3 ms·

The "it's a slippery slope fallacy to assume that censorship of bad things will lead to censoring good things" would be a more compelling argument if we didn't

• krapp 8y ago
  >when we have historical precedent of the opposite being true time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again. Do we? Because we appear to be in one of several threads about how the ease with which certain content spreads around the internet makes attempts at censorship futile, and I can legally buy a copy of Mein Kampf and the Turner Diaries and read the Unabomber's manifesto and all kinds of stuff generally agreed upon to be "bad things," and I don't see the vast amount of "good things" being censored everywhere as a result of the slippery slope of censorship. Censorship is applied in different degrees in different places, yes, China is not the US is not Europe, but that doesn't signal the universal certainty that "time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again" seems to imply. Maybe the slippery slope is just, like, a tiny slope? Maybe it's a slope but it's not as slippery as you think? Maybe there's more than one slope? Or is it just a matter of time until the boot crushes all of our heads, or something?
  • Nadya 8y ago
    >I don't see the vast amount of "good things" being censored everywhere as a result of the slippery slope of censorship. I would like to ask that you take a moment to reflect on this statement ... ... ... Okay now moving on. Who's to say they need to censor "good things"? They only need to censor things that you don't agree with censoring. I won't pretend to know your political standings but I can guarantee you that your opinion and the governments opinion on what should be censored will eventually reach a disagreement. People tend to give governments powers during a time of need or when they are frightened often in exchange for "increased safety". A perceived increase of safety that may - or may not - result in more safety but with 100% certainty results in giving up certain rights or freedoms. For the easiest example of exchanging things for a perceived increase in safety. What do you think of the TSA? Is the intrusiveness and racism in the 'random selections' actually resulting in increased safety and security? Or is it mostly security theater? It tramples over peoples' privacy and sometimes violates their rights for a perceived increase of safety but the failure rate is so high that it is meaningless. The government isn't going to get rid of that power (the TSA) so easily. After all, we gave it to them and they'll gladly keep up the security theater in exchange. The U.S signed away large portions of our privacy and removed many checks & balances placed on the government after the 9/11 attacks. The USA-PATRIOT Act was forced through in a time of need where people were frightened in exchange for safety and security. By the time you realize you've given the government too much power it's far too late to take any of it back. History is full of examples and history may not repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme.
• bduerst 8y ago
  Isn't that a bit of survivor bias? You only see the times in history where it wasn't effective because those are the instances that somehow survived to become notable. No ship ever sinks if you only ever look at the floating ones.