[mamon]

Ok, so you've decided that being white supremacist is bad. I can agree with you on that, but still the question remains: who get's do decide what has a place in modern society? Who decides what "modern society" even is? Today Google might decide to censor white supremacists, tomorrow it can be human rights advocates. I think that allowing any type of censorship, even for such a noble cause as fighing racism is a slippery slope. Especially when done by a private company that is outside of our control (and governments are only marginally better).

[Frondo]

You're trying to generalize a useful rule ("shun white supremacists") but it doesn't work in this case. I don't think we need to, either.

We're not robots. We can shun white supremacists and leave everyone else alone. This isn't a slippery slope, it's just good sense (no more white supremacists, hey!). Humankind will get along just fine if we tack on that one extra rule and all follow it.

[sincerely]

Good thing the definition of white supremacist is commonly agreed upon and noncontroversial and absolutely isnt subject to definition creep :)

[krapp]

> Good thing the definition of white supremacist is commonly agreed upon and noncontroversial and absolutely isnt subject to definition creep :)

The definition is commonly agreed upon, and what "white supremacist" means is not at all controversial to most people. It certainly isn't so arbitrary as to be meaningless.

Now, the term may be misapplied at times, as may any term, but for it to be misapplied, it has to have an accepted application to begin with. A term without a definition can't be subject to definition creep, and the possible creep of a term like "white supremacist" is that wide to begin with.

[Frondo]

What isn't subject to definition creep?

Murder now, for some, includes abortion.

Censorship now includes, for some, private companies removing bad actors from their private systems.

Come on, that's lazy to dismiss it that way when society literally changes all the time.

[mamon]

Offtopic, but regarding abortion:

Whether or not abortion is a murder is not about definition of "murder" it is about definition of "human being".

There's no doubt that abortion involves killing a living creature, the whole pro-choice vs pro-life debate is basically about one simple question: "is fetus a human being?". If you answer that with "yes", then every abortion becomes a murder, plain and simple.

This also explains why there will never be a compromise between two crowds: it is logically impossible to compromise on yes/no questions.

[tomatocracy]

Isn’t the compromise position essentially ‘after X weeks’, where the value of X is highly contested? (And on the binary yes/no question there’s nuances too which get debated eg if continuing the pregnancy would be a significant threat to the mother’s life)