This question comes after a discussion about censorship with a friend. If a certain person speaks out in favor of censorship towards someone or something without invoking any legal entity, is it hypocritical to condemn that person? Posted here because philosophy I guess
>>377754
I have no idea what you mean but I post because this dog is cute
>>377754
What do you mean "is it hypocritical?" You haven't talked about the person in question, only the one in favor of censorship.
>>377754
What would censorship without legal entities look like? And what's hypocritical about condemnation?
I think OP is referring to the paradox of tolerance
>>377754
>is it hypocritical to condemn that person?
No. Being in favor of free speech does not mean that you personally must accept or even tolerate every single dumb thing that someone else might say. It means only that you do not want the government to get involved just because of something someone said.
>>377754
You are under no obligation to tolerate intolerance.
>>378158
This, basically.
>>377925
Indeed
>>377959
Basically I was offering my friend advice on Internet arguments and censorship; here's how it went down
>A (my friend): makes a joke imvolving a slur
>B: hey man, can you take that down, it's offensive
>A: don't try to censor me you cunt
My two questions are did B try to censor A (no moderators have been contacted yet) and did A try to censor B?
>>378158
But if neither person gets the government involved, then is either one trying to censor?
>>380112
>But if neither person gets the government involved, then is either one trying to censor?
Yes. Censorship is by definition when the government forbids certain facts or opinions from being expressed.
If you own a newspaper, for example, and your friend wants you to print an article you have written and you decline the offer, regardless of the reason, then you aren't censoring him. It doesn't even matter if no other newspaper wants to print his article either. He's not being censored until the government makes the printing of that article illegal.
>>380112
That clearly depends on if person B is a SJW.
>A: Says something the other party gets offended by
>B: SHITPOST SHITPOST SHITPOST
>A: That's censorship!
If person B is a SJW it's censorship, and A (/pol/) is justified. If person B is from /pol/ it is not censorship, and person A is just a whiny SJW.
