“What about this one C project that hasn’t been a mess of exploitable vulnerabilities” is thoroughly unconvincing in a world where networked C programs are an unending source of severe vulnerabilities.
Censorship doesn't require content to be completely hidden or blocked; even just partially obscuring the content in some way is still censorship.
Plenty of reasonable disagreement happens here without getting downvoted into obscurity. Substantive points are generally upvoted even when they’re controversial opinions. So I don’t feel too upset when borderline-trolling or bad-faith arguments get hidden by consensus.
Ironic counterexample: It looks like you may have gotten downvoted despite having a fundamentally reasonable perspective.
There's a reason why "this is the exception that proves the rule" is a common saying. Picking out one exceptional example of something, and using that to argue against a general point, is at best lazy, and at worst actively dishonest. I'm fine with those kinds of comments being "censored". They -- and their replies that call people out for doing this -- are boring and don't further discussion.
There's a reason why "this is the exception that proves the rule" is a common saying. Picking out one exceptional example of something, and using that to argue against a general point, is at best lazy, and at worst actively dishonest. I'm fine with those kinds of comments being "censored". They -- and the comments calling people out for doing this -- are boring and don't further discussion.