3 ms·

I think you misunderstood the intent of an argument that was not very well made. I think his point is that if the group banned coincided more with the majority

I think you misunderstood the intent of an argument that was not very well made. I think his point is that if the group banned coincided more with the majority values the discussion would be different. For example, if Facebook banned feminist content or YouTube banned climate change supporters. Neither of these is a race and yet I think the discussion would, indeed, be very different.

joshuamorton 8y ago
This is a false equivalency though. Like yes I'd be much more annoyed if you cut off my foot than if you served a vegetarian dinner. That's about as apt a comparison as I can make between "white supremacy" and "science". Lest you think I'm being one sided, I absolutely support the ability of Facebook and YouTube to ban pornographic content, while I think the groups that do provide pornography are morally fine, something I don't think is true for white supremacists. So unless you're making an absolutist free speech argument, please elaborate on why you think feminism and white supremacy deserve to be treated the same way. I can name a few reasons they shouldn't be: Haji Daoud Nabi and Clementa C. Pinckney to start.
- MadWombat 8y ago
  I guess I am making what you call an "absolutist" free speech argument. I think controlling dissemination of ideas is bad no matter how much you disagree with them and no matter how much merit these ideas have. I would rather white supremacy was out in the open, debating their point of view with the rest of us than them hiding in private forums and dark web feeling persecuted and stewing in their own little circle jerks. And the same goes for any idea, good or bad, scientifically proven or not. Flat earth, white supremacy, climate change pro and contra, feminism, men's rights and everything else. I think censorship is a tool of a very limited value, there are a few rare cases where it serves the public good and a lot of cases where it is misused and it doesn't matter whether the intent of the misuse is good or bad.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

joshuamorton 8y ago

This is a false equivalency though. Like yes I'd be much more annoyed if you cut off my foot than if you served a vegetarian dinner. That's about as apt a comparison as I can make between "white supremacy" and "science". Lest you think I'm being one sided, I absolutely support the ability of Facebook and YouTube to ban pornographic content, while I think the groups that do provide pornography are morally fine, something I don't think is true for white supremacists. So unless you're making an absolutist free speech argument, please elaborate on why you think feminism and white supremacy deserve to be treated the same way. I can name a few reasons they shouldn't be: Haji Daoud Nabi and Clementa C. Pinckney to start.

MadWombat 8y ago
I guess I am making what you call an "absolutist" free speech argument. I think controlling dissemination of ideas is bad no matter how much you disagree with them and no matter how much merit these ideas have. I would rather white supremacy was out in the open, debating their point of view with the rest of us than them hiding in private forums and dark web feeling persecuted and stewing in their own little circle jerks. And the same goes for any idea, good or bad, scientifically proven or not. Flat earth, white supremacy, climate change pro and contra, feminism, men's rights and everything else. I think censorship is a tool of a very limited value, there are a few rare cases where it serves the public good and a lot of cases where it is misused and it doesn't matter whether the intent of the misuse is good or bad.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]