Censorship

[Sigmaleph]

OK, that's it. Direct question, UP, what is your definition of censorship?

Broadly, it's when people suppress speech they consider "offensive" by imposing their values on others or pressuring them to conform to said values.

If a parent tells their child not to swear in public, is that censorship? If people don't buy something because they dislike it, is that censorhsip?

Of course not.  One is responsible parenting, and the other is consumers exercising their freedom of choice.

I think we should take this discussion to a new thread.

So here's my deal, UP. You are fond of criticising things as censorship, and have responded to the idea that censorship can ever be acceptable as a ridiculous double standard.

Yet your definition of censorship is not particularly rigorous. A parent telling their child that they shouldn't swear certainly fits your criteria that it be an attempt to to supress speech that is found offensive by getting someone to conform to their values. The only possible ambiguity is whether this counts as "pressuring" or just asking. So I'm forced to conclude you think a parent doesn't pressure their child when asking them to do something.

And yet you think a congresswoman asking a company to pull an app is censorship. Even though a single congressperson has far less power over Apple than a parent over their child.

Censorship is a complicated concept and not having a precise definition is understandable... but you combine that with the notion that censorship is always wrong and should be condemned at every turn. This combination is problematic (in the literal causes problems sense, not the SJ sense). Having a word you can throw around at will in a very broad spectrum of situations which you charge with strong moral condemnation is the same bullshit the worst Tumblr activists pull.

[Ultimate Paragon]

OK, that's it. Direct question, UP, what is your definition of censorship?

Broadly, it's when people suppress speech they consider "offensive" by imposing their values on others or pressuring them to conform to said values.

If a parent tells their child not to swear in public, is that censorship? If people don't buy something because they dislike it, is that censorhsip?

Of course not.  One is responsible parenting, and the other is consumers exercising their freedom of choice.

I think we should take this discussion to a new thread.

So here's my deal, UP. You are fond of criticising things as censorship, and have responded to the idea that censorship can ever be acceptable as a ridiculous double standard.

Yet your definition of censorship is not particularly rigorous. A parent telling their child that they shouldn't swear certainly fits your criteria that it be an attempt to to supress speech that is found offensive by getting someone to conform to their values. The only possible ambiguity is whether this counts as "pressuring" or just asking. So I'm forced to conclude you think a parent doesn't pressure their child when asking them to do something.

That's why I used the term "broadly."

And yet you think a congresswoman asking a company to pull an app is censorship. Even though a single congressperson has far less power over Apple than a parent over their child.

But congresspeople have more pull overall.

Censorship is a complicated concept and not having a precise definition is understandable... but you combine that with the notion that censorship is always wrong and should be condemned at every turn. This combination is problematic (in the literal causes problems sense, not the SJ sense). Having a word you can throw around at will in a very broad spectrum of situations which you charge with strong moral condemnation is the same bullshit the worst Tumblr activists pull.

You raise a good point.

[Even Then]

But this one (1) congressperson has less pull when dealing with Apple than a parent does when dealing with their child. The company is still perfectly capable of ignoring this singular congressperson's letter without meaningful sanction.

[Sigmaleph]

OK, that's it. Direct question, UP, what is your definition of censorship?

Broadly, it's when people suppress speech they consider "offensive" by imposing their values on others or pressuring them to conform to said values.

If a parent tells their child not to swear in public, is that censorship? If people don't buy something because they dislike it, is that censorhsip?

Of course not.  One is responsible parenting, and the other is consumers exercising their freedom of choice.

I think we should take this discussion to a new thread.

So here's my deal, UP. You are fond of criticising things as censorship, and have responded to the idea that censorship can ever be acceptable as a ridiculous double standard.

Yet your definition of censorship is not particularly rigorous. A parent telling their child that they shouldn't swear certainly fits your criteria that it be an attempt to to supress speech that is found offensive by getting someone to conform to their values. The only possible ambiguity is whether this counts as "pressuring" or just asking. So I'm forced to conclude you think a parent doesn't pressure their child when asking them to do something.

That's why I used the term "broadly."

And that's what I have a problem with. If you're going to say that X is always indefensible and wrong, then you need to be as specific as you can about what is and isn't X.

And yet you think a congresswoman asking a company to pull an app is censorship. Even though a single congressperson has far less power over Apple than a parent over their child.

But congresspeople have more pull overall.

And how does that matter? Surely the ability to pressure someone depends on relative power, not absolute. Individual congresspeople have limited power over major companies.

(Not to put too fine a point on it, but pretending that "power" is a universal property of people that is defined by a single trait instead of the specifics of
the situation is yet another thing I hate about shitty SJ activists)

Censorship is a complicated concept and not having a precise definition is understandable... but you combine that with the notion that censorship is always wrong and should be condemned at every turn. This combination is problematic (in the literal causes problems sense, not the SJ sense). Having a word you can throw around at will in a very broad spectrum of situations which you charge with strong moral condemnation is the same bullshit the worst Tumblr activists pull.

You raise a good point.

Do you have a counterpoint, or do you admit that you have been abusing the word censorship?

[Ultimate Paragon]

OK, that's it. Direct question, UP, what is your definition of censorship?

Broadly, it's when people suppress speech they consider "offensive" by imposing their values on others or pressuring them to conform to said values.

If a parent tells their child not to swear in public, is that censorship? If people don't buy something because they dislike it, is that censorhsip?

Of course not.  One is responsible parenting, and the other is consumers exercising their freedom of choice.

I think we should take this discussion to a new thread.

So here's my deal, UP. You are fond of criticising things as censorship, and have responded to the idea that censorship can ever be acceptable as a ridiculous double standard.

Yet your definition of censorship is not particularly rigorous. A parent telling their child that they shouldn't swear certainly fits your criteria that it be an attempt to to supress speech that is found offensive by getting someone to conform to their values. The only possible ambiguity is whether this counts as "pressuring" or just asking. So I'm forced to conclude you think a parent doesn't pressure their child when asking them to do something.

That's why I used the term "broadly."

And that's what I have a problem with. If you're going to say that X is always indefensible and wrong, then you need to be as specific as you can about what is and isn't X.

You're right.

And yet you think a congresswoman asking a company to pull an app is censorship. Even though a single congressperson has far less power over Apple than a parent over their child.

But congresspeople have more pull overall.

And how does that matter? Surely the ability to pressure someone depends on relative power, not absolute. Individual congresspeople have limited power over major companies.

Nevertheless, she was still acting in official capacity as a representative of the American government.

(Not to put too fine a point on it, but pretending that "power" is a universal property of people that is defined by a single trait instead of the specifics of
the situation is yet another thing I hate about shitty SJ activists)

Agreed.

Censorship is a complicated concept and not having a precise definition is understandable... but you combine that with the notion that censorship is always wrong and should be condemned at every turn. This combination is problematic (in the literal causes problems sense, not the SJ sense). Having a word you can throw around at will in a very broad spectrum of situations which you charge with strong moral condemnation is the same bullshit the worst Tumblr activists pull.

You raise a good point.

Do you have a counterpoint, or do you admit that you have been abusing the word censorship?

Maybe I have.  I'm going to need some time to think.