A Recent Instance in Which I Was Censored

It was but this morning when a fellow member's blog appeared on the front page. Its title, raising awareness about government regulation in a certain industry, intrigued me, so I clicked, and I read it thoroughly. The post amounted to a lot of slogans without much substance to the actual argument, and therefore I brought up some of these issues in the comment section.

 

The author and I ended up participating in an exchange, which was civil and on the whole rather bloodless, though it was clear that I found some problems in the argument he is trying to present. He was even nice enough to send me a friend request.

 

However, when I signed in a few hours later, I found that my posts had been redacted, censored, and expurgated. Only the blog's author and myself are able to do this. And I didn't do it.

 

So why can't people deal with divergent opinions? Must I be censored simply because I brought up some logical issues in the author's argument? This is not about whether my comments were right or wrong, or whether his position is right or wrong. The question is not whether our opinions and arguments are right or wrong, but can we have reasonably civil dialogue about our opinions and arguments. It is certainly the author's right to limit commentary, but when he does so he forfeits any claim that we the public ought to pay him any attention, respect, or legitimacy. If he doesn't want anyone to comment, he can be alone with his self-made righteousness.

Views: 82

Comment

You need to be a member of Art of Manliness to add comments!

Join Art of Manliness

Comment by Carl Monster on April 4, 2012 at 2:03pm

Funny, disagreement, as scary as it is to me (I don't dare join the Great Debate), is one reason I like this place. I'm on FB, and it gets a bit boring after awhile, all preaching to the choir. As long it it is intelligent, I appreciate hearing another viewpoint. It's how we grow, even if it engenders some anger.

Comment by Vytautas on April 3, 2012 at 5:42pm

Thank you again, Carpe, for your considerate response!

 

Actually, my replies did not make invalid his point. A fact which, I think, makes censorship even more reprehensible because it wasn't like I actually tore his argument apart. I just slightly disagreed with some of his reasoning. And for such a reprehensible little difference in opinion I was rewarded by being cut off!

 

Also, what I am saying here is operating on the normative/intellectual level. I am speaking to how things ought to be. I know that when practical factors come into play, people's behavior is different in reality. But just because censorship is expedient doesn't mean that it is acceptable. It is cowardly and stupid. It reflects poorly on the censor and corrodes the community as a whole.

Latest Activity

Daniel Rodriguez replied to Nathanael's discussion Common-sense gun laws, what would they look like for you? in the group The Great Debate
"You're saying "Put your shoes in the victim, the father of the victim...surely, you will hate guns" No, we're human beings, and we're going to do our damn best not to be victims. Not to crime, not to tyranny, nor invader."
1 minute ago
Nathanael replied to Nathanael's discussion Common-sense gun laws, what would they look like for you? in the group The Great Debate
"California already had some of the strictest limits on firearms in the country.  Didn't stop him in this case.  Furthermore, he didn't even use guns for his first 3 victims, just a knife, if I recall correctly. There is no…"
4 minutes ago
Walter B. Pewen replied to Nathanael's discussion Common-sense gun laws, what would they look like for you? in the group The Great Debate
"No Nathaniel, you consider yourself logical?  You are a gun promoter with no actual stats in your initial statement. The emotional appeal?  You bet.  You're talking human lives here, not some hobby you want to protect.…"
5 minutes ago
Daniel Rodriguez replied to Nathanael's discussion Common-sense gun laws, what would they look like for you? in the group The Great Debate
"Doesn't do jack unless you are an armed fortress. Even if you put metal detectors on every entrance like they did in my school, and those were mobile, someone will find way in. My Ex even brought a butcher knife in once. They're the ones…"
11 minutes ago
Nathanael replied to Nathanael's discussion Common-sense gun laws, what would they look like for you? in the group The Great Debate
"The point is that this peaceful college community was easily made violent by a wicked loser.  When that happened, the tools needed for effective self-defense might have been extremely useful.  Perhaps not, in this case, I haven't…"
12 minutes ago
Walter B. Pewen replied to Nathanael's discussion Common-sense gun laws, what would they look like for you? in the group The Great Debate
"Maybe have more restrictions on access.  The University mission is not to be an armed fortress."
22 minutes ago
Walter B. Pewen replied to Nathanael's discussion Common-sense gun laws, what would they look like for you? in the group The Great Debate
"What point?  That doesn't even make sense."
24 minutes ago
Walter B. Pewen replied to Nathanael's discussion Common-sense gun laws, what would they look like for you? in the group The Great Debate
"Didn't say I had.  Being in the field and seeing it makes little difference.  Most guys I knew from Viet Nam and my Dad's generation didn't take much from seeing mutilation, nor did they look at themselves as privy to it.…"
24 minutes ago

© 2014   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service