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: 78

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

John Lee Pettimore replied to John Muir's discussion A Time To Kill in the group The Great Debate
"Interesting."
8 minutes ago
Daniel Rodriguez replied to John Muir's discussion A Time To Kill in the group The Great Debate
"The people are comfortable still, thus, they won't rise to adjust their setting. To answer your question, it's worth killing to protect yourself. It's worth killing to protect others. Those two reasons allow a lot of overlap and a lot…"
14 minutes ago
John Lee Pettimore replied to John Muir's discussion A Time To Kill in the group The Great Debate
"If you are a coward."
46 minutes ago
Jay D joined Shaun Daws's group
Thumbnail

Philosophers

An open forum for discussion of the big questions.
2 hours ago
Jay D replied to John Muir's discussion A Time To Kill in the group The Great Debate
"Ah i dont know, i think it´s one of those you know it when you see it cases. It´s easy to say this or that is against my principles, but in reality fear overthrows princibles pretty quick. Thats why 90% of people say they would help…"
2 hours ago
Jason replied to Matthew Perry's discussion Dressing for work in the group Teachers' Club (for men in Education)
"I have to chime in. I teach elementary & MS music. I will be starting my 7th year this fall. THere's another music teacher in a different school that always wears a tie, even to teacher meetings. I decided to try an experiment. I decided to…"
3 hours ago
Vincent Mabary replied to Bobby G Mullen's discussion Stoicism in the group Philosophers
"Philosophy does not require a deity/ies for discussion.  Stoicism in specific requires it even less.  Can you worship a deity in conjunction with living within the principles of stoicism?  Yes, you may, and you require no permission…"
3 hours ago
Pale Horse replied to Josh Williams's discussion I touched her butt.
"I forgot the details, sorry. I'll ask about it."
5 hours ago

© 2014   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service