[sqeaky]

Why does it so often seem that the people complaining about censorship are the ones punching down?

Why is it so often someone's right to complain and make problems for others but never concern about people's right to be tolerated when they're being decent humans?

Either people need to be banned who insult others and use slurs and those who maliciously push right up against the rules, or they will bully people out. Look at modern X/Twitter allowing hate speech has pushed out advertisers and something like half of the users?

This is basic Paradox of Tolerance stuff, decent people aren't Banning anyone for pointing out actual arguments like discussing if "question" is okay, asking for extra context if this guy did something else or if this is council overreach. But people complaining about wokeness, DEI, diversity hires, or other technically allowable but obviously hostile nonsense are clearly just trying to attack other people and often in ways that are racist dog whistles. If people insist on being hostile up to the amount allowable by the rules instead of just trying to get along then the rules need to keep changing and adjusting and of course the people who are willfully choosing to be assholes will scream "censorship". Before teaming up with someone complaining about censorship be sure they're actually at risk of censorship and not just trying to use Free Speech as a shield to hurt others.

[gjvc]

This is the toxicity of the left writ large. Well done for illustrating it so well. You make my point for me. Thank you.

[AlexeyBelov]

Can you elaborate? I don't the toxicity in their comment.

EDIT: Just saw your "woke bullshit" comment. And you're the one talking about toxicity? Lol. Lmao, even.

[bun_terminator]

Can't you see how extremist this viewpoint is? Raising issues about DEI and diversity hires is not "obviously hostile nonsense".

[nipah]

> Why does it so often seem that the people complaining about censorship are the ones punching down?

You mean, pushing down and saying people should be banned... like you? [Either people need to be banned who insult others and use slurs and those who maliciously push right up against the rules, or they will bully people out. Look at modern X/Twitter allowing hate speech has pushed out advertisers and something like half of the users?]

The fact is that you are just using the notion of 'paradox of tolerance' as a tool for defending your prefered kind of censorship, in the same mischievous way you say people use the notion of free speech "as a shield to hurt others". Is this or you are not being mischievious, so I think it would be polite to also admit the very probable possibility that those people claiming that their free speech is being violated may also have something to say on the topic, instead of just assuming they are being malicious and that they are "punching down" on others (or similar things).

Don't you think doing that would be more productive?