3 ms·

I never said or implied anyone was using weapons to threaten people. Maybe they are, I have no idea. But that's irrelevant as my point was that appealing to the

by Tiksi 10y ago

I never said or implied anyone was using weapons to threaten people. Maybe they are, I have no idea. But that's irrelevant as my point was that appealing to the lack of a law is a weak argument if your intent is to show a lack of censorship. I intentionally left my own views out of the last comment as I try to stay away from these kinds of discussions since they're rarely productive and my views are pretty all over the place and change frequently(other than free speech, it's pretty much the only thing I'm an absolutist on), but I've seen your last point stated more and more frequently lately and it rubs me the wrong way. One group is saying "You can't say X/you shouldn't be able to say X", while the other group is saying "Stop telling me what I can and can't say". The first group is trying to suppress opposing views directly, while the second is trying to suppress the attempted suppression of speech, not the opposing views themselves. They are not equivalent.

unprepare 10y ago
there is no censorship without government involvment - you are using the word incorrectly. calling someone a racist for saying something isnt censoring them. calling someone a bigot for their opinion isnt censoring them if there is no official representative of the government deciding what is and is not acceptable, there is no censorship. if you want to make an argument that tumblr users are immature and that using supression debate tactics is something you are uncomfortable with, then make that argument. you will likely find much greater support. if you want to make an argument that censorship is happening, you need to provide evidence of a governmental authority classifying certain types of speech as unacceptable or illegal, since that is what the word you are using means. here you have provided an argument that boils down to "well censorship should mean something different than what it means."
- Tiksi 10y ago
  censor : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages> censor: to examine books, movies, letters, etc., in order to remove things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc. - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor censor verb [T] us /ˈsen·sər/ › to remove parts of something, such as a book, movie, or letter, that you do not want someone to see or hear: She opposes efforts to censor the Internet. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/censor http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/censor No, government involvement is absolutely not necessary for censorship. If your argument is that you're comfortable with this type of censorship, make that argument, but don't try to redefine the English language to suit your narrative. > calling someone a racist for saying something isnt censoring them. > calling someone a bigot for their opinion isnt censoring them On this we can agree, since that's kinda the point of free speech. The idea isn't to make being a racist or being a bigot acceptable. The idea is to allow people to express any opinion, thought, view they may have without fear of adverse retribution so views that are based on falsehoods or ignorance can be argued against in the open. If a racist knows they'll lose their livelihood for expressing racist views in public, they'll only express them to people who they know will agree with those views. So you end up with a bunch of racists strengthening and confirming each others racist opinions. You suppressed their speech, but in doing so strengthen their views. On the other hand, if the worst you get for expressing a racist view is being told "You idiot. No, that's not actually true, and here's why" you actually stand a chance of getting them, or someone else that may be listening to the conversation to reexamine those views. You don't cover a festering wound and hope it goes away, you open it up and remove or treat the infection. Pretending it's not there because you don't like it won't fix a thing. The whole concept behind freedom of speech is so shitty views can come out into the open and get rightly destroyed.
  - psook 10y ago
    I disagree. People should be allowed to express any opinion, thought, or view they might have, yes, but it's not always the job of someone telling them they're wrong to tell them why they're wrong. The same way every smoker knows that smoking is bad for them, every American racist at this point knows their views are in opposition to the norm and that it is in fact their job to defend them. Censorship needs a power structure to exist. A person choosing independently that they don't care for something isn't censorship, no matter how many people do it independently in a short period of time. What I find problematic is not "censorship," but close-minded attitudes where no matter what you're free to say others aren't listening. Them choosing not to listen is not the same as my restriction from presenting the idea, though.
    - Tiksi 10y ago
      I didn't mean to imply that any individual has an obligation to explain why they're wrong, (though I do feel that as a society overall we do) but that it at least gives a chance to explain to people why their views might not actually be based in reality instead of pushing people towards others that will just confirm their incorrect/ignorant/whatever views. I agree that you need a power structure to censor, but power structures come in many shapes, and governments don't have a monopoly on them (as much as they'd surely like to). Even here on HN, there are a few big names that could probably ruin a person's career with a single tweet. I don't take issue with people deciding they don't agree with or don't like something. To me the issue starts when it changes from "you're wrong and your views are despicable" to "you are wrong and your views are despicable so you shouldn't be allowed to express them". >"Blue is clearly a superior color to green" >"No, if you read up on it, you'll find that green is better because...." Totally ok with that, no censorship. >"Blue is clearly a superior color to green" >"You're wrong and an idiot, I'm going to refrain from interacting with you in the future" Still ok with that, no censorship, annoying without justification (and imo shitty to discount a person due to a single view, especially in unrelated topics, but that's just me) but that's about it. >"Blue is clearly a superior color to green" >"I'm going to tell your employer and as many people as I can that you're a hateful blueist and make sure you're fully ostracized from the Wavelength community." Alternatively, >"I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that blueists like you can't discuss wavelengths at this Institution." This is what I'm not ok with. It goes from disagreeing to suppressing. You're no longer choosing what YOU don't want to listen to, but making that choice for everyone. Edit: Also, knowing that your position goes against the norm isn't knowing that it's incorrect, nor does it necessarily mean that it is incorrect. Seventy years ago, having the view that people can get married regardless of skin color would be knowingly going against the norm, and 10 years ago it was the same regarding gender, yet I'm glad that people were able to express those views.

by Tiksi 10y ago

unprepare 10y ago

there is no censorship without government involvment - you are using the word incorrectly. calling someone a racist for saying something isnt censoring them. calling someone a bigot for their opinion isnt censoring them if there is no official representative of the government deciding what is and is not acceptable, there is no censorship. if you want to make an argument that tumblr users are immature and that using supression debate tactics is something you are uncomfortable with, then make that argument. you will likely find much greater support. if you want to make an argument that censorship is happening, you need to provide evidence of a governmental authority classifying certain types of speech as unacceptable or illegal, since that is what the word you are using means. here you have provided an argument that boils down to "well censorship should mean something different than what it means."

Tiksi 10y ago
censor : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages> censor: to examine books, movies, letters, etc., in order to remove things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc. - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor censor verb [T] us /ˈsen·sər/ › to remove parts of something, such as a book, movie, or letter, that you do not want someone to see or hear: She opposes efforts to censor the Internet. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/censor http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/censor No, government involvement is absolutely not necessary for censorship. If your argument is that you're comfortable with this type of censorship, make that argument, but don't try to redefine the English language to suit your narrative. > calling someone a racist for saying something isnt censoring them. > calling someone a bigot for their opinion isnt censoring them On this we can agree, since that's kinda the point of free speech. The idea isn't to make being a racist or being a bigot acceptable. The idea is to allow people to express any opinion, thought, view they may have without fear of adverse retribution so views that are based on falsehoods or ignorance can be argued against in the open. If a racist knows they'll lose their livelihood for expressing racist views in public, they'll only express them to people who they know will agree with those views. So you end up with a bunch of racists strengthening and confirming each others racist opinions. You suppressed their speech, but in doing so strengthen their views. On the other hand, if the worst you get for expressing a racist view is being told "You idiot. No, that's not actually true, and here's why" you actually stand a chance of getting them, or someone else that may be listening to the conversation to reexamine those views. You don't cover a festering wound and hope it goes away, you open it up and remove or treat the infection. Pretending it's not there because you don't like it won't fix a thing. The whole concept behind freedom of speech is so shitty views can come out into the open and get rightly destroyed.
- psook 10y ago
  I disagree. People should be allowed to express any opinion, thought, or view they might have, yes, but it's not always the job of someone telling them they're wrong to tell them why they're wrong. The same way every smoker knows that smoking is bad for them, every American racist at this point knows their views are in opposition to the norm and that it is in fact their job to defend them. Censorship needs a power structure to exist. A person choosing independently that they don't care for something isn't censorship, no matter how many people do it independently in a short period of time. What I find problematic is not "censorship," but close-minded attitudes where no matter what you're free to say others aren't listening. Them choosing not to listen is not the same as my restriction from presenting the idea, though.
  - Tiksi 10y ago
    I didn't mean to imply that any individual has an obligation to explain why they're wrong, (though I do feel that as a society overall we do) but that it at least gives a chance to explain to people why their views might not actually be based in reality instead of pushing people towards others that will just confirm their incorrect/ignorant/whatever views. I agree that you need a power structure to censor, but power structures come in many shapes, and governments don't have a monopoly on them (as much as they'd surely like to). Even here on HN, there are a few big names that could probably ruin a person's career with a single tweet. I don't take issue with people deciding they don't agree with or don't like something. To me the issue starts when it changes from "you're wrong and your views are despicable" to "you are wrong and your views are despicable so you shouldn't be allowed to express them". >"Blue is clearly a superior color to green" >"No, if you read up on it, you'll find that green is better because...." Totally ok with that, no censorship. >"Blue is clearly a superior color to green" >"You're wrong and an idiot, I'm going to refrain from interacting with you in the future" Still ok with that, no censorship, annoying without justification (and imo shitty to discount a person due to a single view, especially in unrelated topics, but that's just me) but that's about it. >"Blue is clearly a superior color to green" >"I'm going to tell your employer and as many people as I can that you're a hateful blueist and make sure you're fully ostracized from the Wavelength community." Alternatively, >"I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that blueists like you can't discuss wavelengths at this Institution." This is what I'm not ok with. It goes from disagreeing to suppressing. You're no longer choosing what YOU don't want to listen to, but making that choice for everyone. Edit: Also, knowing that your position goes against the norm isn't knowing that it's incorrect, nor does it necessarily mean that it is incorrect. Seventy years ago, having the view that people can get married regardless of skin color would be knowingly going against the norm, and 10 years ago it was the same regarding gender, yet I'm glad that people were able to express those views.