| > If, on the other hand, you just mean 'killing' I don't, I was going for "things everyone, pretty much everywhere, accept as evil". >but it's ridiculous to describe 'people criticizing me on the Internet for what I say' to 'censorship'. First of all it's not "people criticizing me", it's "people applying a detramental label to me". And, no it's not (yet) government sanctioned censorship but I'm sure you realize it has an effect of shutting down the discussion. >and to allow them to advocate for others doing the same. What exactly do you mean by 'mobbing'? But in modern times with social media, I think we need to begin to realize that this is too much power for individuals to have. Anyone can simply decide that someone is bad for any reason and all and then advocate for others to get them fired, boycott their business, etc. To apply these kinds of consequences to people used to require going through the justice system. >Are you really going to compare online speech to physical violence? That's not what I was talking about here. I was describing a case where a group of people started deciding what kind of speach was ok and how that turned out. If there were brown shirts today they wouldn't engage in those tactics, they'd probably get lots of online accounts to brow beat and shut down any conversation they don't like. It would probably be even more effective than trying to go beat everyone into submission. >How do you determine which of those are 'unambiguously evil'? I go with well established societal consensus. |