RE: There's absolutely nothing wrong...

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

There's absolutely nothing wrong...

in itsokaytobewhite •  5 years ago  (edited)

Do you believe censorship is about intention or is it purely a measure of consequence?

What belief? Censorship is either ON/HAPPENING or it is OFF/NOT-HAPPENING. Though that might not be as interesting to you as the why behind it, censorship is the act irrespective of intent, and no matter how you try and avoid that absolutely no intent can make something censorship simply and/or purely because of intent.

You're avoiding what I said initially about intentions and Censorship either way through, and this left turn in the conversation you tried to make with intention and censorship was in avoidance of what I said regarding your false equivalents that Booing is Censorship, something you've to yet refute:

SteemPeak
Reply to: There's absolutely nothing wrong...
Go to original post
Go to parent post
baah 61
16 days ago
1 MIN READ
106 WORDS
It's not the equivalent at all. You keep asserting so though despite that censorship is not Broadcasting what you want to censor with a loud noise over it, especially when you don't have the only copy and cannot stop anyone from writing or speaking by such ridiculous "tactics", the difference is between a speaking engagement being stopped vs being disrupted, exactly like steem, nobody can stop anyone from writing no matter how much they try to disrupt them,

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

...censorship is the act irrespective of intent...

Would it be fair to say you subscribe to deontological ethics?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics

We aren't discussing my philosophic ideations but the fact that intent is not what makes ANYTHING censorship. Censorship is the Effect, the Result, ergo Either there is Censorship or There Isn't.

(IFF) censorship is the effect (THEN) a news outlet that prefers to publish national news and ignores local news (or vice-versa) is de facto censoring the news stories it doesn't publish.

Does this standard sound consistent with your "censorship is the effect" framework?

You're confusing ignoring something with removing or otherwise altering something.

The difference between ignoring and removing is contingent on MOTIVATION.

The "effect" is identical.

Ultimately motive alone doesn't make something Censorship or not.

Now it's "not motive alone"? Exactly how much motive is relevant in your opinion, and what mysterious "other factors" do you consider critical in determining if something is "censored" or not?

There's nothing mysterious at all about an act being censorship or not, REGARDLESS of motive. It's the Result that makes something Censorship or not.

Ignoring is Passive. Removing/ Censoring is Active. Ignoring is not Avoiding. In the former nothing was Created that was later Suppressed or altered, and in the later it is contingent on something that was violated. The effect is that one goes without any victim while the other cannot be without a victim.

So, just for clarity's sake, If someone goes to a newspaper and begs them to write a story about how puppies are being slaughtered or some-such, and the newspaper doesn't write that story, instead they feature the grand-opening of a new ice-cream parlor on their front page, would you consider that "passive ignoring" or "active avoiding"?

Which statement more accurately describes it:

A: The newspaper ignored the puppy story.

B: The newspaper avoided the puppy story.

Deontological ethics
In moral philosophy, deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον, deon, "obligation, duty") is the normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action. It is sometimes described as duty-, obligation- or rule-based ethics. Deontological ethics is commonly contrasted to consequentialism, virtue ethics, and pragmatic ethics. In this terminology, action is more important than the consequences.