Not really. Censorship is not only about political opinions. Banning child pornography is a form of censorship, but I doubt anyone sane would dare to argue that that’s a bad thing. (if anyone reading thinks otherwise, please do me a favour and go jump off a bridge, the world would be better place without you)
But even if we focus on political discourse, consider the paradox of tolerance. If we lived in an ideal society, censorship would not be necessary. But we don’t, there are people that are more than happy to take away other’s rights and freedom of opinion. A functional society must be intolerant of the intolerant and not give them a platform.
Edit: I’m not going to pretend that I know exactly where tolerant opinions end and intolerant opinions begin, but I know that both exist, and I believe we must censor the intolerant ones
The paradox of tolerance disappears when you look at it as a social contract. “I agree to tolerate your weirdness, that doesn’t significantly affect me, if you do the same in turn.” Add in “If you back me when someone breaks the contract, and I will back you in turn.” and you get a very good basis to build on. You end up with a few grey areas, but 95% is obvious.
Not really. Censorship is not only about political opinions. Banning child pornography is a form of censorship, but I doubt anyone sane would dare to argue that that’s a bad thing. (if anyone reading thinks otherwise, please do me a favour and go jump off a bridge, the world would be better place without you)
But even if we focus on political discourse, consider the paradox of tolerance. If we lived in an ideal society, censorship would not be necessary. But we don’t, there are people that are more than happy to take away other’s rights and freedom of opinion. A functional society must be intolerant of the intolerant and not give them a platform.
Edit: I’m not going to pretend that I know exactly where tolerant opinions end and intolerant opinions begin, but I know that both exist, and I believe we must censor the intolerant ones
The paradox of tolerance disappears when you look at it as a social contract. “I agree to tolerate your weirdness, that doesn’t significantly affect me, if you do the same in turn.” Add in “If you back me when someone breaks the contract, and I will back you in turn.” and you get a very good basis to build on. You end up with a few grey areas, but 95% is obvious.
This ignores the case of a private insult issued to the moderator, pre or post censorship.
I’m beginning to suspect this thread is just you having a personal grudge and vagueposting about it.
Jump for that low hanging fruit little buddy