r/DarkFuturology In the experimental mRNA control group Jan 14 '21

Meta New warning/ban system for users who shoot the messenger

There are few bastions of diverse free speech left on reddit, which is now banning the submission of links from possibly dozens of legitimate websites, including BitChute and Zero Hedge (hundreds more surely on the chopping board). DarkFuturology is one of the very few with a substantial subscriber base, and we proudly find ways to share content that media titans want to censor. Often, we will share content precisely because it has been censored.

We'll never come at you for your opinions, but we will if you conceal your opinions behind attempts to disparage any content creators featured here (the clearest sign that you are complicit in censorship).

You can certainly do ad hominem, or ridicule claims the creator has made in the past, BUT ONLY in comments where you also make a genuine attempt to address one or more points presented in the OP.

One initial warning will be followed by a 1-month ban and then a permaban.

43 Upvotes

41 comments sorted by

25

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '21

Oh, you are a mod?

OK, I'm out. Lying and fraud are not valid forms of free speech.

6

u/ruizscar In the experimental mRNA control group Feb 06 '21

While you're here in this pinned thread, let us all know what is the lie and where is the fraud

37

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '21 edited Feb 06 '21
  • Alt-right, neo-fascist drivel about Teh nEw WoRld oRDer.
  • Pandemic denial
  • Global warming denial

This is real stuff, it's killing people. You're quite free to stick your fingers in your ears and delude yourself, but it's morally outrageous to spread lies about infectious diseases and ecological collapse claiming they're not a problem.

BTW, if you're so into free speech, why are you threatening to ban people who call out lies?

5

u/ruizscar In the experimental mRNA control group Feb 06 '21

Simply put, no topic is off limits here. Once you start banning topics you're on the slippery slope. If you do ad hominem while ignoring the issues you'll be warned. You're against the idea of debate while for censorship. That's very troubling.

19

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '21

Interesting point.

I suppose my position is that just as a cult leader is not entitled to brainwash people into committing suicide, or a Mafia don is not entitled to put out hits on people, we are not entitled to spread untruths or tell people that very real social problems aren't real.

But you're right - a lot of people do think that these issues are not real, and have been ginned up by the aforementioned nefarious global elites.

I don't know what the answer is, but I'm pretty sure it isn't "ban people who object to the spreading of lies".

9

u/ruizscar In the experimental mRNA control group Feb 06 '21

we are not entitled to spread untruths

Problem here is that you think you have everything figured out.

19

u/collapsingwaves Feb 21 '21

So you're saying that climate change denial is a valid position?

5

u/ruizscar In the experimental mRNA control group Feb 21 '21

First define climate change denial please

12

u/collapsingwaves Feb 21 '21

Someone who wouldn't accept that the following statement is a reasonable, general summary of the state of play.

The warming of the global climate is driven primarily by the release of CO2 caused by humans burning fossil fuels.

That unless we cut net emissions to zero in less than a century, runaway climate change is predicted to increase global average temperatures buy as much as 4-6⁰C.

That we need to start cutting CO2 emissions now.

That a 4-6⁰C rise in average temperatures will be catastrophic for both human society and the biosphere.

3

u/ruizscar In the experimental mRNA control group Feb 21 '21

That sounds reasonable, now should we severely clamp down on polluting industries, or expect society to radically change lifestyles, or both?

10

u/collapsingwaves Feb 21 '21

Both will have to happen.

3

u/ruizscar In the experimental mRNA control group Feb 21 '21

Will rules, punishments, shaming and surveillance be necessary to achieve the mass lifestyle change?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '21

I think our CO2 emissions are an issue, but this definition of climate change denial is problematic at the very least.

I believe this type of understanding of climate change will inevitably be the reason catastrophic climate change does occur. It will sadly be a self fulfilling prophecy, where our attempts to avoid the disaster will hasten it.

THIS is the fundamental issue with dogma - much like your examples of cults.

I do believe that our economic practices are damaging for the climate. I, like many other climate change "skeptics" (another dangerous misnomer propogated by dogmatic, pseudo-religious cultural trends) am not actually skeptical about climate change, but about the details presented to us regarding cause, mechanics, and solution.

For an historical example of the dangers of dogmatism in climate change, look at the history of Ethanol in the last 20 years.

Brazil became fossil fuel independent, switching to an ethanol fuel economy... at the expense of the Amazon rain forest. A major cause of increased atmospheric CO2 is the destruction of natural carbon storage, such as forests. A mature forest may eventually become carbon neutral, but we often forget that a mature forest that is in carbon equilibrium is built with carbon, essentially it is a giant lump of living carbon.

Every living creature is actually carbon storage. Nobody talks about that....

3

u/collapsingwaves Apr 05 '21

That's a lot of words, quite a bit of handwaving, some false equivalence, and a sprinkling of red herrings. I'm left wondering exactly what points you're trying to make, but it does smell quite like 'Well we can't be absolutely sure of anything, so maybe we should do nothing.'

So perhaps i'm wrong, but if that IS the point you're making, then it's denialism masquerading as concern.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '21

Ah! apologies for any misunderstanding. If I was going to try to make a point along those lines, it might actually be the opposite - 'Well, we can't be absolutely sure of anything, so with the stakes this high, we need to do everything.'

Tunnel vision on only one specific possible problem/solution is a gamble, and time is running out. There likely won't be any second chances.

Maybe a better way to express it would be that we need to take a systems approach. Or maybe a better way would be to say holistic approach?

It is also my strong opinion that the censorship is counterproductive - I think that just creates more skeptics and opposition.

14

u/[deleted] Mar 11 '21

Yeah, I’m out. This is just another anti-vax conspiracy sub now.

11

u/collapsingwaves Feb 21 '21

Trying to understand if this is really what you mean. So I can say anything I want here, apart from challenging another poster? So they can spout antivax nonsense, and I will get a ban for calling out their lies?

2

u/ruizscar In the experimental mRNA control group Feb 21 '21

No. This is about responding to OP with insults and no argument.

11

u/collapsingwaves Feb 21 '21

So if someone is wrong. I can say they are wrong? ie someone says' vaccines cause autism' I say 'you are wrong' op says well that's just your opinion, man. I say 'no your opinion is wrong, the facts are that vaccines do not cause autism, are not a form of global mind control, and definitly do not have microchips in them"

4

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '21

This policy is not well thought out and will blow up in your face eventually. Just watch.

1

u/ruizscar In the experimental mRNA control group Apr 21 '21

How could it be improved?

3

u/[deleted] Feb 06 '21

[deleted]

1

u/ruizscar In the experimental mRNA control group Feb 06 '21

What could be a more important form of speech than ad hominems

2

u/MadameApathy Apr 30 '21

LOVE this sub

1

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '21

I just happened upon this sub today. Seems interesting. I think this system may be warranted, provided it doesn't fall down the path of what it's trying to fight, thus becoming the opposite, but equivalent, evil. I am cautiously optimistic...

1

u/Fox_Kurama May 19 '21

Moderators remove posts from feeds for a variety of reasons, including keepingcommunities safe, civil, and true to their purpose."

Like, I got this the very instant I posted it. Or attempted to.

For reference:

-My post had ZERO links of any kind.

-My post had no language that would have a hard time passing the hurdle of appearing on an all ages or at least PG rated television show.

-The first time I tried selecting the "spam" flair because it didn't seem to fit anywhere else. The second time I tried the "WTF" flair after modding it a bit, since I thought maybe I accidentally triggered something by selecting something that is auto-modded or something (I mean, it IS a spam flair...)

But yeah, no links or sources, just an idea.

For those curious, my idea is "The entertainment dystopia." Short version: The world is in for a dark future, but technology saves the day. Or at least, it saves the planet, and does so before society crashes into a dark age. However, who is in charge of the important saving tech? You can just substitute current oil barons in if you wish for thematic purposes.

Either way, we have entered the darker portions/possibilities of a pre-post-scarcity society. We have all the energy we need now, and it is clean (someone figures out how to make a convenient, compact, easy to make, and net positive fusion reactor, or something like that, but the big energy businesses of either now or future are in charge of it for all intents and purposes).

Aside from some artisanal a work here and there that persists due to some concept of value among the elite, along with an "secondary upper caste" of engineers, everyone else is either part of the entertainment economy, or someone who couldn't hack it. As in, what youtubers and tiktok people find themselves doing for a living today.

After all, even the people higher in society want to maintain their entertainment, do they not?

1

u/Fox_Kurama May 19 '21

But really. Why is this reddit apparently afraid of someone who just doesn't have a link?