The Anti-Nazi DNP Pledge

@Background Pony #DD6B  
No. it is not. Deplatforming is not censorship. It’s a forum/site/show/community telling people that something is not welcome on their private space.
 
Not censorship.

@Background Pony #78CA  
Deplatforming is a type of censorship, simple as that.

@Background Pony #78CA  
“We came up with this new word to describe what we’re doing, because the old one has too many negative connotations. That fixes everything right?”

@Background Pony #78CA  
This is censorship by definition. Feel free to define deplatforming around that all you want, I don’t really care lol.

@LemonDrop  
Excellent rebuttal.
 
No, it’s not.
 
Censorship is preventing someone from creating or saying something.
 
Deplatforming is telling someone that if they want to create or say something in particular, it’s not welcome on your site.
 
Hate speech was already not allowed on this site before this whole debacle. It was not censored, it was simply not allowed on this platform.
 
See the difference?

@Eggonaught  
That’s pretty much the idea of newspeak, just trying to redefine language to make expressing concepts that are unfavorable by the state (or whoever) impossible. For example if they magically remove the word censorship suddenly you can’t describe the act to other people easily and in theory that’d remove the ability to complain about it. You see SJWs do this with things like “racism” these days too, trying to twist and redefine it to mean something that fits their agenda (usually meaning something only white people can deliver, exempting others from racist actions under mere technicality of definition).
 
And no hate speech is censored, it’s more justifiable to avoid needless amounts of sadness but ideally that rule would not exist either if they were going for true freedom. Hate speech as a concept doesn’t exist because it’s just speech which offends someone, which is all speech.

@Eggonaught  
It’s almost like that’s how language works. Have a new situation that you don’t have an appropriate word to describe? Make one.

@Background Pony #78CA  
Ah, yes. “Telling” someone. Pay no attention to the banhammer behind my back, I’m just “telling” you it’s not welcome.
 
Everyone else will be glad to pick apart the rest of your statement, I just selected the funny one.

@Background Pony #78CA  
So… It’s censorship? Or is King County deciding to ban Blacks from making and signing petitions not censorship because “it’s telling them that if they want to say something in particular, it’s not welcome in their county”?

@LemonDrop  
What you’re referring to in a disengenuous way, is institutional/systemic racism. It’s almost like when your further qualify a word, it changes the meaning to become more specific.
 
Calling it “newspeak” and blaming “SJWs” is just an attempt to paint an us vs them mentality.
 
Censorship is a thing. Deplatforming is a thing. They have two separate, distinct meanings.

@Background Pony #30B3  
This is not government property. There is no 1st Amendment here. If we want to ban content that our community finds so repulsive that we cannot tolerate it, then that is our right.

@Background Pony #9CA4  
Banning someone for who they are is not the same thing as banning someone from saying or posting certain content.
 
A racial ban isn’t censorship, it’s discrimination. Also, it’s illegal.

@Background Pony #78CA  
I like how you completely ignored the actual definition posted.
 
Actually don’t like that at all, makes this whole argument disingenuous.

@Background Pony #78CA  
Censorship is the act, process or practice of censoring, the present participle of censor, which in this instance is intended to mean to ban or cut portions of publications, films, letters, etc.. I include art in that list.  
It does not matter whether the censor, in this case meaning the one empowered to enact censorship, is a public or private entity, only that what they are enacting falls within the bounds of the definition of censorship.
 
You can say they are within their rights to do it and they absolutely are, just as I and others are within ours to disagree and speak our piece on the matter insofar as they are willing to brook discourse on the matter.

@Background Pony #78CA  
No I’m referring to racism, as in the thing a movement like BLM supports. They do not think they are racist because they are not white. If you really doubt this go ask them and they’ll give you some long-winded explanation of how technically discriminating against race is fine as long as it’s not white people doing it, it’s pretty amusing really.
 
And yes, deplatforming is censorship for a specific political reason to suppress one’s voice on a site (a platform). You can censor people for any number of other reasons too, that’s just a specific type.

@Background Pony #78CA  

 
Very straightforward explanation. You cannot be censored outside of the public domain. Even opponents of getting rid of this .2% (apparently) of content should know enough to make some other argument.

@Background Pony #ADFA
 
@taaffeite
 
@Background Pony #ADFA
 
And the inherent bestiality themes that are prevelant through most all the NSFW art, especially the Human on Pony images? Bestiality’s a crime and considered morally repugnant in vast parts of the world too. Should they be up next?
 
I’m not here to debate the inherent morality of foalcon or bestiality, just where the goalposts keep getting moved here. If we’re really going down this road, why not go to its logical conclusion and make the whole site Mandatory SFW?

@Background Pony #30B3  
That’s not even a rebuttal. Yes, when you choose to not give someone a platform on your private site, that Includes banning the works you’re not okay with. Trying to make it sound sinister is just stupid.
 
 
@Background Pony #9CA4  
Sounds like you’re suggesting a particular race of people are experiencing some racist voter suppression.
 
Saying “black people can’t sign petitions in this town” and “Nazi imagery isn’t allowed on our website” are not even remotely analogous.

@Array  
Oh? What actual definition was posted that I ignored?

@Background Pony #78CA  
@Array

@Background Pony #7131  
Course not, but a movement with a racist name like “black lives matter” when really it should just be talking about a more general scope of police brutality is founded on such principles. Of course many people full of white guilt will go along with it too, feeling like they deserve some sort of punishment because it’s been drilled into them that they are bad, but that’s a topic for another day.
 
 
@Background Pony #69A5  
This is not true at all. If I hear someone talk about censorship as if only the government can dispatch it I am literally going to screm. Anyone can do censorship, it’s just not /illegal/ for everyone other than the government to, but that does not make it right.

@Background Pony #78CA  

 
But Aryanne, and images that referenced Nazis were. They were not banned because Derpibooru came to this conclusion after careful consideration and consulting the artists that still make content for this site, they were banned because Derpibooru was attacked by a Twitter mob and capitulated.

@Array  
Hey, it’s almost like deplatforming doesn’t fit that definition at all.
 
In this case, the art in question is not suppressed or prohibited. That would require that people were being told to not make it.
 
They are instead being told if they want to make it, they cant post it here.
 
Pretty simple difference.