←back to thread

2525 points hownottowrite | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.203s | source
Show context
tomp ◴[] No.21190973[source]
China is very smart. They saw what was happening in the West - oppression of freedom of speech on account of "hurt feelings" - and applied the same principles for their own nefarious purposes ("hurt Chinese feelings" a.k.a. political censorship).

Literally noone could have seen this coming. /s

edit: XCabbage better explains what I was trying to say. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21191253

replies(6): >>21190990 #>>21191016 #>>21191065 #>>21191256 #>>21193157 #>>21193335 #
johnday ◴[] No.21190990[source]
This is utter nonsense. Political censorship in the East is not a response to modern liberal views in the West.

That is so completely obvious that it boggles the mind that I even needed to say it.

replies(6): >>21191008 #>>21191010 #>>21191026 #>>21191054 #>>21191057 #>>21192915 #
tomp ◴[] No.21191010[source]
Well thank God then that wasn't my argument.

What I'm saying is, China is co-opting modern liberal censorship in the West to do it's own political censorship (edit: in the West).

replies(4): >>21191024 #>>21191030 #>>21191063 #>>21191554 #
SantalBlush[dead post] ◴[] No.21191554[source]
>liberal censorship

There is no "liberal censorship", unless you can point me to an instance where a bunch of liberals imprisoned someone for offending them.

When people complain about liberal censorship, they're really complaining that other people have the right to respond negatively to what you say. Cancel culture is also not censorship, and it would be childish to conflate those two things.

1. LocalH ◴[] No.21192405[source]
You do realize that censorship is only limited to governments in a legal context? People can be, and are, censored by private entities all the time.

How do you figure that cancel culture isn't defacto censorship? Deplatforming somebody because you don't agree with their viewpoints is absolutely censorship in a moral sense.

Calling people "childish" who don't agree with you is a weasel tactic. Those tactics should invalidate the whole argument, but for some reason they don't. Make the argument without the weasel tactics if you want people to listen.