C. James Strutz wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
ink.net...

C. James Strutz wrote:

"Beach Runner" wrote in message
r.com...

Because you are surrendering control of what you read to somebody
else. It stifles freedom of thought and exchange of ideas. You may

not

like or agree with what some people write here (in an unmoderated
group), or how they express it, but at least you are challenged to
think about things that you otherwise would not have been exposed

to

in a moderated group.

It's not as if the idea has no merit; it just doesn't
work well for this kind of topic. No academic in his
right mind would publish, for example, in an
"unmoderated" (non-peer-reviewed) journal. In fact,
that's an inherent problem with unmoderated usenet:
any ignorant shitbag's material shows up.

The problem with moderated groups is that contrary
points of view are suppressed: precisely the goal, I'd
bet $100, of the asshole "beach ruiner". The problem
with unmoderated groups is that there are no quality
standards: the crazed bullshit of idiots like ****wit
David Harrison appears.

Pick your poison.


All true. I guess it comes down to how the group is moderated. I wrote
what I did with this particular group in mind: some people want to
suppress contrary points of view.

In my experience of this group, all "vegans" want to
suppress contrary opinions. They pretend to be
concerned with "off-topic" posts, but that's a thin and
easily dissipated smokescreen, as demonstrated by the
following: when one of them begins an off-topic
PRO-"veganism" rant, many of the participants quickly
pile on to express their agreement, often extending and
elaborating on the issue at some length. But as soon
as I or some other anti-"vegan" occasional participant
expresses a contrary point of view, no matter how
politely (I do sometimes remain polite), then look out!
The SHRIEKS of "troll", "kill-file", "off topic" and
so on begin to flow freely.

This is easily understood, too; no mystery at all.
"veganism" is the dietary expression of an inherently
intolerant and extremist political philosophy. As I
have demonstrated many times, "vegans" are virtually
universally leftwing extremists. That's because all
true "vegans" are "animal rights activists"
(passivists, really), and "ar" is intrinsically an
extremist leftwing political belief. "veganism" is
absolutely synonymous with so-called "ethical"
vegetarianism, and all so-called "ethical" vegetarians
are NECESSARILY believers in "ar", and so are
necessarily extremist leftwing dolts.

As all political extremes are inherently intolerant and
repressive, it is a short jump to see why "vegans" are
reflexively censorious.

However, I think they also want to
suppress all the name calling and bad language. Something that some of
us (ahem) are more guilty of than others.