6 ms·

>you seem to be defining free speech GP didn't mention free speach anywhere. Yet you still take the liberty of defining words they didn't use for them. >Comme

>you seem to be defining free speech GP didn't mention free speach anywhere. Yet you still take the liberty of defining words they didn't use for them. >Comments like yours seems to reveal a lack of a consistent principle underlying your argument cancellation is a societal issue, free speech is a legal issue. GP didn't say "we should make cancellation illegal" they said cancellation, which "a significant proportion of our society has become totally OK with" combined with surveilance, will cause even more cancelation. That is bad. (And I agree, btw.) You can have fair laws and still have an unfair population obsessed with censorship and cancellation. That's bad, but doesn't mean we should make it illegal. Complaining about societal failaings does not have to mean advocating for those people's views to be made illegal. That seems to be something that censorship and cancellation advocates can't seem to understand. >Should I not have the freedom to organize a protest of my local theater for hosting a controversial figure that I think is worthy of cancellation? You have complete freedom to do that, but it doesn't mean you should or shouldn't. That's what GP is saying. And cancellation can be over extremely petty or unfounded things. Obviously there is a line but people have taken a "cancel first, ask questions later" approach, and over increasingly petty reasons. One can advocate against that without being against free speech, which means that the government cannot make speech illegal.

slg 4y ago
You are only focusing on half of the passage I quoted. They also voiced opposition to censorship. I wasn't calling out their opposition to cancellation. I was saying those two views shouldn't coexist because being against cancellation is a form of censorship.
- lp0_on_fire 4y ago
  Being against cancellation and specifically, cancel culture, is not a form a censorship. At no point did that person suggest that people participating in cancel culture be prevented from doing so or that their ideas be shouted down. Funny enough, that same courtesy is usually not applied by the proponents of cancel culture.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- jove_ 4y ago
  So, if people go out and protest outside a theater that's cancellation and it's good? But someone makes a post online saying they don't like it that's censorship and it's bad?
- Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
  >They also voiced opposition to censorship. And? Censorship does not imply government censorship.[0] censorship here is simply the result of a successful cancellation. >being against cancellation is a form of censorship No. That would only be if GP advocated for it being illegal. GP is saying "don't do that" not "this should be illegal" or even "you should be fired and excluded for thinking that." The fact that you think being against cancellation is a form of censorship is deeply worrying. [0]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship >the institution, system, or practice of censoring See also: https://www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship https://www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship >Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups.
  - zuminator 4y ago
    Censorship isn't cancellation, at least as far as the two terms are popularly used. Censorship involves being prevented from publicly speaking or promulgating one's views. Cancellation is shaming, social ostracization, or mass repudiation. There's some overlap in that a party with the power to censor you can use that power when cancelling you. But you can censor someone without cancelling them and cancel someone without censoring them. I do agree with you that being against cancellation isn't necessarily pro censorship either.
  - slg 4y ago
    >Censorship does not imply government censorship. ... >>being against cancellation is a form of censorship >No. That would only be if GP advocated for it being illegal. GP is saying "don't do that" not "this should be illegal" How are those two comments not in direct conflict with each other? If censorship is not a legal matter, GP arguing that people shouldn't cancel people is a form of censorship even if they don't argue for legal repercussions.
    - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
      >GP arguing that people shouldn't cancel people is a form of censorship even if they don't argue for legal repercussions. When I wrote "GP is saying 'don't do that'" I meant entreaty, as in a request to stop canceling people, or as you put it "calling out cancelation as a growing flaw of society." >Don't >a command or entreaty not to do something What that is is a discussion of ethics. GP is offering their values, along with their reasoning: >One could easily imagine a situation where this intensifies and suddenly political ideologues are analyzing all the voice recordings Alexa ever made in order to out political enemies. Keeping all this data around, in my view, means it will inevitably get misused over a long time scale. None of this has stopped anyone from doing anything. It isn't censorship. The goal of a discussion is for both sides to hear each other and hopefully come to a more accurate conclusion. The fact that you keep conflating having and discussing different opinions with censorship is incredible. >cancel culture >the practice or tendency of engaging in mass canceling (see cancel entry 1 sense 1e) as a way of expressing disapproval and exerting social pressure[0] >censor >to examine in order to suppress (see suppress sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable[1] GP being against cancel culture and saying cancel culture is worrysome does not amount to censorship [0]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cancel%20culture https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cancel%20culture [1]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring
- xedrac 4y ago
  Except that cancellation is often accomplished via censorship. I do not consider voicing opposition as "cancellation".

slg 4y ago

You are only focusing on half of the passage I quoted. They also voiced opposition to censorship. I wasn't calling out their opposition to cancellation. I was saying those two views shouldn't coexist because being against cancellation is a form of censorship.

lp0_on_fire 4y ago
Being against cancellation and specifically, cancel culture, is not a form a censorship. At no point did that person suggest that people participating in cancel culture be prevented from doing so or that their ideas be shouted down. Funny enough, that same courtesy is usually not applied by the proponents of cancel culture.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
jove_ 4y ago
So, if people go out and protest outside a theater that's cancellation and it's good? But someone makes a post online saying they don't like it that's censorship and it's bad?
Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
>They also voiced opposition to censorship. And? Censorship does not imply government censorship.[0] censorship here is simply the result of a successful cancellation. >being against cancellation is a form of censorship No. That would only be if GP advocated for it being illegal. GP is saying "don't do that" not "this should be illegal" or even "you should be fired and excluded for thinking that." The fact that you think being against cancellation is a form of censorship is deeply worrying. [0]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship >the institution, system, or practice of censoring See also: https://www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship https://www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship >Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups.
- zuminator 4y ago
  Censorship isn't cancellation, at least as far as the two terms are popularly used. Censorship involves being prevented from publicly speaking or promulgating one's views. Cancellation is shaming, social ostracization, or mass repudiation. There's some overlap in that a party with the power to censor you can use that power when cancelling you. But you can censor someone without cancelling them and cancel someone without censoring them. I do agree with you that being against cancellation isn't necessarily pro censorship either.
- slg 4y ago
  >Censorship does not imply government censorship. ... >>being against cancellation is a form of censorship >No. That would only be if GP advocated for it being illegal. GP is saying "don't do that" not "this should be illegal" How are those two comments not in direct conflict with each other? If censorship is not a legal matter, GP arguing that people shouldn't cancel people is a form of censorship even if they don't argue for legal repercussions.
  - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
    >GP arguing that people shouldn't cancel people is a form of censorship even if they don't argue for legal repercussions. When I wrote "GP is saying 'don't do that'" I meant entreaty, as in a request to stop canceling people, or as you put it "calling out cancelation as a growing flaw of society." >Don't >a command or entreaty not to do something What that is is a discussion of ethics. GP is offering their values, along with their reasoning: >One could easily imagine a situation where this intensifies and suddenly political ideologues are analyzing all the voice recordings Alexa ever made in order to out political enemies. Keeping all this data around, in my view, means it will inevitably get misused over a long time scale. None of this has stopped anyone from doing anything. It isn't censorship. The goal of a discussion is for both sides to hear each other and hopefully come to a more accurate conclusion. The fact that you keep conflating having and discussing different opinions with censorship is incredible. >cancel culture >the practice or tendency of engaging in mass canceling (see cancel entry 1 sense 1e) as a way of expressing disapproval and exerting social pressure[0] >censor >to examine in order to suppress (see suppress sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable[1] GP being against cancel culture and saying cancel culture is worrysome does not amount to censorship [0]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cancel%20culture https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cancel%20culture [1]https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring
xedrac 4y ago
Except that cancellation is often accomplished via censorship. I do not consider voicing opposition as "cancellation".