@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.

.

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.

@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."

.

shouldn't the ability to hear and understand other arguments be considered morally superior as opposed to censoring content just because you personally don't like it? and i've somehow "created" this? i might have posted things you don't agree with, but people having different opinions has and will always be a thing.

if someone says something with bad arguments, telling them that it's a bad argument and not explaining why does nothing of value. if your argument has weight, you should be able to defend it. explain to them why it's wrong instead of filtering them. censorship is a universally bad thing and in this case, it will lead to a horrible community.

are you really that fragile that words on a computer screen need to be filtered so you can stay in your echo chamber? when someone posts something you disagree with your first thought shouldn't be to silence them. that's called being a coward.

i just hope tftv doesn't brand itself as a "safe space" next

another way for sensitive people to filter out things that trigger them...and it's seen as a good thing

thanks, social justice!

do you have examples of this happening recently? have you considered that they were fired for other factors/not hired because they weren't the best candidate?

i ask because i'd assume there would be a social media outrage if something like that happened truly because of discrimination

Because banning people for "wrongthink" is a bad thing.

.

Trump will make ANIME great again.

but really, I think most of the hatred for trump is just people following what they see in the media (99% of the media being extremely liberal and anti-trump)

People who say that stuff know that it's offensive...that's why they do it. You may think that it's "not okay" to joke about suicide and that's fine, but in the end you can't control what people say.

Scalia was the judge who wrote the majority opinion in the Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association case, protecting video games under the first amendment, btw.

as an aside - it's really showing of your "tolerance" you claim to have when you celebrate the death of someone simply because they don't align with your views

.