Argument is that if I use these terms to criticise anti-freedom attitudes in individuals & groups, they lose impact when governments do it
-
-
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 -
Replying to @catovitch @HPluckrose
a small club, forum etc seems OK to me, if people want a place free from them. A defacto comm platform is a much bigger deal.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
If it is somewhere for discussing ideas of all kinds, we can argue that it would be better for having freedom of speech.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.