4 ms·

>Censorship does not imply government censorship. ... >>being against cancellation is a form of censorship >No. That would only be if GP advocated for it bei

by 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
    - slg 4y ago
      >Telling people to self correct is different from telling a platform to correct people How are they different? You telling me not do to something would cause me to self censor. Me telling a theater to not host an event with a controversial figure would cause the theater to self censor. Either way there is some external force that is pressuring for a change in expression. That is true regardless of whether they are motivated by mob mentality, identity politics, or anything else. I don't know why the motivation for the speech should even matter unless you are arguing that some speech shouldn't be protected based on the motivation behind the speech.
      - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
        >You telling me not do to something would cause me to self censor. Would it? If you don't agree, you should not listen. According to your view, if I told you to stop commenting on HN you would stop? I'm not forcing you to do anything. >Me telling a theater to not host an event with a controversial figure would cause the theater to self censor. The theater is not the one being censored here but the one censoring. When you do it to yourself, you are both the censor and being censored. >Either way there is some external force that is pressuring for a change in expression. That is true regardless of whether they are motivated by mob mentality, identity politics, or anything else. Me telling you my opionin is not an external force that is pressuring for a change in expression. Or, it is, but only in the hope that you yourself change your mind. I can't force you to do anything. This is known as a discussion: >the activity in which people talk about something and tell each other their ideas or opinions[0] >I don't know why the motivation for the speech should even matter unless you are arguing that some speech shouldn't be protected based on the motivation behind the speech. Back to the "shouldn't be protected" argument? We aren't talking about a matter of law but of right and wrong. The law provides us a space to discuss what that means for ourselves. If people use that power to shut others down that's wrong but the most we can do is point out to those people that they are wrong. [0]https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/discussion https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/discu...

by slg 4y ago

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
  - slg 4y ago
    >Telling people to self correct is different from telling a platform to correct people How are they different? You telling me not do to something would cause me to self censor. Me telling a theater to not host an event with a controversial figure would cause the theater to self censor. Either way there is some external force that is pressuring for a change in expression. That is true regardless of whether they are motivated by mob mentality, identity politics, or anything else. I don't know why the motivation for the speech should even matter unless you are arguing that some speech shouldn't be protected based on the motivation behind the speech.
    - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
      >You telling me not do to something would cause me to self censor. Would it? If you don't agree, you should not listen. According to your view, if I told you to stop commenting on HN you would stop? I'm not forcing you to do anything. >Me telling a theater to not host an event with a controversial figure would cause the theater to self censor. The theater is not the one being censored here but the one censoring. When you do it to yourself, you are both the censor and being censored. >Either way there is some external force that is pressuring for a change in expression. That is true regardless of whether they are motivated by mob mentality, identity politics, or anything else. Me telling you my opionin is not an external force that is pressuring for a change in expression. Or, it is, but only in the hope that you yourself change your mind. I can't force you to do anything. This is known as a discussion: >the activity in which people talk about something and tell each other their ideas or opinions[0] >I don't know why the motivation for the speech should even matter unless you are arguing that some speech shouldn't be protected based on the motivation behind the speech. Back to the "shouldn't be protected" argument? We aren't talking about a matter of law but of right and wrong. The law provides us a space to discuss what that means for ourselves. If people use that power to shut others down that's wrong but the most we can do is point out to those people that they are wrong. [0]https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/discussion https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/discu...