5 ms·
>in favor of censorship That's because it's not called "censorship" any more. Instead, people will label a person whose speech they dislike as a racist, homop
by lobotryas 10y ago
>in favor of censorship
That's because it's not called "censorship" any more. Instead, people will label a person whose speech they dislike as a racist, homophobe, Islamophobe, anti-semite, misogynist, etc. Sure, people with such views exist and we should debate how we, as a society, want to respond to such views.
What is the problem is the unwritten expectation that, once identified as such by almost anyone, you are excluded, attacked, and told to "shut up". For a regular person it's often enough to be labeled in this way once for their social or work prospects to either be ruined or hurt. Worse, the label will still stick, even if later this person is exonerated.
- prutschman 10y agoWhat are you arguing for? Censoring the declaration of someone as a *-phobe? Censoring the criticism of people who say certain things? Censoring the cries of "shut up" leveled at them?
- verroq 10y agoThat is a strawman and you know it. He is not saying that people need to stop labeling others as *phobe. He is merely saying the consequences shouldn't be life ruining.
- prutschman 10y agoThe parent poster was explicitly drawing an equivalence between censorship in some unspecified traditional sense and widely communicated judgements and denouncements by a group. It came out as more flippant than I intended, but I'm being quite serious, and my real question is genuine: what can be done--other than suppressing communication about the judgement--to render the consequences other than life ruining?