• Guns0rWeD13@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 hours ago

    not the views we don’t like, but the ones that cause harm and suffering for western societies.

      • Guns0rWeD13@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        And where do we draw that line? And why only Western?

        as i said to the previous poster, “i believe neuroscience has the ability to quantify suffering.”

        i speak of western cultures because we are so obsessed with individual liberty that we will be the hardest to convince that some censorship in the interest of promoting a healthy society is possible and needed.

        And where do we draw that line? And why only Western?

    • underwire212@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      3 hours ago

      “Ones that cause harm and suffering” is subjective though.

      Blocking online content, even ones we don’t like, is a slippery slope

      • Guns0rWeD13@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        i believe it can be objective. i believe neuroscience has the ability to quantify suffering. i believe if we spent more time studying neuroscience and the health of a society, this could all be feasible.

        i agree that censorship of things we ‘don’t like’ is not a society i want to live in. i just think that there are objective answers to what now seems like vague questions.