I have not picked sides in that debate. It's not a side that would be guilty of deliberate disruption, it's individuals.webwit wrote:Arguing against massdrop disrupts the free speech of others, and it was by design? I think that is quite a dramatic accusation. But then logically the objective observant should note that arguing in favor of massdrop disrupts the free speech of others as well, by design, because they repeatedly continued the subject. Or you have picked sides.Soarer wrote:they appeared to be using 'free speech' in a way designed to disrupt the free speech of others by spamming the thread.
Again, it's not about me picking a side. I have voiced absolutely zero opinion on massdrop, either directly or indirectly. I will say now that I simply can't be bothered to make my mind up on the issue. However, the ergodox GB went ahead, so there was a losing side in the initial argument (which was a valid a discussion to have). Objectively, I have to take that into account. Perhaps that explains the imbalance you perceive.webwit wrote:Anyway I think your statement is fundamentally flawed, because it's still merely about your favored opinion in this argument. It's still just picking sides and wanting to shut up the other by calling their on-topic contributions where they reply to other people "spam". If you divide free speech like this, in fact you can't and you end up with a censored environment, because people would shut up other people by prosecuting them "for disruption of the free speech of others" (where does it start, where does it end?), in other words, saying something which wasn't liked by the prosecutors with whatever standard they are applying.
Free speech clearly has its limits, or nobody would ever have been banned from DT for anything except commercial spamming. So clearly there is some distinction based on perceived motive.
Seeking to prevent the ergodox massdrop GB once it started can't be the motive. Seeking to prevent massdrop GBs in general would have been better in its own thread. So, as a logical man, I'm bound to suspect there was some other motive.
No, just the part that was ad-absurdum...webwit wrote:You dismiss my hypothetical case about free speech where I was looking for intelligent debate, as an absurd counter attack, that's not very nice.Ad-absurdum, nice.
webwit wrote:I think our committee of People Who Decide When Other People Have Had Their Say and Should Shut Up was sleeping.