Is anyone good at writing at this hour of the night? Would mind telling me why you dislike online censorship?

Don't equate someone disagreeing with you with "satan" that's pretty stupid.

What do you think you're posting on?
You stupid hypocrite.

0:29 / 3:31
The Clash-One More Time
youtube.com/watch?v=RNAzIdli0ig

An anime message board.

Could you elaborate on corporate censorship?

heh...

Attached: Alain_Goraguer-La_Planète_Sauvage.jpg (1200x924, 407K)

Rat a tat a tat
The Clash-Junco Partner
youtube.com/watch?v=9S8KUB5WAfg

You're either a created being or you're not. It's not stupid if it is what it is.

I'm drunk but I'll give it a go:

Whenever I think about censorship I always go back to Plato's allegory of prisoners in a cave. In case you're unfamiliar, Plato likened those untutored in the Theory of Forms to prisoners in a cave, chained and forced to face one cave wall. There is a light source behind them and all they ever see are the shadows cast on the wall in front of them. Without proper guidance on the world, those chained only experienced these shadows, and hence that was the entirety of their "reality".

In Plato's time, he obviously didn't have mass online censorship, but censorship of any information is akin to this scenario. Once any given piece of info is taken out of one's own experience, they can't truly know what "reality" is. This is part of the reason why the creation of online echo chambers like those created by social media, this site not being immune, make all parties point fingers at each other claiming the other doesn't "understand" the world. Left socialists don't understand economics. Right-wingers have no empathy. How many times have you heard these things said?

In actuality, I don't think either of them are right or wrong, but both sides lack some mindset due to the facts that circulate in each circle, and their differences are not simply defined by how each side prioritizes issues; it comes from a lack of information and experience as well.

The idea of autonomy is a common thread in philosophy. You need to preserve a person's autonomy in order for them to be free, restricting others autonomy is often frowned upon in all forms of philosophy not considered elitist or authoritarian (which is most). However we often overlook the other aspect of autonomy, which is that autonomy is only good if someone can be considered a rational actor.

So what is a rational actor? Well, in order to be rational, you need to be as informed as possible about a given situation. When some information is censored this becomes impossible.

It affects almost all of us since we are glued to our phones a lot of the times.

I'm just a guy, no more, no less and I know to not take shit from socialists or other assholes. It's simple to me. I'm just a New Yorker.

The rational actor is one that has to live it.
Good reading there sir.

Gentleman, you just gave me a good start on my research. Thank you.

Censorship is the idea that some people are not allowed to view certain things. However, the public is not in control of these rules and does not get to decide what is and what isn't censored.

There is nothing inherently wrong with censorship. But the idea that a vocal minority is the one that decides what is and what isn't allowed is what creates clashes between people and cultures.

Every person has a right to decide what they want or don't want to see. Especially concerning the decisionade by adults to decide what certain age a person is allowed to view or consume certain media.

To conclude, while the idea of censoring certain things that may cause trauma and or widespread issues is acceptable. Censorship should not be dictated by a few to represent all views and opinions.

Enjoy the essay fag

I'm no better than you. I'm just a hillbilly from Appalachia but ain't nothing more important than taking a look at all of known history and the reality around us my friend.

That which we read makes us better.

We're the same that way.

Some examples: when they stop hosting art because it might offend advertisers, or that thing Cloudflare did to ochochon (not that that guy isn't a scumbag, but still), and the state of modern copyright law in general. You could blame users for not choosing or demanding better services, but that's just blaming the victim.

The Clash-Living in Fame
youtube.com/watch?v=hBX7X390gTw

Thank you.

Who is they precisely?

Bridges burning gladly merging with the shadow

Corporations offering forum or hosting services. Learn to read a thread.

They are private companies, if they don't want to host things then that's up to them.
What's your major malfuction?
Are you running some kind of crack den in your house and even if so you don't have control over it? Don't be a naive moron.

No shit sherlock, nobody's forcing you to use it.

Immediately blaming the victim. You don't think so much as regurgitate, do you?

I grew up in the dail up days , and I cant begin to tell you how bad censorship is, back then anything goes. Now if you say something too fucked up MIB show up asking questions.

Because I like saying nigger on an anonymous image board

You're the one being the pissy bitch blaming the evil corporations while making a bunch of nonsence. Keep being a stupid hippy cunt, it hasn't gone too far for you has it?

Do you often wear bell bottom jeans?

Sounds interesting.

You have a ways to go.

Attached: 1360392631420.jpg (296x500, 32K)

The Clash - The Crooked Beat
youtube.com/watch?v=y076JcEtU4A

Not if it has looking up some guys balls I dont. I'll leave that to you.

Consider asking an individual if we should go to war with Country X. That person has never heard of Country X. They have no possible way of making a rational decision regarding the question. Now, war may be something they feel strongly about compelling them to say no, but if Country X is going to attack this citizens homeland no matter their answer, that decision may very well end in the individuals death. If the powers that be are the ones intentionally withholding or suppressing that information, they make it literally impossible for said individual to remain a rational actor and therefore eliminating their autonomy.

Access to information is quintessential to remaining autonomous, and therefore without access to information one can never truly consider themselves a free individual, and can't make truly make decisions in their best interest.

Now, an argument could be made that because individuals can never be assumed to act in everyone's best interest, we should censor the "fake information" that may be spread, however if there is no censorship ideally we take in all information and come to a consensus, as rational people, as to what the best choices are.

The truth though is that many people are simply complacent with their circles and what they know, and won't seek out information. This leads to a cycle of censorship when people really think about this topic, so the consideration really comes down to whether or not ends justify means.

To me personally, a horrid plot guaranteed to produce a good outcome cannot be justified, and I prefer a more Kantian approach. In Kant's categorical imperative, one of the major rules is that if all individuals where to express a certain behavior and that would make the world a bad place it cannot be considered morally good. What if everyone could censor anything they deemed "unsuitable". It essentially advocates for taking things to the logical extreme.

>Kantian
Just wear a boot on your head. You're a silly bitch.

For examples sake again, consider if the paper industry could censor all information on email and word processing. While that would be good for them and allow them to thrive, it would ultimately leave us in the dark ages.

Now, if you really read into Kant's theory, this wouldn't necessarily mean censorship is immoral, only that it can never be considered a "perfect duty" as described by him, these duties being something that in order to be moral you must adhere to without question, but it is a good starting point for consideration.

This is the end of my drunken rant, hope someone got something out of it.

Because op is a fa!*ot. Online censorship prevents us from telling like it is.

Yo, I know I'm silly as fuck but that doesn't mean I don't prefer Kantian ethics with an emphasis on negative utilitarianism. Not saying it's a perfect system either, just that if you really want to rack your brain on whether or not censorship is good or bad it's a nice lens to work with.

The Clash-The Call Up
youtube.com/watch?v=riNW8ShsHps

Fuck Cunts theory, have you allowed it or not? There's always some asshole in "acedemiy" that's full of shit that's never made a dime outside of that and you trust that v people that have actually had to pay rent and deal with real world problems. If you're that kind of sucker then you deserve to be a sucker.

Bullshit. That's the whole point of having multiple paper plants and multiple publishing companies. This isn't bernie commie russia.

Be specific and why do you need asterisks to use faggot or whatever you were trying to get across.

I don't mind it, I'm just banned from everywhere that does it.

Attached: 6B2465B6-6BC6-4133-9BB9-83B3B9EC59EF.jpg (800x600, 82K)

Most of you have never spoken to real Russians and they hate that soviet commie socialist shit and make fun of "bernie." That top down shit never works, it never has.

Someone's got a stick up their ass, but you probably put it there yourself cuz it's the only way you get off.

Your response also seems to insinuate that those that have to pay rent and deal with problems would disagree. You gotta prove that but you're just throwing out buzzwords. I'm drunk and was providing information, also I'm a college dropout wage cuck that live paycheck to paycheck, pays my own rent, and deals with what I would consider to be real world problems.

OP was asking about the morality of censorship and I brought in 2 or 3 realms of philosophy arguing against it, you just called a dead dude a cunt without saying why he was wrong.

The Clash/Mikey Dread - Bank Robber/Rockers Galore
youtube.com/watch?v=EBDSkJCOxfQ

No, you just don't realize that your socialist bullshit doesn't work. You've put a lot into it and can't deal with its failure.
Why don't just deal with it. Even Russians and Chinese don't want to deal with your stupid shit so why should you? Deal with reality.

This sounds like bait, but I'll bite anyway cuz again drunk. Yeah, we have multiple paper plants and they still have their place in society, you can't honestly say that suppressing information on digital passing of written documents wouldn't benefit them greatly. The example was a logical extreme, which is a logical fallacy in and of itself and shouldn't be the ground one's argument dies on, but it can often shed new light on a topic and force you to look at a different point of view.

So.... advocating that censorship is wrong is socialist? Because socialists never try censorship? Like... wtf dude.

The point of having places of publishing is so that some socialist faggots as proposed by other faggots like "bernie supporters" can't shut them all down. You don't quite understand.

Seriously, by the same argument I could say that if we were all to use our own means to pay for others medical bills in every situation, things could go down hill pretty quick, or other peoples food as well. Like what we've seen in the USSR, Venezuela, NK... do I need to fucking continue or is your one brain cell satisfied?

so what you're saying is... censorship is bad? I think you're right, I don't understand... because it seems like we agree?

It seems like you're both homosexuals that should get a room.

Maybe have some "safe zones" since you can't take it like the faggots that you are.

Lol those are both me. At this point you seem more like the SJW cuck, not responding to my arguments and instead insulting me.

I need more beer, which I can pay for because I like capitalism and I'm excited for the choice I'm going to have
because multiple breweries are in competition with each other. I have no idea how this got me labeled as a fag and socialist, socialism sucks and so do centralized systems of any sort. Monopolies are monopolies even if it's the gov and should only exist if their a monopoly because they're the first mover or no one can actually compete, never due to the suppression of competition or information.

Of course you need you need more beer, that's because you have no point to stand on, don't be an asshole. Is it so hard to admit that you're wrong?

What you're saying is that is governments should control everything? So you're a bernie moron, it doesn't work that way here in the US and you can't deal with it. I suspect that you're a useless foreigner with no vote.

I am too obscured by clouds at the moment.
Reply not related.

Attached: 1262129833069.jpg (1200x797, 99K)

Got my beer, surprised I got back

Dude, the argument is literally that NO entity should have a monopoly EVEN the government. Are you even reading? Monopolies are bad, for example single payer healthcare. Suppresses innovation by lack of competition, limits individual actors' choices, and creates a corruption breeding ground.