I don't mean offense, but that argument is filled with more fallacy's and straw men then I could address in anything less than a couple of pages. I can sum it up though with 2 points.
1) No, no one is saying anyone is inherently wrong for pointing out racism/misogyny/sexism, in fact it's needed and encouraged.
2) No, you don't have a right not to be offended. Sorry, but no. You don't have a right to a "safe place". That is a child's argument. Being offended, does not make an individual right.
I assure you, if you demand a society with the same rules given to children, it will be short-coming before you're treated as one.
I just want to understand where you are coming from so please bare with me. Are you then saying, that you are not ok with say, people creating a site designed for discussing chess and then asking people to leave if everything they post on that site has nothing to do with chess what so ever?
This in my opinion is a similar situation because it's a site, choosing what they want to see discussed on that site, which can be described as choosing what they don't want discussed, and then telling people to leave for not following the rules set. Except in the above situation, I think to most, it would be absurd to say it is wrong to do that. Someone took the time to put together an environment to be used for a certain, harmless and legal purpose and then are told they are not allowed to use it for that purpose. If you feel my example does not model our situation please point out why. I'm wanting to decern at what point you feel we loose that say.
I see your point, and I don't necessarily disagree with a portion of your argument.
I'll reiterate, the site is within its rights to limit any speech it doesn't like or want to support. This could be anything from hate speech to Swedish clocks. It is not a question of ability, nor is it a question of legal standing, websites/admins have both. It is an issue of speech, not governmental, but the ethics of speech. We have never before been better enabled to communicate, we've also never before been better enabled to block communication and censor. We are free to do as we like with it. When we cross the line, into limiting speech, especially on sites like Snapzu, Reddit, Voat, etc. we're really setting a dangerous precedent. Reddit for example, when it first debuted and in its early years, championed itself as a harbor of free speech. There was plenty that the admins didn't like on the site, but they recognized an important principle, once they began to curate what was allowable, and what was not, they would have taken a very important and very large step towards censorship.
I see a meaningful difference between banning a user for continual abuse, and banning a topic entirely, assuming it’s not illegal content. I think we have an obligation to allow it, and I say that as someone who can’t stand it. The primary reason for this is because if we allow censorship of any kind, if we tolerate it, it will without question be abused. It never de-escalates, censorship never ends the issue, it only inflames it. Human nature and history have taught us what human beings do when they’re able to control discussion. We already have governments throughout the world who are doing this, we have technologies that are aimed at social engineering how we respond to issues. The last thing we need are websites taking a pro-censorship position. We need open communities where anything can be discussed, again, assuming it’s not illegal. We face too many obstacles for speech with our government, to sit by idly as websites adopt a pro-censorship “safe place” policy. It starts with the low hanging fruit, things we can all agree are “bad”, but mark my word, and look at history, this will not be the end of it, this is just how the door opens.
I think I have addressed some of this in my comment here. If not, feel free to respond to this comment and I'll be happy to take it from there. :)
I don't mean offense, but that argument is filled with more fallacy's and straw men then I could address in anything less than a couple of pages. I can sum it up though with 2 points.
1) No, no one is saying anyone is inherently wrong for pointing out racism/misogyny/sexism, in fact it's needed and encouraged.
2) No, you don't have a right not to be offended. Sorry, but no. You don't have a right to a "safe place". That is a child's argument. Being offended, does not make an individual right.
I assure you, if you demand a society with the same rules given to children, it will be short-coming before you're treated as one.
I just want to understand where you are coming from so please bare with me. Are you then saying, that you are not ok with say, people creating a site designed for discussing chess and then asking people to leave if everything they post on that site has nothing to do with chess what so ever?
This in my opinion is a similar situation because it's a site, choosing what they want to see discussed on that site, which can be described as choosing what they don't want discussed, and then telling people to leave for not following the rules set. Except in the above situation, I think to most, it would be absurd to say it is wrong to do that. Someone took the time to put together an environment to be used for a certain, harmless and legal purpose and then are told they are not allowed to use it for that purpose. If you feel my example does not model our situation please point out why. I'm wanting to decern at what point you feel we loose that say.
I see your point, and I don't necessarily disagree with a portion of your argument.
I'll reiterate, the site is within its rights to limit any speech it doesn't like or want to support. This could be anything from hate speech to Swedish clocks. It is not a question of ability, nor is it a question of legal standing, websites/admins have both. It is an issue of speech, not governmental, but the ethics of speech. We have never before been better enabled to communicate, we've also never before been better enabled to block communication and censor. We are free to do as we like with it. When we cross the line, into limiting speech, especially on sites like Snapzu, Reddit, Voat, etc. we're really setting a dangerous precedent. Reddit for example, when it first debuted and in its early years, championed itself as a harbor of free speech. There was plenty that the admins didn't like on the site, but they recognized an important principle, once they began to curate what was allowable, and what was not, they would have taken a very important and very large step towards censorship.
I see a meaningful difference between banning a user for continual abuse, and banning a topic entirely, assuming it’s not illegal content. I think we have an obligation to allow it, and I say that as someone who can’t stand it. The primary reason for this is because if we allow censorship of any kind, if we tolerate it, it will without question be abused. It never de-escalates, censorship never ends the issue, it only inflames it. Human nature and history have taught us what human beings do when they’re able to control discussion. We already have governments throughout the world who are doing this, we have technologies that are aimed at social engineering how we respond to issues. The last thing we need are websites taking a pro-censorship position. We need open communities where anything can be discussed, again, assuming it’s not illegal. We face too many obstacles for speech with our government, to sit by idly as websites adopt a pro-censorship “safe place” policy. It starts with the low hanging fruit, things we can all agree are “bad”, but mark my word, and look at history, this will not be the end of it, this is just how the door opens.