[Turing_Machine]

> There are religious bookbanners today and they have very little overlap with the anti-social media crowd.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on that. To me it doesn't matter whether there's any actual overlap between the groups. It's the censorious impulse they share. Believing that they have the right to make this type of decision for others is what makes them the "same kind of people".

[llamaimperative]

Presumably people who use the law to oppose distribution of child pornography are the “same type” then too, right?

A censorious impulse is a censorious impulse, after all!

Obviously you can use whatever taxonomy of people you want, but yours seems like an extremely esoteric and rather useless one.

[Turing_Machine]

Don't give yourself a hernia setting up that straw man, dude.

[llamaimperative]

Hey you offered the framework!

What about people opposed to allowing non-doctors to call themselves doctors?

There are a million examples of “censorious impulses” you would not lump in with these, ergo the taxonomy is a bad one.

[Turing_Machine]

> Hey you offered the framework!

I did nothing of the sort. You're trying to set up a classic slippery slope fallacy and I'm not going to play that game.

Me: I think alcohol prohibitionists are meddling busybodies. You: Oh, well, I guess you think there's nothing wrong with injecting babies with pure grain alcohol starting at birth.

Me: I think furnaces and central heating are wonderful inventions. You: Oh, well, I guess you think it's okay to go around setting houses on fire.

That's how the game is played. I stopped being impressed by it decades ago. Likely before you were even born.

Bye now!

[llamaimperative]

> Believing that they have the right to make this type of decision for others is what makes them the "same kind of people".