explicitClick to confirm you are 18+

Voluntary association, community, and censorship.

RedlegMar 29, 2021, 7:06:02 PM

So with events on Minds being what they are now, and with so many arguments being misrepresented, it's time for a long form discussion on censorship, voluntary association, and community.

Let's start off with what community is in this context. Definition 2 above is pretty simple. "A feeling of fellowship with others, as a result of sharing common attributes, interests, and goals." With this in mind, the loli community is very much in fear of being shunned from multiple online communities. "Why?" seems to be the question they fail to honestly ask and answer for themselves. While no one on minds should be arguing for state involvement to settle what should be community based solutions, shunning is how communities would distance themselves from bad ideas for centuries. We have seen examples of how this can be dangerous, but also how it keeps communities safer and unified. 

Voluntary association is a very simple concept. Everyone here on Minds is here voluntarily. I hope no one is holding a gun to your head making you like the memes. Notice the crossover in definition. Both rely on commonality. In other words, no one is making you post anything on any social media network, and therefore your posts, and the posts of others are offered freely to be both liked and scrutinized. We are all held to the same general rules of conduct, and have made individual choices on what we do here.

Censorship is more than just government blocking ideas and speech. I concede this point wholly as it is not one I ever made. Many making the arguments against censorship fail to make the distinction between community censorship and government censorship. One is absolutely allowed via voluntary association within communities, and one is forbidden by the first article of the Bill of Rights.

So while I would never take the side of government in censorship, even for egregious immoral acts that do not create a victim, I do advocate for communities to make the call on what they find acceptable or not. Minds is one large gestalt. It is made up of individuals and groups of individuals who subscribe to one another because they like what they see or hear. The wrench is the boost system. Blocking an account does not stop the boost from reaching your feed. So how should this be handled?

It should be handled on the battle field of ideas. I assert that drawing small girls in the act of sex with adults is reprehensible. There is no good argument for this being anything other than a way for MAPs to spread their ideas. MAPs are "Minor Attracted Persons" and it has become the new way pedophiles have been trying to normalize their compulsions and behaviors. The argument of the MAP is that being attracted to children is a normal sexual preference. In my crusade to make the loli community go away, I have often seen the argument "no one gets hurt by drawings". While in the strictest technical sense this is correct, would you accept someone who enjoys pictures of men raping children into your home around your children? I certainly wouldn't and will not associate with them. If you answer was like mine, then you have to reconcile the two ideas. 

So no, I am not asking @Ottman or any other admin to ban them. I am asking the community to choose to not associate with the MAPs who are hiding their attraction to children with screams of censorship. Block them and let them have their own private, unseen community. Make them the unmentionable, and unclean of Minds. Minds is not the government, and if you don't feel welcome here with your lewd drawings, it's because you aren't. 


In Liberty