[Banana699]

>censorship is not inherently bad

Then why do you get mad when China or the Middle East bans material they find objectionable? They simply have a different definition of what counts as objectionable, that's all, and it's well within their rights to enforce their different cultural values within their borders, just like you argue that a "democracy" has this right.

Also, when I go to Netflix and search for "LGBT", I see tons of material. So that must obviously mean censoring of LGBT is a pathetic lie, it's right there in one (very big, much bigger than Fox) media outlet so it's obviously not censored.

[4512124672456]

> Then why do you get mad when China or the Middle East bans material they find objectionable?

There is a difference between banning content that is objectively harmful (e.g. child porn) and banning content to control and suppress minorities. Just because they can doesn't mean it's good.

> So that must obviously mean censoring of LGBT is a pathetic lie

I never argued this.

[Banana699]

There is no such thing as "objectively harmful", all harm or good is decided through values, and those values differ. The exact same way you deal with paedophilia, is the way some countries deal with the LGBT.

It doesn't have to be governments only as well, the Middle East is majority Muslim after all, and muslims do get incredibly offended at LGBT stuff (a lot of Arabic insults are just variations on "gay"). So, according to you, those private citizens and corporations should be allowed to ban the LGBT, it's not censorship if the government isn't doing it right?

>I never argued this.

No, but you did argue for something indistinguishably similar, which is that because a news story is found on Fox then this news story is not actually censored. So, by that same unassailable logic, LGBT stuff is on Netflix and therefore LGBT stuff is not actually being censored. All objections you have against my satire argument is applicable to your real argument.