- Nov 11, 2017
- 2,313
- 6,101
You know, some of us have no investment in Milfy City and are looking at these attitudes and posts objectively - especially avoiding tribal affilliations.Ok, a little bit of Devil's Advocate here:
Everyone's harping on the technical/legal definition of "free speech." i.e. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution which allows for freedom of religion, of speech, assembly, the press, and all that other good stuff. And yes, that's not applicable here because this is a private forum where the rules are not set by any governmental organization but by the people who own/operate said forum.
Right. Asked and answered.
But, and I think it's disingenuous to try and deny that this sort of thing exists, there is always a "hive-mind" mentality on any public forum - an established circle-jerk narrative. A bunch of people who tend to control what opinions are "allowed" and which ones aren't. If you have an unpopular opinion, you're basically just shouted down because no one wants to hear it. It's standard operating procedure just about everywhere you go, and sometimes it's organized and malicious, and other times it's simply because many people's normal, knee-jerk reaction to hearing something they don't agree with is to effectively jam their fingers in their ears and go "LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" at the top of their lungs.
The end result is still basically the same: the silencing of dissent in whatever form it comes in.
Now here's the thing: I'm not trying to argue that every single voice deserves to be heard. Some people really are just trying to scream in the dark and contribute nothing meaningful to a conversation. But on the other hand, there are some people who do try to bring something useful to the table, and this is why I always roll my eyes when the dogpiles start. Because is someone getting dismissed out of hand simply because they're not "saying the right things?" Or because they didn't use the right buzzwords, or whatever kind of trivial offenses people drum up these days to ensure they don't have to listen to someone they potentially won't agree with?
Whatever happened to actually vetting people's arguments? Or is that something nobody bothers with anymore because it's too much work?
There's nothing disengenuous about noting how someone specifically came in here to beat a tone-deaf drum for jollies or whatever. Its extremism - and some points which have been shown as unprovable speculation, over and over again - does nothing for the discourse and actually promotes people taking sides. The very thing you implied should be avoided, of course.
So, consider that being a Devil's Advocate doesn't mean all voices should automatically be considered equally valid or supportable in an objective debate, nor that everyone comes to this place with similar motivations. Everyone can say what they want, but there are ramifications based on the content and apparent intent of what you offer which must be taken into account, as well.
Further, you can't avoid people having similar perspectives or feelings on things, it's when most objectivity goes out the window and an unproductive agenda appears that we should suspect shitposting, IMHO. It is not unfair to call out noise for being noise to your ears.