Quote:
Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth
define 'being cautious' for me. because my interpretation of being cautious is self-censorship. i.e. not posting such offensive material because you know the reaction it is bound to provoke. i call that self-censorship because that is precisely what it is. you asserting that it's not censorship is accomplishing absolutely nothing in this debate tbh. you can try providing some kind of reasoning as to why that isn't self-censorship or you can stop wasting my time.
|
to expand on this, cause i don't want you to misinterpret my point again, it isn't mandatory censorship as in when the authorities silence you through force. but either way it is self-censorship because the end result is you not expressing a particular view out of fear of retribution. the end result is the same, the only real difference is that instead of the state enforcing the censorship it is violent thugs doing the enforcing in the form of terrorist attacks. this is no better than state censorship, in my eyes, and that is what i have been arguing against this entire time.
chula was saying that you 'shouldn't poke the bear' which does basically mean the magazine should have thought twice about posting that offensive material. at least that's how i interpreted it. his only caveat was that if they were going to post the offensive material they should have soldiered up first and got armed and bunkered down. while it might have been smart for them to have done so, i don't think they were obligated to do so and honestly i think the fact that they left themselves open to an attack was an effective demonstration of free speech in the same way the civil rights protestors left themselves open to violence - in fact they sort of explicitly provoked violence - for the sake of demonstrating their point.
i will say though i am quite amused at how riled up i'm getting you. it seems like you really can't handle me disagreeing with you, for whatever reason. this must mean that either you really do respect my opinion, in which case i'm flattered, or it just means that your ego can't handle being told you're wrong, in which case i'm just amused like i said before. i guess you were right about the fact that part of me does enjoy getting people riled up. but either way i'm not being disingenuous for the sake of getting people riled up. i'm only giving you my honest opinion without sugarcoating it. i guess i just find it entertaining when people get angry at me for that.
p.s. i'll be going to work in a few hours and i do 12 hour shifts. so if you come back and you don't get a response from me right away, don't get too excited this time. i'll be back around 8 pm or so EST.