Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- thoughts:society:censorship [2021/06/07 14:58] – [How much safety is enough?] Owen Mellema
+++ thoughts:society:censorship [2021/09/07 15:34] (current) – [How much safety is enough?] Owen Mellema
@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 ==== A note on strawmen ====
-One of the nice things about writing to a small group of like minded friends is that I don’t have to defend my argument very much, only inasmuch as it communicates a point. If I were writing this for a larger audience, it would be a nightmare arguing against it. Not because it is a particularly good idea, but because there are so many different ways of interpreting any of the ideas expressed in it.
+One of the nice things about writing instead of debating is that I don’t have to defend my argument very much, only inasmuch as it communicates a point. If I were writing this for a larger audience, it would be a nightmare arguing against it. Not because it is a particularly good idea, but because there are so many different ways of interpreting any of the ideas expressed in it.
-What is tolerance? I interpret this as meaning “respecting one’s natural rights”. But you could also interpret tolerance as “not casting judgement on a person”. In that case, the assertion that tolerance cannot coexist with intolerance is incorrect. Furthermore, what is a tolerant society? Is our society an example of a tolerant society? Is there even such a thing as a tolerant society?
+What is tolerance? I interpret this as meaning “respecting one’s natural rights”. But you could also interpret tolerance as “not casting judgement on a person”. In that case, the assertion that tolerance cannot coexist with intolerance is incorrect. I can definitely cast judgement on a person and respect their rights. This is how things like the justice system continue working -- even though some of the worst people imaginable are put on trial, we still let them have rights.
+Furthermore, what is a tolerant society?
 So, in reality, arguing about this with the internet is all a game of weaseling semantics.
@@ Line 40: / Line 42: @@
 Sacrificing a principle in favor of increased safety is surely different than sacrificing things that are essential to our daily life, right? I disagree. There is really no end to the number of principles that can be sacrificed in favor of increased safety.
-In terms of censorship, consider the BLM protests. Many people died as a result of the BLM protests, and much property was destroyed.  If we censored BLM propaganda on the internet, we could make our cities safer. Those who died in the protests would not have died, those who lost their businesses would not have lost their businesses. ((Previously, I had another, much more powerful argument that argued that disenfranchising certain minorities could lead to increased safety for everyone else. Even though my point was to say that this was an awful and immoral idea, I had a feeling people would take it out of context and say I was a racist. I am not a racist. If some of us don't have rights, none of us have rights.))
+In terms of censorship, consider the BLM protests. Many people died as a result of the BLM protests, and much property was destroyed.  If we censored BLM propaganda on the internet, we could make our cities safer. Those who died in the protests would not have died, those who lost their businesses would not have lost their businesses.
 ==== The Crazy Person Problem ====