Creox wrote:I hear ya. The only problem I have is that moderation does tend to erase posts that veer from the topic in any degree. I think that many great threads are created by letting them go where they will. At any rate I think that the moderation here does lend itself to a more scholarly ambiance than the usual forum where a lot of stuff is left to itself. Good and bad points for either really.
Perhaps the lack of opposition is due to a lack of ammunition when they are fenced in by facts...?
I think that's exactly why there is a lack of opposition, the opposition is not interested in debate. They rely on smear tactics which include straw man arguments, ad hominem and personal attacks, logical fallacies (including material fallacies, using an error or mistake to smear the arguer, and especially distraction fallacies such as emotional tricks using pics of yellow stars or piles of corpses, etc.), "hijacking" the debate to change the topic, rhetorical trickery and deceptive sophistry, half-truths ("literal" and "technical" truths that may "technically" be, but mostly just dishonest half-lies). They quote you and others out of context, often to the degree of "assuming" the meaning behind your words or even putting words in your mouth that were never said, alluded to, or intended. They love to spin everything
Their goal is to shut down debate and discredit those of us arguing via (attempted) character assassination using the above tricks. This is good enough for the masses, especially those who are ignorant of the subject matter. But these tricks don't stand up to the facts, especially when there are so many concrete facts going against the narrative. Therefore the arguer on the side of truth never gives up arguing and in the process learns all their little tricks.
The rules prevent them from using many of these deceptive tactics, therefore instead of debating they go to other blogs and forums complaining about "censorship" while using their above bag of tricks to convince others. A well-meaning person can accidentally veer off topic or reactively respond to a personal attack and if the post is deleted or whatever, they might believe the censorship thing.
Disinformationists on forums and blogs will often complain about rules and moderation and then try to spin it as a hypocritical violation of that site's principles of freedom of speech. But all forums have their own rules. Most general forums will ban you for even mentioning holocaust revisionism. I got banned from some conservative blog for rationally criticizing Israel.
It's all about playing the game and game theory - if you know how your opponent plays the game you have the advantage. We know how the opponent plays the game, Edward Bernays wrote their "manual" on the subject. Since opponents are often (but not always) Jews, there is likely a good reason related to their religion (which probably influences their culture even if they are not religious) that they employ these tactics. It's called Pilpul
which is a Talmudic rhetorical process similar to casuistry. Basically, it allows the truth to be interpreted subjectively even when it is false. Therefore, even when the facts are against them they are still right. If you take away their ability to get away with this, they have little interest in debating because they cannot win.