Every time I look in here, I'm amazed at the way people indicate this dancing as sexual.
NiPah said:
Also that's the exact opposite of specificity of language, that's changing the definition of a word on a whim due to perceived public opinion.
Except we do change the meanings of words based on public usage. "Whim" strikes me as a bit reductive, but the idea is very basic. Dictionaries and definitions are good tarting points, but they lag common use and compile the language as it is understood at the time. Language is living and breathing and if you need proof of that, consider that it's only recently that "literally" has come to mean "not literally" according to the dictionary. Also, consider that there was a time before "jiggy" or "selfie" were words.
This is why dictionary arguments that rely on adhering to strict definitions of words as laid out in the dictionary are useless, and defining our terms is a good thing.
Agnostic:
A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
And yet, more and more people use "agnostic" to mean "soft atheism," which will eventually enter the dictionary. They're not wrong, or misusing a word. And there are agnostic atheists, which would seem to defy the definition you selected, but is a concept that's been around a lot longer than most or all of us posting here. This is not to start a religious debate, but to point out that these words are being used in a way that is or likely will be codified.
Going to dictionary.com, we see:
a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic:
Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.
Another possible use.
Wikipedia and other encyclopedias add more context.
JimB said:
Words do not have objective meanings, at least in countries in which there is no government agency defining words for us. They are defined by popular use, which means they are inherently subjective. There is nothing wrong with him explaining the concept he's using the word "censorship" to describe, nor with me saying I reject many definitions as being broad to the point of uselessness, so long as we both express clearly and in good faith what definitions we're working with and why.
I think the problem is assuming that there's grounds for discussion in the first place. The arguments presented in the OP operate on a theme, which seems to be a "take that" to people who don't think that "censorship" of X Y or Z is inherently bad. These comments--the ones that don't read like strawmen--generally come up in response to comments about fascism, cultural marxism, and "free speech," terms which seem to mean something completely different when they're uttered by these people and usually operate on the them of
something I don't like is happening.
In fact, the people I know supposedly opposing cultural marxism and censorship and supporting free speech in this thread seem to not care about this instance at all, using it as a point to score against the "other side." The "other side, in the meanwhile, seems to largely agree that this isn't censorship in the horrible draconian sense, but still disagrees with it.
Isn't it strange how most of us seem to agree on these points, but only when it favours one "side" and not the other? Isn't it strange that, despite few people actually going the "cultural marxism/muh freeze peach!" route, it's still being used as a take that?
Isn't it strange that the so-called cultural authoritarians are supporting the right of CN to do something, seemingly against character?
And isn't it strange how princesses and kings confound their capers in a sawdust ring? Wait, no, that's Book of Rules.
I mean, there is a double standard going on, but it doesn't seem to be the so-called authoritarians who are holding it. Which is weird, because you'd think that if this sort of censorship was actually bad, they'd be the first in line to demonstrate how bad it was by calling it out. Instead, we get what seems to be nothing more than a "take that" argument.
I mean, I've seen people quote "First They Came" unironically when referring to video games not being stocked or underage panty shots being willingly removed from games, trying to invoke the mental issue of the slippery slope and Nazis (Hello Godwin my old friend). But the whole point of that was that people didn't speak out because it didn't concern them, and by the time they needed to speak up, it was too late. Which is stated pretty literally in the poem.
Yet I'm not seeing those slippery slope, this is going to end in them taking away our games/anime/whatever speaking up here. That seems to defy the very message they were invoking.
Unless the only point was to grandstand and specifically paint the opposition as nazis. Which, given the selective "concern" over censorship, I'm not inclined to doubt. I mean, just look at how fast "think of the children" was brought up, a line which is usually scoffed at.
However, I'm not saying this is factually and objectively the case. What I am saying is that if they're sincere, this would be a good time to show it: when it's something that they don't like. Free speech (though the term is not being used as is actually guaranteed as a right) is not only free speech when it's things you like.
Also:
Oh, see, there's the problem, then. I don't know enough about precious gemstones to guess what material or quality they have that would be equivalent to vaginal lubricant. Failure of knowledge on my part, really.
I hear gems are really into the friction.
