Quote:
Originally Posted by Favorite Jeans
My understanding is that the recent thread in question was closed because it had become argumentative and because it had devolved into a discussion between a few people that had little to do with the original poster's question (ie it was hijacked).
I do think that they too often close threads where debate becomes spirited. I have a pretty high threshold for spirited debate and generally think it's appropriate as long as it remains respectful. However I think the forum's moderators are somewhat more reluctant to let significant dissent unfold. I suppose that is their prerogative.
I have not found that certain viewpoints are censored more often. There's lots of skepticism about psychotherapy and medication on the forum. I think it's really the tone of the debate that shuts down threads.
|
There was a recent thread in particular I was thinking of, and the moderators shut it down when useful info was still being shared (in my opinion). I apologize if I am the one who hijacked it, but I also think the vigorous objections to my posts had little to do with the fact that it was slightly off the original topic, but more so the viewpoint expressed.
But it's not just one thread, I see definite patterns across threads.
I'm not saying outright censorship. It's more to do with certain views triggering extreme responses and a feeling of the mob coming after the poster, and that tends to discourage those views.
I see this most with regard to psychiatry. I realize this is the psychotherapy forum but the two go hand in hand often and are discussed together.