4 ms·

I agree with maehwasu. These are all manifestations of a similar phenomenon i.e. what appears to be an increasing tendency for some groups to aggressively defen

I agree with maehwasu. These are all manifestations of a similar phenomenon i.e. what appears to be an increasing tendency for some groups to aggressively defend their "right" to not have to listen to people who disagree with them. As a tactic it seems to have been quite successful so it's not surprising that disparate groups are using it.

dalke 11y ago
There's no "increasing tendency". Pick a random decade and you'll hear exactly the same things. Christopher Hitchens in 1994, for example, defended David Irving when St. Martin’s Press "de-platformed" (to use the modern term, that is, canceled its contract to print) Irving's edition of the Goebbels diaries. Look at the generations of people who insisted on the "right" to not hear certain racially charged slurs in casual conversation. Just watch 'Archie Bunker' episodes if you want a reminder of what that was like in the 1970s. I propose that it's only "increasing" because things that are recent, and which affect us and challenge us most directly, appear more important than things in the past. Even more so where we implicitly accept the views of the winning side - eg, woman's suffrage - as being correct, and don't think that those on the losing side also thought themselves as being correct.
- lucozade 11y ago
  You are correct, I over generalised. I think there's an increasing tendency to aggressively use victimhood (or survivorship if you prefer) in a censorious fashion. Censorship simply because you don't like what someone says has been around forever.
  - dalke 11y ago
    So has the question about the boundary between "censorship" and "required to support someone you disagree with." When it's the government, is easy to say that censorship is when the government goes beyond time/place/manner restrictions on free speech. But with the migration of the public commons to private areas, is it censorship to prevent a Black Lives Matter protest at the Mall of the Americas? Occupy Wall Street managed to survive so long because Zuccotti Park was on a privately owned public space which was required to stay open 24 hours a day, and thus avoid city curfews in public parks. It's even less clear that a private entity like St. Martin’s Press must never change their mind about publishing a book, should they decide that doing so will give a Holocaust denialist the ability to use their name in support of his cause. When HN users flag a spam comment for maid services in London, and it's later deleted, is that censorship? We know all know of HN posts which cry out censorship for receiving downvotes. The few times I've looked into one of these controversies, it seems more like people are using "censorship" as synonymous for "criticism I don't like." (Certainly not all cases! Just a boringly common majority of them.)
    - CM30 11y ago
      Yeah, there's an awkward boundary between freedom of speech and private property, and it's very, very hard to decide where that lies. At what point does it become wrong to decide what people are allowed to say on private property? A lot of people will say individuals can choose what's allowed in their own houses, but what about businesses? Does the small corner shop have more of a right to shut down discussions than the large private university? It's also a massive problem with the internet in general. After all, the internet doesn't have public property, ever. Every site is privately owned, so theoretically every site can choose what to allow. But without a public platform, that also means perfectly valid ideas can be basically banned from public view by way of large gatekeepers and popular communities banning them, regardless of their legality. Either way, it's a tricky thing to answer, since any 'solution' wil cause a lot of problems in one case or another.
- marrs 11y ago
  I think it's increasing because things that are recent naturally progress from things that started in the past. The examples you cite are all post 1960s, which is when a lot of these movements began (political correctness, feminism, and so on). Once the slurs are banned, to use the PC example, the movement doesn't stop, but instead the focus moves onto the next thing so that now the debates are about how to label someone who suffers with mild myopia, or whatever today's campaign is.

dalke 11y ago

There's no "increasing tendency". Pick a random decade and you'll hear exactly the same things. Christopher Hitchens in 1994, for example, defended David Irving when St. Martin’s Press "de-platformed" (to use the modern term, that is, canceled its contract to print) Irving's edition of the Goebbels diaries. Look at the generations of people who insisted on the "right" to not hear certain racially charged slurs in casual conversation. Just watch 'Archie Bunker' episodes if you want a reminder of what that was like in the 1970s. I propose that it's only "increasing" because things that are recent, and which affect us and challenge us most directly, appear more important than things in the past. Even more so where we implicitly accept the views of the winning side - eg, woman's suffrage - as being correct, and don't think that those on the losing side also thought themselves as being correct.

lucozade 11y ago
You are correct, I over generalised. I think there's an increasing tendency to aggressively use victimhood (or survivorship if you prefer) in a censorious fashion. Censorship simply because you don't like what someone says has been around forever.
- dalke 11y ago
  So has the question about the boundary between "censorship" and "required to support someone you disagree with." When it's the government, is easy to say that censorship is when the government goes beyond time/place/manner restrictions on free speech. But with the migration of the public commons to private areas, is it censorship to prevent a Black Lives Matter protest at the Mall of the Americas? Occupy Wall Street managed to survive so long because Zuccotti Park was on a privately owned public space which was required to stay open 24 hours a day, and thus avoid city curfews in public parks. It's even less clear that a private entity like St. Martin’s Press must never change their mind about publishing a book, should they decide that doing so will give a Holocaust denialist the ability to use their name in support of his cause. When HN users flag a spam comment for maid services in London, and it's later deleted, is that censorship? We know all know of HN posts which cry out censorship for receiving downvotes. The few times I've looked into one of these controversies, it seems more like people are using "censorship" as synonymous for "criticism I don't like." (Certainly not all cases! Just a boringly common majority of them.)
  - CM30 11y ago
    Yeah, there's an awkward boundary between freedom of speech and private property, and it's very, very hard to decide where that lies. At what point does it become wrong to decide what people are allowed to say on private property? A lot of people will say individuals can choose what's allowed in their own houses, but what about businesses? Does the small corner shop have more of a right to shut down discussions than the large private university? It's also a massive problem with the internet in general. After all, the internet doesn't have public property, ever. Every site is privately owned, so theoretically every site can choose what to allow. But without a public platform, that also means perfectly valid ideas can be basically banned from public view by way of large gatekeepers and popular communities banning them, regardless of their legality. Either way, it's a tricky thing to answer, since any 'solution' wil cause a lot of problems in one case or another.
marrs 11y ago
I think it's increasing because things that are recent naturally progress from things that started in the past. The examples you cite are all post 1960s, which is when a lot of these movements began (political correctness, feminism, and so on). Once the slurs are banned, to use the PC example, the movement doesn't stop, but instead the focus moves onto the next thing so that now the debates are about how to label someone who suffers with mild myopia, or whatever today's campaign is.