It's a half-joke in Catholic media circles that making comments like this is likely to receive some kind of punishment on social media... I say "half-joke" because it happens extremely frequently and those writers in that world all know it happens and try to laugh about it.
As someone in the tech world, I spend most of my time interacting with more "liberal" people. I don't hear about this happening with any frequency, accidentally or otherwise, to those on the left. At the same time "diversity of thought" is something I only read about in right-leaning circles. Events like the one shown in this article are why diversity of thought matters. This is clearly an important debate, and Twitter, willfully or systematically, is shutting down a legitimate, notable voice in the debate, and Twitter is ill-equipped to even understand that the point made by the bishop is reasonable (if not universally shared).
When Dorsey was in front of a Senate committee just before election, the discrepancy in the types of questions between Democrats and Republicans was quite stark. Republicans were hammering Dorsey on censoring conservatives, and Democrats were hammering Dorsey for not censoring enough. Tells you all you need to know.
It tells you that politicians are only ever in the game to win elections, and, in that moment, just before the election, this was the way to approach the hearing that seemed most tactically appropriate to both sides.
That's not actually something I want to know; we've already known that that's how politicians behave for centuries. I'd be a lot more interested to know if social media is influencing the public political discussion in meaningful ways, and how, and to what end. But those questions were never going to be answered in any sort of compelling way by a gaggle of politicians trying to score cheap points in front of their constituents.
My Catholic dogma may be out of date, but I'd suppose it goes as such: Euthanasia is de-facto suicide, and suicide is a mortal sin. Such sins may damn a soul to eternal punishment in Hell. Suffering at such intensity for eternity is much worse than the suffering at the end of one's life. QED, euthanasia is bad.
I'm certain that I'm butchering this. Also, to be clear, I am NOT advocating one way or the other on this reasoning, just giving what I can remember about the reasoning. Again, not my reasoning or advocation.
If anyone with a better understanding of the reasoning would comment, that would be great! Thanks.
The crux of it is that suicide rejects the gift of life
"Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of."
What has changed is Debates + Algo amplification of one side or the other - using pseudo signals like the Like Count or Follower Count.
That changes the story. Its not a debate anymore. Its a mindless game of count accumulation. Given enough time and energy you can find enough misguided people in the world to validate whatever you believe.
>As someone in the tech world, I spend most of my time interacting with more "liberal" people. I don't hear about this happening with any frequency, accidentally or otherwise, to those on the left
I mean it's kind of tautological to say that you don't hear a lot about censorship of left-wing opinion if you're situated in a left-wing social environment. For a long time I worked in a very conservative community as a very left-wing person and if I had spoken my mind I could have probably packed my bags. Try having an outspoken atheist debate in a very culturally conservative community. I went to a catholic private school as a kid and if I had actually said what I thought about religion I probably would have gotten hit with a ruler or something.
Which obviously isn't to say that you're not right in principle, obviously open debate is good and all, but what you're describing isn't just occurring in 'liberal circles'. People always love to promote diversity of thought when they happen to be in a minority position.
As someone in the tech world, I spend most of my time interacting with more "liberal" people. I don't hear about this happening with any frequency, accidentally or otherwise, to those on the left. At the same time "diversity of thought" is something I only read about in right-leaning circles. Events like the one shown in this article are why diversity of thought matters. This is clearly an important debate, and Twitter, willfully or systematically, is shutting down a legitimate, notable voice in the debate, and Twitter is ill-equipped to even understand that the point made by the bishop is reasonable (if not universally shared).