My reply was censored - point proven.
… by the community flagging it for action …
1 Like
A point was proven but not in the way you think!
Your post was unnecessarily personal and people highlighted that. Could be worth looking up “ad hominem” as a term and teyi gto avoid using it. That way, the community wouldnt feel the need to report your posts.
that’s true but it’s also true that they have no power to do so. so fundamentally this thread seems to me about people wanting the authority to force people to stfu for exercising their ability to ask (and not force) you to stfu… it doesn’t work like that either
1 Like
Chatting about real life stuff is one thing. People constantly trying to proselytise others with their opinions is a total different story.
The latter has been growing a lot during the last few weeks.
2 Likes
Interesting supposition, but no. The right to talk, and the right to tell/ask someone not to talk are not equivalent. It’s possible to possess the former without possessing the latter. The later is literally asking someone not to use their right. It’s circular logic, to suggest that the two are the same. also, using the term “ask” , to make it appear as if the request is polite, doesn’t change the fundamental issue. Especially because many people who “ask” (such as one participant in this thread) do not do so in a pleasant way.
1 Like
who decided that? if nobody is breaking TOS by being directly insulting or harassing you then they’re perfectly in their right to tell you that no, they’re not interested in listening to your extremely detailed description of your saddle sores or your opinions on geopolitics or anything for that matter. and you’re entitled to ignore their request
Again, those instances are isolated. However, the request to express oneself is constantly being literally shut down
No one decided it. It doesn’t need to be decided. That’s the thing. I’m not declaring that one position is “better” or claiming the moral high ground, I’m just pointing out that the two aren’t equivalent. Sort of like, 1 can’t equal 3.
I’ll give an example of what I mean: Lets say I’m an intolerant person. You ask me to be tolerant. I respond that you’re not tolerating my intolerance, which is intolerant. That’s what I mean. I’m saying that, asking someone to be tolerant isn’t the same as being intolerant.
IMO saddle sores would qualify as offensive. I would still just ignore the conversation, but I can understand why anyone else might report that. Politics seem like more of a grey area, that would need to be judged on a case by case basis. It’s possible for political discussion to rise to the level of harassment.
1 Like
Firstly i don’t really pay too much attention to the chats while riding so it doesnt really bother me what people talk about.
I think the problem is that most discussion sites on the internet are split into topics (like this forum for example) so you want to talk about politics you go to the politics discussion board for example.
On zwift you are exposed to all messages regardless of the topic.