6 ms·

There are correct ways to start a discourse around censorship. Shooting people is not one of them.

by toomanybeersies 9y ago

Density 9y ago
Seems like a great way to start a discourse.
- saas_co_de 9y ago
  The unfortunate truth is that this woman got more exposure for her message by taking the action she did then would have been possible by any other means. That has some rather frightening implications for society.
verylittlemeat 9y ago
Blowing people up got Ted Kaczynski's anti-technology manifesto printed in the NYTimes. Even if got through to one person I bet he feels like it was worth it. It's not something to admit in polite company but violence is a great way to start a conversation.
- toomanybeersies 9y ago
  Just because it's effective doesn't mean it's correct though.
  - boomlinde 9y ago
    What is the definition of "correct" in this context that we can all agree to?
    - themacguffinman 9y ago
      Morally correct?
      - trophycase 9y ago
        What if you feel that society is morally bankrupt and that violence is the only way to fix it?
      - boomlinde 9y ago
        "Morally correct" as in according to one's moral principles? Is that, in its turn, something that we all agree on and share? Terrorists definitely hold moral principles that are different from mine. To a terrorist, blowing people up to bring attention to their point may be the morally correct thing to do. Hence we have terrifying people like Kaczynski with extremely strong moral convictions that deviate far from what is generally considered normal and socially acceptable, whose ill deeds are consistent and true to their moral principles.
        themacguffinman 9y ago
        Sure, terrorists disagree, but you're avoiding the fact that most people here - on this site, in this industry, in this country - agree that blowing people up for attention is morally incorrect. I'm not really sure what you're arguing. That it's possible for someone to believe terrorism is good? I suspect most people already know that, but thankfully most of us disagree.
        boomlinde 9y ago
        It's mostly a semantic argument. I'm arguing against using "correct" in a context where correctness evidently depends on morality, which is individual enough that this kind of person exists and thrives. That nullifies the whole basis of the argument that "There are correct ways to start a discourse around censorship." I'm not sure that it was meant as an argument. Maybe it's just a cheap way to score points among "most people here", because it's rather pointless as an argument regardless of its validity. Also, I assume that by this country you mean the U.S., where killing people at least partly to draw attention (for the purpose of general deterrence) is practiced by the justice system. I bet you'll find a lot more people in this crowd that agree with this on the basis of their morals. I know people who believe one thing but will at least briefly change their mind learning of some particularly heinous crime or some particularly tragic wrongful conviction. Correct/incorrect isn't really a scale, so which would pick for something a little more polarized like this?
jobigoud 9y ago
She started the discourse in video rants though, shooting came after.
TausAmmer 9y ago
But this one works the best. Sadly, yes, but same in politics, guns speak the loudest.
forgottenpass 9y ago
I disagree with the premise of your post. There are not "correct" ways to "start a discourse" about censorship, because there are no ways to start a discourse about censorship. There are a bunch of people doing the media dance around a topic, all within the confines of the status quo. The disagreements are loud, but the questions at stake are fixed. In appearing to debate conclusions, everyone is tricked into accepting the form of the argument. The outcome of censorship arguments will be exactly the same as the outcome of privacy arguments: whatever benefits the system. Eich was run out of town on a rail after the status quo moved beyond thing he gave minor support to, while Zuckerberg is only experiencing a momentary PR blip until they can get everyone back on track of unironically defending his contract of adhesion as if it's not on-the-face abusive to end users.

There are correct ways to start a discourse around censorship. Shooting people is not one of them.

Density 9y ago

Seems like a great way to start a discourse.

saas_co_de 9y ago
The unfortunate truth is that this woman got more exposure for her message by taking the action she did then would have been possible by any other means. That has some rather frightening implications for society.

verylittlemeat 9y ago

Blowing people up got Ted Kaczynski's anti-technology manifesto printed in the NYTimes. Even if got through to one person I bet he feels like it was worth it. It's not something to admit in polite company but violence is a great way to start a conversation.

toomanybeersies 9y ago
Just because it's effective doesn't mean it's correct though.
- boomlinde 9y ago
  What is the definition of "correct" in this context that we can all agree to?
  - themacguffinman 9y ago
    Morally correct?
    - trophycase 9y ago
      What if you feel that society is morally bankrupt and that violence is the only way to fix it?
    - boomlinde 9y ago
      "Morally correct" as in according to one's moral principles? Is that, in its turn, something that we all agree on and share? Terrorists definitely hold moral principles that are different from mine. To a terrorist, blowing people up to bring attention to their point may be the morally correct thing to do. Hence we have terrifying people like Kaczynski with extremely strong moral convictions that deviate far from what is generally considered normal and socially acceptable, whose ill deeds are consistent and true to their moral principles.
      - themacguffinman 9y ago
        Sure, terrorists disagree, but you're avoiding the fact that most people here - on this site, in this industry, in this country - agree that blowing people up for attention is morally incorrect. I'm not really sure what you're arguing. That it's possible for someone to believe terrorism is good? I suspect most people already know that, but thankfully most of us disagree.
        boomlinde 9y ago
        It's mostly a semantic argument. I'm arguing against using "correct" in a context where correctness evidently depends on morality, which is individual enough that this kind of person exists and thrives. That nullifies the whole basis of the argument that "There are correct ways to start a discourse around censorship." I'm not sure that it was meant as an argument. Maybe it's just a cheap way to score points among "most people here", because it's rather pointless as an argument regardless of its validity. Also, I assume that by this country you mean the U.S., where killing people at least partly to draw attention (for the purpose of general deterrence) is practiced by the justice system. I bet you'll find a lot more people in this crowd that agree with this on the basis of their morals. I know people who believe one thing but will at least briefly change their mind learning of some particularly heinous crime or some particularly tragic wrongful conviction. Correct/incorrect isn't really a scale, so which would pick for something a little more polarized like this?

jobigoud 9y ago

She started the discourse in video rants though, shooting came after.

TausAmmer 9y ago

But this one works the best. Sadly, yes, but same in politics, guns speak the loudest.

forgottenpass 9y ago

I disagree with the premise of your post. There are not "correct" ways to "start a discourse" about censorship, because there are no ways to start a discourse about censorship. There are a bunch of people doing the media dance around a topic, all within the confines of the status quo. The disagreements are loud, but the questions at stake are fixed. In appearing to debate conclusions, everyone is tricked into accepting the form of the argument. The outcome of censorship arguments will be exactly the same as the outcome of privacy arguments: whatever benefits the system. Eich was run out of town on a rail after the status quo moved beyond thing he gave minor support to, while Zuckerberg is only experiencing a momentary PR blip until they can get everyone back on track of unironically defending his contract of adhesion as if it's not on-the-face abusive to end users.