Should Kath Be Allowed To Continue As Moderator?

[StCapps]

If a professor at a university lecture calls for SJW protestors to be free to engage in discussion as long they do so following some basic rules, like allowing the opposing side to speak without being drowned out by screams of "you're a racist!", he is censoring the SJW's? Their right to talk about their SJW views? He's not simply moderating how the debate should go on?

He's censoring and moderating, it's both. Not mutually exclusive. I bet this teacher probably applies the rule consistently though, unlike Kath, she can't even do that and she's censoring on top of it, double whammy of lame.

[BjornP]

When she goes in and deletes content from your post, she is literally censoring you, genius.

What makes it outrageous is that she is doing it to people ostensibly for something she herself does all the time. It's selective enforcement of her own arbitrary rules to control who gets to post and what ideas get posted. It's literally censorship.

Moderation isn't censorship. Deal with it. That Kath isn't moderating in a consistent manner, doesn't mean that was she's doing isn't moderation. Selective enforcement of one's arbitrary rules on an internet forum is just that: Selective enforcement of one's arbitrary rules. If you invite someone into your home because they helped you fix your stranded car on the road yesterday, but then, two hours later decide that you really HATE that good samaritan because they made you look weak or some shit like that, that's totally shitty and stupid behavior, BUT it's YOUR fucking house and you get to decide everything that happens there, including delegate the decision-making to your chained up gimp living under your bead. It's not a taking away of your right to say what you want, because you can simply do that outside the MHF "house" to everyone who wants to listen to you.

Oh, get real. When somebody deletes the content of your posts because it offends her friend -- even when she does THE EXACT SAME THING to other people -- it's literally censorship. Moderation is sending somebody a PM to ask them to stop breaking some rules (which we have almost none to bitch about in the first place).

It is inconsistent moderation, but it is moderation. And your personalized definition of moderation as something that only happens through PM's... I have no idea why you think that's what moderation is. It can involve that, but the difference between moderation and censorship is simply that moderation is about deleting the expression of thoughts of beliefs, and moderation is about moderating (including deleting) the way people express their thoughts and beliefs.

[Speaker to Animals]

Moderation isn't censorship. Deal with it. That Kath isn't moderating in a consistent manner, doesn't mean that was she's doing isn't moderation. Selective enforcement of one's arbitrary rules on an internet forum is just that: Selective enforcement of one's arbitrary rules. If you invite someone into your home because they helped you fix your stranded car on the road yesterday, but then, two hours later decide that you really HATE that good samaritan because they made you look weak or some shit like that, that's totally shitty and stupid behavior, BUT it's YOUR fucking house and you get to decide everything that happens there, including delegate the decision-making to your chained up gimp living under your bead. It's not a taking away of your right to say what you want, because you can simply do that outside the MHF "house" to everyone who wants to listen to you.

Moderation and censorship are not mutually exclusive, dumb dumb.

That's deep. Truly. Now, try answering this:

If a professor at a university lecture calls for SJW protestors to be free to engage in discussion as long they do so following some basic rules, like allowing the opposing side to speak without being drowned out by screams of "you're a racist!", he is censoring the SJW's? Their right to talk about their SJW views? He's not simply moderating how the debate should go on?

It would be more like an SJW professor claiming to want an open discussion only to shout "you're a pedophile!!!" when somebody brings up contradicting evidence to her claim, and to then kick people out of the classroom for mocking her about it.

Again, this bitch is censoring people for doing to her friends what she does to other people all the time. You can be a faggot and call that "moderation", all day, but it's still shitty behavior, and not called "moderation" in America. That's censorship. Look up the word in an English dictionary.

[Speaker to Animals]

This is what happens when you give a feminist woman even a shred of power over anybody. Double standards. Hypocrisy. Abuses.

"OMFG you don't believe that when a 12 year old boy has sex with his 12 year old girlfriend, he's a fucking rapist but she's not because she's a girl!! You're a pedophile!!!"

"OMFG you can't call my fat beta male feminist friend a pedophile in jest! That's offensive!!"


Fuck that and fuck you for defending it.

[StCapps]

Moderation and censorship are not mutually exclusive, dumb dumb.

That's deep. Truly. Now, try answering this:

If a professor at a university lecture calls for SJW protestors to be free to engage in discussion as long they do so following some basic rules, like allowing the opposing side to speak without being drowned out by screams of "you're a racist!", he is censoring the SJW's? Their right to talk about their SJW views? He's not simply moderating how the debate should go on?

It would be more like an SJW professor claiming to want an open discussion only to shout "you're a pedophile!!!" when somebody brings up contradicting evidence to her claim, and to then kick people out of the classroom for mocking her about it.

Again, this bitch is censoring people for doing to her friends what she does to other people all the time. You can be a faggot and call that "moderation", all day, but it's still shitty behavior, and not called "moderation" in America. That's censorship. Look up the word in an English dictionary.

It's both moderation and censorship, they are not mutually exclusive terms, so stop the semantics. What don't you and BjornP get about that?

[BjornP]

If a professor at a university lecture calls for SJW protestors to be free to engage in discussion as long they do so following some basic rules, like allowing the opposing side to speak without being drowned out by screams of "you're a racist!", he is censoring the SJW's? Their right to talk about their SJW views? He's not simply moderating how the debate should go on?

He's censoring and moderating, it's both. Not mutually exclusive. I bet this teacher probably applies the rule consistently though, unlike Kath, she can't even do that and she's censoring on top of it, double whammy of lame.

Where is the censorship in my example? Seriously curious where you see the censorship.

If a couple of SJW protestors stormed Jordan Peterson's lecture, and Jordan Peterson called for security to kick them out, he'd be censoring them? Is the act of kicking them out an act of censorship or an act of moderating when and where and in what form they can protest?

[Montegriffo]

in jest!

If only.

[StCapps]

If a professor at a university lecture calls for SJW protestors to be free to engage in discussion as long they do so following some basic rules, like allowing the opposing side to speak without being drowned out by screams of "you're a racist!", he is censoring the SJW's? Their right to talk about their SJW views? He's not simply moderating how the debate should go on?

He's censoring and moderating, it's both. Not mutually exclusive. I bet this teacher probably applies the rule consistently though, unlike Kath, she can't even do that and she's censoring on top of it, double whammy of lame.

Where is the censorship in my example? Seriously curious where you see the censorship.

If a couple of SJW protestors stormed Jordan Peterson's lecture, and Jordan Peterson called for security to kick them out, he'd be censoring them? Is the act of kicking them out an act of censorship or an act of moderating when and where and in what form they can protest?

Stopping people from saying what they want, that's censorship. Yes Peterson would be censoring the SJWs in that scenario, but he would have the right to do so obviously. Censorship is not always bad, Kath's brand of censorship being applied to the MHF, that clearly is a bad form of censorship and bad moderation on top of it.

[K@th]

Graphic descriptions of how a person uses genitals to penetrate children may be funny to some of you, but it's not funny for most humans.

/shrug

[StCapps]

Graphic descriptions of how a person uses genitals to penetrate children may be funny to some of you, but it's not funny for most humans.

/shrug

Not a good reason to censor anyone on this forum, because you didn't find their joke funny. Fuck off Censorship Cunt. Censorship because of unfunny jokes, also not a rule enforced consistently around here. Can you be any more lame?