What about online forums where it's not about moralistic control, but a pragmatic action because if you don't censor some kinds of words and speech, it's like a positive feedback loop where everything gets more intense until Godwin or his equivalents turn up? It does seem to be the case that control feedback is needed to keep discussion forums relevant and on topic, and that involves thinking about what needs censoring and by whom and in which situations. Does that same effect and consideration not apply in wider society?
Absolutely, YES! People should be resilient against words and name-calling -- "Sticks and stones" is a common nursery rhyme for a reason.
Of course you can't censor lies automatically. Toxicity doesn't have a technical solution.
Maybe. Maybe not. If you choose to educate yourself about financial scams, and are always wary when strangers call you, that's sensible given the world we live in. If you see pensioners being scammed out of their life savings and support doing nothing because "I would never let that happen to me, they should take responsibility like I do" that's naieve at best and maybe cruel.
Similarly, a society full of media which insults and swears at people because "people should toughen up" is like refusing to clean dogshit off the streets because people should just wear shoes. Great, now you have people trampling dogshit everywhere, what a success.
Like, yes you should lock the door of your house when you go out. But isn't it interesting that there are places where people don't have to? Wouldn't that be ... nice? Better? Do we really want to encourage a society full of people who are wary, calloused, defensive, always on edge, because doing something about it would be 'weak'?
I don’t think so, so let’s treat the two cases similarly. We can forbid harming people with words without forbidding words altogether, just as we do for cars, knifes, hands, etc.
Context matters. In the right context, said in the right tone, “Yeah, beauty” can be quite an insult.
Have you ever been physically assaulted, punched in the face, had your ribs broken, or been put in a strangle hold?
Compare that to a punch to the face. It really doesn't matter if someone was just joking or angry with you, 150 psi to your jaw is going to do damage.
Depends entirely on the degree and nature of the assault. I was beat up badly at school at least a few times, I'd dare suggest if anything it made me stronger, and certainly can't think of anything likely longterm damage it's caused. But I certainly don't presume it's the same for all kids.
> "I was beat up badly at school at least a few times, I'd dare suggest if anything it made me stronger"
Overcoming challenges builds character, but wouldn't it be nicer if you chose the challenges? If you had built strength by choosing to do Karate and learn Mandarin instead of being badly beaten up being foisted upon you? Women report being catcalled from puberty around age 13; is your response to that "if anything it makes them stronger; women who didn't get catcalled are just privileged and weak"?
That's like saying physical damage from a rape will heal in weeks but verbal sexual harrassment can still be hurting decades later.
> but verbal sexual harrassment can still be hurting decades later.
In the vein of putting words in peoples mouths, you think this is a positive good thing and a reason you support verbal sexual harassment because it will toughen people up for decades? (I suspect not).
Do you mean "offensive" as in people's feelings, or as in the antonym of "defensive"?
I think it’s the same. ie: it’s not the word that’s the problem, it’s how you use it.
To expand further: I think the obsession over words is the left’s version of thoughts and prayers. We would rather debate what something should or shouldn’t be called than fix the problem. Because it’s easier and feels like progress.
Although it does lead to the particularly beautiful art of the British swear word. How they can turn any random noun into an insult is pure poetry. I wish American media did more of that.
The religious right, on the other hand, cares a whole ducking lot.
Makes arguments easier if you lump both groups together though.
"Parler CEO Says He'll Ban Users for Posting Bad Words, Dicks, Boobs, or Poop" - https://gizmodo.com/parler-ceo-says-hell-ban-users-for-posti...
Which is easy to do when the only two parties with any influence are massive conglomerates of many different groups and factions.
I do agree that the libertarian right does not care about this (say, Ron Paul).
You should meet some real people sometime and see how the other half lives.
—edit—
Though…if you don’t look like you walked straight off the set of Duck Dynasty they are probably closet conservatives and won’t risk offending some random stranger with their “hate speech” because that’s what ‘merica has become.
Sure, but not every republican is conservative. Most that I've seen or heard are either religious and conservative, or they are libertarian.
There's a difference between "you'll never hear me say that word, just all other words" and trying to censor.
I won't say the n word, but I'll watch a Tarantino movie.
No judgment, just an honest question. Do you also self censor « murderer » or « rapist »?
https://citizenlab.ca/2017/08/chinesegames/
The idea that print shouldn’t be censored is more of a progressive western idea, than a non-US idea.
Like never letting your child ever ride a bike without training wheels.
It's a form of agoraphobia.
Kevin Hart talks about the fact that no one can insult or harm him with words because of the initiative gauntlet he went through to become a comedian.
Did your parents skip your childhood vaccinations on the grounds that a bout of polio or tetanus builds physical strength? Or did they prefer a more gentle introduction to let your immune system become accustomed in a protected, simplified, environment?
It's like putting the most incompetent engineers in charge of architectural decisions in a system design and giving for granted that a service that is scaling fast and adding features to it will deliver 99.9999% uptime.
No.
Society puts/accepts restrictions on citizens behaviour for the wider good of society. Exactly which restrictions, on whom, and when, are always a matter of negotiation and shifting priorities. The classic example being someone shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Banning someone from your theater for doing that for a laugh is not narcissistic or arrogant, and only authoritarian in a pretty reasonable sense.
Do you think these countries are "deeply narcissistic arrogant and authoritarian"? I don't think so
Though, to one who believes that swear words have power but shouldn’t be censored: is that just in a legal sense or in a societal sense?
However social groups and independent forums or publishers should be free to set their own editorial standards. Nobody (acting in their private capacity, that is not as a government employee) should have any obligation to repeat, distribute or publish the speech of others that they disagree with.
The western media landscape is incredibly diverse, pretty much every conceivable opinion and niche community is available and discoverable. In fact there seems to have been a huge boom in fringe attitudes and beliefs, as barriers to communication have fallen away, exactly the opposite of what you'd expect if communications was being meaningfully restricted and moderated at the societal level.
Wait, are we still allowed to say "dum"? Is this even visible?
It's doubly hard to predict what will be censored these days given that so often the censored words lists are themselves secret and, well, censored from view. To combat spammers no doubt.
Funny how "secret" and "censored" overlap.