>> I honestly don't see how they don't notice how illogical their position are.

I have a friend on Twitter who's a raging feminist. I asked her if she was concerned about Carly Fiorina being excluded from the GOP debate since she was the only woman and actually had more votes in the Iowa caucus than two other male candidates who they kept in the debate.

Her response was that she never cared about any GOP candidate. It just makes no sense to me. If you're for women's rights, then it shouldn't matter what race, religion or political party someone is, in order to support them - they're women, and should be supported regardless.

When you have conflicting myopic world views, sometimes you just have to pick one.

Exactly it, but your friend is just a typical hypocrite. She says she is for women's rights, but is really just for any woman who has the same worldview as her and f the rest.

> If you're for women's rights, then it shouldn't matter what race, religion or political party someone is, in order to support them - they're women, and should be supported regardless.

WTH are you talking about? If you're for women's rights you support people who are also for women's rights, regardless of race, religion or gender they are.

I don't know who Carly Fiorina is, but I know Margaret Thatcher, and she did nothing for women. By your logic though, just because she was a woman, feminists should have supported her over men in the opposing (socialist) party that supported women's rights?

censorship has a very strict definition, so they may be right in a way.

if we think some pattern should be called "censorship", then it is called that. if your interlocutor refuses to move beyond "argument about definition of words" and you still want to communicate, you then have to taboo the word, which slows your thinking+communication down a bit, but so be it.