It's worth pointing out that I think the tone and out-of-context flaming of your comment is the problem that this entire thread is seeking to resolve, which is why you might have been downvoted.

I'm guessing the negative votes have to do with painting a group of people in a casually pejorative way. The left, as a whole, does not rejoice in censoring all sorts of speech. The left is filled with many people with a variety of opinions and many of them value civil liberties as you presumably do.

I agree with much of what you said, but the use of the word 'crybully' is why I'd have downvoted you. Also the comment on the -3 points being against the guidelines.

If you clean out some of the more inflammatory words, you make a decent point. I agree that censorship should be avoided, and I see a push on the left for censorship.

EDIT: I initially said I agree with the tone but that was poor editing on my part.

"Crybully" is a particularly odious piece of political signalling masquerading as an argument, at least in my opinion. The person using it is of course also claiming to be victimized as a way of shutting up their political opponents, except that it doesn't count because everyone knows that only the "regressive left" are "crybullies".

> The person using it is of course also claiming to be victimized as a way of shutting up their political opponents

I don't think so: the difference is that the crybully wants to silence his opponent, while the one using the term wants his opponent to stop silencing him. I.e., one wants to suppress liberty and one wants to preserve it.

I have no problem with your right to say that I'm wrong, or odious, or that my speech is completely offensive and inimical (although of course I disagree): where I draw the line is if you attempt to silence me altogether.

People are not being silenced, they are being judged. Speak your mind, but do not stop us from responding.

For one to disagree with your point of view is an affront to your liberty, but the suppression of such disagreement is not an affront to mine?

Suppression of disagreement is exactly what I'm against.

You're free to judge, as I wrote, but you're never free to silence.

The problem of 'cry-bullies' is that they wish not just to judge, but also to silence.

I do not have the power to silence you. I doubt anyone in this discussion outside the admins do. I'm not sure how your point is supported by evidence.

I'm not accusing you of trying to silence folks, just noting that's the MO of so-called 'cry-bullies,' who use forum admins, school administrators and other similar mechanisms to silence speech they disagree with rather than rebut it head-on.

> odious piece of political signalling masquerading as an argument

Are terms like "racist", "facist" etc fine in comparison? If I described them as above, I doubt it would be well recieved;

" The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies 'something not desirable.' The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. " http://examples.yourdictionary.com/loaded-language-examples....