Is it now forbidden to be wrong?

[ZiprHead]

Claim of anti-conservative bias by social media firms is baseless, report finds. New York University study: algorithms amplify rightwing voices

Republicans including Donald Trump have raged against Twitter and Facebook in recent months, alleging anti-conservative bias, censorship and a silencing of free speech. According to Disinformation expert Paul Barrett and researcher J Grant Sims found that far from suppressing conservatives, social media platforms have, through algorithms, amplified rightwing voices, “often affording conservatives greater reach than liberal or nonpartisan content creators”.

Barrett and Sims’s report comes as Republicans up their campaign against social media companies. Conservatives have long complained that platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and YouTube show bias against the right, laments which intensified when Trump was banned from all three platforms for inciting the attack on the US Capitol which left five people dead.

The NYU study, released by the Stern Center for Business and Human Rights, found that a claim of anti-conservative bias “is itself a form of disinformation: a falsehood with no reliable evidence to support it”.

“There is no evidence to support the claim that the major social media companies are suppressing, censoring or otherwise discriminating against conservatives on their platforms,” Barrett said. “In fact, it is often conservatives who gain the most in terms of engagement and online attention, thanks to the platforms’ systems of algorithmic promotion of content.”

The report found that Twitter, Facebook and other companies did not show bias when deleting incendiary tweets around the Capitol attack, as some on the right have claimed.

 

[thebeave]

Which side is all about censoring curse words?

To be fair, it's not Trausti I see whinging about curses here. It's Bomb. Hence why when I respond concerning their posts I make sure to swear an extra bunch.

Which side is all about censoring curse words?

Only harmless curse words. If it's an ethnic, racial, sexual, or religious slur it's fine. Not only is that kind of word fine, but it's even against the 1st Amendment for someone to react negatively to you saying it.

Ehe... just ask Chinese dissidents how censoring words work. People switch to eufemisms. And the the eufemism becomes the new bad word. The Chinese government then censor those words. This is why 18th century newspapers are so hard to understand today. In order to avoid banned words people had to dance around the topic and implying, without saying. But did that stop those newspapers? Nope.

This idea of helping groups by avoiding bad words is well suited for our modern Internet age. It's a super easy way for individuals to quickly identify the people who are evil online. But it's an illusion. You're not helping anyone more than thoughts and prayers ever did. Instead it makes communicating convoluted and only hampers communication. Since every group now has specialized ingroup language (you need to master or be seen as evil) it drives groups apart.

We need to keep repeating the mantra "it's ok to be offended". It is ok to be offended and it is ok to offend. Not only does the Internet allow quick global communication. But it also allows us not to see things we don't want to see. Nobody needs to see anything they don't want to.

Researchers love counting keywords because it's quantifiable. But what does it prove? A computer scientist friend of mine was on a research project financed by the Swedish government to track homophobia through keywords (he was himself gay). They tried correlating the use of homophobic slurs online and violence against gays. They did this Internationally. I only know of this because I was talking to him throughout this process. I don't know if it got published. But what he told me is that whatever metric used for homophobic slurs used in a culture does not lead to to anti gay violence in any way that is comparable between cultures, or even within cultures. It was highly specific and regional. Which suggests that it's more complicated than that a straight correlation can be used.

Its amusing to watch Youtube videos that don't toe the line with regard to the leftist agenda. The speakers frequently use code words or make up new words so they don't get demonetized, or get their videos taken down. Words like rape & feminist set off the censors. Its just very bizarre watching them wink and nod around these words. Its very reminiscent of your discussion about Chinese censorship. I always thought we in the Western world were better than that, but I guess not...

<edit>

Obviously, yes, we ought demonetize people using a platform to endorse rape.

The only discussions we need to be having about rape are how to prevent it, and explicitly in that context; and how to simulate it without threat to any person's true agency for the purposes of sexual illusion.

This is insane. There is a censorship risk even if someone with a youtube channel focused around discussion of current events is reading a mainstream news article verbatim that contains the word "rape" or "feminist" (among many others). It is not an endorsement of rape we are talking about here! I have no problem with youtube censoring channels where people are "endorsing rape", or pedophelia, etc.

 

[laughing dog]

Which side is all about censoring curse words?

Only harmless curse words. If it's an ethnic, racial, sexual, or religious slur it's fine. Not only is that kind of word fine, but it's even against the 1st Amendment for someone to react negatively to you saying it.

Ehe... just ask Chinese dissidents how censoring words work. People switch to eufemisms. And the the eufemism becomes the new bad word. The Chinese government then censor those words. This is why 18th century newspapers are so hard to understand today. In order to avoid banned words people had to dance around the topic and implying, without saying. But did that stop those newspapers? Nope.

This idea of helping groups by avoiding bad words is well suited for our modern Internet age. It's a super easy way for individuals to quickly identify the people who are evil online. But it's an illusion. You're not helping anyone more than thoughts and prayers ever did. Instead it makes communicating convoluted and only hampers communication. Since every group now has specialized ingroup language (you need to master or be seen as evil) it drives groups apart.

We need to keep repeating the mantra "it's ok to be offended". It is ok to be offended and it is ok to offend. Not only does the Internet allow quick global communication. But it also allows us not to see things we don't want to see. Nobody needs to see anything they don't want to.

Researchers love counting keywords because it's quantifiable. But what does it prove? A computer scientist friend of mine was on a research project financed by the Swedish government to track homophobia through keywords (he was himself gay). They tried correlating the use of homophobic slurs online and violence against gays. They did this Internationally. I only know of this because I was talking to him throughout this process. I don't know if it got published. But what he told me is that whatever metric used for homophobic slurs used in a culture does not lead to to anti gay violence in any way that is comparable between cultures, or even within cultures. It was highly specific and regional. Which suggests that it's more complicated than that a straight correlation can be used.

It may be ok to unintentionally give offense. But only an asshole would say it is ok to deliberately give offense.

 

[Jarhyn]

Which side is all about censoring curse words?

To be fair, it's not Trausti I see whinging about curses here. It's Bomb. Hence why when I respond concerning their posts I make sure to swear an extra bunch.

Which side is all about censoring curse words?

Only harmless curse words. If it's an ethnic, racial, sexual, or religious slur it's fine. Not only is that kind of word fine, but it's even against the 1st Amendment for someone to react negatively to you saying it.

Ehe... just ask Chinese dissidents how censoring words work. People switch to eufemisms. And the the eufemism becomes the new bad word. The Chinese government then censor those words. This is why 18th century newspapers are so hard to understand today. In order to avoid banned words people had to dance around the topic and implying, without saying. But did that stop those newspapers? Nope.

This idea of helping groups by avoiding bad words is well suited for our modern Internet age. It's a super easy way for individuals to quickly identify the people who are evil online. But it's an illusion. You're not helping anyone more than thoughts and prayers ever did. Instead it makes communicating convoluted and only hampers communication. Since every group now has specialized ingroup language (you need to master or be seen as evil) it drives groups apart.

We need to keep repeating the mantra "it's ok to be offended". It is ok to be offended and it is ok to offend. Not only does the Internet allow quick global communication. But it also allows us not to see things we don't want to see. Nobody needs to see anything they don't want to.

Researchers love counting keywords because it's quantifiable. But what does it prove? A computer scientist friend of mine was on a research project financed by the Swedish government to track homophobia through keywords (he was himself gay). They tried correlating the use of homophobic slurs online and violence against gays. They did this Internationally. I only know of this because I was talking to him throughout this process. I don't know if it got published. But what he told me is that whatever metric used for homophobic slurs used in a culture does not lead to to anti gay violence in any way that is comparable between cultures, or even within cultures. It was highly specific and regional. Which suggests that it's more complicated than that a straight correlation can be used.

Its amusing to watch Youtube videos that don't toe the line with regard to the leftist agenda. The speakers frequently use code words or make up new words so they don't get demonetized, or get their videos taken down. Words like rape & feminist set off the censors. Its just very bizarre watching them wink and nod around these words. Its very reminiscent of your discussion about Chinese censorship. I always thought we in the Western world were better than that, but I guess not...

<edit>

Obviously, yes, we ought demonetize people using a platform to endorse rape.

The only discussions we need to be having about rape are how to prevent it, and explicitly in that context; and how to simulate it without threat to any person's true agency for the purposes of sexual illusion.

This is insane. There is a censorship risk even if someone with a youtube channel focused around discussion of current events is reading a mainstream news article verbatim that contains the word "rape" or "feminist" (among many others). It is not an endorsement of rape we are talking about here! I have no problem with youtube censoring channels where people are "endorsing rape", or pedophelia, etc.

And those specific discussions can be done not-for-profit. There are lots of videos on YouTube discussing rape and feminism that don't get taken down, though which may get demonetized. Some of these things are not like the others.

 

[KeepTalking]

This is insane. There is a censorship risk even if someone with a youtube channel focused around discussion of current events is reading a mainstream news article verbatim that contains the word "rape" or "feminist" (among many others). It is not an endorsement of rape we are talking about here! I have no problem with youtube censoring channels where people are "endorsing rape", or pedophelia, etc.

And those specific discussions can be done not-for-profit. There are lots of videos on YouTube discussing rape and feminism that don't get taken down, though which may get demonetized. Some of these things are not like the others.

So, apparently now it is censorship not if you are prevented from saying something, but if you aren't paid for saying something. Is there someplace I can go to keep up with what definition the right wing is using for words these days?

 

[Bomb#20]

So, apparently now it is censorship not if you are prevented from saying something, but if you aren't paid for saying something. Is there someplace I can go to keep up with what definition the right left wing is using for words these days?

Fixed it for you.

<Politesse calling it censorship when people aren't paid for saying something>

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This is insane. There is a censorship risk even if someone with a youtube channel focused around discussion of current events is reading a mainstream news article verbatim that contains the word "rape" or "feminist" (among many others). It is not an endorsement of rape we are talking about here! I have no problem with youtube censoring channels where people are "endorsing rape", or pedophelia, etc.

Censorship risk in what form? Certainly a company that is advertising on YouTube would want a safe list for videos their ads are attached to. Do you have an algorithm that'll tell the difference? There is money in it for you if you can.

 

[Politesse]

So, apparently now it is censorship not if you are prevented from saying something, but if you aren't paid for saying something. Is there someplace I can go to keep up with what definition the right left wing is using for words these days?

Fixed it for you.

<Politesse calling it censorship when people aren't paid for saying something>

No. It's censorship when a particular domain of knowledge is made illegal to teach for political reasons.

 

[Trausti]

So, apparently now it is censorship not if you are prevented from saying something, but if you aren't paid for saying something. Is there someplace I can go to keep up with what definition the right left wing is using for words these days?

Fixed it for you.

<Politesse calling it censorship when people aren't paid for saying something>

No. It's censorship when a particular domain of knowledge is made illegal to teach for political reasons.

What? Like gay conversion therapy?

 

[KeepTalking]

So, apparently now it is censorship not if you are prevented from saying something, but if you aren't paid for saying something. Is there someplace I can go to keep up with what definition the right left wing is using for words these days?

Fixed it for you.

<Politesse calling it censorship when people aren't paid for saying something>

No. It's censorship when a particular domain of knowledge is made illegal to teach for political reasons.

What? Like gay conversion therapy?

Yes, if you were not allowed to say "gay conversion therapy" that would be censorship.

 

[Politesse]

So, apparently now it is censorship not if you are prevented from saying something, but if you aren't paid for saying something. Is there someplace I can go to keep up with what definition the right left wing is using for words these days?

Fixed it for you.

<Politesse calling it censorship when people aren't paid for saying something>

No. It's censorship when a particular domain of knowledge is made illegal to teach for political reasons.

What? Like gay conversion therapy?

That should absolutely be a valid topic of conversation at a university. Nothing good ever came from pretending that something doesn't exist and demanding that others do likewise.

 

[DrZoidberg]

rnet age. It's a super easy way for individuals to quickly identify the people who are evil online. But it's an illusion. You're not helping anyone more than thoughts and prayers ever did. Instead it makes communicating convoluted and only hampers communication. Since every group now has specialized ingroup language (you need to master or be

Which side is all about censoring curse words?

To be fair, it's not Trausti I see whinging about curses here. It's Bomb. Hence why when I respond concerning their posts I make sure to swear an extra bunch.

Which side is all about censoring curse words?

Only harmless curse words. If it's an ethnic, racial, sexual, or religious slur it's fine. Not only is that kind of word fine, but it's even against the 1st Amendment for someone to react negatively to you saying it.

Ehe... just ask Chinese dissidents how censoring words work. People switch to eufemisms. And the the eufemism becomes the new bad word. The Chinese government then censor those words. This is why 18th century newspapers are so hard to understand today. In order to avoid banned words people had to dance around the topic and implying, without saying. But did that stop those newspapers? Nope.

This idea of helping groups by avoiding bad words is well suited for our modern Internet age. It's a super easy way for individuals to quickly identify the people who are evil online. But it's an illusion. You're not helping anyone more than thoughts and prayers ever did. Instead it makes communicating convoluted and only hampers communication. Since every group now has specialized ingroup language (you need to master or be seen as evil) it drives groups apart.

We need to keep repeating the mantra "it's ok to be offended". It is ok to be offended and it is ok to offend. Not only does the Internet allow quick global communication. But it also allows us not to see things we don't want to see. Nobody needs to see anything they don't want to.

Researchers love counting keywords because it's quantifiable. But what does it prove? A computer scientist friend of mine was on a research project financed by the Swedish government to track homophobia through keywords (he was himself gay). They tried correlating the use of homophobic slurs online and violence against gays. They did this Internationally. I only know of this because I was talking to him throughout this process. I don't know if it got published. But what he told me is that whatever metric used for homophobic slurs used in a culture does not lead to to anti gay violence in any way that is comparable between cultures, or even within cultures. It was highly specific and regional. Which suggests that it's more complicated than that a straight correlation can be used.

Its amusing to watch Youtube videos that don't toe the line with regard to the leftist agenda. The speakers frequently use code words or make up new words so they don't get demonetized, or get their videos taken down. Words like rape & feminist set off the censors. Its just very bizarre watching them wink and nod around these words. Its very reminiscent of your discussion about Chinese censorship. I always thought we in the Western world were better than that, but I guess not...

So you know, you just openly admitted that you frequently watch videos where people wink and nod around discussions of rape. And not like, pornhub but people actually discussing raping people for real?

Obviously, yes, we ought demonetize people using a platform to endorse rape.

The only discussions we need to be having about rape are how to prevent it, and explicitly in that context; and how to simulate it without threat to any person's true agency for the purposes of sexual illusion.

This is insane. There is a censorship risk even if someone with a youtube channel focused around discussion of current events is reading a mainstream news article verbatim that contains the word "rape" or "feminist" (among many others). It is not an endorsement of rape we are talking about here! I have no problem with youtube censoring channels where people are "endorsing rape", or pedophelia, etc.

seen as evil) it drives groups apart.

We need to keep repeating the mantra "it's ok to be offended". It is ok to be offended and it is ok to offend. Not only does the Internet allow quick global communication. But it also allows us not to see things we don't want to see. Nobody

It's also arrogant to the extreme. This can only come from a mind that thinks they're uniquely capable of understanding what is reprehensible. But what about all these other people, not as genius as me, they will be easily swayed. We must protect their delicate and sensitive minds.

This is the same dumb debate as with video violence in the 1980's. Something we studied at length. It turns out children have no problem separating fact from fiction. The violent computer game debate of the 1990's. Same shit.

When it comes to porn its different, because the norm is to be a neurotic fucked up mess about sex. Since our sex negative culture (inherited from our Christian past) makes these things very hard to talk about. So porn is more likely to influence us negatively. But there's a simple fix to that problem? Stop shaming sluts, and stop with the sex negativity. If we embrace sex more and make porn something seen as normal and natural (rather than shameful) we can all have more honest conversations about what women (and men) actually enjoy during sex. So we don't need porn for our sex education. Which is the de facto situation now.

A related note. In Denmark prostitution is fully legal. I spoke to a Swedish prostitute living in Denmark. In Sweden buying sex is illegal. She had been invited to a sex workers conference in Sweden to talk. To talk about the differences. She had never before interacted with Swedish sex workers living in Sweden. So she didn't know much about the scene.

After her talk she opened up for questions. All the questions were about the courses she had taken. The Swedish sex workers hadn't heard about courses, certifications and training about sexual techniques. In mainland Europe (where prostitution is legal) sex work is a specialization that requires training. It's a mastery. At least if you want to make good money. My Swedish sex worker friend living in Denmark was amazed at how clueless and retarded the Swedish hookers seemed to be. The Swedish hookers had no idea this world of training even existed.

We are all always better off from having open and honest conversations about everything. Especially the difficult subjects. It makes the stupid myths go away.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Which side is all about censoring curse words?

Only harmless curse words. If it's an ethnic, racial, sexual, or religious slur it's fine. Not only is that kind of word fine, but it's even against the 1st Amendment for someone to react negatively to you saying it.

Ehe... just ask Chinese dissidents how censoring words work. People switch to eufemisms. And the the eufemism becomes the new bad word. The Chinese government then censor those words. This is why 18th century newspapers are so hard to understand today. In order to avoid banned words people had to dance around the topic and implying, without saying. But did that stop those newspapers? Nope.

This idea of helping groups by avoiding bad words is well suited for our modern Internet age. It's a super easy way for individuals to quickly identify the people who are evil online. But it's an illusion. You're not helping anyone more than thoughts and prayers ever did. Instead it makes communicating convoluted and only hampers communication. Since every group now has specialized ingroup language (you need to master or be seen as evil) it drives groups apart.

We need to keep repeating the mantra "it's ok to be offended". It is ok to be offended and it is ok to offend. Not only does the Internet allow quick global communication. But it also allows us not to see things we don't want to see. Nobody needs to see anything they don't want to.

Researchers love counting keywords because it's quantifiable. But what does it prove? A computer scientist friend of mine was on a research project financed by the Swedish government to track homophobia through keywords (he was himself gay). They tried correlating the use of homophobic slurs online and violence against gays. They did this Internationally. I only know of this because I was talking to him throughout this process. I don't know if it got published. But what he told me is that whatever metric used for homophobic slurs used in a culture does not lead to to anti gay violence in any way that is comparable between cultures, or even within cultures. It was highly specific and regional. Which suggests that it's more complicated than that a straight correlation can be used.

Its amusing to watch Youtube videos that don't toe the line with regard to the leftist agenda. The speakers frequently use code words or make up new words so they don't get demonetized, or get their videos taken down. Words like rape & feminist set off the censors. Its just very bizarre watching them wink and nod around these words. Its very reminiscent of your discussion about Chinese censorship. I always thought we in the Western world were better than that, but I guess not...

Among Swedish racists the newspeak for immigrant is "kulturberikare". Which translates to "person bringing cultural enrichment". It's usually used when implying that immigrants are rapists. It slides right through all censorship or social media. But everybody understands what is implied when the term is used.

There's just no way to stop sarcasm.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is the same dumb debate as with video violence in the 1980's. Something we studied at length. It turns out children have no problem separating fact from fiction. The violent computer game debate of the 1990's. Same shit.

You need to be careful with the younger ones, but the older ones are fine.

To the extent there is a problem it's about background assumptions, not the acts themselves.

After her talk she opened up for questions. All the questions were about the courses she had taken. The Swedish sex workers hadn't heard about courses, certifications and training about sexual techniques. In mainland Europe (where prostitution is legal) sex work is a specialization that requires training. It's a mastery. At least if you want to make good money. My Swedish sex worker friend living in Denmark was amazed at how clueless and retarded the Swedish hookers seemed to be. The Swedish hookers had no idea this world of training even existed.

I've never heard of it, either. Sex related or business related??

 

[DrZoidberg]

This is the same dumb debate as with video violence in the 1980's. Something we studied at length. It turns out children have no problem separating fact from fiction. The violent computer game debate of the 1990's. Same shit.

You need to be careful with the younger ones, but the older ones are fine.

To the extent there is a problem it's about background assumptions, not the acts themselves.

From the video violence research I saw I think the most serious find was that a child watching a kung fu movie will be more aggressive up to ten minutes after watching the video. Most will not be. The effect is not permanent nor cumulative.

Each of these moral panic outrages are followed by studies that show that the moral panic was unfounded.

After her talk she opened up for questions. All the questions were about the courses she had taken. The Swedish sex workers hadn't heard about courses, certifications and training about sexual techniques. In mainland Europe (where prostitution is legal) sex work is a specialization that requires training. It's a mastery. At least if you want to make good money. My Swedish sex worker friend living in Denmark was amazed at how clueless and retarded the Swedish hookers seemed to be. The Swedish hookers had no idea this world of training even existed.

I've never heard of it, either. Sex related or business related??

They have courses for both. They have courses for anything a hooker could possibly need to train. They're also marketed towards laypeople. You don't need to be a hooker to attend. Anybody who wants a better sex life can and should go. It's both theoretical and practical. I have been to a few. For me personally it's been of limited use, since I became sexually active early and have been a total slut most of my life. I would have loved to learn this as a young man. It would have changed my life immensely, and most importantly would have made the women in my life happier. But it was fun to attend.

I'm not an expert, nor particularly initiated, but as I understand this movement is American and came out of the remnants of the Osho/Baghwan movement from the 1970's. Today it's under the big tent of "Tantra". Which, a long time ago, stopped only being about Tantra or anything hippie or New Age. Now it's just a term we can use in polite society, which to the initiated, are tips and tricks on how to be a better partner and lover. It's developed now into a huge diverse multi-faceted movement with all kinds of perspectives and uses. Many of these courses are 0% woo. Plenty are quite sciency.

A lot of it is focused on teaching us to slow down, pay attention and to create emotional connection to those we have sex with. To be less focused on performance, and more on the needs of the other. And also needs of yourself. And also about being more playful and fun. a fun things about these courses is that it's like 90% women attending. If you're a gross unsexy incel and you really want to get laid, this place is heaven. Loads of super hot women will throw themselves at you. Because these workshops are supervised, in remote locations, are limited in time, and a super super super safe spaces it makes the women lose their inhibitions and anxieties and just go for it. Its worth going simply for the spectacle of seeing a bunch of randy women seemingly trying to rip the few attending men apart.

Today "tantric sex work" is a thing. You can just google it. A highly trained person (man or a woman) has sex with a customer. Sure, it is sex. But it is mostly a lesson in how to be a better lover. The prostitute is the teacher demonstrating how to please and be pleased. A lot of men who suffer from premature ejaculation or have trouble cuming can go to one of these and basically get a hand job. But it comes with a massage, a relaxing setting, a safe space, and a stated goal of improving a specific problem. It's more a lesson and therapy, than going for a quick wank. I haven't been to one of these yet. I have tried. But they tend to be very very busy. And it's not been my top priority. So I keep putting it off. So I can't talk from experience. But it seems like something every man should do. Those I know who have been have learned a lot about how their own penis works. And what man wouldn't want that? But since it's non-penetrative sex, these tend to fly under the radar of prostitution laws and can be found all over the world.

"Yoni massage". Don't be fooled by the name. it's 0% Woo and hippie. A lot of women don't like sex that much because they have had bad experiences and tend to tense up prior to intercourse. Making sex unnecessarily difficult. This is a hooker fingering a woman. It's all about making the woman relax about penetration, so she can enjoy having sex more. It can also be painful. Since a part of it, is literally to massage muscle knots inside the vagina and make them release. If a woman is very tight in her vaginal muscles, and has been over a long time, it can be extremely painful. And as with all massages, feels awesome afterwards.

Obviously sex work. But for whatever reason, this is fully legal everywhere, advertised openly and seems universally to NOT be seen as sex work. Quite baffling really. But it is what it is.

I have been to a yoni massage course, and it is a technique that I have mastered. I've done it on plenty of women I've been dating. I think it's something that every man, who loves their woman, should learn. Because she will be eternally grateful. If she's never done it before it'll make all sex she has afterwards more enjoyable. And what woman doesn't like that? And as the saying goes, "happy wife, happy life".

Another leg of the same movement is the men's/women's group movement. People meeting with their peers and honestly sharing about problems. If you've had a problem in your sex life nine out of ten times another man has had the same problem at some point. A lot of it is practical. Getting tips and tricks and being told about how other people overcame their difficulties helps you apply the same on you. It can be both sexual and for ones personal life. In mainland Europe it is practically mandatory for sex workers to be in hooker support groups. Where they do exactly this. In Germany and Holland it's often facilitated brothels they work at. My hooker friend have let me know that they make a lot of effort in taking care of the mental and physical needs of their staff.

 

[ZiprHead]

well, this thread has taken a turn.

 

[KeepTalking]

What were we talking about? I think I need a cold shower...

 

[ZiprHead]

What were we talking about? I think I need a cold shower...

Yup, it's been derailed big time so please stop it.

If some would like the discussion to continue I can split to another thread.

 

[TSwizzle]

What were we talking about? I think I need a cold shower...

I lit up a cigarette.

 

[Bomb#20]

So, apparently now it is censorship not if you are prevented from saying something, but if you aren't paid for saying something. Is there someplace I can go to keep up with what definition the right left wing is using for words these days?

Fixed it for you.

<Politesse calling it censorship when people aren't paid for saying something>

No. It's censorship when a particular domain of knowledge is made illegal to teach for political reasons.

Um, you accused me of "trying to play volunteer government censor". As you already know perfectly well, I was not trying to make it illegal to teach any particular domain of knowledge. The dispute that prompted your trumped-up accusation against me was over what things the government should be paying its employees to teach; for you now to insinuate that the dispute that prompted your trumped-up accusation was over whether it should be legal to teach those things is just you pulling a classic bait-and-switch.

Redefining "censorship" to mean not being paid to say something is exactly what you did. There are innumerable examples of left-wingers like you doing that. No doubt KeepTalking can find examples of right-wingers doing the same. Language abuse is a popular rhetorical tactic with wingers of all directions.