Buttking said:
Honestly, with all the furor regarding censorship and "censorship" these days, I can't help but feel there needs to be some kind of third option between "remove offensive content, weakening free speech and giving ammo to white fascists" and "do nothing, allowing the taint to spread unchecked."
Personally, I'd make it so instead of banning posts on forums, uploads to mod sites, etc., moderators could "poo on" them instead. The content would stay up, unaltered, but with a clearly displayed message showing the disapproval of the site owners, and the page/section showing that content would permanently be "defaced" in some way, for example adding a fecal texture to the background of the post.
Just a dumb idea, I guess.
People need blood when they're offended. Someone must be fired, deprived of sales, chastised, HURT, to make the offended feel better. This is the reason so much injustice is done in the name of justice.
The fecal idea is fine and good until its YOUR perfectly good idea covered in shit and mocked by the smug ignorant. If you put it out there in all earnest and people treat an idea you think is valid as feces then you may have issues.
Is putting mocking commentary or a sign saying "this statement is wrong, lets mock this ignorant asshole" what we should be doing? It isn't removing the idea but it is casting it as disparaged and wrong. That's great when its ideas we happen to disagree with. That's horribly insensitive if its something like "I think the male suicide rate is indicative of oppressive circumstances too." Someone who sees that as trying to change the subject from female oppression may get that post fecalized and mocked. How about the person that posted it who wanted to express sentiment for their cousin who just committed suicide? They'd (rightfully) feel pissed off and slighted that their viewpoint was fecalized. How about when people misunderstand a position and thus falsely categorize it? Does it deserve to be fecalized because someone can't be bothered to read it properly?
Disparagement MAY be better than outright censorship, since at least the idea is exposed. It depends on how much creedence the fecalization is given. If it causes people to not ever read the post and just mock it then its about as bad as censorship since ti leads to the idea being more difficult to access. (By censorship, in this case, I mean the general term for oppressing or suppressing an idea, not the first amendment expression definition)
This is difficult since one person's truth may be another person's offensive lies.