Keeping the subreddit on topic isn’t “censorship”, and you shouldn’t worry about looking “hypocritical” to a bunch of angry 15 year olds who don’t know the first thing about free speech Obviously a prewarning is ideal though

Been thinking this. I just saw a guy complain about “censorship” because he was calling people trannies on a popular sub. Do people really think it should be okay to post “fuck n*****rs and trannies” all over the place? You should start removing posts where people got themselves banned on purpose by being belligerent.

What

The first amendment doesn't define "free speech". It just instantiates it in the law. It's a philosophical principle too. In other words, just because it's legal to censor opinions you don't like, doesn't mean it's okay.

Moderator u/kylde publicly lies about ban reasons: https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditCensors/comments/bcehxv/thread_about_firefox_ideologically_censoring/eks7n4h/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app

u/kylde publicly lies about ban reasons: https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditCensors/comments/bcehxv/thread_about_firefox_ideologically_censoring/eks7n4h/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app

u/kylde publicly lies about ban reasons: https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditCensors/comments/bcehxv/thread_about_firefox_ideologically_censoring/eks7n4h/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app

Here is u/kylde actively lying about the reasons for post removals: https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/bce37x/we_need_to_talk_about_censorship_in_this_subreddit/ekpw8lv/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app You can find evidence that he’s lying simply by viewing the thread I linked. Many civil comments were removed. Particularly, any comment containing evidence of Mozilla’s censorship was removed.

So you’ve managed to amass a group of moderators who don’t believe in telling the truth? That’s even worse, and kills any hope that your subreddit will improve.

No. I’ve never been a part of the reddit community, really. I mostly post in niche subreddits.

I’m terrible at math and weeks from graduating, but thank you for your concern.

Not sure yet. I might go into teaching English or find another professional job where I could make use of my degree. I’ve done more years in English than Psychology. But I don’t plan on doing anything creative until I have a reliable income, so we’ll see where I end up.

True but I don’t plan to pursue it as a career. Creative pursuits are extremely unreliable and I need money for my family

No kidding. You can’t tell from my messages but I was furious. It’s hard to believe that anyone could be that much of an insane corrupt dickhead.

If you think psychology is messed up you should try literature. Being a student of both I’m surrounded on both sides by corruption. Literature is ridiculous, it’s more like learning Marxist activism than learning anything real.

I want it to be. I’m a student of literature and psychology. The ideological censor mentality, as demonstrated by mrsamsa, is one of many obstacles to psychology’s legitimacy, since it openly contravenes the scientific mindset.

On a related note I actually made this argument multiple times to the moderator. His response was to mute me.

But if you criticise flaws in the research that a moderator likes, that’s denialism, and must be met with the harshest possible punishment, of course.

Further details, copied from the OP: The paper in question was the highly controversial APA guidelines for treating men, which pointed to "masculinity ideology", "oppression", "white privilege" and "patriarchy" as the causes of male mental illness. It's deconstructed [here](https://jordanbpeterson.com/political-correctness/comment-on-the-apa-guidelines-for-the-treatment-of-boys-and-men/), with links to the paper itself. Left-wing reddit loved it because it epicly owned traditional masculinity with Logic and Facts(TM), but most of the paper was just political ideology based on shoddy, if not outright non-existent evidence. When I pointed out that the work had a left-wing bias, so the controversy was "understandable", I was instantly banned with no recourse. Apparently ideological enforcement constitutes science these days, and criticising the ideology is "denialism". Later I found this same mod in r/skeptic, saying that "all evidence supports the democrats' policies" (after claiming that he was a lifelong right-winger in this exchange, to cover his ass). What’s more outrageous is that, after permanently banning me for being skeptical of a paper he liked, and refusing to discuss it, repeatedly muting me from messaging the subreddit instead, he has the nerve to claim an association with skepticism.