3 ms·
> that your idea cannot be censored is not good enough in order to convince people that it's good Yes but the implication is that if you’re censored and asking
by jquery 6y ago
> that your idea cannot be censored is not good enough in order to convince people that it's good
Yes but the implication is that if you’re censored and asking the government for redress, your speech is abhorrent. In the context of the comic it’s clearly meant to be interpreted that way.
Your literal description of it is a red herring, a typical clever Monroe construction to avoid criticism, as if anyone claims they’re correct because what they’re saying isn’t illegal. Nobody makes that argument.
- the_af 6y ago> Yes but the implication is that if you’re censored and asking the government for redress, your speech is abhorrent That's your reading. Mine is that if the best you can say about a position is "it's not illegal" then you're on shaky ground. I.e. it's legal, but unconvincing. It doesn't mean you should be censored, it just means your position probably lacks merit if you can't mention anything else that's good about it. > Your literal description of it is a red herring, a typical clever Monroe construction to avoid criticism At this point I have to ask: you are aware I'm not the author of xkcd, aren't you?
- ajkjk 6y ago> in the context of the comic it’s clearly meant to be interpreted that way. That's just not true. The claim is that if you're censored and your only defense of your position is that you should be allowed to say it, you position is flimsy. Nobody would agree with the claim that "_in general_ if you're censored your speech is abhorrent", that's laughable. Now, yeah, agreed, it's debatable whether this actually happens. But it sure feels like it happens.