16
58

[–] Alias_Unknown 16 points 58 points (+74|-16) ago 

Free speech is a bit tricky when it comes to science.

Science is facts and data, not opinions.

If you claim that potatoes in your anus cures cancer.

You better have some proof to back that up, otherwise no one will waste their time on that nonsense.

2
4

[–] bob3333 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Free speech is a bit tricky when it comes to science.

No it isn't. Not unless you're arguing that we should only be allowed to read moderator-approved hypotheses.

If you claim that potatoes in your anus cures cancer. You better have some proof to back that up, otherwise no one will waste their time on that nonsense.

Agreed, but we're not talking about no one wasting their time - we're talking about mods deciding for me whether I can choose to waste my time on that or not.

0
0

[–] Alias_Unknown 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Hence why I said it's a tricky issue. It's something that does need to happen, to filter out editorialized titles and junk science. It's not all just black and white.

The difficult part is determining what factors qualify to make a post unacceptable.

These rules do have room to be abused by the mods, and only time will tell if they do in fact do that.

1
4

[–] luckyguy 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

Free speech is not tricky when it comes to science. You let people speak and then you disbelieve them. You also follow up with better information. That's how misconceptions are reduced.

2
0

[–] Alias_Unknown 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

The tricky part is when it comes to a source that attempts to be somewhat grounded, having the flat earth theory alongside the theory of relativity is a bit of a weird thing.

The thing I think that needs to be kept in mind. Is that so many people just scroll and read headlines, without actually reading the articles. I myself am guilty of that sometimes. I just don't always have the time to look further into a subject. So to have fact and fiction blended together can be misleading.

It's a difficult subject that I suspect dates much further back than this thread. What defines science and what is the criteria for credibility that warrants further study?

[–] [deleted] 24 points 4 points (+28|-24) ago 

[Deleted]

8
22

[–] Peynus 8 points 22 points (+30|-8) ago 

I, for one, am ecstatic. I've had so many stupid discussions with people on this subverse where people call me 'logically flawed' as I present NCBI journals but don't give them my personal identity ... They DO get downvoated, but fuck them. I'm trying to learn new things in science and I have to explain that fish don't fucking smoke weed (I shit you not I had this conversation, i can find it if you want)

9
3

[–] ghotioninabarrel 9 points 3 points (+12|-9) ago 

Hacking human perception is unfortunately easy. We're suckers for several worthless types of evidence.

2
4

[–] 3766846 2 points 4 points (+6|-2) ago 

No one is disagreeing with you. Refer to @kevdude's protect voat thread about this.

[–] [deleted] 13 points 29 points (+42|-13) ago 

[Deleted]

5
23

[–] Alopix 5 points 23 points (+28|-5) ago 

LE EBIN RIGHT WING and their meme blogs are mad they can't post climate denial conspiracy theories on the science board anymore.

[–] [deleted] 3 points 1 points (+4|-3) ago 

[Deleted]

6
0

[–] bob3333 6 points 0 points (+6|-6) ago 

What exactly is the problem here?

Feature creep. It is inevitable. The power to delete posts will always eventually be abused. It's human nature. That's the problem.

12
-4

[–] [deleted] 9 points 21 points (+30|-9) ago 

[Deleted]

6
12

[–] dabork 6 points 12 points (+18|-6) ago 

Exactly. This is why people make fun of voat for freeze peaches all the time. People have no fucking clue what they're even arguing about.

Big tip. The only people the first amendment protects you from is the government. I'm well within my rights to tell you to shut the fuck up or silence you if it's within my power with absolutely no good reason. Deal with it. Or just go cry about it like the hyper sensitive autistic fucks on reddit you like to make fun of so much.

4
3

[–] bob3333 4 points 3 points (+7|-4) ago 

Many seem to forget what free speech actually means. Free speech is the ability to express your opinion without being prosecuted by the government. Moderating is not anti-free speech.

That's the libertarian definition. Free speech for most people means the freedom to speak without being silenced by others.

Is mod pushing some agenda? I don't see proof of that.

Not yet, but it will happen. It's human nature. It follows the same path every time. First, the power to censor is granted for good cause. Some people protest, but the overwhelming majority don't see the harm since the power is designed only to censor content universally reviled. Once that itch is scratched, new itches arise. If we can delete spam, why can't we delete posts that aren't properly supported by scientific publications? When that itch is scratched, new itches arise. If we can delete spam and non-scientific articles, why can't we delete posts we define as trolling or personal attacks? When that itch is scratched, new itches arise. If we can delete spam, unscientific articles, trolling, and personal attacks, why can't we delete posts that are offensive? And now you have fucking Reddit all over again. That's the fucking problem. And every goddamned time people are warned about it they poo poo the warnings. Every. Goddamned. Time.

7
12

[–] Peynus 7 points 12 points (+19|-7) ago 

No, I agree. I've had it with people claiming they just know or their mate dave told them who does science ... I want logical arguments, people who know when they're wrong, and above all; NCBI links.

11
-2

[–] bob3333 11 points -2 points (+9|-11) ago  (edited ago)

You want a safe space where you can go and not be triggered by whatever it is that triggers you (science illiterates in this case).

5
5

[–] Peynus 5 points 5 points (+10|-5) ago 

Well, I see your point but nonetheless, if i wanted to talk to a brick wall I'd talk to a brick wall. If I wanted logical debate with sources, I'd hope to be able to come to /v/science

15
-4

9
12

[–] Adsy 9 points 12 points (+21|-9) ago 

You seem bitter with the world. Are you ok?

24
-13

10
10

[–] Alopix 10 points 10 points (+20|-10) ago 

"Waaah I can't post my anti-science climate denial blogs on the science board as though they were supported by evidence!!! censorship!!!!"

6
10

[–] vacvape 6 points 10 points (+16|-6) ago  (edited ago)

"Science" often has a bias when it comes to who funds what research and who is allowed to dictate what research gets funding. When everyone feeds at the same trough and are dependent on having research funded there's a strong tendency to toe the line or they starve. This is the manufacturing of a false consensus and so far they've only identified that as a positive publishing bias, but that's just the backdoor of it.

Not all science is of the clinical variety, and science of the clinical variety is often invalid, often by design. It then amounts to marketing of a particular product bias and that requires a safe space free of dissenting opinions. Science often starts as simply a well reasoned dissenting opinion.

The problem with censorship is it's introduced to delete the jokes and clearly deliberate clowns and then gets used on dissenting opinions in the maintenance of a corporate safe space and no one can tell the difference.

So, just call this v/safespace or reddit and be done with it.

6
4

[–] shirtlords 6 points 4 points (+10|-6) ago 

Theres waay to much dogma in science right now.

Much too much "this is how it should work, so..." as oppesed to actual science.

Also, a good joke is a good joke no matter where you find it!

5
3

[–] oedipusaurus_rex 5 points 3 points (+8|-5) ago 

where is the dogma in science?

7
3

[–] luckyguy 7 points 3 points (+10|-7) ago  (edited ago)

Not to mention that science boards are even more unscientific and turn into circle jerks of pop science. If we are banning psuedo-science then we need to ban pop science. That shit is way more cancerous and dumbs you down while making you think you are smart.

If I see any scishow or what ever that black guy that shills for government money by name dropping the word science, yeah, that guy. If I see any of that nonsense while research that takes a non-conformitive stance on climate I'm going to flip my shit, and you do not want to see the underside of my shit.

4
10

[–] SegFault 4 points 10 points (+14|-4) ago 

Frankly, history has shown us time and time again that unsubscribing is nowhere near as effective as shitposting.

1
2

[–] tame 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Depends what you mean by 'effective'. Does it change the rules so that shitposts aren't deleted? No. Does it clean up the sub so the rest of us can see actual science-related things instead of having to downvote two dozen reposts of some Shiba telling a stupid joke to Chemistry Cat? Yes.

load more comments ▼ (6 remaining)