YouTube censorship

[ok doser]

now that's retarded! :thumb:

 

[Arthur Brain]

now that's retarded! :thumb:

What is, SOD?

 

[Stripe]

Sure it is.

Nope.

Telling people not to talk is not censorship.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app

 

[Arthur Brain]

Nope.

Telling people not to talk is not censorship.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app

It is if you have or advocate measures to enforce it.

 

[Town Heretic]

Telling people not to talk is not censorship.

You need to keep the given context in mind. When department heads and/or the president tell the people who work for them that they can't use particular language, which was what I noted, it's absolutely censorship.

 

[Stripe]

You need to keep the given context in mind.

No, I don't.

You presented what looked like a definition. It's faulty, even in context.

When department heads and/or the president tell the people who work for them that they can't use particular language, which was what I noted, it's absolutely censorship.

Nope.

For instance imagine if your president told me to not say something, what effect would that have on my rights?

 

[Town Heretic]

No, I don't.

Right. You can make comments completely ignoring the context that makes your comment wrong. lain:

That's called doubling down.

Anyway, here it is again, the literal comment, of all the comments that I made in a conversation with Yor that Stripe jumped in on--though to be fair it was Stripe's video post that had me commenting on the idea to begin with.

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.

The topic there was Trump and his dept. heads not allowing underlings to use certain phrases, like climate change. Those were the people he had the power to silence.

You presented what looked like a definition.

Within the context of the point.

It's faulty, even in context.

No, it isn't, which is why you can't say how. Look, it's okay to get a bit wrong. I just did a mea culpa with someone...DR, because I assumed he was saying something that he actually wasn't. And when you do that all you have to do is what I did.

You? You dig your heels in and just insist you're right, throw a nope, etc. even (and here's the absolutely staggering part) even looking right at the context. And that's one reason why we don't have many conversations.

By way of:

When department heads and/or the president tell the people who work for them that they can't use particular language, which was what I noted, it's absolutely censorship.

Nope.

If your boss at the energy department says you can no longer use phrases like "climate change" you've been censored.

For instance imagine if your president told me to not say something, what effect would that have on my rights?

Are you an employee of his? Because context is really, really important.

 

[Stripe]

You can make comments completely ignoring the context.

Nope.

I did not ignore the context. And the context is irrelevant.

That's called doubling down.

You dig your heels in and just insist you're right. And that's one reason why we don't have many conversations.

If your boss at the energy department says you can no longer use phrases like "climate change" you've been censored.

Nope. No rights denied.

Are you an employee of his?

What do you think?

Because context is really, really important.

No, it's not.

How about you just retract your definition and provide one that isn't wrong.

 

[Town Heretic]

Nope.

I did not ignore the context. And the context is irrelevant.

Here's the easy rebuttal: when the context makes the difference between censoring the expression of ideas and just telling the next guy what you think he should say, which can't then control what he actually says within the line and scope of his employment, it does make a difference. And in the context of my answer to Yor it was the former. The head of the department of energy censored the language of his employees to keep in line with Trump's stance.

Nope. No rights denied.

Censorship isn't necessarily a denial of right, Stripe. Just as it isn't necessarily illegal.

 

[Yorzhik]

I don't believe I stated it as a party division, did I? Now tell me who and what people were targeted using that law.

People who were anti-war were targeted. There's a lot of people on the right that don't want war, but it just goes to show you that extreme leftists like Wilson wanted war. And Wilson wasn't going to target his supporters.

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

When you are supposed to do a job and your boss tells you what you can and cannot do on your job, that's right and just; that's not censorship.

And it's still speech aimed at ending the conversation of ideas by attacking the messenger as unpatriotic.

Everyone lies, but not everyone is a liar. Just calling unpatriotic speech what it is does not necessarily label the person as unpatriotic.

You've overstated your case. Again.

Beyond that, the freedom to say unpatriotic things carries the freedom to call such language unpatriotic just as strongly, and it isn't censorship.

They can say it and they've said it. I'm just noting what it is an attempt to accomplish (and that isn't discourse).

Who decides that? Rhetoric against rhetoric is about the best discourse one could hope for.

Now you're just making it up, because that's never a position you'd ever hear or ever have heard me approach, let alone take.

You are taking a similar approach. You are saying those that call someone unpatriotic for saying unpatriotic things are attacking the people and not the idea when it is just freedom of speech, and it is the same as those that call people racist for disagreeing with Obama's policies is freedom of speech.

Now don't get confused, I'm not saying you agreed with or called people racist for disagreeing with Obama's policies. I'm saying people are free to call those that disagree with Obama policies 'racists' and calling people 'unpatriotic' is the same thing.

A table doesn't stand on one leg. An argument doesn't succeed on a single instance or illustration. I'll get a list of books from my wife, the librarian, who wrote a paper on the very thing. In the county seat, not far from where I write this, the religious right of the Baptist church entertained a group that was literally burning records and books and travelling the country to "raise awareness" of the dangerous nature of insidious things, like "Hotel California." lain:

So these Baptists were stealing people's recordings of Hotel California? or these Baptists made a law making such recordings illegal?

If not, then it isn't censorship, but it would be censorship to stop them from their misguided endeavor.

When you start limiting religious freedom it's a censorship of ideas.

When the religion includes murder, then it's ok to keep them out of the country. That could count as censorship indirectly. But not all censorship is bad, like, as you will agree, keeping pornography out of libraries.

Which Muslims. As I point out from time to time, most of the people doing the fighting and dying to stop ISIS aren't white European Christians, they're other Muslims. Most of the people who suffer at the hands of ISIS are Muslims who don't buy into their extremist party line.

The Muslims that do what their prophet did and commanded them to do. It's ok to make laws to protect people in the country from them.

No, I'm noting how censorship of ideas creeps into the acceptable by means of irrationality (all Muslims are and so we must) and fear.

Sure, there are some weak Muslims that don't have the will to kill or enslave you, and there are some rational Muslims that think the religion should change because it is wrong, but they are a minority. Therefore, in general, it is justified to protect a country from jihad.

It's absolutely censorship. It's an attack on ideas expressed by people who hold them and hold them without impairing anyone else's rights. The rest is how you justify it.

Talking about being a homo isn't what is under attack. Stopping homo behavior is what is trying to be stopped. So, call it indirect censorship if you want, just make sure you add the adjective.

I hope so, though you're not going to find as many of them.

Quite right. Just like you won't find as many right wing journalists, or right wing lawyers, or right wing teachers/professors. Censorship is practiced in secondary education to make sure right wing ideas are stifled and said students are discouraged from going into those fields. In secondary education, all the censorship is left wing.

It is if the objection is because of the ideas and differences the target groups bring with them.

It isn't the ideas that are the reason for being anti-immigrant. The reasons vary from job loss, culture loss, and trying to avoid criminal behavior. Call it indirect censorship if you want, but the reasons for stopping the speech is a byproduct of stopping them from existing within the country for other reasons that have nothing to do with speech.

Yes, I can see how that's much more serious. lain: Before this latest the anger aimed at FB was from the LTBGQ...whatever the acronym of the moment is and claims of censorship on that front. So I don't know what the reality is...the video Tam put up had a fellow who couldn't understand why he was on the restricted list while he casually dropped an F bomb.

Could you show me where the LGTBQ story is? I'd like to read about it.

YouTube does the same thing as FB. And Vimeo which we just found out deleted a ministry's large library of content because they offer help to homos.

What it does show is that when leftists get control of a medium, they censor right wing views in a hypocritical way. It would be OK if they created their platforms with a clear understanding that they were biased against the right wing. But they built their platforms on freedom of speech so they could get content that would draw people for advertising, and didn't start acting the hypocrite until they were big enough that another platform would need too much capital to start easily.

It's not censorship by law, but it does show that leftists are liars and/or hypocrites by nature. And this is the reason they would support much harsher measures to control people's speech and ideas.

Another unfortunate habit of the right is the idea that everyone on the left thinks alike.

How many anti-murder-of-babies-before-they-are-born are on the left? You'd think just on pragmatic or scientific grounds there would be at least a substantial minority. But there are few if any.

And is there a differentiation on the left for social and economic liberals? How about, like on the right, a differentiation between principled and pragmatic? or big and small government liberals?

You don't have any of these because all the differences in thought among leftists comes from minor variations inside the principles that the left holds dear. It isn't ever "should we censor", but "how much censorship can we get away with" - the "how much" is the vast majority of differing views one will get on the left.

In fact, they largely don't, which is why my old joke about the Democratic party making a two party system superfluous since its inception has legs and why Obama had difficulty getting his party together when they had enough power to do what they wanted. The right is and for some time has been much more uniform in thought and better organized in practice. I believe the Tea Party has complicated that, but it's still more true than not.

The Tea Party didn't complicate it; it makes your premise wrong. When the left gave blacks the middle finger, did they rebel within the party? No, they stayed on the plantation. When the republicans gave people on the right the middle finger, the Tea party punched them in the nose in the form of election losses.

I don't believe conservatives are, but the hard right is populated (as is the hard left) by far too many irrational and angry voices for me to feel easy about them. Too many people who are easy with demonization and intellectually unjustifiable broadsides.

I don't think you know who is the hard right. I'm hard right. Trump is not hard right. The hardest right politicians on the federal level are Rand Paul and Ted Cruz (although in an absolute sense they might not be considered very hard right). The KKK is on the left, as well as the politicians that made the Jim Crow laws. The alt-right is a mostly moderate and they look up to Trump as a good politician.

See, that's a sure tell that I'm talking to someone with a bias that distorts the foundation of his thinking. That's just not a reasonable position to take. No, they aren't as bad as Hitler et al. It's a crazy thing to suggest without a serious wink.

I'm making an unsupported claim that the left would be in favor of dictatorial leaders like those mentioned. But it's a claim that I've lent evidence to above, and could supply more.

 

[Town Heretic]

Given how much we've gone into, Par I.

People who were anti-war were targeted.

Who were almost if not entirely on the left. The socialists were particularly targeted as opposition to the war became illegal. The action passed with one dissenting vote in the House and on a 48-26 in the Senate

There's a lot of people on the right that don't want war, but it just goes to show you that extreme leftists like Wilson wanted war. And Wilson wasn't going to target his supporters.

"Enforcement varied greatly from one jurisdiction to the next, with most activity in the Western states where the Industrial Workers of the World labor union was prevalent."

Unions. And Eugene Debs, head of the socialist party, was sentenced to ten years for "undermining" government conscription efforts.

When you are supposed to do a job and your boss tells you what you can and cannot do on your job, that's right and just; that's not censorship.

It is neither inherently right or just, though it may be and likely is lawful. This can be easily illustrated by the changes to laws and instructions given in Germany as the Nazi party came to power. It is, however, entirely censorship. You may approve of it or not, but you cannot reasonably rename it.

Everyone lies, but not everyone is a liar. Just calling unpatriotic speech what it is does not necessarily label the person as unpatriotic.

I'd agree as a rationalist. As someone who regularly trades in rhetorical device and sees the steady application of those sorts of terms related not only to ideas, but to groups of people, I think the practical and ordinary usage argues against you.

...the freedom to say unpatriotic things carries the freedom to call such language unpatriotic just as strongly, and it isn't censorship.

No disputing that men are free to say what they will and categorize a thing as they desire, but certain language is aimed at producing certain results. The way the right has for some time now applied unpatriotic and, worse, unAmerican to the left is not merely opposition in a spirited difference, but an attempt to shout down and diminish, to call into question more than the wisdom of an idea by calling into question the very loyalty of the people arguing for it. Now you may agree with the use and the tactic, but that's not language in line with or useful in providing a vital marketplace of discourse and difference, a public square where ideas are addressed by the quality of their reason.

Who decides that?

The statements themselves establish it. When you stop talking about the idea and instead attack the messenger then you're doing something else.

Rhetoric against rhetoric is about the best discourse one could hope for.

Rather, ideas pitched against ideas, examined on their strengths and argued as to their efficacy and point would be the best. The worst would be men questioning the integrity of other men in lieu.

You are taking a similar approach. You are saying those that call someone unpatriotic for saying unpatriotic things

I stop you there because your premise is flawed and that may explain your conclusion. Rather, I am saying the calling someone unAmerican or unpatriotic for saying that which you dislike is a horrible mistake that imperils the public square when the people saying it have enough power and influence to make the free exercise of speech less likely. And if any speech could be said to be inherently unAmerican, it would be speech that attempts to make the free exercise of speech itself less likely, no matter which side is trying to do it.

Now don't get confused,

I don't find either of us confused, but you were being mistaken in your assumption above.

I'm not saying you agreed with or called people racist for disagreeing with Obama's policies.

Good. That's a rational position to take, since I haven't and because I differed significantly with the president on any number of issues, his failures on those points having a great deal to do with his losing my support in his bid for reelection.

I'm saying people are free to call those that disagree with Obama policies 'racists' and calling people 'unpatriotic' is the same thing.

Then we disagree on the point. It's one thing to say someone is a racist without sufficient cause (and your above would constitute that, as we'd both agree) and another to say that failing to support his policies made you disloyal to the Republic. Both are odious, but at least you're still the crazy Uncle in the former, part of the family. Only an embarrassing part. And unlike the former (which I can't recall reading much of) I've read and heard a lot of the latter. And unAmerican has a particularly odious weight of history behind it.

So these Baptists were stealing people's recordings of Hotel California? or these Baptists made a law making such recordings illegal?

No, they were encouraging kids who went to their church and who were subject to the social pressure that entailed to pony up. A guy standing beside you with a collection plate isn't going to mug you, but I'd bet most people feel the social expectation keenly enough to try to come up with something when the plate passes by.

If not, then it isn't censorship, but it would be censorship to stop them from their misguided endeavor.

Depends on your means. If you protested and, better yet, argued against the practice reasonably and rationally, as a local reporter did (who then had to publicly apologize to keep his job) then I'd say you're doing precisely what those Baptists weren't.

When the religion includes murder, then it's ok to keep them out of the country.

Which is why we're not going to let an ISIS member in on a green card. It's also why we shouldn't impede the President of Turkey, our NATO ally and Muslim, from entering the country. Or that ISIS fighting general and Muslim whose name escapes me momentarily but whose family is here and who ran into that problem not long ago.

The Muslims that do what their prophet did and commanded them to do. It's ok to make laws to protect people in the country from them.

Didn't I ask you about the Moors and how Christians and Jews there weren't executed or converted? ISIS is no more Islam than Westboro Baptists are representative of Christian Orthodoxy and approach.

Sure, there are some weak Muslims that don't have the will to kill or enslave you, and there are some rational Muslims that think the religion should change because it is wrong, but they are a minority. Therefore, in general, it is justified to protect a country from jihad.

The fact is that overwhelmingly it's Muslims opposing and dying as they fight the radical expression of some elements of Islam. Again, Islam once controlled a great deal of southern Europe and the Christians and Jews living there were not killed or converted. Is it that you suppose you understand their faith better than these men? Or better than the people of Turkey? Or better than most Muslims, who oppose ISIS and its like?

 

[Town Heretic]

Part II

Talking about being a homo isn't what is under attack. Stopping homo behavior is what is trying to be stopped. So, call it indirect censorship if you want, just make sure you add the adjective.

As with religious beliefs, human sexuality is both idea and expression, with one being fairly meaningless absent the other. And, again, homosexuals don't deny you a single right and we don't live in a Republic that serves your or my religious beliefs, only one that protects them.

Quite right. Just like you won't find as many right wing journalists, or right wing lawyers, or right wing teachers/professors.

In general, the more educated a person is the less likely they are to conservative, though some fairly profound conservative thinkers and leaders have been well educated men and women.

It isn't the ideas that are the reason for being anti-immigrant.

It is if you're attempting to bar Muslims because of their faith. Because otherwise the restrictions should relate to a legitimate state interest.

Could you show me where the LGTBQ story is? I'd like to read about it.

Here's one from 2015: http://www.businessinsider.com/lgbt-protest-against-facebook-2015-6 but it isn't the one I'm thinking of, which was fairly recently, where FB apologized for doing something that it called inadvertent but had the community upset. I believe it was a Yahoo article.

YouTube does the same thing as FB. And Vimeo which we just found out deleted a ministry's large library of content because they offer help to homos.

Hadn't heard that one. So do you think it's fear of economic/cultural backlash? Because FB is a business and all they want at the end of the day is to maximize their profits.

What it does show is that when leftists get control of a medium, they censor right wing views in a hypocritical way.

No, if true it shows what FB is willing to do for whatever reason (and assuming it's ideological is just that, assumption). Reminds me when a guy said Coke was sponsoring the NAACP because it was a liberal den. He believed it. I think they just wanted to sell Coke and minorities drink a lot of them.

It would be OK if they created their platforms with a clear understanding that they were biased against the right wing. But they built their platforms on freedom of speech so they could get content that would draw people for advertising

That tells you what they're all about, making money. They use the construct and they invite people to supply a product that will draw more people. If you post things that have a negative net impact on that model you're going to find yourself on the outside looking in, I suppose.

It's not censorship by law, but it does show that leftists are liars and/or hypocrites by nature.

Two things I'm sure of: you're a bright guy and what you just wrote isn't. And that's the breathing illustration of why I take the hard left or right with a skeptical grain of salt. It does something to you that makes you comfortable writing that and believing it.

How many anti-murder-of-babies-before-they-are-born are on the left?

Many, especially among the Catholic set, but not nearly enough. There's even a pro-life movement within the Dems (http://www.democratsforlife.org/), but they're a minority in a party that mistakenly believes what the latest S. Ct. nominee appears to believe, that the law defines the point of inheritance of life and right. I think that's irrational and immoral.

You'd think just on pragmatic or scientific grounds there would be at least a substantial minority. But there are few if any.

According to Pew (link) 38% of Republicans are in favor of legal abortion. Also according to Pew 28% of Democrats oppose abortion. So that's a reasonably substantial minority.

And is there a differentiation on the left for social and economic liberals?

Absolutely. You have people nearing communism far out enough and socialist moving in, to people who are free market but believe in some fundamental rights that haven't taken root here, like medical care.

How about, like on the right, a differentiation between principled and pragmatic? or big and small government liberals?

I think you had a much bigger tent in the days of Baker, that post Reagan a lot of effort was made to drive out the ideologically impure, by the lights of the stronger part of the party. RINOs came into being and were hunted. With the Tea Party I think it's probably the most diverse the right has been since then, but in a different way, with the fringe having a voice that has to be heard now and moderates still mostly hunted.

The Tea Party didn't complicate it; it makes your premise wrong.

No, it just makes your opinion different, unless you can objectively demonstrate the error you suppose. When deals can't be made without a voice that wasn't empowered before is in play that necessarily complicates the business of coalitions.

When the left gave blacks the middle finger, did they rebel within the party?

No idea what you believe you're speaking about on the point. When? In what action?

No, they stayed on the plantation.

Wow. That was a really awful rhetorical mistake. And until you give me the context I asked for a moment ago I can't begin to speak to it.

When the republicans gave people on the right the middle finger, the Tea party punched them in the nose in the form of election losses.

Or, as your base aged and shrank the hard right found itself in a position that moderates found themselves in a while back. People had to listen, or at least pretend to until the election cycle passed.

I don't think you know who is the hard right. I'm hard right. Trump is not hard right.

I never said Trump was hard anything, but the people who put him into power were largely conservatives and right leaning ones at that.

The hardest right politicians on the federal level are Rand Paul and Ted Cruz (although in an absolute sense they might not be considered very hard right). The KKK is on the left, as well as the politicians that made the Jim Crow laws. The alt-right is a mostly moderate and they look up to Trump as a good politician.

lain: Rand and Cruz sound about right. The KKK is about as left as you are. Conservatives filled the ranks of the Klan because for a very long time the Klan was about status quo to the extent it could be preserved. It meant to keep blacks out of power, to diminish and minimize the effect of their freedom in political and economic realities. It was founded to protect the old Southern families and culture from being obliterated by the victorious north, but it soon became mostly a white power preservation society.

I'm making an unsupported claim that the left would be in favor of dictatorial leaders like those mentioned.

that isn't what you claimed, but it's just as peculiar a notion. You'd be better off having stuck to people like Huey Long.

 

[Stripe]

Here's the easy rebuttal: when the context makes the difference between censoring the expression of ideas and just telling the next guy what you think he should say, which can't then control what he actually says within the line and scope of his employment, it does make a difference. And in the context of my answer to Yor it was the former. The head of the department of energy censored the language of his employees to keep in line with Trump's stance.

Nope.

It's not censorship.

Regardless of the context, telling a guy he can't say something is never censorship.

Censorship isn't necessarily a denial of right, Stripe.

And there's a statement that makes it sound like I've declared censorship must involve a denial of rights.

However, I've never said anything of the sort.

Just as it isn't necessarily illegal.

Yeah, well, telling a guy not to use certain words certainly isn't illegal. lain:

But then it's never censorship either, is it.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app

 

[Town Heretic]

It's not censorship.

Regardless of the context, telling a guy he can't say something is never censorship.

It is if you then have the power to silence him, to compel him.

And there's a statement that makes it sound like I've declared censorship must involve a denial of rights.

However, I've never said anything of the sort.

I wrote, "If your boss at the energy department says you can no longer use phrases like "climate change" you've been censored." Because your boss isn't asking and you aren't hearing a suggestion. You can't use the phrase.

You quoted that bit, by itself and answered it this way:

Nope. No rights denied.

That's you arguing against your above. I didn't mention "rights". I spoke to censorship. You responded on right.

Yeah, well, telling a guy not to use certain words certainly isn't illegal.

Usually not and I didn't say it was.

But then it's never censorship either, is it.

Yes Stripe, that's exactly what it is if you have the power to enforce your will. Otherwise it's just a suggestion.

 

[ok doser]

Squeaky!

does town know you're using his account?

bad squeaky! :sibbie:

 

[Stripe]

It is if you then have the power to silence him, to compel him.

Nope.

You clearly haven't thought this through at all. You just threw out a definition that you thought would help your argument.

Everyone has the power to silence another person.

And use of that power is necessary to ensure compliance with a gag order.

This is why your rights would necessarily be denied if telling someone to be silent was to entail censorship.

I wrote, "[C33]If your boss at the energy department says you can no longer use phrases like "climate change" you've been censored." Because your boss isn't asking and you aren't hearing a suggestion. You can't use the phrase.

Sure, you can.

You quoted that bit, by itself and answered it this way:That's you arguing against your above. I didn't mention "rights". I spoke to censorship. You responded on right.

Nope. Supra.

Usually not and I didn't say it was.

Sarcasm is lost on you, it seems.

Yes Stripe, that's exactly what it is if you have the power to enforce your will. Otherwise it's just a suggestion.

Nope. With the power factor in play it would be an order. With the power factor used it would be coersion and maybe censorship. Or it might be entirely appropriate.

Censorship is no necessary part of this conversation. Your definition is faulty.

 

[Town Heretic]

You clearly haven't thought this through at all.

Trying to have a rational conversation with someone who is determined to say no, sometimes to himself? Fair enough, but I'm an optimist.

You just threw out a definition that you thought would help your argument.

No, I answered within the context of the conversation on a point understood. You're trying to make it broader because you can't stand to be wrong, I suppose. But wrong you were and remain.

Everyone has the power to silence another person.

Not legally, no.

This is why your rights would necessarily be denied if telling someone to be silent was to entail censorship.

So now you're back to admitting that you did tie rights into the thing you were adamant you hadn't.

Sure, you can.

Not in the scope of your employment, which was the point.

Nope. Supra.

He's snapped, but for those playing at home:

If your boss at the energy department says you can no longer use phrases like "climate change" you've been censored.

Nope. No rights denied.

Censorship isn't necessarily a denial of right, Stripe. Just as it isn't necessarily illegal.

And there's a statement that makes it sound like I've declared censorship must involve a denial of rights.

lain:

Sarcasm is lost on you, it seems.

Stripe thinks this was sarcasm, "Yeah, well, telling a guy not to use certain words certainly isn't illegal."

God knows why. It's not illegal and I had just finished saying it isn't, so...

Nope. With the power factor in play it would be an order. With the power factor used it would be coersion and maybe censorship. Or it might be entirely appropriate.

Let me know when you're sure. In the meantime, astounding rebuttals like "Nope" aside, when you're prohibited from using words and phrases by someone empowered to stop you, you've been censored. It's frequently legal and appropriate is a subjective value that has nothing to do with my point.

Censorship is no necessary part of this conversation. Your definition is faulty.

Censorship is what happened in my illustration. The definition was already in place and didn't need me.

 

[Stripe]

Not legally, no.

When you find yourself having to qualify my statement to disagree with it because you know you'd have to agree with my unqualified statement, it shows you are determined to be contrary.

People have the power to silence others, regardless of who the boss is.

So now you're back to admitting that you did tie rights into the thing you were adamant you hadn't.

Nope.

You're just confusing yourself because you're tied to a nonsense definition.

Censorship is not necessarily found in a man telling another not to use certain words, even if he is in authority. The only way it could be is if the subordinate's rights are breached.

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app

 

[ok doser]

...when you're prohibited from using words and phrases by someone empowered to stop you, you've been censored.

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?


if you're working at a law firm that has an unspoken dress code of three piece suits and your boss calls you into his office the day you decide to show up for work in a bathrobe and bunny slippers, are you being censored?

 

[Stripe]

Stripe thinks this was sarcasm ... God knows why.

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

Heck, I even explained myself in the next line. :idunno:

It's not illegal and I had just finished saying it isn't, so...

That's because you're enamored with your faulty definition and are defending it so blindly that you refuse to consider any opposing point of view.

Telling a guy not to use certain words is not censorship.

Let me know when you're sure. In the meantime, astounding rebuttals like "Nope" aside, when you're prohibited from using words and phrases by someone empowered to stop you, you've been censored. It's frequently legal and appropriate is a subjective value that has nothing to do with my point.

Nope.

You use the word "empowered," so we'll assume the relationship is a legitimate one of boss-worker.

If your boss tells you not to say "climate change," that is not censorship; no more than him correcting any other part of your work would be.

Censorship is what happened in my illustration. The definition was already in place and didn't need me.

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

It's useless.

Let it go. :up:


Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app