Been told a few times lately that I need to reserve terms like 'denial of freedom of speech' 'authoritarian' & 'censorious' to law & gov.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
Argument is that if I use these terms to criticise anti-freedom attitudes in individuals & groups, they lose impact when governments do it
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
It's certainly true that overuse or hyperbolic use of a word reduces its impact which is needed when serious human rights abuses happen.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Seems similar to "systemic racism is the only kind of racism" (but then why does the "systemic" prefix even exist?)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @catovitch @HPluckrose
FoS sometimes invoked gratuitously but platforms like Twitter/Facebook now so part of society they as important as govt projects
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @catovitch @HPluckrose
Almost all Internet is privately owned/supplied. If it's OK for all private companies to do anything, some ppl can't communicate
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @catovitch
.
@catovitch We can argue for the *principle* of free speech. That free exchange of ideas is a good thing or not depending on environment1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Agreed. I think 1 problem is casual conversation often conflates free speech and the 1st Amendment, opening an easy/lazy retort.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
I like this, well put. For me there's also a fuzzy kind off... "Is it a public square?" type test. Banning topics in a home or
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes. We don't have to have creationists at science conferences & teachers should not describe their sex lives to small children.
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.