you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]teelo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

/u/ccccccc

tell that to charlie hebdo

Sorry I'm not here to do your research for you. If you want to attack my core arguments you're going to have to present the evidence yourself. Or admit that you're wrong, I'm right, and apologise.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I deleted the comment because it didn't seem productive to engage in this way in this topic, and I thought better of it after I posted.

the charlie hebdo comment was an argument that it's still real censorship even if it's on the low end of the pyramid of debate, as some of the controversial hebdo cartoons were.

[–]teelo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

an argument that it's still real censorship even if it's on the low end of the pyramid of debate

Maybe its an argument that the "pyramid of debate" is not an analogue system with a distinct cut-off point that defines what counts as "censorship", that really its a matter of opinion? I'm sure that some people would believe that comments like ones the OP was reporting on were perfectly fine, while others would say they aren't. I, too, have my threshold of what is acceptable censorship, I just set my bar a lot lower than others.