4 ms·

>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

>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...
    - woojoo666 4y ago
      Personally I would consider neither of those examples as censorship. Unless the theater in your second example was the only theater in the world. When I said platform, I probably should have clarified that I meant "big platform". There is still a difference though. With self correction, you make the choice. With platform censorship, the platform makes the choice for you. There may be an external force in both cases, but in the former case you can still choose to ignore it.
- Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
  "and exerting social pressure" is key here. Are you being intentionaly ignorant? First being against cancelation is censorship, now cancelation is just voicing an opinion? All while quoting half a definition that I just cited out of context.
  - slg 4y ago
    I left off "exerting social pressure" because I felt it was redundant to "expressing disapproval". What do you think those terms mean and how are they different? Let's go back to the example I mentioned in my first comment about protesting a theater for hosting a controversial personality. That protest would be me "expressing disapproval", "exerting social pressure", and exercising my free speech. I don't know how or why you are separating that one action into distinct categories of speech.
    - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
      >I left off "exerting social pressure" because I felt it was redundant to "expressing disapproval". It isn't the same at all. It is "a way of [a] expressing disapproval and [b] exerting social pressure. One can express disapproval without the express intent of exerting social pressure. That is, the outcome may exert social pressure but the point is to have your voice be heard, not shut the other person down. >Let's go back to the example I mentioned in my first comment. Ok: >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. Well, what is the purpose of the protest? If it is to make your disaproval known, then it is not an attempt of cancelation. If, as you have clarified, you intent is to exert social pressure to scilence them, then you are trying to both cancel and censor them. In any case, that doesn't make disagreement of opinions in general censorship, as you have claimed: >GP arguing that people shouldn't cancel people is a form of censorship Are we both censoring each other now? Or are we having a discusion? >I don't know how or why you are separating that one action into distinct categories of speech. exercising my free speech: (almost) any speech falls under this category. expressing disapproval: GP expressing disaproval of cancel culture exerting social pressure: When as a part of "mass canceling" an atempt is made to censor someone. To recap: 1. Having an opinion is not censorship. 2. acknowlegment of freedom of speech legaly is not the same as an endorcment of said speech. 3. Being against what people do is not a demand that their free speech be taken away legaly. Therefore: "Comments like yours seems to reveal a lack of a consistent principle underlying your argument. Instead, you seem to be defining free speech as some narrow window of speech that you agree with and speech outside that isn't worth protecting." Is wrong. 4. Exterting social pressure isn't always a bad thing and is some times needed. When it is simply used as a weapon to shut down non-dangerous people you disagree with it has usualy gone too far. These can all be true at the same time

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...
  - woojoo666 4y ago
    Personally I would consider neither of those examples as censorship. Unless the theater in your second example was the only theater in the world. When I said platform, I probably should have clarified that I meant "big platform". There is still a difference though. With self correction, you make the choice. With platform censorship, the platform makes the choice for you. There may be an external force in both cases, but in the former case you can still choose to ignore it.
Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
"and exerting social pressure" is key here. Are you being intentionaly ignorant? First being against cancelation is censorship, now cancelation is just voicing an opinion? All while quoting half a definition that I just cited out of context.
- slg 4y ago
  I left off "exerting social pressure" because I felt it was redundant to "expressing disapproval". What do you think those terms mean and how are they different? Let's go back to the example I mentioned in my first comment about protesting a theater for hosting a controversial personality. That protest would be me "expressing disapproval", "exerting social pressure", and exercising my free speech. I don't know how or why you are separating that one action into distinct categories of speech.
  - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
    >I left off "exerting social pressure" because I felt it was redundant to "expressing disapproval". It isn't the same at all. It is "a way of [a] expressing disapproval and [b] exerting social pressure. One can express disapproval without the express intent of exerting social pressure. That is, the outcome may exert social pressure but the point is to have your voice be heard, not shut the other person down. >Let's go back to the example I mentioned in my first comment. Ok: >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. Well, what is the purpose of the protest? If it is to make your disaproval known, then it is not an attempt of cancelation. If, as you have clarified, you intent is to exert social pressure to scilence them, then you are trying to both cancel and censor them. In any case, that doesn't make disagreement of opinions in general censorship, as you have claimed: >GP arguing that people shouldn't cancel people is a form of censorship Are we both censoring each other now? Or are we having a discusion? >I don't know how or why you are separating that one action into distinct categories of speech. exercising my free speech: (almost) any speech falls under this category. expressing disapproval: GP expressing disaproval of cancel culture exerting social pressure: When as a part of "mass canceling" an atempt is made to censor someone. To recap: 1. Having an opinion is not censorship. 2. acknowlegment of freedom of speech legaly is not the same as an endorcment of said speech. 3. Being against what people do is not a demand that their free speech be taken away legaly. Therefore: "Comments like yours seems to reveal a lack of a consistent principle underlying your argument. Instead, you seem to be defining free speech as some narrow window of speech that you agree with and speech outside that isn't worth protecting." Is wrong. 4. Exterting social pressure isn't always a bad thing and is some times needed. When it is simply used as a weapon to shut down non-dangerous people you disagree with it has usualy gone too far. These can all be true at the same time