Does this advice apply in every case or does it have a restricted scope?

> Does this advice apply in every case or does it have a restricted scope?

In case you’re being serious, this has been debated in various liberal traditions since the conception liberalism was first born. In essence, the modern liberal tradition (modern as in post-Enlightenment, i.e. about the whole time America has existed) says you don’t censor anything except for forces seeking to censor (paradox of tolerance).

▲

trumpdong an hour ago | parent [-]

So now every force seeking to censor will just say its opposition is a force seeking to censor, and get them censored. Like how the Nazis claimed the Jews were the ones destroying Germany, then the Nazis destroyed Germany. How do you stop that?

▲

JumpCrisscross an hour ago | parent [-]

> How do you stop that?

Better minds than mine have debated the paradox of tolerance (a name only given in the 1950s, but a concept recognized for longer).

Also, not tolerating something doesn’t mean forcefully censoring it. Norms and conventions largely keep e.g. frowned-upon slurs out of common usage. The person getting told to shut up for using the N- word isn’t being censored by the state, but they are being encouraged to engage respectfully.

▲

trumpdong an hour ago | parent [-]

In practice, it seems that whenever someone is told to shut up for using the N- word, they react by saying it many more times. So it doesn't work very well.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 7 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> whenever someone is told to shut up for using the N- word, they react by saying it many more times One, not my experience. (Indian family.) Two, people spouting out the N- word have generally caused themselves to be ignored, which sort of solves the problem as well.