Argument is that if I use these terms to criticise anti-freedom attitudes in individuals & groups, they lose impact when governments do it
-
-
-
It's certainly true that overuse or hyperbolic use of a word reduces its impact which is needed when serious human rights abuses happen.
-
However, laws & governments are determined by ppl & I think we need to address authoritarian & censorious ideas before they get that far
-
Telling someone they can't say some things, don't get to say some things, have wrong identity to say some things is not literally censorship
-
But it is a censorious attitude. And it can be argued with. And we do need the word 'censorious' to point out the problem.
-
Informal rules can be described as 'authoritarian' even if they have no legal power if they dictate restrictions rather than freedoms.
-
Because 'authoritarian' & 'libertarian' are adjectives on either end of a scale describing how much freedom we think ppl should have.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
On the basis that, if I don't want it to be heard, it's not denial of free speech?
-
On the basis that overuse of the terms in everyday situations reduces their impact when governments & law threaten them.
-
I see. I suppose much depends upon the context in which the claim is made - who makes it, and why....
-
Yes, there is a whole thread on this now. I think we can discuss it in attitudes as well as in law & in fact we need to.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Suspect many of the ppl telling you this are quite insistent that dict. defn. of other terms is set at too *high* a threshold.
-
Possibly but I see their argument. Don't want to overuse the terms & render them powerless but at same time...
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.