Moderation and censorship at virtual forums. [Discussion]

Chinese government has "rules". They even have laws. They committed mass murder. And they censor speech.

https://qz.com/1846277/china-arrest...onavirus-memories-page/?utm_source=reddit.com

One of the biggest problems with censorship is that it dumbs-down the discourse to the level of the censor. If the censor disagrees with the point, doesn't understand the point, misinterprets the point, doesn't like the person that posted it, or isn't intelligent enough to even participate in the discussion, much less "moderate" it, the level of discourse naturally evolves and adapts to the level of the deficiencies of the moderator/censor.

Because:
Why post something that the Moderator/Censor is going to delete/censor? Why risk having your account suspended? It's called "the chilling effect" and socialists used to complain about it all the time until they acquired power, and now it's their primary weapon. They don't win arguments on merit; they win arguments by censoring any opinions that are counter to their political objectives. All that talk about "rules" etc... is meaningless and dishonest, because rules can be interpreted broadly, subjectively and the standards can change at any time and for any reason. The very nature of human speech is that it is ungovernable. It's the first response to danger, or alarm, and it's hard-coded into our DNA. Also, speech control is mind control. Preventing one person from expressing their thoughts to another is controlling the minds of both people. Many simple-minded people are in favor of censorship and "moderation" because they lack the ability to think and express anything other than what someone else has told them and/or what other people consider to be acceptable. This creates stagnation and degeneration, and increasing levels of intolerance. Further, it rewards those that use their perception of being "offended" as a means by which to "win" an argument that they lack the ability to win on merit. If the lowest retard in the room is insulted by the smartest person in the room, the smartest person must retract his statement, apologize to the retard and suffer a permanent loss of credibility. In short, the retard wins.

I find this completely unacceptable, and refuse to participate in any system that punishes the superior, and rewards the inferior.