Largely why ronv and shortbus are on my ignore list and have been for months now. Too much of what they said showed too little value and too much outright ignorance for it to be worth wasting my time reading any more which means I have no clue what they say about anything other than by indirect implication or quotes that manage to make it though inside someone else's posts. Now as for them ignoring me I have suspicions they couldn't put that flaming bag of dog turds down to save their lives.Promoting censorship? I doubt it. If the membership complains about a poster's opine, they have the option to not read the posters opine. If they can not do that, the IGNORE function can assist them. That is not censorship. One could advocate to ignore another. Personally, if I don't want to read a members opine because of, in my opinion they aren't worth my time, that is my choice. If I advocated to remove the comments or ban the member ... then I would be advocating censorship. This does not mean administrative actions by the moderators to enforce this site's EULA.
Non-agreement does not equal censorship.
Now, I could advocate removing members or their posts that attack others for any number of reasons. but I don't.
Both sides need thicker skin or learn to use the ignore function.
When the opposition or allied forces post links, I tend to read the article and google the author. Most links have videos to watch. even those silly FAKE news outlets, on the net and even Main Stream Media. The videos tell the story, the fake news outlets, including MSM, add commentary and opinions. Opinions in those stories aid in the self-confirmation bias.
Fake news can crop up anywhere. Dan Rather and Jayson Blair come to mind.
Free speech does not mean popular speech. Free speech means you have to endure speech you don't agree with. Endure is the operative word.
If you want the intercourse to continue ... and you wish to persuade the opfor to see your side, one must provide source material, not just opines. If you want to belittle and attempt to sensor by out-shouting, the discourse will enrage.
The problem I had was they openly and proudly played themselves to be big dummies and rarely backed up any claims they had with anything, credible or otherwise, so I just put them on my ignore list and continued to assume they're still play the big screaming dummy game given what I see of others quotes, comments and general rebuttals to them. That and the apparent big dummy attack on me with gophort on me where I live really in some sort to dim witted attempt to do whatever it was they thought it would do didn't help their cause in my more recent views other.
I respect their rights to have an opinion but that doesn't mean I have to agree with anything they say. Especially so if they have near zero credible support for it beyond supporting my belief they are once again likely wrong and happily playing petty and stupid so as to not have to own up to anything they say.
The worked hard to buy the deed to the big dummy property and now it theirs to keep even if they don't want it in my views.
As I stated in both their cases when I put them on my ignore and a few time since list. No one just make it there for having a bad day or week or whatever. To get there a person has to prove they are truly worth treating as if they don't exist in anyway shape or form first and to tso that they have to unwaveringly convince me that they are so god awful ignorant (or legitimately dumb) or a outright troll and happy to be that way it's impossible to work with or respect.