Sometimes...

There is by far not too fine a line between telling somebody to shut up and shutting their mouths oneself instead. While both is colloquially referred to as 'censorship', I beg to differentiate between the two and see how the latter, which is the case discussed here, is not morally acceptable in any form (and is not redeemed by the fact that the removed content was against house rules - and that is a possibility if and only if we trust the censors which I humbly caution against!) while the former ought be avoided as much as affordable, which is also, arguably, all the way.

The challenge I issued to Senan was not by accident a side note for it was a challenge to defend the claim that there is a middle ground to everything which is, as far as I can see, false by even the loosest requirements for a dilemma. Indeed, if we demand of the dilemma that it be a true dilemma, there wouldn't be a middle ground to anything. To argue in favour of the statement requires no less than a logic that does operate without the Excluded Middle and that is not a matter of short-sightedness on my part.

Censorship is not something "we all have to deal with". In fact, none of us do. If you are fine with it, be my guest; it is after all not thanks to those who oppose it in all its forms that it succeeds and prevails and continues, but thanks to those who go out of their way to tolerate any of it or even to argue in favour of either itself or tolerance of it. Not all of us have to share that tolerance, though we would all be individually and collectively better off if nobody ever did.

I appreciate that you can construct a valid argument, and you have demonstrated time and again that you can do it skillfully.

I'm not trying to defend a claim or solve any dilemmas. I'm making observations about the experiences I have had in my life and how those experiences have informed my reaction to the original post. There are people in this world entirely against censorship in all forms and I'm sure there are people who are entirely for it. There are also people who think some censorship is warranted and some is not. I consider that "the middle ground" as it is between the two extremes. Whether it fits your rules for an argument or dilemma does not matter in this conversation because it is this flawed argument that is actually happening between people everyday. If you're playing by the rules of Poker and I'm playing by the rules of Black Jack, we're never going to be able to play cards together.

I understand your desire to hold everyone to the highest of standards, but it is not practical. Censorship in whatever form you choose to define will be something you have to deal with. Not because you tolerate it or favor it, but because you live on a planet with other people who do. As long as anyone tolerates it, it will exist in your reality. How you choose to react to it is exactly that, your choice, but everyone else is making that choice as well and they aren't all making the same one you are. You can be idealistic, and I'm glad you are. Someone has to be, or nothing would ever change. That being said, for you to expect that same level of commitment from everyone else is both naive and dangerous.

#&%$ censorship!