Quote:
I will add there are also many doctors and scientists who agree with my position. The ban is being enforced as "spreading dangerous disinformation involving the pandemic". If this rule is to be enforced, many people in the world would not be allowed to post on 2p2. It is not a rule of 2p2. Over 70 Million Americans probably agree with most of my thoughts on that matter. Is 2p2 saying those people who do not buy into media brainwashing are not allowed on their site? That moderators with left wing bias are allowed to ban people for posting thoughts they don't like or agree with?
Masks were a thing way before COVID19. You ever get the FLU? Before it was in the news that we should be wearing masks, and before COVID19, there were signs in doctors offices saying "If you have FLU like symptoms, please wear a mask." Have you been to a doctor's office before? I remember getting the FLU a couple years back and having a lady scold me for not wearing a mask--Guess what? There was nothing in the news about masks back then.
Who knows, perhaps masks aren't quite as effective as we believe them to be, and certainly I can agree with the sentiment that there's no need to live in a state of overreaction and fear... but with that being said, what makes you think they're not effective to some extent? And how are you being harmed by wearing one? What incentive does the media have to 'brainwash' you into wearing a mask? No, really... think about it...
What incentive does the media have in brainwashing you to wear a mask? And I'd like a direct answer to that one.
On the flip side, I can say that the incentive that the media, the government, and the common people have in asking that others wear masks, is to reduce the spread of the virus--which in turn reduces the burden placed on hospitals and doctors offices. Is that effective? Probably to some extent. (I've talked to an epidemiologist who believes that they do help, but that the major factor in reduction is standing at least 6 feet apart). Perhaps we're wrong. But either way you split it, it's most likely an earnest effort to reduce the spread of a virus, rather than a plot to coax conformity.
But you and I both know that you're not changing your mind.
As a general rule of thumb, I think it's bad practice for forums to ban people for believing in conspiracy theories on the basis of "Spreading Disinformation." Or for saying things that could be perceived as controversial. That pre-assumes that people aren't capable of sifting through claims for themselves and eventually coming to reasonable conclusions on their own. Now many people don't come to reasonable conclusions, sure... but can you imagine if strategy forums started banning people who were posting poor strategy because it was disinforming others as to what the 'Correct Strategy' is? You wouldn't get anywhere. There would be less discourse. You'd eventually end up with mono-thought, and new ideas not adhering to the accepted current would be banned/shunned.
Also, when people are banned for 'Spreading Disinformation' or 'Spreading Conspiracy Theories,' it only strengthens their conviction and magnetizes them more to their cause/claim. A more effective way of confronting conspiracy theories is most likely by allowing discourse, and... injecting logic. Injecting logic through questioning.
With that being said, I don't think it's bad practice to ban people for believing in conspiracy theories and 'spreading' them on the basis of relevance. It's a freakin' strategy forum. And if you want to keep the forum on track in it's aim to cultivate strategy talk, then deleting posts on the basis of relevancy, then enforcing that further down the road with ban(s), based on repeated offenses, makes sense to me.
I'm not sure what actually happened, and what the context of the situation/ban was, but those are just my thoughts on banning and general censorship in online forums.