You're missing the point. Of course I know what 'MSM' means. What I'm saying is that by banning certain phrases that people use to signal something beyond the dry meaning of the word, you get better discussions because it reduces the (overt) tribalism. If someone would write for example (((Jake))) when referring to someone named Jake in some context (just for clarity, this is just a random name used for the sake of the example), that's not a case of 'oh you just need to know what it means', it's a case of someone using symbols or tone to signal an underlying sentiment while still being able to deny that you actually mean all the baggage that is implied. Sort of like you're doing now, where you're reducing 'MSM' as just another abbreviation (I don't think you're doing it deliberately, you probably just don't realize the broader context, not accusing you - but I'm still cautious).

And it's only censorship for a very naive definition of the word. It's more tone policing, which ironically is one of the very phrases that would probably be put on the 'banned word list'. Which in turn indicates how it's not a very practical idea to actually implement. Maybe it should be seen more as a 'guideline to intelligent discussion', where anyone using loaded phrasing (either be it deliberately, which would signal them for not engaging in honest debate; or accidentally, which would signal them for not being informed enough to actually participate) should be 'encouraged' through social norms to learn how to better express themselves, where 'better' means in a way that de-escalates emotional flare ups rather than digging their heels in the sand, preparing for battle.

Are you saying Mainstream Media is not neutral? Where you get that impression? or just your personal opinion? If it's not neutral, what's the neutral equivalent? Where do you see tribalism?

Another thing I found that it seems to me the way that you put yourself into a judge's position by deciding which is "intelligent discussion" make all the discussion un-intelligent.

The abbreviation 'MSM' is very much not neutral, yes. I haven't done a survey, but I do not think it's controversial that it's a term used by certain online subcultures (just like many others from all sides, again I am not picking sides here, it's just that this abbreviation started this whole sub-thread). Feel free to disagree, but I've seen it used in parody/stereotype mocking of such groups enough to know that I'm not the only one who would see it like that.

Likewise, it is not controversial or even assuming to state that explicit tribalism and signaling of affiliation does not make for 'good' or 'high quality' (if you prefer those terms over 'intelligent') discussion. Sophistry is not 'intelligent' discussion. It may require high intelligence to pull off well, but it's not 'intelligent discussion'. I'm not saying which topics are 'intelligent' or not, or what position in those topics is, just that some forms of having any discussion are 'better' than others. It's a 'meta-judgement', if you will. 'Intelligent discussion' doesn't just mean 'discussion between two people who are intelligent and well informed on the subject'.

OK. At least I understand more where you idea comes from. I'm not a fan of any subculture but a fan of truth nothing but truth.

Again, what's the neutral equivalent? I mean the entities that often use some maybe unintentional but very sophisticated "deceptional" tricks( I know the word is quite strong). I’ve notice it very often but I guess a lot of readers might not aware of. I’m not assume I’m better than most readers here but just have broad connection to the other side of media and readers.