> The claim isn't "we don't like it", the claim is "this is damaging to society"

That's their framing, it's not what they actually do.

If Collective Shout was a group that studied which things caused harm, and then campaigned against those things, then the point you're trying to make could stand.

They're not. They've campaigned to ban rap artists, GTA 5, "50 Shades", lingerie ads, whatever random thing is around at the time - always under the pretext that it harms someone, but never with any evidence or substantial arguments that it does.

In practice groups like this campaign against whatever they don't like, so it's correct to refute them on those grounds.

▲

calf 7 days ago | parent | next [-]

If a special interest group is acting in bad faith, then it is still incorrect and confusing to frame it as "they just don't like that thing". We should just be saying they are acting in bad faith, weaponizing arguments, etc. Why they are against something also is explainable, so ideally we could also state their real motivations (they are racist, fascist, reactionary, etc.)

	▲	fenomas 7 days ago \| parent [-]
		It's a description, not a claim. If a group tries to ban a thing, it obviously follows that they don't like the thing in some sense. Referring to them as "trying to ban stuff they don't like" describes their behavior, it's not a claim about what their motivations are or aren't.

▲

GoblinSlayer 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The root cause looks more like financial oligopolies abuse Steam, because it's easier for them.

▲

phire 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

▲

throwawaysoxjje 7 days ago | parent | next [-]

> They don't give a shit about individuals, just society as a whole.

No they say they give a snot about society a whole.

I can say a lot of things too.

▲

fenomas 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

...ok? My comment didn't say anything about the distinction you're drawing here.

▲

phire 7 days ago | parent [-]

My point is that it's not just a framing, an excuse to push their likes and dislikes on everyone.

If anything, it's actually the other way around. Their puritan views of what makes a healthy society is what informs their likes/dislikes.

They are legitimately fighting for what they legitimately think will make a healthier society. If you assume otherwise, you will misjudge them.

▲

fenomas 7 days ago | parent | next [-]

It's an imagined difference. Picture two people, each working to get a particular book banned. One is a petty moralizer trying to impose his likes and dislikes on everyone, and the other is legitimately fighting for what he believes will make society healthier. How do I tell which is which when their actions are identical?

	▲	ben_w 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		> petty moralizer This defines them as identical. Morals are what people think makes society better, and their absence worse. There's lots of other ways to dislike something besides morals. For example, I don't like spectator sports. It's not a moral issue, just taste, so me not watching sport is genuinely sufficient. Conversely, I think analytics tracking is harmful to society even though I also find it interesting to see the results, and should be banned. Me simply not using it isn't enough. Anti-porn people? I disagree with them. If they are motivated by religious fundamentalism, then I disagree with the foundation of their worldview. But this is how it is not simply enough to respond with "if you don't like it, don't buy it".

▲

jMyles 7 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> They are legitimately fighting for what they legitimately think

You've indicated two things here which you assert are legitimate:

* Their fight for their goals

* The thinking underlying these goals

On the latter: Nobody except the people doing the thinking can (at least with current technology) truly know. And it may be entirely unimportant. My best guess is that u/fenomas has it about right; their aesthetic seems to have informed a manufactured narrative about societal impact. It may be that these people have personal unresolved sexual trauma which is activated by these subjects. Surely no matter their reasons, they deserve to be treated with compassion. But I don't think that u/fenomas is being illogical here, or failing to steelman their position; I think that it's perfectly reasonable to question someone's basis for advocacy of censorship.

However, on the former, I more strongly disagree with your use of the word "legitimately". Using the heavy hand of the state (including the unfortunate configuration in which payment processors need its anointment and good graces and are thus vulnerable to political pressure) to censor the internet - a resource characterized chiefly by its cross-cultural and cross-political availability and unity - is not a legitimate tactic. The internet does not seem to tolerate this variety of censorship; in every instance, the Streisand Effect, May 35, and similar phenomena have quickly and decisively punctured the erected walls.

Whether these people truly view these materials as likely to harm society or not, their legitimate avenue of change is through voluntarily persuasion, not censorship by way of force.

▲

jajko 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Its their opinion, nothing more, nothing less. Opinions are like farts or some related body parts - everybody has them, so what? Just that I and bunch of folks around have some opinion doesn't mean we have the right to push it to the rest of society.

That's inferiority complex pushed into moral superiority feeling. All just emotions of unbalanced/uneducated people who should know better but clearly don't. No place for such behavior in truly democratic society, their rights to decide what should be happening and what shouldn't generally end at the door of their house (and even that just within legal framework).

Otherwise lets give some room for neonazis too for example, they certainly have a vision about how the society should look like and behave. They are at the end just bunch of folks who want to change society for what they consider a better one, right?

▲

gchamonlive 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

wormius 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Ganging up to enforce your political will is only bad when it's "the woke mob" but totally cool when it's my mob.

And idiots eat that shit up thinking fighting the woke mind virus is the real censorship, jumping straight into the arms of moralistic fascists like this.

I wish I knew how we failed. (I am "woke" but I disagree with mob tactics, and think it's done more harm than good, and there are a lot of disingenuous abusers of said ideology to boost their personal cred, chasing online clout over any substance. And plenty of the right-wingers will notice this, and "fight it" but fail to notice the same thing in their own side; because to them it's not about a principle it's about "punishing the bad guys" who don't like what I like).

"Cancel culture is bad akshully unless I'm the one cancelling you (c.f. bud light, etc...)"