Darius KazemiI'd like the following sticker--
"Voting: necessary but not sufficient."
Henry Edward HardyWhy is this post cw'ed?
@hhardy01 I CW all us politics posts; I try to CW all my "hot takes" generally
Self-censorship much?
@hhardy01 I don't understand.
Hiding a post so it can't be seen without an additional action is a form of censorship.
Doing that to your own posts is self-censorship.
Do you think that public political protests should hide themselves so that only people who want to can see or hear them?
@hhardy01 If I felt my post were a public political protest I would not put it behind a CW. But my post was not that.
If you want your posts not to be read by all means continue to self-censor them.
@hhardy01 That's a really weird way of putting it. I am saying "you don't have to read this if you don't want to, and I am making it a little easier for you to do that." If that constitutes self-censorship to you, then I guess I am 100% pro self-censorship by your definition
Why are you 100% pro-censorship?
@hhardy01 I do not consider it censorship, but you clearly do. We're at odds here.
What do you think self-censorship means?
Do you think that means only, not posting something at all?
Why do you label your own political posts as offensive?
Do you not think that dilutes your message more than a little?
@hhardy01 "CW" does not mean "offensive" to me. It means "this contains certain content and you are warned of it." I see it as the subject line to an email. Subject lines let me decide to pay attention or not pay attention to certain things in my inbox.
Why should people be "warned" of political content?
So that they can ignore it?
Is that what you want people to do with your posts, ignore them?
@hhardy01 I want to give people the choice to read certain of my posts or not. I am aiding them in having more self-determination. I understand that not everyone wants to read about certain topics, so I give them the option to engage rather than simply saying nothing about it at all.
@hhardy01 I also don't believe self-censorship is a meaningful concept, as I believe that censorship must be forced upon someone against their will. Whether or not I personally choose to do something of my own accord is a matter of my own willpower and cannot be censorship.
self-censorship
noun [ U ] UK /ˌselfˈsen.sə.ʃɪp/ US /ˌselfˈsen.sɚ.ʃɪp/
control of what you say or do in order to avoid annoying or offending others, but without being told officially that such control is necessary:
These writers knew that unless they practised a form of self-censorship, the authorities would persecute them.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/self-censorship
@hhardy01 I am aware that that is the definition of the term self-censorship, what I am saying is that it's not a *meaningful* concept, in that it is not coherently related to censorship as a power relation.
You have internalized the repression of the Trump fascist mob to the degree that you not only don't believe you are censoring yourself, you say you believe that there is not and cannot be such a thing as self-censorship as to you, it is a meaningless concept.
Welcome to 1984.
@hhardy01 If a dictator implies strongly that he will kill people who criticize him, that is simply plain old censorship. The authors who choose not to criticize are not self-censoring. They are simply being censored.
If I do not CW my posts, no significant harm will come to me. The worst could be a mild form of social damage. I don't consider it something I do under duress, it's something I do as a courtesy because I *want* to
@hhardy01 You seem to be saying that holding back any opinion from anyone in any context is a form of draconian mind control. That's really stupid.
If believing in liberty and free speech makes me stupid in your eyes, that says more about you than it does about me.