|
|
|
|
|
by benten10
3768 days ago
|
|
>>You f\king w\\re, I'm going to ra\e you, and kill your family and pet, and tort\* you till you beg for mercy, and I'm going to feed your pieces to your dogs, if you dare talk anything on this issue again. As you see, this works both ways. Above, it should have been clear I was clearly using threatening language for elucidation process. And yet, something _must_ have 'jumped' in you. Even if a little bit. Even after '' out the important words. Even after I toned down what I'd originally planned to write. Now imagine, I didn't make it as obvious it was for education purposes, but it was reasonably clear to guess I meant it that way. And then imagine there was no commentary. Now consider the possibility I am a random stranger who might actually have meant it. Women and minorities do* go through it every day. Every damn day. Now, you can call it free speech, and banning anything similar censoring. In which case, I will have to work on a few sockpuppet bots to prove my point more clearly ;). My point is, you are being reductive in looking the world as 'censorship', and 'free speech'. This argument has happened for thousands of years, and it speeds up if all caught up on the definitions of 'reasonable threats', 'hate speech' etcetera, and the historical contexts surrounding such issues. |
|