4 ms·

> when you know full well what I meant Reminder: humans lack telepathy and so they depend on body language, tone, and word semantics to communicate.

unishark 5y ago
It isn't really a semantic issue. Removing someone's communication from your site is literally censorship. It's simply not govt censorship. But censorship by quasi-monopolies makes it arguably similar and still an ethics debate.
- onion2k 5y ago
  Are you suggesting that video platforms should not be allowed to remove content? That's a very extreme point of view.
  - unishark 5y ago
    There are two sides in the debate I referred to and my post did not advocate either side.
  - MikeUt 5y ago
    I want to highlight the very common, very dishonest debate trick you just performed. You skipped right past calling the thing for what it is (censorship), past admitting it's a problem, and you're now arguing against a hypothetical extreme solution no-one has yet proposed. Can we assume that you now agree it's censorship, and that it's a problem, and it's only the solution you proposed that bothers you?
    - onion2k 5y ago
      Can we assume that you now agree it's censorship, and that it's a problem, and it's only the solution you proposed that bothers you? unishark posted that they believe it's censorship, so I asked whether or not it'd be OK for any content to be removed if that's the case. Does unishark think that Facebook 'censoring' some content is actually OK? I don't think it's censorship, and I think Facebook removing content is fine explicitly because it isn't censorious. So no, you can't assume that I now agree it's censorship, because it's not and I don't.
      - MikeUt 5y ago
        How do Facebook's actions differ from censorship, then? What would have to be different so that you would consider it censorship?
        onion2k 5y ago
        Censorship is stopping people seeing content everywhere. Facebook are only stopping people seeing the content on Facebook. The idea that Facebook has a monopoly on video is weird. If someone wanted to grow an audience around their video content would you suggest they post the videos to Facebook to do it?
        unishark 5y ago
        Network television censors profanity and nudity. Indeed the govt requires much of it. Everyone calls it censorship. Yet you can still see the unedited versions of the same content at a theater or on cable. Maybe if your idea of censorship hinged on govt involvement it might fit a bit better. Though I'd still say we need to be able to talk about censorship by other organizations besides govt, and that the dictionary definition of the word covers this.
esyir 5y ago
I'll also add that argument by pedantism is a sin of any good-faith debate. It represents an attempt to divert attention from the main topic, and instead to playing definition games. I thus generally view an attempt to refute an argument with some pedantic gotcha as a bad-faith responsse.
- bmn__ 5y ago
  Not all pedantic arguments about the definition of words are bad faith. Sometimes, the original argument genuinely employs a confusion of definition, this could make the argument void, see section "Equivocation" under <http://enwp.org/List_of_fallacies#Informal_fallacies http://enwp.org/List_of_fallacies#Informal_fallacies>. This confusion happens both unintentionally and intentionally. I would like to propose to not treat the pedantry counter as a sin. Instead think of it as a weak signal: the counter does not rank high on the hierarchy of disagreement. <https://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/how-to-disagree-well-7-of-the-best-and-worst-ways-to-argue https://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/how-to-disagree-well-7-of-t...> If a strong counter could be made, we would use that one instead of the pedantry counter.
- unishark 5y ago
  I'm not even sure who is being criticized here. I think it's just an issue of tone. Bluntly telling someone they're wrong, when their statement is arguably correct, will generally trigger an argument over who is correct.
- afarrell 5y ago
  To call a distinction pedantic is to say it lacks importance to you. You are seeing a clash of values, not a bad-faith argument.

unishark 5y ago

It isn't really a semantic issue. Removing someone's communication from your site is literally censorship. It's simply not govt censorship. But censorship by quasi-monopolies makes it arguably similar and still an ethics debate.

onion2k 5y ago
Are you suggesting that video platforms should not be allowed to remove content? That's a very extreme point of view.
- unishark 5y ago
  There are two sides in the debate I referred to and my post did not advocate either side.
- MikeUt 5y ago
  I want to highlight the very common, very dishonest debate trick you just performed. You skipped right past calling the thing for what it is (censorship), past admitting it's a problem, and you're now arguing against a hypothetical extreme solution no-one has yet proposed. Can we assume that you now agree it's censorship, and that it's a problem, and it's only the solution you proposed that bothers you?
  - onion2k 5y ago
    Can we assume that you now agree it's censorship, and that it's a problem, and it's only the solution you proposed that bothers you? unishark posted that they believe it's censorship, so I asked whether or not it'd be OK for any content to be removed if that's the case. Does unishark think that Facebook 'censoring' some content is actually OK? I don't think it's censorship, and I think Facebook removing content is fine explicitly because it isn't censorious. So no, you can't assume that I now agree it's censorship, because it's not and I don't.
    - MikeUt 5y ago
      How do Facebook's actions differ from censorship, then? What would have to be different so that you would consider it censorship?
      - onion2k 5y ago
        Censorship is stopping people seeing content everywhere. Facebook are only stopping people seeing the content on Facebook. The idea that Facebook has a monopoly on video is weird. If someone wanted to grow an audience around their video content would you suggest they post the videos to Facebook to do it?
        unishark 5y ago
        Network television censors profanity and nudity. Indeed the govt requires much of it. Everyone calls it censorship. Yet you can still see the unedited versions of the same content at a theater or on cable. Maybe if your idea of censorship hinged on govt involvement it might fit a bit better. Though I'd still say we need to be able to talk about censorship by other organizations besides govt, and that the dictionary definition of the word covers this.

esyir 5y ago

I'll also add that argument by pedantism is a sin of any good-faith debate. It represents an attempt to divert attention from the main topic, and instead to playing definition games. I thus generally view an attempt to refute an argument with some pedantic gotcha as a bad-faith responsse.

bmn__ 5y ago
Not all pedantic arguments about the definition of words are bad faith. Sometimes, the original argument genuinely employs a confusion of definition, this could make the argument void, see section "Equivocation" under <http://enwp.org/List_of_fallacies#Informal_fallacies http://enwp.org/List_of_fallacies#Informal_fallacies>. This confusion happens both unintentionally and intentionally. I would like to propose to not treat the pedantry counter as a sin. Instead think of it as a weak signal: the counter does not rank high on the hierarchy of disagreement. <https://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/how-to-disagree-well-7-of-the-best-and-worst-ways-to-argue https://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/how-to-disagree-well-7-of-t...> If a strong counter could be made, we would use that one instead of the pedantry counter.
unishark 5y ago
I'm not even sure who is being criticized here. I think it's just an issue of tone. Bluntly telling someone they're wrong, when their statement is arguably correct, will generally trigger an argument over who is correct.
afarrell 5y ago
To call a distinction pedantic is to say it lacks importance to you. You are seeing a clash of values, not a bad-faith argument.