Quote:
Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore
Umm... This is a discussion on an internet forum. Stating my opinion about what I find boring, distasteful, or tiresome is not a "thought police" tactic nor is it cramming my opinions down the throat of others. I see two problems here: a.) an over identification of real life with the internet, so that stating that one ought not to mention something for aesthetic or intellectual reasons becomes tantamount with advocating censorship and b.) a transference (which you correctly noted that the other side was making) between the word and the deed. Stating my opinion that talking about Nazis adds little to the discussion (which, frankly, has not advanced since Worldwalker's excellent contribution) is not advocating censorship in any meaningful sense of the phrase. It is a critical and aesthetic judgement. People are free to disagree with me, ignore me, whatever. I think the gross intolerance you and Kenny C are showing towards someone who is in fundamental agreement with your political stance on this issue, and over a mere tactical criticism at that, is more fitting to our opponents than to the defenders of free speech.
|
All those words to basically describe how you feel that, A) it's on the internet, so the validity of your argument doesn't matter, and B) It's okay to argue just like the people trying to shut down this book, because this is the intarwebs, and because of that, your "requests" should just be taken at face value, not be questioned, and can't possible be thought of as, well, thought policing.
I get it now. You don't want to have any reference to Holocaust or any other such things, because you for some reason don't like that,
unless it's in a thread about WWII. Other than that, your arguments can't possible be the same as the people trying to ban the author's thought, because you put them on the internet.
