Sociopath Community

Turncoat said: 

Lenalee said: 

Tell me, if Meta bans Jim for posting CP and other law breaking shit, will you also cry censorship or will you agree that Jim has breached the user agreement and that meta is right for banning him? 

It would still be censorship regardless of how I respond to it. 

Then you'll think everything not catering to you is censorship. You've agreed on tos/u for this website. It's the same for every digital service you use. If you break rules then get upset because your account has been terminated or banned, that's still not censorship just cos you're upset. 

Lenalee said: 

Turncoat said: 

Lenalee said: 

Tell me, if Meta bans Jim for posting CP and other law breaking shit, will you also cry censorship or will you agree that Jim has breached the user agreement and that meta is right for banning him? 

It would still be censorship regardless of how I respond to it. 

Then you'll think everything not catering to you is censorship.

No, I've been saying from the start that censorship cuts both ways, and am arguing what the definition of a word is. There's been many many points where censorship is otherwise catering towards my demographics but it otherwise is still censorship. 

What you're effectively doing is arguing in favor of censorship, rather than saying it doesn't exist at all. Censorship can be seen as a positive thing depending on who you ask and over what criteria it's looking over. 

You've agreed on tos/u for this website. It's the same for every digital service you use. If you break rules then get upset because your account has been terminated or banned, that's still not censorship just cos you're upset. 

It'd be censorship regardless of my feelings, and if the terms change to suit the times then that's further censorship if they apply it towards older material retroactively. Seriously just look at the definition of the word, these ToS agreements still enforce censorship. 

Turncoat said: 

Lenalee said: 

Turncoat said: 

Lenalee said: 

Tell me, if Meta bans Jim for posting CP and other law breaking shit, will you also cry censorship or will you agree that Jim has breached the user agreement and that meta is right for banning him? 

It would still be censorship regardless of how I respond to it. 

Then you'll think everything not catering to you is censorship.

No, I've been saying from the start that censorship cuts both ways, and am arguing what the definition of a word is. There's been many many points where censorship is otherwise catering towards my demographics but it otherwise is still censorship. 

What you're effectively doing is arguing in favor of censorship, rather than saying it doesn't exist at all. Censorship can be seen as a positive thing depending on who you ask and over what criteria it's looking over. 

Censorship exist, it is however not what you claim it to be when you go "waaah I've been banned on Twitter for my ideas". That is not censorship. 

You've agreed on tos/u for this website. It's the same for every digital service you use. If you break rules then get upset because your account has been terminated or banned, that's still not censorship just cos you're upset. 

It'd be censorship regardless of my feelings, and if the terms change to suit the times then that's further censorship if they apply it towards older material retroactively. Seriously just look at the definition of the word, these ToS agreements still enforce censorship. 

 Regardless of how you feel, banning someone for breaching terms of use is not censorship. Them not being able to use more mainstream platforms because they can't abide by the rules the platform has set is not censorship. 

Lenalee said: 

Turncoat said: 

Lenalee said: 

Turncoat said: 

Lenalee said: 

Tell me, if Meta bans Jim for posting CP and other law breaking shit, will you also cry censorship or will you agree that Jim has breached the user agreement and that meta is right for banning him? 

It would still be censorship regardless of how I respond to it. 

Then you'll think everything not catering to you is censorship.

No, I've been saying from the start that censorship cuts both ways, and am arguing what the definition of a word is. There's been many many points where censorship is otherwise catering towards my demographics but it otherwise is still censorship. 

What you're effectively doing is arguing in favor of censorship, rather than saying it doesn't exist at all. Censorship can be seen as a positive thing depending on who you ask and over what criteria it's looking over. 

Censorship exist, it is however not what you claim it to be when you go "waaah I've been banned on Twitter for my ideas". That is not censorship. 

So it stops being censorship when they cry about it? 

You've agreed on tos/u for this website. It's the same for every digital service you use. If you break rules then get upset because your account has been terminated or banned, that's still not censorship just cos you're upset. 

It'd be censorship regardless of my feelings, and if the terms change to suit the times then that's further censorship if they apply it towards older material retroactively. Seriously just look at the definition of the word, these ToS agreements still enforce censorship. 

Regardless of how you feel, banning someone for breaching terms of use is not censorship.

It is, just a largely acceptable form of it over a community-wide agreement. 

If a community of 1000 people all agree to not say a word, and a 1001st walks in, sees that they don't want him saying this, he says it anyway, and then they retaliate? That falls under Censorship, even if it's a law or cultural more. 

Them not being able to use more mainstream platforms because they can't abide by the rules the platform has set is not censorship. 

Censorship isn't about if someone does or doesn't follow rules, it's just about if there's censoring going on. 

As a basic example, when Adult Swim showed The Room on April 1st they opted to throw censor bars at the two main characters during their sex scene. While I now know from seeing it on my own later that they were doing me a favor that doesn't negate that it is otherwise censorship of that media over the practices that Turner Broadcasting will and won't permit to be seen. 

Turncoat said: 

Lenalee said: 

Turncoat said: 

Lenalee said: 

Turncoat said: 

Lenalee said: 

Tell me, if Meta bans Jim for posting CP and other law breaking shit, will you also cry censorship or will you agree that Jim has breached the user agreement and that meta is right for banning him? 

It would still be censorship regardless of how I respond to it. 

Then you'll think everything not catering to you is censorship.

No, I've been saying from the start that censorship cuts both ways, and am arguing what the definition of a word is. There's been many many points where censorship is otherwise catering towards my demographics but it otherwise is still censorship. 

What you're effectively doing is arguing in favor of censorship, rather than saying it doesn't exist at all. Censorship can be seen as a positive thing depending on who you ask and over what criteria it's looking over. 

Censorship exist, it is however not what you claim it to be when you go "waaah I've been banned on Twitter for my ideas". That is not censorship. 

So it stops being censorship when they cry about it? 

Jesus, you fucking nag.

You've agreed on tos/u for this website. It's the same for every digital service you use. If you break rules then get upset because your account has been terminated or banned, that's still not censorship just cos you're upset. 

It'd be censorship regardless of my feelings, and if the terms change to suit the times then that's further censorship if they apply it towards older material retroactively. Seriously just look at the definition of the word, these ToS agreements still enforce censorship. 

Regardless of how you feel, banning someone for breaching terms of use is not censorship.

It is, just a largely acceptable form of it over a community-wide agreement. 

If a community of 1000 people all agree to not say a word, and a 1001st walks in, sees that they don't want him saying this, he says it anyway, and then they retaliate? That falls under Censorship, even if it's a law or cultural more. 

Okay, in this hypothetical scenario that you've made up...If you enter a community, which has an established rule or agreement, and you walk in and understand this rule or agreement and you break this rule and they "retaliate" as you say, that's not you being censored. That's you walking into a community with established rules and agreements and being an asshole. If the retaliation is to kick you out of the community- that's still not censorship. That's them kicking you out of the community for not being able to follow a rule. You have demonstrated that you cannot follow said rule, and that you not wanting to follow said rule makes you unfit to be in that community. 

Them not being able to use more mainstream platforms because they can't abide by the rules the platform has set is not censorship. 

Censorship isn't about if someone does or doesn't follow rules, it's just about if there's censoring going on. 

As a basic example, when Adult Swim showed The Room on April 1st they opted to throw censor bars at the two main characters during their sex scene. While I now know from seeing it on my own later that they were doing me a favor that doesn't negate that it is otherwise censorship of that media over the practices that Turner Broadcasting will and won't permit to be seen. 

 Choosing to watch a pixelated version of a terrible movie through a public channel/station isn't censorship. The unedited film is still available to you. It is not being kept from you. It is not prohibited. As you've just said, you were able to see the unedited film.

You keep trying to move this to the slippery slope area when it comes to media and entertainment and Hollywood and frankly I'm not interested in it.

Lenalee said: 

You've agreed on tos/u for this website. It's the same for every digital service you use. If you break rules then get upset because your account has been terminated or banned, that's still not censorship just cos you're upset. 

It'd be censorship regardless of my feelings, and if the terms change to suit the times then that's further censorship if they apply it towards older material retroactively. Seriously just look at the definition of the word, these ToS agreements still enforce censorship. 

Regardless of how you feel, banning someone for breaching terms of use is not censorship.

It is, just a largely acceptable form of it over a community-wide agreement. 

If a community of 1000 people all agree to not say a word, and a 1001st walks in, sees that they don't want him saying this, he says it anyway, and then they retaliate? That falls under Censorship, even if it's a law or cultural more. 

Okay, in this hypothetical scenario that you've made up...If you enter a community, which has an established rule or agreement, and you walk in and understand this rule or agreement and you break this rule and they "retaliate" as you say, that's not you being censored. That's you walking into a community with established rules and agreements and being an asshole.

That's still censorship, it's just a mutually agreed upon form of it. It's them choosing to censor 'assholes' instead of dealing with them otherwise over something as simple as one's willingness to use a word. 

Them not being able to use more mainstream platforms because they can't abide by the rules the platform has set is not censorship. 

Censorship isn't about if someone does or doesn't follow rules, it's just about if there's censoring going on. 

As a basic example, when Adult Swim showed The Room on April 1st they opted to throw censor bars at the two main characters during their sex scene. While I now know from seeing it on my own later that they were doing me a favor that doesn't negate that it is otherwise censorship of that media over the practices that Turner Broadcasting will and won't permit to be seen. 

 Choosing to watch a pixelated version of a terrible movie through a public channel/station isn't censorship.

They literally call it a censor bar, what are you on? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censor_bars

Turncoat said: 

Lenalee said: 

You've agreed on tos/u for this website. It's the same for every digital service you use. If you break rules then get upset because your account has been terminated or banned, that's still not censorship just cos you're upset. 

It'd be censorship regardless of my feelings, and if the terms change to suit the times then that's further censorship if they apply it towards older material retroactively. Seriously just look at the definition of the word, these ToS agreements still enforce censorship. 

Regardless of how you feel, banning someone for breaching terms of use is not censorship.

It is, just a largely acceptable form of it over a community-wide agreement. 

If a community of 1000 people all agree to not say a word, and a 1001st walks in, sees that they don't want him saying this, he says it anyway, and then they retaliate? That falls under Censorship, even if it's a law or cultural more. 

Okay, in this hypothetical scenario that you've made up...If you enter a community, which has an established rule or agreement, and you walk in and understand this rule or agreement and you break this rule and they "retaliate" as you say, that's not you being censored. That's you walking into a community with established rules and agreements and being an asshole.

That's still censorship, it's just a mutually agreed upon form of it. It's them choosing to censor 'assholes' instead of dealing with them otherwise over something as simple as one's willingness to use a word. 

Yeah believe it or not people don't have to put up with you- 

Omg this makes so much sense on why you're so hung up on this hahaha

Them not being able to use more mainstream platforms because they can't abide by the rules the platform has set is not censorship. 

Censorship isn't about if someone does or doesn't follow rules, it's just about if there's censoring going on. 

As a basic example, when Adult Swim showed The Room on April 1st they opted to throw censor bars at the two main characters during their sex scene. While I now know from seeing it on my own later that they were doing me a favor that doesn't negate that it is otherwise censorship of that media over the practices that Turner Broadcasting will and won't permit to be seen. 

 Choosing to watch a pixelated version of a terrible movie through a public channel/station isn't censorship.

They literally call it a censor bar, what are you on? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censor_bars

 "Eheheh i will continue to lead this down into familiar territory for myself by continuing this lame lead into Hollywood bullshit that only i care about." Lmao no fuck off

Wikipedia - Censorship: 

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies.

Governments and private organizations may engage in censorship. Other groups or institutions may propose and petition for censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of his or her own works or speech, it is referred to as self-censorship. General censorship occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel.

Direct censorship may or may not be legal, depending on the type, location, and content. Many countries provide strong protections against censorship by law, but none of these protections are absolute and frequently a claim of necessity to balance conflicting rights is made, in order to determine what could and could not be censored. There are no laws against self-censorship.

Turncoat said: 

Wikipedia - Censorship: 

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies.

Governments and private organizations may engage in censorship. Other groups or institutions may propose and petition for censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of his or her own works or speech, it is referred to as self-censorship. General censorship occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel.

Direct censorship may or may not be legal, depending on the type, location, and content. Many countries provide strong protections against censorship by law, but none of these protections are absolute and frequently a claim of necessity to balance conflicting rights is made, in order to determine what could and could not be censored. There are no laws against self-censorship.

 Being banned from a platform for breaking their rules isn't censorship~ <3

Lenalee said: 

Turncoat said: 

Wikipedia - Censorship: 

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies.

Governments and private organizations may engage in censorship. Other groups or institutions may propose and petition for censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of his or her own works or speech, it is referred to as self-censorship. General censorship occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel.

Direct censorship may or may not be legal, depending on the type, location, and content. Many countries provide strong protections against censorship by law, but none of these protections are absolute and frequently a claim of necessity to balance conflicting rights is made, in order to determine what could and could not be censored. There are no laws against self-censorship.

 Being banned from a platform for breaking their rules isn't censorship~ <3

Okay you aren't even trying anymore.