Furries help push fundraising for Mississippi library after a mayor withheld funding in blackmail attempt to censor books

Yes, because most of the time it means I need to block an IP [range] so we don't get any more, some of which might get through. Usually there's only a handful, though, thanks to the existing blocks - we have over 2000, last I checked. Admins see such moderated comments in-place, in red, and there's a separate block for them on the front page sidebar.

To be fair to you, you seem to have major issues understanding concerns about dubious consent between entities of unequal levels of power in other scenarios, so I guess that is fairly consistent.

SDHFGDJKGHGLGKLJHKJFHGL

Suppose I might as well reply again. As I stated in my article on free speech, the limitations I am in favour of apply in cases where there what is happening does not further discussion. Trolling is not a good-faith attempt to further discussion and does not result in the exchange of ideas, so I have no interest in protecting it.

I have not claimed that cancelling is purely a left-wing problem; it happens to both sides. (I've previously said that both left and right are becoming nearly indistinguishable in their actions.) Do I have more of a focus on left-wing cancelling? Yes. While I do not identify with a side, I think the balance of my positions are left wing and until several years ago, I probably would've identified as left. So it's generally the side I have a closer affinity with and so the one I am more interested in. The left has also historically been the side that protects and champions free speech, so it seems more important to stop that decline than worry about some people doing what they have always been doing. Lastly, the majority of the furry fandom has a left-wing bias, so complaining about right-wing cancelling is just preaching to the choir. Why spend time trying to convince people of what they are already in agreement with?

I disagree with your framing of cultural appropriation. I think the liberal view is in favour of multi-culturalism and viewing humanity as one whole. The idea that certain languages, foods, manner of dress or whatever should be limited to a specific race or ethnic group and that we should exist separately is the right-wing and racist view. I have no interest in furthering exclusion of people based on the colour of their skin or where they were born.

You also misrepresent my views on diversity. I agree with the need for increased diversity and am happy to encourage it. But that should be done by addressing the root causes of lack of diversity, not necessarily by just parading different people. It's a complex issue. I've already seen what happens when people get or are denied positions just because of their race. My country is the best example of that; both discrimination with bad and good intentions.

Right and left are too broad a category to capture anything. There are things that need to change and things that don't need to change. I will take them one at a time. My views on free speech used to qualify as left-wing, now maybe they are seen as right-wing. They still haven't changed. Perhaps my views on gun control are further right than left but that comes from a strain of (social) libertarianism which also supports drug legalisation which is more left-wing than right-wing. Since my overall political ideal would be to move as close as practical to an anarchist collectivist system of government, I doubt you would find many conservatives that would consider me one of them.

And I think I should add that I did agree Sonious' coverage of certain topics was not great, and did admittedly allow, for example, Mike Retriever to attack it without completely showing his hand.

This is so not the case here. This is remarkably free of editorializing. It's concise, contains useful information, even uses the inverted pyramid well. Headline's a touch long, but it's kind of replacing the summary lede, so whatever.

Also, credit to Green Reaper, who I suspect did help, here.

I would argue if anything they are unpopular for the reason that they are a contrarian. Which, I would place at the opposite end of the spectrum of a populist. He usually doesn't speak up unless he doesn't like something, and that something is when something is popular or seen as something that has generally been accepted by a large group of individuals.

If a story or concept is too popular he will state why it shouldn't be.

Contrarians can annoy some folks, which is why the phrase "It's okay to like things" has become a common statement.

If the crowd is wrong about something it's good to have contrarianism. But when the crowd is right or agrees with them they'll start to question their own beliefs and even speak against them, and at that point such a philosophy can be obstructive.

On the opposite end, a populist will always speak with where they feel the crowd is. That can be great in those cases where the crowd is moving in the right direction, however it can be detrimental should the crowd start to push into harmful behaviors such as anti-vax and being hostile toward scientists and people just minding their business in masks.