5 ms·

If they had a platform, wouldn’t they then not need to resort to violence to get their message heard? It seems like those are examples of censorship driving in

If they had a platform, wouldn’t they then not need to resort to violence to get their message heard? It seems like those are examples of censorship driving individuals to violence.

phs318u 6y ago
You also can't rule out that if they had a platform, they'd use it to incite others to resort to violence on their behalf. For example, the Unabomber's manifesto expresses his belief that violence was necessary to provoke revolution against the technological society. The Unabomber's bombings were the "pre-violence" required to get his ideas out there, of which of which a violent revolution was one.
- marshmellman 6y ago
  Agreed. It doesn’t seem obvious to me whether or not censoring results in less violence in the parent’s examples. Maybe it is obvious to those more well read on them.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
ipsocannibal 6y ago
Censorship driving people to violence in this case is much like a girl being pretty driving a goon to rape. The cause of the act in both cases is the perpetrators warped sense of ownership. Specifically ownership of other's thoughts, body, and time. They would feel entitled to that ownership whether met with resistence or not. In this case censorship seems reasonable otherwise you end up tacitly fostering the perpetrators view of ownership with your submission.
- thefucnjosh 6y ago
  Given Trumps comments about women and Giuliani getting caught with his hands down their. The statement "not able to keep his hands in his pocket" is super on point.
  - dang 6y ago
    Your account has been using the site primarily (exclusively even?) for political and ideological battle. That's the line at which we ban accounts, regardless of which politics or ideology they're battling for (see [1] for more explanation). We have to, because it destroys what HN is supposed to exist for, which is curious conversation, not smiting enemies. I've therefore banned your account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. The rules are here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=primarily%20test%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

If they had a platform, wouldn’t they then not need to resort to violence to get their message heard? It seems like those are examples of censorship driving individuals to violence.

phs318u 6y ago

You also can't rule out that if they had a platform, they'd use it to incite others to resort to violence on their behalf. For example, the Unabomber's manifesto expresses his belief that violence was necessary to provoke revolution against the technological society. The Unabomber's bombings were the "pre-violence" required to get his ideas out there, of which of which a violent revolution was one.

marshmellman 6y ago
Agreed. It doesn’t seem obvious to me whether or not censoring results in less violence in the parent’s examples. Maybe it is obvious to those more well read on them.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

ipsocannibal 6y ago

Censorship driving people to violence in this case is much like a girl being pretty driving a goon to rape. The cause of the act in both cases is the perpetrators warped sense of ownership. Specifically ownership of other's thoughts, body, and time. They would feel entitled to that ownership whether met with resistence or not. In this case censorship seems reasonable otherwise you end up tacitly fostering the perpetrators view of ownership with your submission.

thefucnjosh 6y ago
Given Trumps comments about women and Giuliani getting caught with his hands down their. The statement "not able to keep his hands in his pocket" is super on point.
- dang 6y ago
  Your account has been using the site primarily (exclusively even?) for political and ideological battle. That's the line at which we ban accounts, regardless of which politics or ideology they're battling for (see [1] for more explanation). We have to, because it destroys what HN is supposed to exist for, which is curious conversation, not smiting enemies. I've therefore banned your account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. The rules are here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=primarily%20test%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...