3 ms·
> The person using it is of course also claiming to be victimized as a way of shutting up their political opponents I don't think so: the difference is that th
by wtbob 10y ago
> The person using it is of course also claiming to be victimized as a way of shutting up their political opponents
I don't think so: the difference is that the crybully wants to silence his opponent, while the one using the term wants his opponent to stop silencing him. I.e., one wants to suppress liberty and one wants to preserve it.
I have no problem with your right to say that I'm wrong, or odious, or that my speech is completely offensive and inimical (although of course I disagree): where I draw the line is if you attempt to silence me altogether.
- chillwaves 10y agoPeople are not being silenced, they are being judged. Speak your mind, but do not stop us from responding. For one to disagree with your point of view is an affront to your liberty, but the suppression of such disagreement is not an affront to mine?
- wtbob 10y agoSuppression of disagreement is exactly what I'm against. You're free to judge, as I wrote, but you're never free to silence. The problem of 'cry-bullies' is that they wish not just to judge, but also to silence.
- chillwaves 10y agoI do not have the power to silence you. I doubt anyone in this discussion outside the admins do. I'm not sure how your point is supported by evidence.
- wtbob 10y agoI'm not accusing you of trying to silence folks, just noting that's the MO of so-called 'cry-bullies,' who use forum admins, school administrators and other similar mechanisms to silence speech they disagree with rather than rebut it head-on.