YouTube censorship

[ok doser]

You introduced the definition. You invented it for that post. You're likely the only person in the world using it.

he does that a lot - have you noticed?

 

[Stripe]

he does that a lot - have you noticed?

Yeah.

It makes did the weirdest conversations, because he just pretends that any time you use the word correctly, you mean his agenda.

It's similar with Darwinists. They'll define evolution as "change" and claim victory if you do not assert that everything has remained the same for all of history.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app

 

[ok doser]

:mock:darwinists

 

[Town Heretic]

Simple. From my point of view the situation you describe is simply a man giving instructions to an employee.

Those instructions being to not use certain language. And that's censoring what the employees are allowed to say.

I omit the rest because that's the ballgame.

 

[ok doser]

Those instructions being to not use certain language. And that's censoring what the employees are allowed to say.

if you're working for a law firm and your boss calls you into his office and informs you that customers have been complaining that when they phone for legal assistance they're annoyed when you answer the phone with a shouted "What the (F-word) do you want, (A-word)?" - are you being censored?

more to the point - do you think that anyone (other than you) would call that censorship?

 

[Town Heretic]

more to the point - do you think that anyone (other than you) would call that censorship?

That being:

if you're working for a law firm and your boss calls you into his office and informs you that customers have been complaining that when they phone for legal assistance they're annoyed when you answer the phone with a shouted "What the (F-word) do you want, (A-word)?" - are you being censored?

I never read or commented on that, so your read-in is both goofy and unsupportable reasonably. Or, par for your obsessive course.

The illustration I used was of a Trump department head literally telling subordinates they could no longer use certain words, which is an illustration of censorship.

 

[Stripe]

Those instructions being to not use certain language. And that's censoring what the employees are allowed to say. I omit the rest because that's the ballgame.

Nope.

Declaring victory is another Darwinist tactic. Especially when they have shown no sign of having considered the opposition's point of view.

Instructions to not use language is not censorship. There are other things that would have to be at play.

For example, the employee can say whatever he likes outside of work.

Also for example, the employee could refuse to comply. Or he could negotiate on the matter; offer some input or better methods.

The definition you offer is just you trying to sell your agenda. Left to its own devices it is utterly useless and nobody will ever use it.

Oh, and I haven't omitted anything because that's not the final whistle. I'm interested in a discussion, not just asserting my position and walking away from challenges.
Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app

 

[Stripe]

Oh, and Trump is definitely not right wing. He's a lefty. :chuckle:

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app

 

[ok doser]

That being:

I never read or commented on that, so your read-in is both goofy and unsupportable reasonably. Or, par for your obsessive course.

The illustration I used was of a Trump department head literally telling subordinates they could no longer use certain words, which is an illustration of censorship.

well, that was a pretentiously girly way of avoiding answering the question(s) :chuckle:


let's try again:


if you're working for a law firm and your boss calls you into his office and informs you that customers have been complaining that when they phone for legal assistance they're annoyed when you answer the phone with a shouted "What the (F-word) do you want, (A-word)?" - are you being censored?

 

[Town Heretic]

Nope.

Yep. When a department head culls the use of specific language from the working vocabulary of subordinates that's censoring language.

Anything outside of that point is superfluous. :e4e:

 

[ok doser]

Yep. When a department head culls the use of specific language from the working vocabulary of subordinates that's censoring language.

then you would agree that if you're working for a law firm and your boss calls you into his office and informs you that customers have been complaining that when they phone for legal assistance they're annoyed when you answer the phone with a shouted "What the (F-word) do you want, (A-word)?" - you are being censored


good :thumb:

 

[ok doser]

what we've determined, stripe, is that town's personal definition of "censorship" has no provision for reasonableness or propriety

so, when he tells his son not to repeat a naughty word he heard on youtube, he's "censoring" him

when the law tells him he can't walk down the street yelling "N-word" at his black neighbors, he's being "censored"

and when his boss at the law firm tells him not to answer his phone with a shouted ""What the (F-word) do you want, (A-word)?", he's being "censored"

 

[ok doser]

Yep. When a department head culls the use of specific language from the working vocabulary of subordinates that's censoring language.

when I worked in the NICU, we were instructed to be very careful with the language we used around the parents

were we being "censored"?

 

[Town Heretic]

then you would agree that if you're working for a law firm and your boss calls you into his office and informs you that customers have been complaining that when they phone for legal assistance they're annoyed when you answer the phone with a shouted "What the (F-word) do you want, (A-word)?" - you are being censored

good :thumb:

Someone who is good at drawing pictures want to help Sod understand the difference between someone telling you that other people find your speech objectionable and someone who can compel you actually forbidding your particular speech? Because either he's a lot less intelligent than I figured or he's just as dishonest as I assumed. Either way I've lost interest.

 

[ok doser]

Someone who is good at drawing pictures want to help Sod understand the difference between someone telling you that other people find your speech objectionable and someone who can compel you ....

your boss can't compel you?

then you have no quarrel with the Trump department head

:thumb:

 

[Stripe]

Yep. When a department head culls the use of specific language from the working vocabulary of subordinates that's censoring language.

Nope.

It could be any number of things.

And to be censorship it would have to come with an abrogation of rights.

Anything outside of that point is superfluous. :e4e:

Nope.

This is just you trying to demand compliance and avoid a challenge.

Someone who is good at drawing pictures want to help Sod understand the difference between someone telling you that other people find your speech objectionable and someone who can compel you actually forbidding your particular speech? Because either he's a lot less intelligent than I figured or he's just as dishonest as I assumed. Either way I've lost interest.

How about you incorporate the difference into your stupid definition. :thumb:

It might become more useful then. :up:

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app

 

[Town Heretic]

It could be any number of things.

Not to the exclusion of the thing it remains, censorship, the suppression and/or deletion of objectionable material (as determined by the authority, in this case the Secretary of the Department of Energy).

But feel free to argue with the dictionary (See: censor as a transitive verb, Merriam-Webster

to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionablecensor the news; also: to suppress or delete as objectional)

I'm not speaking to what else you might consider it. I'm noting that it's censorship.

And to be censorship it would have to come with an abrogation of rights.

Nope. Supra.

 

[ok doser]

I'm noting that it's censorship.

as are the examples i gave :idunno:

 

[Stripe]

Not to the exclusion of ... censorship.

Only of we are determined to protect your weird definition.

The suppression and/or deletion of objectionable material.

:rotfl:

But feel free to argue with the dictionary

Oh, you want to use the dictionary definition now?

Fine by me. :up: Supra.

Let's see. Yep. Nothing about a boss telling an employee not to use certain language in there.

:chuckle:

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app

 

[Town Heretic]

Only of we are determined to protect your weird definition.

You're misrepresenting the facts repeatedly on the point.

Here is what Stripe keeps desperately trying to insist was offered as a definition despite being corrected on the point multiple times:

Trump is not right wing, and what you speak of here isn't censorship.

When you tell people they can't use certain language that's censorship.

Yor notes what I'm talking about there without naming it. It's part of our larger conversation. The "it" was

We have government agencies being instructed to strike out phrases their boss finds objectionable, like climate change.

Anyway, I quoted Merriam Webster. It's just the way it is. The illustration I gave remains right on point. It fulfills the definition and is an act of censorship by suppressing speech.