In this thread, shitposters on the TF.TV forums find a concept that exists on EVERY OTHER FUCKING FORUM ON THE INTERNET confounding.

@spartan

Censorship - a person who examines books, movies, letters, etc., and removes things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc.

Are they not doing just that? I would define the act of blocking text so you can remain unchallenged as some sort of reverse self-censorship. I don't think you fully understand the concept of censorship.

Just so you know I'm okay with people ignoring what they consider moronic, except filtering those opinions so they are "protected" from seeing them is not the same as just ignoring them. As people have pointed out, it's completely childish.

Your main reason for using this would be to avoid having a discussion with the other person. Not wanting to engage with the person is fine. You know the solution to not engaging? Ignoring. And like I said, actively going out so you can't even see those posts is different from ignoring them.

And then there's your analogy. Based on the person used in the example, I'm going to assume this was made for filtering out users with a history of political opinions. What are ads trying to make you do? Endorse whatever they're trying to sell. I'd understand why people wouldn't want to see ads, especially when they don't want a website to gain money from ads. Are political opinions that detrimental?

I've done nothing to restrict people from using this. Despite me saying that it makes you immature, they are still 100% free to use it.

I admit that I'm probably overreacting, but I just saw this as a slippery slope for admins deleting whatever they deem as "offensive."

fish i really want to make a nerd essay about how wrong and delusional you are, but im gonna make it simple,

youre a fuckin retard who doesnt understand what hes saying

idk where you got that bs definition from, but words ending in "ship" never describe a person. Whatever your personal definition of censorship, or "reverse self-censorship" may be, this is not what the word means.

People have also "pointed out" that you are a retard, does that make it true? There is absolutely nothing childish about hiding shitposts.

Ignoring post = you don't see the post
Hiding post = you don't see the post and have to scroll less

You are not supposed to judge people based on assumptions. Yours is also completely random and pointless.

It's not up to you to judge what's "detrimental" to others and what isn't-

Wat? Admins can already do this, they are free and have every right to delete any post they deem offensive according to the tos of the forums, or even ones that aren't if they wish.
This app has nothing to do with admins and what they can or can't and should or shouldn't do whatsoever.

Lordship.

I think he just looked up the definition of censor instead of censorship.

I knew someone would say this, but "Lordship" is used in conjunction with "his/her/your" only, so I'm pretty sure that from a linguistic point of view, the word actually refers to the lordship (land) the lord controls. You'll never read "This person is a lordship". Offtopic tho

It's just one of those constructions like "his majesty" which is used to give someone greater importance by turning their title into their person; suggesting that they are not just a person, but more like the personification of a power or institution. e.g. "Would his lordship like this peasant beheaded?" instead of "Would you like this peasant beheaded?", or "His lordship has ordered the beheading of this peasant" instead of "Lord Bumsniffer has ordered the beheading of this peasant".

I'm not going to use this to censor someone who has a different opinion than me, I am going to use this so I don't have to see dumb memes. I assume most users are doing the same, making fish's whole "I'm a martyr for free speech" schtick completely irrelevant.

Yeah exactly, so linguistically, the word doesn't actually describe a person, even though it's used to address one

My mistake, I was looking at the definition of censor. My point still stands though. It's the merriam-webster definition, so it is credible. Even when you look at the word "censorship" it reads "the system or practice of censoring books, movies, letters, etc." So yes, using an extension that hides specific posts is practicing censorship.

Except it seems that the only difference between a person's opinion and a shitpost is whether or not you agree with it.

Because scrolling your mouse wheel for a couple more seconds is just unbearable...

Be real here, people aren't going to use this so they don't have to scroll more. If someone (theoretically) uses this, it's because they don't want to see someone else's comments.

Are you really going to tell me this wasn't made in mind of the recent political threads? He even uses Red as an example, a person with a political history.

If you are "triggered" that much by words on a screen, you should not be taken seriously.

What I'm trying to say is that it isn't ethically right. To give an example, people are calling out the tf2c mods because they are banning people who say anything close to "stadium" in the chat. Sure they are allowed to ban them since they are mods, but they are banning them on unfair grounds.

It was a week old man, let shit go.

.

so wait does that mean if I block texts from my ex or spam sites that i am also a baby/childish/censor because i could care less about that seeing anything from that person

interesting ideas in this thread as i did not know that blocking someone's posts on tf.tv equates to Orwellian fascism

the only people that are going to be worked up about this are the shtiposters so really what a waste of time

None of your points makes any sense, saying that you are right because the definition of censorship is "the act of censoring" is laughably obvious circular logic, everything you say is criticism based on something YOU (and a distinct minority) think is wrong yet you criticize a subjective assessment of what a shitpost is, you still make assumptions even though it is not your business whatsoever whether somebody uses this app for political or any other reasons, like I said before NOTHING about this app is in any way, shape or form even potentially connected to admin abuse anywhere at any point in time in the past, present or future because it is clientside, tl;dr your posts are the definition of shitposts and the very reason to use this app, so you invalidated your own arguments.

Y'all need to get out of your echo chambers.
Nobody cares if somebody uses something like this. That's voluntary.
Nice job david :)

@Avast

Blocking texts from your ex/blocking spam sites is not comparable to blocking someone because they have different opinions than you, which is what the intent of this was for and what users were intending to use it for (joking or not). If you truly "couldn't care less" about what a person says, you wouldn't use a tool to block them. I don't know what your second point is, since blocking someone's post because it goes against your thinking is quite an Orwellian thing to do. Your third point shouldn't be taken seriously because you assume that anyone questioning blocking "shitposts" must be a shitposter themselves.

@spartan

If you could point out what doesn't make sense, I could try to put it in different words. You're arguing over semantics, I said the definition of "censor" and you said it wasn't censorship, then I had the definition censorship. If you don't see it as necessarily censorship, whatever, but to block a harmless user is equal to censoring them. You proved my point when you said, "your posts are the definition of shitposts" because my posts here have content, however you consider them shitposts because you disagree with them. Would you still call them shitposts had I supported the extension?

You honestly just sound like an angry neckbeard ranting and just arguing for the sake of arguing.

stop