This is a direct criticism of gendered subs who censor views, questions, and other narratives that are not directly in line with stated ideologies.

Consider the set of all finite logical programs as the range of a function f(x) were the set x is a given finite ideology. In simplified terms we are considering all logical concequences of an ideology that is assumed to be true. The function f(x) represents a hypothetical person who is perfectly logical in their interpretation of said ideology. They are capable of finding every action that should be taken under the assumption that the given ideology is true. For any finite ideology we will assume that it has finitely many concequential actions. That is there are only so many actions one should take according to a finite ideology. In other words we arent considering ideologies that generate infinitely many actions one should take.

With all that aside consider the finite set of all possible states the planet earth and its subsets may occupy. For reasons that will later become apparent i will assert that the set corresponding to a given ideology has fewer members than the set of all states the planet earth may occupy. The fact this set of all states contains information about the position of every single subatomic particle on planet earth shoule make this as obvious as true.

Let us regard censorship as the deprivation of an ideologies update mechanism. Ideologies evolve over time this should be obvious. If censorship of any idea not in allignment with the present logical concequences of an ideology is part of an ideology that is this tenant is a subset of the domain of f(x) it is possible to realize the following concequences. No information that contradicts x will be considered in the construction of f(x). Since the set of all possible states of the planet earth is larger than any given ideology contained within a given ideology x will always fail to have logical interpretations regarding some number of members of the set of all states. As such a given ideology will always have some flaw no matter how tiny.

Let us now consider a second interpreter g(f(x)) a person who interprets the logical concequences found by f(x) and outputs an updated version of that ideology. Since x contained a no contradictory ideas rule so too will f(x) and as such g(f(x)) will too as the removal of this rule would count as a contradictory idea. If the ideology contained any other flaws they will not be eliminated only information pertaining to their nature as flaws will be. As more and more people subscribe and discuss or interpret this ideology those flaws will be amplified as to not amplify them would suggest they are untrue and to suggest that a part of the ideology is untrue would be contradictory.

This means that we can discount any ideology containing such a rule as logically inconsistent assuming it has existed for a sufficient quantity of time.

Water is wet tier post btw as it basically amounts to echo chamber is gonna echo chamber. Im talking about you r/twoxchromosomes.