The 'censorship' discussion

[waves]

I really didn't think it was going that far off topic, though yes it seemed like it at times. I think the contentious issues that can't be disconnected from censorship/boundaries issues just can't be avoided in ways.... but it doesn't seem like there's anything more convincing either side can add in terms of why one side feels censored in the most egregious and undignified way.... and why some don't think there was any egregious censorship at all as it's being so harshly taken... by only the most militant Q Believers, is there? Now what?

My question is still, isn't 'censorship' really better defined as boundaries - which any forum must make a decision on for good reasons, right? Are the mods discussing what could be improved in any specific ways in terms of boundaries at all?

[Kryztian]

Posted by edina (here)

This applies in all directions.

And if what you say here is true, I'm not sure it is. Reasonably, two wrongs don't make a right.

Yes, Amen to both of those points. We, as members of a groups, need to encourage others in the group to behave politely, to think critically, to be open to other ideas. I know that there is some criticism of "Groupthink" but isn't that what a forum really is? It can be tremendously productive if it is open and welcoming to other ideas.

I think we also need to understand how we function in different groups on the forum. We are all Avalon Members, a group clearly defined by being an member who has filled out an application. One could say there is a "Q-anon followers" group, based on certain people who participate in one particular thread, who believe in the importance of the Q material. It's a little harder to pinpoint membership, but this is clearly a force. One might say that there is also a group that is critical of the developments of what is happening in the Q world, although I would say just barely to that idea. We have not been together on a thread for two years, we are not centered around any political personalities or predictions for the future - it is a pretty loose concept of a group.

Nevertheless, if you or I see a fellow member behaving badly, someone who basicially agrees with the positions we are putting forth, it behooves either of us to get the person to be more civil, more articulate, more focused. Their bad behavior reflect on us at some level or another.

[Kryztian]

Posted by ulli (here)
Yep, nothing more irritating than a group of people marching in the same direction and singing the same song.

As it turns out, I am a choir director, and my job is to get every one to sing the same song, otherwise the results can be quite disastrous. It's great when there is unison (agreement), harmony (complementary perspectives) and counterpoint (complementary disagreement). The problem is when one voice feels it is the most important, or when it doesn't listen to the others. The key to good choral singing is listening. If you sing over the rest of the choir or two disharmoniously, you will find other choir members leaving the group.

the future will show who is the temporary winner.

I didn't know there was a contest here with winners and losers. I am not betting on any particular outcomes. It's difficult enough to understand the past let alone predict the future, and the past shows that a lot of people with overconfidence in their divination skills can be a dangerous thing.

[Delight]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
You sign up, and pay a small amount, and then it's all there. (I'm not a member, btw.)

When he decided to do this, was this censorship?

I am late to reading most of the thread but ever since the OP I have been thinking about something.

It has to do with the NEED to obtain valid information. Before the internet, there were libraries and these held books and one of the factoers was someone had to pay for the library.

A couple of years ago I noticed it becoming harder to get info from google.I noticed it around the time just before the info about algorithms came to my attention. Google is "free" but not REALLY.

I think that money is energy and IF I KNEW that I could really truly deeply get solid info from a search engine, i would pay directly for the service. That is not actually censorship to me. Paying for the service is my contribution to what I value.
It seems to me to be important to support/ contribute now to PA.

Censorship is happening in the internet and the ability to access information is obviously being manipulated. The flow is being deliberately shut down. PA could be very important if it remains a source of "valid information" sharing.

I cannot understand the whole thing about "Q". I feel nothing about the left/right/upside down debates. What I feel really strongly is that we are being actively induced to turn on each other and also to be distracted so we will fail to mount a resistance when it counts. This is definitely not new but everything seems to be happening so fast now.

I care about health and as Peterpam mentioned, this is one PARTICULAR area where all info that empowers us to take care of ourselves is targeted. there is the same kind of maneuvers on all fronts involved in "free will".

I am like Edina in that I once thought of myself as Progressive and now find that my concerns are at least being lip serviced more by the Republican and Conservative "end of the political spectrum".

I think that the whole issue for me is when a forum owner or moderator is using his/her POV as the means to moderate and I don't see this happening here.

It does not scare me to be seen as having my own POV (in terms of fear of reprisals somehow). I want to have the freedom to follow my own POV's edicts and let others have theirs. WE can give each other respect by allowing others to have a POV that is their own conscience talking. I don't use my given name as my handle because I honestly feel that my forum name represents what I want for all of us in the reality I prefer to encourage.

[Spaceball Ricochet]

Posted by Denise/Dizi (here)

Posted by edina (here)

Posted by AriG (here)

Posted by Denise/Dizi (here)

Posted by Aragorn (here)
Addendum: I find it quite telling that ─ just as over at The One Truth ─ the Thanks button always ends up being used as a means to let one's passive-aggressiveness seep through. I've only been back for a short while, and yet it is always the same people who will not thank my posts while eagerly thanking the posts of the people who disagree with me.




Here's a hint for the petty-minded: it's a "thanks" button, not a "like" button.

For the record, I "Thank" all posters on a thread that I am reading, (Unless I accidentally miss some).. whether I agree or not with what they're saying, merely because they took the time to share what they were thinking, good, bad, or otherwise...

It is just "Polite" to thank others for their contribution of time.. So for the record, please do not assume that I agree with a particular view of a member, merely because I am "Thanking them" that I agree with what someone has shared. You gave me the opportunity to express my stance on that, Thank You.

Well..... hmmm..., the “thank button” truly is just a means for measurement by those in control- a way to take the temperature of the room. And why would we need to have such a measuring stick? For message control or perhaps pandering to the populist opinion?

Whether it’s a Facebook like, or a forum thank, it’s still a mechanism of control. A popularity contest.

thanked your post, LOL... had too!!!!
for the fun of it....

HAHAHAHA Sorry.. Couldn't help it, and thought the laugh would be appreciated for a change..

I wonder if the "thanks button" would thank Aragorn with a thumbs-up for describing it as a control mechanism when it seems such an unambitious tool with its restricted capacity to "niggle" or "vex" when attached to posts we like or approve of.

Beyond that it seems an innocuous little icon unblemished by its inability to abuse or vilify.

[Gemma13]

This article (written in 2014) has significant markers for this discussion.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/5...l-perspective/

THE IMPACT OF THE INTERNET ON SOCIETY: A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

The Internet is the decisive technology of the Information Age, and with the explosion of wireless communication in the early twenty-first century, we can say that humankind is now almost entirely connected, albeit with great levels of inequality in bandwidth, efficiency, and price.

People, companies, and institutions feel the depth of this technological change, but the speed and scope of the transformation has triggered all manner of utopian and dystopian perceptions that, when examined closely through methodologically rigorous empirical research, turn out not to be accurate. For instance, media often report that intense use of the Internet increases the risk of isolation, alienation, and withdrawal from society, but available evidence shows that the Internet neither isolates people nor reduces their sociability; it actually increases sociability, civic engagement, and the intensity of family and friendship relationships, in all cultures.

Our current “network society” is a product of the digital revolution and some major sociocultural changes. One of these is the rise of the “Me-centered society,” marked by an increased focus on individual growth and a decline in community understood in terms of space, work, family, and ascription in general. But individuation does not mean isolation, or the end of community. Instead, social relationships are being reconstructed on the basis of individual interests, values, and projects. Community is formed through individuals’ quests for like-minded people in a process that combines online interaction with offline interaction, cyberspace, and the local space.

Globally, time spent on social networking sites surpassed time spent on e-mail in November 2007, and the number of social networking users surpassed the number of e-mail users in July 2009. Today, social networking sites are the preferred platforms for all kinds of activities, both business and personal, and sociability has dramatically increased — but it is a different kind of sociability. Most Facebook users visit the site daily, and they connect on multiple dimensions, but only on the dimensions they choose. The virtual life is becoming more social than the physical life, but it is less a virtual reality than a real virtuality, facilitating real-life work and urban living.

Because people are increasingly at ease in the Web’s multidimensionality, marketers, government, and civil society are migrating massively to the networks people construct by themselves and for themselves. At root, social-networking entrepreneurs are really selling spaces in which people can freely and autonomously construct their lives. Sites that attempt to impede free communication are soon abandoned by many users in favor of friendlier and less restricted spaces.

Perhaps the most telling expression of this new freedom is the Internet’s transformation of sociopolitical practices. Messages no longer flow solely from the few to the many, with little interactivity. Now, messages also flow from the many to the many, multimodally and interactively.
By disintermediating government and corporate control of communication, horizontal communication networks have created a new landscape of social and political change.

Networked social movements have been particularly active since 2010, notably in the Arab revolutions against dictatorships and the protests against the management of the financial crisis. Online and particularly wireless communication has helped social movements pose more of a challenge to state power.

The Internet and the Web constitute the technological infrastructure of the global network society, and the understanding of their logic is a key field of research. It is only scholarly research that will enable us to cut through the myths surrounding this digital communication technology that is already a second skin for young people, yet continues to feed the fears and the fantasies of those who are still in charge of a society that they barely understand.

[Bubu]

I dont understand why this discussion still continues with all seriousness, After Edina ask Bill his intent for this thread and Bill not giving any answer it is certain that we aren't going to accomplish anything because there is no goal. So this thread essentially falls in the category of "waste of time" or "just for fun" which I dont see in any post. So yes a waste of time. Also If I invite people for a party or discussion and someone ask me what is it for. I will be oblige to give answer as a show of respect. So Bill not giving any answer to the question of Edina is for me disrespect.

[Liz.]

The question in the OP concerned a very specific question which doesn't, to my mind, involve censorship. Charging money for content is in no way different to selling a book.
The question of censorship in these modern days is both much more subtle/nuanced and on the other hand heavy-handed & obvious.

I would like to meander away from the reactionary example of the Q phenomenon as it pertains to censorship and look at an already established form of censorship: political correctness. Here is a rather good article on that from Bobana M. Andelkovic:

"There are different definitions and approaches to what truth is. From ancient far eastern philosophies, to analytical philosophies combined with cybernetics of the 20th and 21st century. All of them have foundations, arguments, and hypotheses that can be debated. All of them can be accepted or not, but most of them have firm and coherent foundations. Those who like to relativize, which is the pastime of the superficial, contemporary popular philosopher, would misuse the fact that various approaches to the question of truth persist, and conclude that the concept of truth depends on the vantage point of the subject, or even question why truth is important in the specific case and context."
http://katehon.com/article/falsehood...rship-disguise
more at post.

The nonsense of political correctness (and we have so much of this going on in the UK: re-defining the term 'anti-semetic' for example) leads us in to situations like the following news report, which I believe is self explanatory.
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/ma...a-waxing-case/

My point is that censorship comes in many forms and people make bad choices when they have only one side of a story, what may start as well intentioned often becomes monstrous with consequences far from the intended outcome.

[Pam]

Posted by Delight (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
You sign up, and pay a small amount, and then it's all there. (I'm not a member, btw.)

When he decided to do this, was this censorship?

I am late to reading most of the thread but ever since the OP I have been thinking about something.

It has to do with the NEED to obtain valid information. Before the internet, there were libraries and these held books and one of the factoers was someone had to pay for the library.

A couple of years ago I noticed it becoming harder to get info from google.I noticed it around the time just before the info about algorithms came to my attention. Google is "free" but not REALLY.

I think that money is energy and IF I KNEW that I could really truly deeply get solid info from a search engine, i would pay directly for the service. That is not actually censorship to me. Paying for the service is my contribution to what I value.
It seems to me to be important to support/ contribute now to PA.

Censorship is happening in the internet and the ability to access information is obviously being manipulated. The flow is being deliberately shut down. PA could be very important if it remains a source of "valid information" sharing.

I cannot understand the whole thing about "Q". I feel nothing about the left/right/upside down debates. What I feel really strongly is that we are being actively induced to turn on each other and also to be distracted so we will fail to mount a resistance when it counts. This is definitely not new but everything seems to be happening so fast now.

I care about health and as Peterpam mentioned, this is one PARTICULAR area where all info that empowers us to take care of ourselves is targeted. there is the same kind of maneuvers on all fronts involved in "free will".

I am like Edina in that I once thought of myself as Progressive and now find that my concerns are at least being lip serviced more by the Republican and Conservative "end of the political spectrum".

I think that the whole issue for me is when a forum owner or moderator is using his/her POV as the means to moderate and I don't see this happening here.

It does not scare me to be seen as having my own POV (in terms of fear of reprisals somehow). I want to have the freedom to follow my own POV's edicts and let others have theirs. WE can give each other respect by allowing others to have a POV that is their own conscience talking. I don't use my given name as my handle because I honestly feel that my forum name represents what I want for all of us in the reality I prefer to encourage.

Delight thank you for this most thoughtful post. I had never thought about the censorship we are seeing on the internet in terms of controlling our free will and independent thinking in general until I read your post. You are absolutely right. Maybe that actually is the core of what is being censored. Anything that involves self actualization, logic, independent thinking and self assertion seems to be under attack.

Many supposed "conservative" personalities are labeled that for simply pointing out the hypocrisy and ridiculousness of the MSM narrative. I wouldn't be surprised if they start censoring people like Joe Rogan next, as he takes a unbiased stance that encourage the listener to think for themselves. Thanks for helping me see this scope of this censorship. At the end of the day this issue is of paramount importance. You are right, this process is speeding up. There is absolute desperation to control the outcome of the next US election.

[Pam]

Posted by Bubu (here)
I dont understand why this discussion still continues with all seriousness, After Edina ask Bill his intent for this thread and Bill not giving any answer it is certain that we aren't going to accomplish anything because there is no goal. So this thread essentially falls in the category of "waste of time" or "just for fun" which I dont see in any post. So yes a waste of time. Also If I invite people for a party or discussion and someone ask me what is it for. I will be oblige to give answer as a show of respect. So Bill not giving any answer to the question of Edina is for me disrespect.

Bubu, this thread has taken on a discussion of censorship in general, not just the Q threads on the forum. Personally, I feel it is a very important topic perhaps one of the most important issues of our time. If the OP is opposed to the discussion, he will let us know.

[6pounder]

Hi bill long time since ive been here on the forums.

i wouldnt say its censorship. its more of a business move to make money out of what he can provide to the alt news scene. he is a man with a name among the ufo community and there for he feels like its time to make a buck.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Bubu (here)
I dont understand why this discussion still continues with all seriousness, After Edina ask Bill his intent for this thread and Bill not giving any answer it is certain that we aren't going to accomplish anything because there is no goal. So this thread essentially falls in the category of "waste of time" or "just for fun" which I dont see in any post. So yes a waste of time. Also If I invite people for a party or discussion and someone ask me what is it for. I will be oblige to give answer as a show of respect. So Bill not giving any answer to the question of Edina is for me disrespect.

No, it's not — I just don't read everything on the forum.

Neither do you.

Neither does anyone here.

It's impossible.

For me personally, these discussions have become so unpleasant — and some members have become so unpleasant, not to myself or the mods but to one another — that the mods are now considering other options to deal with all of this.

I'd not seen edina's post, or this one, until it was pointed out to me just now by Billy.

You're not helping one bit — you're just adding fuel to all the fires.

1. How about sending me a PM?
2. How about reporting the post to draw our attention to it?
3. How about including a link to the post?

Did you ever think of that before your own disrespectful remark?

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by 6pounder (here)
Hi bill long time since ive been here on the forums.

i wouldnt say its censorship. its more of a business move to make money out of what he can provide to the alt news scene. he is a man with a name among the ufo community and there for he feels like its time to make a buck.

It's NOTHING like that. Why on earth do you think it is?

It's genuinely nice to see you here again, but that was (a) really unintelligent, and (b) does show clearly that you don't know me or my values at all.

Edit to add:

I apologize — edina pointed out below that I'd totally misunderstood your reply, and I surely had. Mea culpa. Because so many people are talking about so many things, it's always useful to quote the post or part-post you're replying or referring to.

Yes, re Richard Dolan (who I now see you were referring to) — it's a business move, of course. Not a good one, or a smart one, but definitely about raising money. It's not censorship, but it is exclusive. That's a different issue.

[edina]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Bubu (here)
I dont understand why this discussion still continues with all seriousness, After Edina ask Bill his intent for this thread and Bill not giving any answer it is certain that we aren't going to accomplish anything because there is no goal. So this thread essentially falls in the category of "waste of time" or "just for fun" which I dont see in any post. So yes a waste of time. Also If I invite people for a party or discussion and someone ask me what is it for. I will be oblige to give answer as a show of respect. So Bill not giving any answer to the question of Edina is for me disrespect.

No, it's not — I just don't read everything on the forum.

Neither do you.

Neither does anyone here.

It's impossible.

For me personally, these discussions have become so unpleasant, and some members have become so unpleasant, that the mods are now considering other options to deal with all of this. I'd not seen edina's post, or this one, until it was pointed out to me just now by Billy.

You're not helping one bit — you're just adding fuel to all the fires. How about sending me a PM? How about reporting the post to draw our attention to it? How about including a link to the post?

Did you ever think of that before your own disrespectful remark?

HI Bill, regarding my question.

I figure you're busy. I'm patient, and figured you would get to answering my questions when and if your were interested.

I intended to drop you a PM after a day or so to let you know in case it hadn't been read.

Sorry, I got caught up in bringing myself up to speed on the Epstein thread and forgot to drop you that PM yesterday.

I'm trying to catch up from having been away since March while I was on the Appalachian Trail.

Would you like for me to link the question posts here?

[edina]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by 6pounder (here)
Hi bill long time since ive been here on the forums.

i wouldnt say its censorship. its more of a business move to make money out of what he can provide to the alt news scene. he is a man with a name among the ufo community and there for he feels like its time to make a buck.

It's NOTHING like that. Why on earth do you think it is?

It's genuinely nice to see you here again, but that was (a) really unintelligent, and (b) does show clearly that you don't know me or my values at all.

Bill, I understood his words differently.
I thought he was referring to your original post regarding Richard Dolan.
I didn't think he was referencing you, at all.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by edina (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Bubu (here)
I dont understand why this discussion still continues with all seriousness, After Edina ask Bill his intent for this thread and Bill not giving any answer it is certain that we aren't going to accomplish anything because there is no goal. So this thread essentially falls in the category of "waste of time" or "just for fun" which I dont see in any post. So yes a waste of time. Also If I invite people for a party or discussion and someone ask me what is it for. I will be oblige to give answer as a show of respect. So Bill not giving any answer to the question of Edina is for me disrespect.

No, it's not — I just don't read everything on the forum.

Neither do you.

Neither does anyone here.

It's impossible.

For me personally, these discussions have become so unpleasant, and some members have become so unpleasant, that the mods are now considering other options to deal with all of this. I'd not seen edina's post, or this one, until it was pointed out to me just now by Billy.

You're not helping one bit — you're just adding fuel to all the fires. How about sending me a PM? How about reporting the post to draw our attention to it? How about including a link to the post?

Did you ever think of that before your own disrespectful remark?

HI Bill, regarding my question.

I figure you're busy. I'm patient, and figured you would get to answering my questions when and if your were interested.

I intended to drop you a PM after a day or so to let you know in case it hadn't been read.

Sorry, I got caught up in bringing myself up to speed on the Epstein thread and forgot to drop you that PM yesterday.

I'm trying to catch up from having been away since March while I was on the Appalachian Trail.

Would you like for me to link the question posts here?

Sure. Or just restate them.

My evident annoyance wasn't directed at you. You're been commendably measured considering how strongly I know you feel about all of this.

My irritation was with Bubu, who jumped to conclusions about my being some kind of ever-present 24/7 being who never sleeps or eats or does anything else and reads every post on the forum within minutes of it appearing and magically knows when something's there that's there to be read or answered.

Jeez, guys.... come on.

(off-topic here) — do tell us about the Appalachian Trail — I'd personally be really interested to hear about your experience, and I'm sure others would be, too.

[edina]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by edina (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Bubu (here)
I dont understand why this discussion still continues with all seriousness, After Edina ask Bill his intent for this thread and Bill not giving any answer it is certain that we aren't going to accomplish anything because there is no goal. So this thread essentially falls in the category of "waste of time" or "just for fun" which I dont see in any post. So yes a waste of time. Also If I invite people for a party or discussion and someone ask me what is it for. I will be oblige to give answer as a show of respect. So Bill not giving any answer to the question of Edina is for me disrespect.

No, it's not — I just don't read everything on the forum.

Neither do you.

Neither does anyone here.

It's impossible.

For me personally, these discussions have become so unpleasant, and some members have become so unpleasant, that the mods are now considering other options to deal with all of this. I'd not seen edina's post, or this one, until it was pointed out to me just now by Billy.

You're not helping one bit — you're just adding fuel to all the fires. How about sending me a PM? How about reporting the post to draw our attention to it? How about including a link to the post?

Did you ever think of that before your own disrespectful remark?

HI Bill, regarding my question.

I figure you're busy. I'm patient, and figured you would get to answering my questions when and if your were interested.

I intended to drop you a PM after a day or so to let you know in case it hadn't been read.

Sorry, I got caught up in bringing myself up to speed on the Epstein thread and forgot to drop you that PM yesterday.

I'm trying to catch up from having been away since March while I was on the Appalachian Trail.

Would you like for me to link the question posts here?

Sure. Or just restate them.

My evident annoyance wasn't directed at you. You're been commendably measured considering how strongly I know you feel about all of this.

My irritation was with Bubu, who jumped to conclusions about my being some kind of ever-present 24/7 being who never sleeps or eats or does anything else and reads every post on the forum within minutes of it appearing and magically knows when something's there that's there to be read or answered.

Jeez, guys.... come on.

(off-topic here) — do tell us about the Appalachian Trail — I'd personally be really interested to hear about your experience, and I'm sure others would be, too.

It's really pretty simple.

When you start open-ended posts like this I often think of Bohm's book, On Dialogue.

At first I wondered if that was what this was?

Then later, as different people posted things, I realized that I didn't want to make that assumption.

And thought to just ask you directly, what your intent was for starting the thread?

And what you hoped would be accomplished?

edit added: RE: AT,
Oh... that's a lot to process. I still haven't even fully unpacked yet.
I'll be sure to share as I write blog posts and maybe vlogs later on.
Probably sometime this winter.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by edina (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by 6pounder (here)
Hi bill long time since ive been here on the forums.

i wouldnt say its censorship. its more of a business move to make money out of what he can provide to the alt news scene. he is a man with a name among the ufo community and there for he feels like its time to make a buck.

It's NOTHING like that. Why on earth do you think it is?

It's genuinely nice to see you here again, but that was (a) really unintelligent, and (b) does show clearly that you don't know me or my values at all.

Bill, I understood his words differently.
I thought he was referring to your original post regarding Richard Dolan.
I didn't think he was referencing you, at all.

Many thanks, and looking at that again I'm sure you're 100% right. His wasn't a clear reply — but it also shows how sensitive I am. (And, I am. I can't adequately describe how irritated and frustrated I am by all of this.)

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by edina (here)
When you start open-ended posts like this I often think of Bohm's book, On Dialogue.

At first I wondered if that was what this was?

Then later, as different people posted things, I realized that I didn't want to make that assumption.

And thought to just ask you directly, what your intent was for starting the thread?

And what you hoped would be accomplished?

Reference: (David Bohm was a world-class quantum physicist, and here he is writing about how humans talk with one another)

• David Bohm - on Dialogue
  http://avalonlibrary.net/ebooks/Davi...20Dialogue.pdf

It had occurred to me that some people were casually using the word 'censorship', in an accusatory way, without thinking things through or being clear exactly what it meant or implied.

It's rather like 'racism', and we have a whole (very high quality) thread on that.

• Racism

I started that thread too, but Rahkyt has done a masterful job of showing just how complicated the issue is. Censorship is, as well. It's far from simple.

It wasn't intended to be yet another thread in which people held forth pro and con the Qanon issue. We have several of those already.

It was intended to discuss what censorship really was. That's absolutely Avalon's province, to discuss things like that. I'd hoped it might be an interesting topic.

But instead, it just added more fuel to the fires. We do not know how to put them out.

[edina]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by edina (here)
When you start open-ended posts like this I often think of Bohm's book, On Dialogue.

At first I wondered if that was what this was?

Then later, as different people posted things, I realized that I didn't want to make that assumption.

And thought to just ask you directly, what your intent was for starting the thread?

And what you hoped would be accomplished?

Reference: (David Bohm was a world-class quantum physicist, and here he is writing about how humans talk with one another)

• David Bohm - on Dialogue
  http://avalonlibrary.net/ebooks/Davi...20Dialogue.pdf

It had occurred to me that some people were casually using the word 'censorship', in an accusatory way, without thinking things through or being clear exactly what it meant or implied.

It's rather like 'racism', and we have a whole (very high quality) thread on that.

• Racism

I started that thread too, but Rahkyt has done a masterful job of showing just how complicated the issue is. Censorship is, as well. It's far from simple.

It wasn't intended to be yet another thread in which people held forth pro and con the Qanon issue. We have several of those already.

It was intended to discuss what censorship really was. That's absolutely Avalon's province, to discuss things like that. I'd hoped it might be an interesting topic.

But instead, it just added more fuel to the fires. We do not know how to put them out.

Thank you for answering my questions.

To be fair, I probably misunderstood intent at times and it's possible a post I shared expressing my frustration may have been on Bubu's mind when he made his comments.

I apologize if that happened.

Also, it seems to me that the topic is now turning more toward the "censorship" topic as you originally intended.

And I believe the conversations around the Q posts are also becoming more civil. At least they have in this thread.

I glanced at a few of the posts on the last pages of one of Opposing Q threads and they also seemed to me to be more civil.

Kinda blown away by Jayke's posts, and a recent analysis of an article by T Smith.

Again, thank you for clarifying your intent.