I never said it’s OK for the government to control speech undemocratically like happens in China, maybe I didn’t explain myself well.
My point is: I would prefer the government decides democratically what can and cannot be told. And I am fine with a very liberal standard, in which almost everything can be told.
I am pretty much a free speech absolutist. Everything can be said in my opinion.
But, if limits are imposed by a democratic government they will at least follow some democratic standard. Limits imposed by private companies will only follow the money!
But a country’s policy is decided by the citizens, if you live in a democracy.
Facebook’s policy is decided by its CEO and few others. Citizens/users have no saying.
There’s a big danger in shifting most of the public discourse to private platforms. We already have many example, YouTube banning anti-Erdogan keywords is just the first popping to my mind.
I know everyone in certain social circles is pressured into saying that vote-by-mail is the best thing ever, because the Orange Man said that vote-by-mail is bad and you must be on the other side.
However, it’s time to admit that vote-by-mail has huge problems and it’s more prone to fraud.
> It shows whatever your stance on abortion that making it illegal doesn't stop it
That’s not an argument. Making homicide illegal does not stop serial killers, is this a good reason for legalizing homicide?
I am not taking a side on the dispute, but: are you in favor of abortion? Then just say openly that, according to your system of values, a fetus of N months can be rightfully killed, for some value of N.
Critical theorists just want to shut down any kind of debate whose conversation does not fit their worldview. I don't think we need examples here.
On the other hand, there are many opponents of critical theory that are genuinely interested in debate, and in comparing their worldview with different ideas.
My thoughts exactly. I plan on checking and maybe using Ceasefire, but if it succeeds the critical theorists will declare it another means of intersectional oppression. And then the mob will start. And then Ceasefire will not be big enough not to bend the knee.
I have my evidence that Lena is not harmful to women, at least to this woman. It’s one data point, but better than zero.
You are making a much stronger claim without evidence. How is Lena harmful? How many women did Lena drive out of CS?
Do you have some proof, some data, besides neo-Marxist crap such a intersectionalized mysoginistic oppression?
It reminds me of that video that showed that college students are outraged by stereotypical Mexican Halloween costumes, but actual Mexicans are fine with it.