If I react negatively to another's speech I'm creating a "censorious environment" that causes them to self-censor.
But my withholding my reaction isn't self-censorship? 🤔
I think the entire "censorship" discussion among the public to be silly.
First, speech cannot silence or censor speech. Setting aside the hyperbole, telling me to restrain my speech is the same as claiming my speech restrains that of another.
Each individual gets to determine their own reaction to speech. Where they draw the line is up to them. Everyone has thresholds at which they will react negatively.
Debating each other's line is reasonable, the "censorship" stuff though, isn't.
All we end up with is everyone "censoring" everyone by giving their opinion on the speech of others, and reactions are themselves "censorship" leading to "self-censorship"
It's all so silly.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I don't think it makes sense to navigate social issues without bias. If I'm looking to solve for any social issue, I'm certainly going to be biased towards results that help towards my objective.
We can't for example say we want more women in Tech and think we can do so without displaying bias. Even going against the status quo is a demonstration of bias.
Our time and energy isn't infinite. Our choices reflect our priorities, our biases.
The definition of bias generally implies unfairness, but here's the thing, a lot of people love the status quo and think attempts to change it are unfair.
Ultimately what we must do is stick to and defend our principles and goals.
- Material
- King safety
- Piece Activity
- Pawn structure
Stronger players have much deeper understandings of these concepts and sub-factors within, but we all can use these at our own levels.
So in this position:
- White is down in material (1 less pawn).
- Black's king is safer (less access points to it)
- White has a better pawn structure (that pawn on d6 can't be defended by pawns)
- Black has more active and scary pieces (Queen and Bishop near white king)
Police are too quick to break up and use violence against protests about police brutality, racism and Indigenous rights.
Police are too slow to break up protests about Covid mandates.
It's hard not to see the role demographics plays there.
I believe in the right to protest, even if it inconveniences. I also believe that the state has a responsibility to act when it exceeds reasonable limits. Like most cases of civil disobedience, arrests are an expected cost to pay. If no cost, no deterrence.
Individuals who disperse when asked to shouldn't face consequences. Authorities shouldn't escalate with violence (e.g beatings). There's a balance, and the refusal to make it clear that the balance isn't driven by demographics and politics, speaks volumes.