3 ms·

>They also voiced opposition to censorship. And? Censorship does not imply government censorship.[0] censorship here is simply the result of a successful cance

>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
  - slg 4y ago
    The definition you cite specifically calls cancelling "a way of expressing disapproval". Cancellation is a group of people saying "don't do that" regarding something they find objectionable. GP is saying "don't do that" in regard to cancelling. GP wants those people to stop voicing their disapproval. That is effectively censorship of those people's speech.
    - woojoo666 4y ago
      Cancellation is not the same as simply voicing disapproval. Cancellation is closely intertwined with mob mentality and identity politics. And telling people that mob mentality is bad, is not censorship. Telling people to self correct is different from telling a platform to correct people

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
- slg 4y ago
  The definition you cite specifically calls cancelling "a way of expressing disapproval". Cancellation is a group of people saying "don't do that" regarding something they find objectionable. GP is saying "don't do that" in regard to cancelling. GP wants those people to stop voicing their disapproval. That is effectively censorship of those people's speech.
  - woojoo666 4y ago
    Cancellation is not the same as simply voicing disapproval. Cancellation is closely intertwined with mob mentality and identity politics. And telling people that mob mentality is bad, is not censorship. Telling people to self correct is different from telling a platform to correct people