It would be trivial to add a short sequence to the terms and conditions covering this.
1. Step 1 - assume reciprocity; those who attack free speech on the platform do so in good faith; use the gift of free speech to explain the position;
2. Step 2 - if this is ignored, use their own request of restricting speech against the Restrictors to test their theory; that is, permanently remove them using their own logic which we are reluctantly testing using their own suggested method of permanent banning;
3. Step 3 - reassess the situation with the remaining Substackers, now minus the Restrictors; does anyone still want to restrict speech? If so, return to STEP 1 with the new Restrictors.
That may help overcome resistance to your sensible suggestion and keep consciences free. And avoid the whole "we are tolerant, so we can't ban them" loophole the clowns exploit in their emotional urge to win at all costs.
these subtle subterfuges are confusing to many. I was at a loss for a long time, scratching my head at the "hypocrisy". Then I realized they arent even remotely like me in their morals, mental state or cognition. I see shadows of how it operates, but realize fully inhabiting it would be literal madness.
I agree. It is a form of madness. An astonishly poor coping strategy for a world they do not control. No inner work, no aspiration to become resilient, mentally tough or strong. The world must change to stop the voices in my head.
Josh Slocum's Disaffected Podcast clued me in to the mental illness underlying it all. Many subtle revelations followed about the particulars and how to spot it but thats the basic part.
I would shun them and ignore them. They crave attention , so don’t give them any unless they become more obnoxious( and they will). They will cross a line, eventually( they always do) and then some kind of action might be appropriate.
Do unto others...
It would be trivial to add a short sequence to the terms and conditions covering this.
1. Step 1 - assume reciprocity; those who attack free speech on the platform do so in good faith; use the gift of free speech to explain the position;
2. Step 2 - if this is ignored, use their own request of restricting speech against the Restrictors to test their theory; that is, permanently remove them using their own logic which we are reluctantly testing using their own suggested method of permanent banning;
3. Step 3 - reassess the situation with the remaining Substackers, now minus the Restrictors; does anyone still want to restrict speech? If so, return to STEP 1 with the new Restrictors.
That may help overcome resistance to your sensible suggestion and keep consciences free. And avoid the whole "we are tolerant, so we can't ban them" loophole the clowns exploit in their emotional urge to win at all costs.
The time has come.
Tolerance for intolerance of tolerance has to end.
Its only fair.
Otherwise we are only left with....... intolerance.
Indeed. They don't care about rules. But they are aware of how others abide by them.
They care *very much* about rules.
They use rules and their lies about how they variously use them and abrogate them as a *tactic*
Well yes. I should qualify it. They care about imposing them on their enemies.
these subtle subterfuges are confusing to many. I was at a loss for a long time, scratching my head at the "hypocrisy". Then I realized they arent even remotely like me in their morals, mental state or cognition. I see shadows of how it operates, but realize fully inhabiting it would be literal madness.
I agree. It is a form of madness. An astonishly poor coping strategy for a world they do not control. No inner work, no aspiration to become resilient, mentally tough or strong. The world must change to stop the voices in my head.
Josh Slocum's Disaffected Podcast clued me in to the mental illness underlying it all. Many subtle revelations followed about the particulars and how to spot it but thats the basic part.
I would shun them and ignore them. They crave attention , so don’t give them any unless they become more obnoxious( and they will). They will cross a line, eventually( they always do) and then some kind of action might be appropriate.