaction IMHO
> > > as the very same core points could have been made in a less
> > > excitable manner without potential breaching of the above linked
> > > guidelines and thus without triggering any negative actions.    
> > 
> > That’s curious.  Could you elaborate, please, why censoring due to
> > form rather than due to substance is not censorship?  No dictionary
> > available to me suggest it.  
> 
> 
> Making a point can be done in many ways. You can do it with
> name-calling, with assuming bad faith and other such breaches of the
> guidelines or without such things but the point remains the same be it
> that it is made with breaches of the guidelines or without.


 Sorry to double send but, on review, I think a bit more explanation is
 needed.

 What I'm really saying is that censorship isn't an absolute term in
 that the points in question can avoid censorship, or hit it head on,
 depending on how they are put. Daniel was triggering
 blocking/censorship head on by stating his points in a way which
 breached the guidelines on many levels yet he could have made the
 exact same points, and avoided being prevented from posting, had he
 merely stated these points in a different manner so the points
 themselves were not at issue and did not cause the blocking. I would
 say that blocking/censorship does not cause me an issue when it is
 done because the chosen method of stating of the key points has
 incurred problems rather that the key points themselves being
 blocked/censored.

 It would have been a rather trivial matter for Daniel to have stated
 his key points in a non-controversial way yet it was his choice not
 to do so thus the repercussions are his problem, and his fault, rather
 than something to get overly worked up about.

 I hope I've clarified this for you now but if I can be of more
 assistance please let me know.

 Regards,

David

 BTW I've admin'd and moderated more sites (including some MS owned
 ones back in the day to my eternal shame) than I care to remember so
 I'm rather an old hand at this kind of thing and, being in my 60's
 probably a good deal older than the average here.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]