Your personal definition of "censorship" simply isn't shared by most people. You can admit that and move on, or keep insisting "words mean what I want them to mean", but the latter won't lead to successful communication on the topic.
But if you extend "censorship" to mean "any time someone doesn't publish something that someone else says" then almost anything can be called censorship, so the term becomes meaningless.
The First Amendment is about government infringing that right. Private censorship is still censorship, and it can potentially become as big of a threat to social progress as speech repressed by the government. For example. lots of social issues have been avoided in mainstream media because of corporate/political incentives to stay quiet about the subject. On the flip side, there is censorship that most would find totally acceptable. I'm quite fine with not seeing the genitals of a man who was streaking through a stadium. But that's still censorship, and we need to acknowledge that, and consider it as such.
If a school forbids teachers from watching child porn videos at their desks during lessons, that's censorship. If I decide not to call my boss at work a fat fucking cunt, that's self-censorship.
Your point is true, but so wide ranging as to be meaningless.
Where do you draw the line? You can't post anything on the Web without using someone else's infrastructure - even if you host your own server, you still need to get it connected to a commercial ISP. Is it okay for them to refuse the connection because it would be giving you a platform to say something that you don't want to say? Free speech is pretty meaningless if you can only exercise it in your own home - you shouldn't be able to force everyone to listen, but you should be able to give everyone the opportunity to listen if they choose to, and that's pretty hard without someone giving you a platform.
If you look at the sheer volume of crap and filth on the internet, I really don't think you can pretend it's hard to get your stuff published somewhere.
The point is that the world does not owe you a soapbox.
I certainly don't intend to control the policies of private businesses -- but I also don't have to support businesses whose policies I don't like.
No, you don't.
But it's interesting how on the other side, people complain about the calls to boycott Mozilla or Chicken-fil-A because of perceived homophobic comments by their directors.
There are studies that indicate that the abundance of porn, including violent porn, drives down rates of actual sexual violence. Men who would otherwise act on their violent sexual desires are mollified by watching somebody else pretend to do it and jerking off.
Surely on that basis there would be pretty much zero rape nowadays, since everyone outside places like North Korea has access to as much porn as they could ever need?
Rape is about more than sexual gratification, as even without porn anyone has always been able to jerk off if that's all they want.
The one thing in common with virtually all these lone gunman type terrorists or spree killers is their involvement in extremist online communities. It's a positive feedback loop.
Sources? I know that the church shooter guy was interested in neo-nazis online, but what other ones are you talking about? I actually think that you're just making that up, though, so you don't have to respond.
Anders Breivik is an obvious example of a neo nazi.
More generally, surely you are aware of the influence of ISIS's social media campaigns in recruiting terrorists?
Life is full of unpleasant things. Making it illegal to talk about them does not make them go away; it just allows them to grow in the dark.
You do know that there is a difference between a media outlet imposing certain community standards and making something illegal?
If reddit (or my local school newsletter) decline to publish someone's racist rant, that is up to them. It is another matter entirely if the government arrest that person for writing and publishing the racist rant.
Your right to free speech covers the latter case only. It has never meant that anyone can be forced to publish your views.
That is because they are trying to fight Iran, and they are using ISIS to do it.
If Iran was removed as a threat, their support for ISIS would go away.
Saudi Arabia are funding ISIS in a war against Shia Muslims. I suppose if you "removed" Iran it would take a lot of Shias out of the picture, but they'd still be after those in Syria and Iraq.
Oh boy. This thread is sure to break my all time high score for playing Spot The Nutjob.
Different flavour of nutjob, but just look at any story about encouraging women in tech. I never realised how vehement peopole could get about the evils of feminism, sorry, Ethics In Journalism.
Even if they had a few nuclear weapons, Iran would not be capable of doing much more than annoying the US, although it could probably do relatively high damage in Israel before being totally obliterated from the face of the Earth by the US .
There is a very clear distinction between the Allies actions in WW2 to defeat fascism, and their post-war record of supporting oppressive and undemocratic regimes.
Also, the Shah of Iran was installed in 1941 by the British who thought he would be easier to control than his father. It was the British who wanted Mosaddegh gone after he nationalized their oil industry (not very pro-Western).
Britain and the US are indistinguishable in terms of their foreign policy from Iran's point of view.
I've been reading daily since 1997, but I can't condone pandering to a professional victims and hatemonger and giving out a patreon link to fund more of this crap
Reddit was destroyed by SJWs in a matter of weeks, if Slashdot wants to follow the same route and promote safespaces after almost 20 years of being a respected destination, fine.
Any good suggestions?
Why not start your own "anti-SJW" web forum? Call it CirclejerkGate or something.
Slashdot Mirror
Your personal definition of "censorship" simply isn't shared by most people. You can admit that and move on, or keep insisting "words mean what I want them to mean", but the latter won't lead to successful communication on the topic.
But if you extend "censorship" to mean "any time someone doesn't publish something that someone else says" then almost anything can be called censorship, so the term becomes meaningless.
The First Amendment is about government infringing that right. Private censorship is still censorship, and it can potentially become as big of a threat to social progress as speech repressed by the government. For example. lots of social issues have been avoided in mainstream media because of corporate/political incentives to stay quiet about the subject. On the flip side, there is censorship that most would find totally acceptable. I'm quite fine with not seeing the genitals of a man who was streaking through a stadium. But that's still censorship, and we need to acknowledge that, and consider it as such.
If a school forbids teachers from watching child porn videos at their desks during lessons, that's censorship. If I decide not to call my boss at work a fat fucking cunt, that's self-censorship.
Your point is true, but so wide ranging as to be meaningless.
Where do you draw the line? You can't post anything on the Web without using someone else's infrastructure - even if you host your own server, you still need to get it connected to a commercial ISP. Is it okay for them to refuse the connection because it would be giving you a platform to say something that you don't want to say? Free speech is pretty meaningless if you can only exercise it in your own home - you shouldn't be able to force everyone to listen, but you should be able to give everyone the opportunity to listen if they choose to, and that's pretty hard without someone giving you a platform.
If you look at the sheer volume of crap and filth on the internet, I really don't think you can pretend it's hard to get your stuff published somewhere.
The point is that the world does not owe you a soapbox.
I certainly don't intend to control the policies of private businesses -- but I also don't have to support businesses whose policies I don't like.
No, you don't.
But it's interesting how on the other side, people complain about the calls to boycott Mozilla or Chicken-fil-A because of perceived homophobic comments by their directors.
There are studies that indicate that the abundance of porn, including violent porn, drives down rates of actual sexual violence. Men who would otherwise act on their violent sexual desires are mollified by watching somebody else pretend to do it and jerking off.
Surely on that basis there would be pretty much zero rape nowadays, since everyone outside places like North Korea has access to as much porn as they could ever need?
Rape is about more than sexual gratification, as even without porn anyone has always been able to jerk off if that's all they want.
The one thing in common with virtually all these lone gunman type terrorists or spree killers is their involvement in extremist online communities. It's a positive feedback loop.
Sources? I know that the church shooter guy was interested in neo-nazis online, but what other ones are you talking about? I actually think that you're just making that up, though, so you don't have to respond.
Anders Breivik is an obvious example of a neo nazi.
More generally, surely you are aware of the influence of ISIS's social media campaigns in recruiting terrorists?
Free speech has no meaning until you defend someone else's right to say something you disagree with.
Well said, I will definitely be quoting you on that one.
I think Voltaire has prior art on that one.
Don't like /r/CoonTown? Don't go there. I don't.
Fine, but a lot of people just won't go to reddit at all. And that's their free choice too.
Life is full of unpleasant things. Making it illegal to talk about them does not make them go away; it just allows them to grow in the dark.
You do know that there is a difference between a media outlet imposing certain community standards and making something illegal?
If reddit (or my local school newsletter) decline to publish someone's racist rant, that is up to them. It is another matter entirely if the government arrest that person for writing and publishing the racist rant.
Your right to free speech covers the latter case only. It has never meant that anyone can be forced to publish your views.
Only $6 billion to construct 380 miles of sci-fi-technology high speed rail using entirely new technology? Really?
When the UK government is prepared to spunk $45 billion on constructing 335 miles of bog standard railway track for HS2?
I think you have the question backwards. It should be "how can $6 billion be a realistic estimate by Elon Musk"?
The answer is that it's not.
Why would we place settlements on Mars far apart?
So we could build a hyperloop linking them.
All that's missing is the news that the whole lot will be 3D printed.
What Twitter is really worth and its stock market valuation are two things with no connection whatsoever.
That is because they are trying to fight Iran, and they are using ISIS to do it.
If Iran was removed as a threat, their support for ISIS would go away.
Saudi Arabia are funding ISIS in a war against Shia Muslims. I suppose if you "removed" Iran it would take a lot of Shias out of the picture, but they'd still be after those in Syria and Iraq.
I agree, which is why I support boycott, divestiture and sanctions against Israel.
There is no chance of Israel (or even the US) creating a non-Muslim united empire across the Middle East.
At least the USSR had a land border with Afghanistan to justify their intervention.
The US could indeed nuke Syria and Iran, in the same way that Obama could stick a piece of celery up his nose and say he's Napoleon.
The penalties are a return to sanctions, which have crippled the Iranian economy.
I thought Saudi Arabia's approach to nuclear weapons was just to buy them from somewhere else, like Pakistan?
If Iran violates the agreement, what is Europe going to do other than attempt another talking cure? Come back when you folks grow some balls.
We will re-introduce the sanctions which the Iranians are so eager to get rid of in order to let their country prosper.
Oh boy. This thread is sure to break my all time high score for playing Spot The Nutjob.
Different flavour of nutjob, but just look at any story about encouraging women in tech. I never realised how vehement peopole could get about the evils of feminism, sorry, Ethics In Journalism.
Even if they had a few nuclear weapons, Iran would not be capable of doing much more than annoying the US, although it could probably do relatively high damage in Israel before being totally obliterated from the face of the Earth by the US .
There is a very clear distinction between the Allies actions in WW2 to defeat fascism, and their post-war record of supporting oppressive and undemocratic regimes.
Also, the Shah of Iran was installed in 1941 by the British who thought he would be easier to control than his father. It was the British who wanted Mosaddegh gone after he nationalized their oil industry (not very pro-Western).
Britain and the US are indistinguishable in terms of their foreign policy from Iran's point of view.
I've been reading daily since 1997, but I can't condone pandering to a professional victims and hatemonger and giving out a patreon link to fund more of this crap
Reddit was destroyed by SJWs in a matter of weeks, if Slashdot wants to follow the same route and promote safespaces after almost 20 years of being a respected destination, fine.
Any good suggestions?
Why not start your own "anti-SJW" web forum? Call it CirclejerkGate or something.