Critique of No Censoring Camp

This is a critique of the "No Censoring" camp found in this topical section (Values).

On the date of this post (6/12/2022) the No Censoring camp featured the following articulations...

We believe canonizer is proving these beliefs wrong. On Canonizer anyone can censor modifications to camps (Note 1) they support, as required to preserve what it is they want to say. But you can’t prevent someone from creating a competing camp to point out any issues with anyone’s camps. As long as you allow people to see both sides of anything being said, there is no need for censoring (Note 2).

Along the same lines, people fear and make efforts to cancel “conflicts of interest” (Note 3). This is why Wikipedia has no advertising and struggles to beg for money. For us this is just another example of hateful cancel culture (Note 4). Ultimately everything anyone does, is to gain what it is they want, and the more diverse things people want the better (Note 5). That is, until you want to destroy or cancel something someone else wants (Note 6). Canceling cancel culture is a double negative, making it the only good kind of canceling (Note 7).

Instead of canceling any potential “conflicts of interest” (Note 8) canonizer is designed to bridle all possible conflicts of interest (Note 9) in a way that drives everyone forward, towards consensus. As long as self-interests are fully disclosed, we have hope that we will be able to find creative ways to overcome all “conflicts” (Note 10), turning everything into win / win, getting it all for everyone. If you can know, concisely and quantitatively, what everyone wants, that, by definition, is consensus. (Note 11)

Note 1: "censor modifications to camps" in this instance, as used, is a false frame apparently employed to somehow support or justify the camp author's inappropriate use of the term elsewhere. A registered supporter of camp can object to a subsequent edit to the camp he is already a supporter of. Such an objection is not "censorship", nor is it appropriately framed as such. The proposed edit remains on record, together with the objection. It simply does not go live as the replacement camp statement because it would be inappropriate that it should without the supporter's approval. (See related discussion - Serious Known Alert Glitch.) It does remain live as an overruled edit that everyone can see. Such contradiction and resulting ambiguity unnecessarily obfuscates the subject matter, which we assume to be the actual disingenuous motivation for his post.

Note 2: The author's suggestion that there is "no need for censoring" in this instance utilizes his own false frame (referring to a legitimate objection to an edit of something that already has demonstrated consensus as "censorship") to attempt to apply what he refers to as "hateful cancel culture" to an entirely legitimate and unquestionably appropriate objection to a material change of a camp that already has support to a version that defies that support, without approval of the supporters. The system was specifically designed with the objection functionality for precisely this purpose and made available to protect supporters of approved content from being tricked or manipulated into the appearance of support for subsequent changes of content that they do not support.

To suggest there to be something inappropriate about a supporter's legitimate use of the objection functionality in the system and then to further promote illegitimate disrespect for that use by employing the false frame of "censorship" and then further employing the hypocritical appeal to "cancel culture" by mis-framing a legitimate objection to an edit as "another example of hateful cancel culture" is both absurd and an unjustifiably malicious attempt to unfairly discredit the appropriate actions of another user in retaliation for an objection that actually became necessary only after the author's own use of the objection functionality in the instance that gave rise to this discussion.

Notes 3 and 4: Here the author of the camp would seem to apply a retaliatory false frame "to cancel conflicts of interest" to legitimate concerns expressed about the reality and relevance of conflicts of interest, in various instances, to a credible assessment of actual camp support. The back story behind this post involved private discussions of the relevance of conflicts of interest to the credibility of camp support that may have been influenced by incentives or corollary compensation, after the author of this camp inadvertently acknowledged incentivizing support for a camp deemed to be a significant "proof of concept" for the canonizer.

The legitimate expression of concern for, or relevance of undisclosed conflicts of interest to an appropriate and well informed assessment of the credibility of camp support is hardly appropriately framed as hateful cancel culture (Note 4). Rather, such an over-reaching frame is, itself, hateful cancel culture that gives rise to fair and legitimate questions about the character and rationality of the one employing it. (See related discussion Unethical Collaboration)

Conflicts of interest are a re-occurring reality of human interaction, especially where delegation of authority, and advocacy are involved. They are sometimes avoidable, and sometimes unavoidable. They are sometimes acceptable and sometimes unacceptable. The potential for conflicts of interest may, at times, manifest itself as an alignment of interests which are sometimes different on certain levels, but consistent with a shared objective. At all times they should be identified and appropriately managed. Sometimes that might require someone abstain from participation or advocacy. Other times, such may not be the case. These are judgment calls that require full disclosure, in fairness to all concerned.

Note 5: Proper and respectful management of conflicts of interest demands their exposure, and sometimes demands withdrawal of participation in discussion or advocacy. When that is the case is a question of ethics that requires the philosophical insight and maturity that is hardly displayed by the declaration, "the more diverse things people want, the better". Such an obviously problematic declaration is born of a conflict of interest, itself.

Controversy may be good for the Canonizer. It attracts attention and a wide range of interest groups. Controversy, however, may be the antithesis to consensus.

The perpetuation of controversy serves the agenda of the obfuscators. Distraction as a result of controversy is the goal. Obfuscation obfuscates. Confusion is distraction. It serves hidden agendas not to be noticed amidst distraction.

Note 6: To manage conflicts of interest appropriately and responsibly with full disclosure and respectfully appropriate adjustments, is not appropriately characterized with the disingenuous and false frame to destroy or cancel something someone else wants. An appropriate acknowledgement of the reality of a "want" and its potential for motivation and motivated conclusions, does not "cancel" the want. It manages it appropriately. Falsely framing such management reflects the intellectual warp (motivated conclusion) occasioned by a conflict of interest. In this case, perhaps management of shame and damage control for being caught in association with undisclosed conflicts of interest that actually matter, but were not properly managed.

Note 7 and 8: A trite obfuscation. Cancelling culture is a contrived discussion that is not germane to legitimate issues and concerns involving the appropriate management of conflicts of interest. It is there as a distraction for intellectually weak and unfocussed minds.

Note 9: Bridling conflicts of interest is not the question or the issue. It is interjected as an obfuscation for its distraction value. Managing conflicts of interest is the issue. Whether or not they can be bridled is not assured. That is the management question that demands full disclosure to be properly considered.

Note 10: All conflicts cannot necessarily be overcome. Such is born of intolerable naivete or willful disingenuous obfuscation. Some might be overcome. Some might not be. That is the point of relevant management and disclosure.

Note 11: To know what everyone wants, is most certainly not consensus, by definition. The suggestion is patently absurd and promotes intolerable obfuscation of the important issues here.

Were this post a random user it would be disconcerting and troublesome, but not overly alarming. It is not. This post is the actual commentary and the reflection of the actual mentality of the senior voting stock holder in the Canonizer who not only controls the vast majority of voting shares, but further stacks the vote by employing subordinates (also with additionally disproportionate voting shares) who consistently support or abstain from objecting to the major share holder's decisions.

Note: Objection functionality used on January 12, 2012 on subject of Abortion to object and thereby block a camp edit by same senior voting stock holder, who now calls it "hateful cancel culture" when used by another.

Additional Critique Notes added by another contributor:

Quote: We believe canonizer is proving these beliefs wrong.

The Canonizer is not proving these, or any beliefs wrong. It does not have the level of independent participation to prove any beliefs wrong, nor are a multitude of contrary positions proof, anyway. Proof is not a matter of quantitative agreement or disagreement. It is a matter of relevant reasoning, logic, and evidence.

Quote: Along the same lines, people fear and make efforts to cancel “conflicts of interest”. This is why Wikipedia has no advertising and struggles to beg for money. For us this is just another example of hateful cancel culture. Ultimately everything anyone does, is to gain what it is they want, and the more diverse things people want the better. That is, until you want to destroy or cancel something someone else wants. Canceling cancel culture is a double negative, making it the only good kind of canceling.

I take issue with the premise that people make efforts to “cancel conflicts of interest”.

Contributors have no such motivation. Such is an over interpretation of, (and hypocritically so... the author of that post is clearly trying to “cancel” another point of view by illegitimately discrediting it) the simple articulation of disagreement.

Neither do I agree that an objection to a proposed edit to a statement already published, by documented supporters, is fairly interpreted as an effort to “cancel” anything. It is simply legitimate evidence of non-agreement which has been used many times by the very author of this hypocritical opinion.

Quote: Instead of canceling any potential “conflicts of interest” Canonizer is designed to bridle all possible conflicts of interest in a way that drives everyone forward, towards consensus.

The Canonizer cannot be legitimately argued to have been “designed” for any such purpose. It, by its own founders' definition and architectural structure, has been designed to record and track issues and their apparent following.

Quote: As long as self-interests are fully disclosed, we have hope that we will be able to find creative ways to overcome all “conflicts”, turning everything into win / win, getting it all for everyone.

The “hope that we will be able to find creative ways to overcome all conflicts is the most naïve and ill- informed point of view this contributor has ever heard articulated on the subject of such conflicts. That will never happen and it is categorically unreasonable to think or suggest it ever will.

The promotion of false hope does not make the world a better place or contribute to meaningful and constructive consensus or meaningful dialogue.

Quote: If you can know, concisely and quantitatively, what everyone wants, that, by definition, is consensus.

Of course, that claim is ridiculous. Knowing what people want is, perhaps, a starting point to discuss differences. Perhaps in that discussion consensus might be achieved through enlightenment that changes minds. Perhaps it will not. The notion that knowing what everyone wants, is, by definition, consensus, is an indefensible and non-credible claim that demonstrates intellectual processing that is either seriously impaired, or intentionally obfuscating.

See relevant discussion: Own Management Responsibility

See relevant discussion: Consider Urgencies and Priorities

See relevant discussion: Expose Dishonesty

Significant system suggestions are confronted with the hurdle that is reflected by the "insight" demonstrated in this post.