RE: The Great Prof. Jeffrey Sachs Breaks Down The Facts & My Thoughts Daily-Look 1-15-25
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Ok. Let's start with the definition of censorship.
A definition quote is not evidence.
Censorship is any suppression of speech. You are a censor. That's what you do. You suppress speech, by financially harming people that speak in ways you don't like. You've tried to censor me already by threatening me with that financial harm. Flags are censorship
Provide evidence of this
Also, provide evidence of threats. I already asked. You have not done it so yet.
While I only mentioned the one, the illuminati also isn't a topic I tackle. You wanna blame people for posting about those things, find people that post about those things to blame for them. However, one strawman is one too many logical fallacies, especially for someone calling themselves logic, and you can keep your strawmen to yourself. You have a problem with what I post, you're actually welcome to comment on my posts. If you have a valid criticism I'll even upvote you and share the author rewards with you for your trouble.
You have actively engaged in conversations about these topics (qAnon and Illuminati) on many different posts published by other users, positively confirming their conspiracy stories and contributing to the spread of these stories.
Not that I care what kind of delulu nonsense you engage in. I find it entertaining.
Then evidence does not exist.
Ironically, then (because you deny a definition by a law dictionary is evidentiary), I will point to debanking, banning, and blacklisting across institutional hierarchies as mechanisms that use financial harm to pre-emptively prevent speech - exactly as what you have claimed cannot be done on the blockchain. People that cannot be here cannot post here. You can just deny this is happening, as you prefer, but it happens just the same. You can say 'Just make your own bank, media, platform.' These are ways to overcome censorship, not evidence of lack of censorship, however.
We engage, which builds not only our understanding and rapport, unlikely as that may seem, but Hive. Good.
No U! isn't an argument.
I do engage people.
We are in agreement. I do not recall previously agreeing with you. I am glad to now. We don't have to agree, in fact cannot agree on everything, to beneficially engage. It is because we don't agree we can, and that is the basis of social media.
Edit: I am pressed for time, as I must detect my thumbs with a hammer.