Sorry gov, I guess I am pretty thick because I do not understand the question.
Censoring
Re: Censoring
Because they stand on the wall and say "nothing's gonna hurt you tonight, not on my watch".
Re: Censoring
Mr Plum has just managed to get himself banned in his new username from the TOP mil forum for 'trolling' and 'no military experience'.
I suspect that may gladden a few hearts here.
I suspect that may gladden a few hearts here.
Re: Censoring
Big deal.
I was banned from R&N for accidently making two blank posts.
Emails with Rob the Knob weren't very productive. Very condescending.
PP
I was banned from R&N for accidently making two blank posts.
Emails with Rob the Knob weren't very productive. Very condescending.
PP
Re: Censoring
and some of the posters?
- Rwy in Sight
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 6768
- Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 8:04 pm
- Location: Lost in an FIR somewhere
- Gender:
Re: Censoring
Nahh the posters here are of a better class and excellent standing.
Re: Censoring
Better looking, too!Rwy in Sight wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 6:21 pmNahh the posters here are of a better class and excellent standing.
PP
Re: Censoring
No, sorry. You are misreading us, or at least me.
I take no pleasure in anyone being banned/censored no mater how vile his views may be and how much I disagree with them, no matter whether it is here or on TOP. The cancerous cancel culture is spreading throughout our lives and it is just sad. Some seem to enjoy it, especially the ones at the dispensing end of it.
Because they stand on the wall and say "nothing's gonna hurt you tonight, not on my watch".
- OFSO
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 18825
- Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 6:39 pm
- Location: Teddington UK and Roses Catalunia
- Gender:
- Age: 80
Re: Censoring
Second the above. Shame that anyone would think I take pleasure in someone being banned.
-
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 2549
- Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2015 8:05 am
- Location: Planet Claire
- Gender:
- Age: 63
Re: Censoring
Those doing the banning, love banning.
Re: Censoring
Never mind, he will be back here on June 9th at 07:14.
-
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 2534
- Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 3:20 am
- Location: Back home, looking for a bad bottle of Red
- Gender:
- Age: 69
Re: Censoring
I would respectfully disagree with that, AtomKraft. And that is what I like about this site; the fact than someone can disagree with anothers opinion but that we (mostly) do so in a respectful manner and still remain civil towards each other.Those doing the banning, love banning.
You only live twice. Once when you're born. Once when you've looked death in the face.
-
- Capt
- Posts: 1016
- Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 1:27 pm
- Location: Morayshire Scotland
- Gender:
- Age: 82
Re: Censoring
I second wot PtP has just sed.
The Ancient Mariner
The Ancient Mariner
- barkingmad
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 5497
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:13 pm
- Location: Another Planet
- Gender:
- Age: 75
Re: Censoring
+10
Why do the ‘wets’, or those of a left leaning disposition, or those who wake up every morning looking for a micro-aggression or something to upset them graduate towards refereeing others’ freedom of expression?
Just musing aloud, about no forum in particular...
- OFSO
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 18825
- Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 6:39 pm
- Location: Teddington UK and Roses Catalunia
- Gender:
- Age: 80
Re: Censoring
I think it's the one thing the far right and the far left have in common. Freedom of speech is anathma to both.
Of course the left claim it's for your own good: the right claim it's for the good of the state, ie their own good
Of course the left claim it's for your own good: the right claim it's for the good of the state, ie their own good
- barkingmad
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 5497
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:13 pm
- Location: Another Planet
- Gender:
- Age: 75
Re: Censoring
Barton Swaim, an editorial page writer for the Wall St Journal, has written a brilliant piece about how censorship has become fashionable among America’s educated elites – and not just America’s – under the guise of ‘protecting’ democracy from ‘misinformation’. What’s particularly good about Swaim’s piece is that he links the mistaken belief that ‘data’ and ‘facts’ can drive complicated policy decisions with the avoidance of difficult decisions during the pandemic, with politicians outsourcing difficult decisions to ‘experts’. Here is an extract:
"A quarter-century ago the word ‘censorship’ was almost a profanity in American politics. By the mid-2010s it was permitted, even praised, so long as it targeted heterodox thought. Speakers on college campuses were shouted down without a word of protest from people who in the 1980s had defended the public funding of sacrilegious photographs. Commentators in mainstream journals of opinion advocated the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, which required broadcasters to present both sides of controversial issues and had the effect of chilling debate on every contentious question. A large number of respected academics and intellectuals suddenly believed the U.S. government had a duty to stop people from saying things those same academics and intellectuals held to be factually inaccurate.
Sceptics mostly attribute this new support for censorship to bad faith. I prefer a more charitable explanation. The new censors sincerely mistake their own interpretations of the facts for the facts themselves. Their opinions, filtered unconsciously through biases and experience, are, to them, simply information. Their views aren’t ‘views’ at all but raw data. Competing interpretations of the facts can be only one thing: misinformation. Or, if it’s deliberate, disinformation.
It is in many ways a strange outcome. From the 1970s to the early 2000s, academic philosophies associated with ‘postmodernism’ coursed through American higher education. They held that there was no objectively knowable truth, only subjective interpretation. As if to demonstrate postmodernism’s total impracticality, yesterday’s straight-A college students have now retreated into a risibly facile non-philosophy in which there is no interpretation, only objective ‘fact’.
Such was the mental disposition of America’s enlightened politicos and media sophisticates when the pandemic hit in early 2020. The challenge of public policy, as they saw it, was not to find practical, broadly acceptable solutions. The challenge, rather, was to find and implement the scientifically ‘correct’ solution, the one endorsed by experts. Sound policy, for them, was a matter of gathering enough data and ‘following’ it.
But of course you can’t follow data. Data just sits there and waits to be interpreted.
When COVID-19 came ashore, the country’s political class, in thrall to the authority of public-health experts and the journalists who listen to them, was singularly ill-equipped to lead in a sensible way. What the pandemic required was not the gathering and mastery of information and the quick implementation of ‘data driven’ policy. The data was wildly elusive, changing shape from day to day and yielding no obvious interpretation. No one understood the spread of this astoundingly resilient virus, least of all the experts confidently purporting to understand it. There was, in fact, no clinically correct response.
The situation called for the acknowledgment of risk, the weighing of costs against benefits, the clear declaration of reasonable compromises between competing interests. What happened was an exercise in societal self-ruin – in the U.S. and elsewhere in the developed world. Politicians, especially those most inclined to see themselves as objective, pro-science data-followers, ducked accountability and deferred to experts who pretended to have empirically proven answers to every question put to them. They gave us a series of policies – business shutdowns, school closures, mask mandates – that achieved at best minor slowdowns in the disease’s spread at the cost of tremendous economic destruction and social embitterment."
And of course the same applied throughout the so-called enlightened western societies, but woe betide anyone who spoke out against "the narrative"?!
"A quarter-century ago the word ‘censorship’ was almost a profanity in American politics. By the mid-2010s it was permitted, even praised, so long as it targeted heterodox thought. Speakers on college campuses were shouted down without a word of protest from people who in the 1980s had defended the public funding of sacrilegious photographs. Commentators in mainstream journals of opinion advocated the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, which required broadcasters to present both sides of controversial issues and had the effect of chilling debate on every contentious question. A large number of respected academics and intellectuals suddenly believed the U.S. government had a duty to stop people from saying things those same academics and intellectuals held to be factually inaccurate.
Sceptics mostly attribute this new support for censorship to bad faith. I prefer a more charitable explanation. The new censors sincerely mistake their own interpretations of the facts for the facts themselves. Their opinions, filtered unconsciously through biases and experience, are, to them, simply information. Their views aren’t ‘views’ at all but raw data. Competing interpretations of the facts can be only one thing: misinformation. Or, if it’s deliberate, disinformation.
It is in many ways a strange outcome. From the 1970s to the early 2000s, academic philosophies associated with ‘postmodernism’ coursed through American higher education. They held that there was no objectively knowable truth, only subjective interpretation. As if to demonstrate postmodernism’s total impracticality, yesterday’s straight-A college students have now retreated into a risibly facile non-philosophy in which there is no interpretation, only objective ‘fact’.
Such was the mental disposition of America’s enlightened politicos and media sophisticates when the pandemic hit in early 2020. The challenge of public policy, as they saw it, was not to find practical, broadly acceptable solutions. The challenge, rather, was to find and implement the scientifically ‘correct’ solution, the one endorsed by experts. Sound policy, for them, was a matter of gathering enough data and ‘following’ it.
But of course you can’t follow data. Data just sits there and waits to be interpreted.
When COVID-19 came ashore, the country’s political class, in thrall to the authority of public-health experts and the journalists who listen to them, was singularly ill-equipped to lead in a sensible way. What the pandemic required was not the gathering and mastery of information and the quick implementation of ‘data driven’ policy. The data was wildly elusive, changing shape from day to day and yielding no obvious interpretation. No one understood the spread of this astoundingly resilient virus, least of all the experts confidently purporting to understand it. There was, in fact, no clinically correct response.
The situation called for the acknowledgment of risk, the weighing of costs against benefits, the clear declaration of reasonable compromises between competing interests. What happened was an exercise in societal self-ruin – in the U.S. and elsewhere in the developed world. Politicians, especially those most inclined to see themselves as objective, pro-science data-followers, ducked accountability and deferred to experts who pretended to have empirically proven answers to every question put to them. They gave us a series of policies – business shutdowns, school closures, mask mandates – that achieved at best minor slowdowns in the disease’s spread at the cost of tremendous economic destruction and social embitterment."
And of course the same applied throughout the so-called enlightened western societies, but woe betide anyone who spoke out against "the narrative"?!
- barkingmad
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 5497
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:13 pm
- Location: Another Planet
- Gender:
- Age: 75
Re: Censoring
Re my admonishment in the C19 thread:
“4) NB: I have posted this in a more liberal/lefty pinky hue in case the red upsets you again.”
Please bring back the bright red, this colour is barely readable.
O-N is liberally sprinkled with posts, by other members, about one topic which have arrived in another topic, but you seem to have a particular gripe with anything I post which does not fall strictly within whatever guidelines/rules you are operating.
Do I detect a degree of bias in the moderation?
Does post #4102 by OFSO refer solely to the “medical effects” of Covid19?
Re posting a new topic, as it might be started by me and is the voice of dissent, I would not be in the least surprised if it got suffocated at birth, especially if it discussed Vak Scene efficacy or even Vak Scene adverse events, for which I would immediately be classified as an “anti-vaxxed” and cast out into the darkness as hope for by the ‘group’.
If folks here don’t like what I post, then why don’t they take me on in open communication instead of running to “teacher” to snitch and get me put on the naughty step because they are upset by my material.
I originally thought this forum was comprised mainly of mature former and current aviation professionals but am now realising I’ve strayed into a kindergarten.
“4) NB: I have posted this in a more liberal/lefty pinky hue in case the red upsets you again.”
Please bring back the bright red, this colour is barely readable.
O-N is liberally sprinkled with posts, by other members, about one topic which have arrived in another topic, but you seem to have a particular gripe with anything I post which does not fall strictly within whatever guidelines/rules you are operating.
Do I detect a degree of bias in the moderation?
Does post #4102 by OFSO refer solely to the “medical effects” of Covid19?
Re posting a new topic, as it might be started by me and is the voice of dissent, I would not be in the least surprised if it got suffocated at birth, especially if it discussed Vak Scene efficacy or even Vak Scene adverse events, for which I would immediately be classified as an “anti-vaxxed” and cast out into the darkness as hope for by the ‘group’.
If folks here don’t like what I post, then why don’t they take me on in open communication instead of running to “teacher” to snitch and get me put on the naughty step because they are upset by my material.
I originally thought this forum was comprised mainly of mature former and current aviation professionals but am now realising I’ve strayed into a kindergarten.
Re: Censoring
+10barkingmad wrote: ↑Sun May 15, 2022 8:16 amRe my admonishment in the C19 thread:
“4) NB: I have posted this in a more liberal/lefty pinky hue in case the red upsets you again.”
Please bring back the bright red, this colour is barely readable.
O-N is liberally sprinkled with posts, by other members, about one topic which have arrived in another topic, but you seem to have a particular gripe with anything I post which does not fall strictly within whatever guidelines/rules you are operating.
Do I detect a degree of bias in the moderation?
Does post #4102 by OFSO refer solely to the “medical effects” of Covid19?
Re posting a new topic, as it might be started by me and is the voice of dissent, I would not be in the least surprised if it got suffocated at birth, especially if it discussed Vak Scene efficacy or even Vak Scene adverse events, for which I would immediately be classified as an “anti-vaxxed” and cast out into the darkness as hope for by the ‘group’.
If folks here don’t like what I post, then why don’t they take me on in open communication instead of running to “teacher” to snitch and get me put on the naughty step because they are upset by my material.
I originally thought this forum was comprised mainly of mature former and current aviation professionals but am now realising I’ve strayed into a kindergarten.
Re: Censoring
BM - I am not even going to attempt to answer most of your diatribe, except to say:
Yes - you detect an exceptional degree of tolerance.Do I detect a degree of bias in the moderation?
As far as I know not one of the group is upset by that, just the mad scattering. Nor have they "run to “teacher” to snitch" but have responded to my and Alison's views on you.upset by my material
A moment's study will appraise you of your mis-understanding. If you do not feel you 'fit' - feel free to 'stray' out.I originally thought this forum was comprised mainly of mature former and current aviation professionals but am now realising I’ve strayed into a kindergarten.
- barkingmad
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 5497
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:13 pm
- Location: Another Planet
- Gender:
- Age: 75
Re: Censoring
Censorship, what censorship, there’s no censorship in so-called free societies!
Oops, got that wrong, someone has set up yet another channel to overcome the activities of the Media Stasi;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65050160
From the article this statistic shows just how far down the line of the old USSR we have travelled;
“What is undeniable is that Rumble's user numbers have risen sharply in recent years, at the same time as its bigger rivals have raised their content moderation efforts. For example, in 2020, YouTube removed more than 34 million videos around the world. These included videos deemed to be harassment, incitement to violence, hate speech or misinformation”.
Apparently there is now a debate as to what is “disinformation” as opposed to “misinformation”, but as the Concise Oxford dictionary shrinks to the size of a used postage stamp and the rewriting of definitions such as the infamous vaccine word to suit the narrative proceed apace, where will it all end?
Nor with a bang but a whimper methinks.
Oops, got that wrong, someone has set up yet another channel to overcome the activities of the Media Stasi;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-65050160
From the article this statistic shows just how far down the line of the old USSR we have travelled;
“What is undeniable is that Rumble's user numbers have risen sharply in recent years, at the same time as its bigger rivals have raised their content moderation efforts. For example, in 2020, YouTube removed more than 34 million videos around the world. These included videos deemed to be harassment, incitement to violence, hate speech or misinformation”.
Apparently there is now a debate as to what is “disinformation” as opposed to “misinformation”, but as the Concise Oxford dictionary shrinks to the size of a used postage stamp and the rewriting of definitions such as the infamous vaccine word to suit the narrative proceed apace, where will it all end?
Nor with a bang but a whimper methinks.