4 ms·

Every comment supporting censorship here is just restating the pro-authoritarian censorship rhetoric. Not a single comment on Cahill's points or research. Cahi

Every comment supporting censorship here is just restating the pro-authoritarian censorship rhetoric. Not a single comment on Cahill's points or research. Cahill, his platform he publishes on and everyone else is allowed to be biased. Just like feminists and the publications they use are allowed to be biased. For every person who thinks Cahill is dangerous, a lot more think feminists are dangerous. But I wouldn't support silencing feminists, just like I wouldn't support silencing Cahill and stopping scientific research. If you don't like someone's research or position, then show where the research went wrong. As I said, people tend to support censorship ( especially in research and academia ) when facts and reality go against their worldview. This is true whether it is religious conservatives or feminists. As for software development, the industry should be politically and ethically amoral. There is nothing ethical or unethical about software. No more than hammer makers are ethical or unethical. The dyspotian future is being created by authoritarian feminists who want to politicize and censor everything from social media to scientific research. That's what I feel we should be worried about.

Faark 7y ago
I can imagine where you're coming from and doubt we'd have much of a fruitful conversation, so I'll focus only on your first part: > Every comment supporting censorship here is just restating the pro-authoritarian censorship rhetoric. Not a single comment on Cahill's points or research. Let me repeat: I'm indeed not familiar with Cahill's work beyond this article. The article seems mostly fine, but appears to used by motivated actors to push an agenda. I advocate for people resisting against the latter part. We should generally, within reason, try to be aware what effects we have on society and should try to only change it for the better. Our free society requires a high degree of cooperation and will have a hard time to continue to exist without stuff like that. And would probably be replaced by something more authoritarian. Thus I find you calling this "pro-authoritarian censorship rhetoric" kinda funny. Are you call it "pro-authoritarian cleanliness rhetoric" when Dr. Peterson advocates for people to "clean their room"? Or is this just a derogatory reaction against something you disagree with?

Faark 7y ago

I can imagine where you're coming from and doubt we'd have much of a fruitful conversation, so I'll focus only on your first part: > Every comment supporting censorship here is just restating the pro-authoritarian censorship rhetoric. Not a single comment on Cahill's points or research. Let me repeat: I'm indeed not familiar with Cahill's work beyond this article. The article seems mostly fine, but appears to used by motivated actors to push an agenda. I advocate for people resisting against the latter part. We should generally, within reason, try to be aware what effects we have on society and should try to only change it for the better. Our free society requires a high degree of cooperation and will have a hard time to continue to exist without stuff like that. And would probably be replaced by something more authoritarian. Thus I find you calling this "pro-authoritarian censorship rhetoric" kinda funny. Are you call it "pro-authoritarian cleanliness rhetoric" when Dr. Peterson advocates for people to "clean their room"? Or is this just a derogatory reaction against something you disagree with?