[flagged]
No they say they give a snot about society a whole.
I can say a lot of things too.
If anything, it's actually the other way around. Their puritan views of what makes a healthy society is what informs their likes/dislikes.
They are legitimately fighting for what they legitimately think will make a healthier society. If you assume otherwise, you will misjudge them.
This defines them as identical. Morals are what people think makes society better, and their absence worse.
There's lots of other ways to dislike something besides morals.
For example, I don't like spectator sports. It's not a moral issue, just taste, so me not watching sport is genuinely sufficient.
Conversely, I think analytics tracking is harmful to society even though I also find it interesting to see the results, and should be banned. Me simply not using it isn't enough.
Anti-porn people? I disagree with them. If they are motivated by religious fundamentalism, then I disagree with the foundation of their worldview. But this is how it is not simply enough to respond with "if you don't like it, don't buy it".
You've indicated two things here which you assert are legitimate:
* Their fight for their goals
* The thinking underlying these goals
On the latter: Nobody except the people doing the thinking can (at least with current technology) truly know. And it may be entirely unimportant. My best guess is that u/fenomas has it about right; their aesthetic seems to have informed a manufactured narrative about societal impact. It may be that these people have personal unresolved sexual trauma which is activated by these subjects. Surely no matter their reasons, they deserve to be treated with compassion. But I don't think that u/fenomas is being illogical here, or failing to steelman their position; I think that it's perfectly reasonable to question someone's basis for advocacy of censorship.
However, on the former, I more strongly disagree with your use of the word "legitimately". Using the heavy hand of the state (including the unfortunate configuration in which payment processors need its anointment and good graces and are thus vulnerable to political pressure) to censor the internet - a resource characterized chiefly by its cross-cultural and cross-political availability and unity - is not a legitimate tactic. The internet does not seem to tolerate this variety of censorship; in every instance, the Streisand Effect, May 35, and similar phenomena have quickly and decisively punctured the erected walls.
Whether these people truly view these materials as likely to harm society or not, their legitimate avenue of change is through voluntarily persuasion, not censorship by way of force.
That's inferiority complex pushed into moral superiority feeling. All just emotions of unbalanced/uneducated people who should know better but clearly don't. No place for such behavior in truly democratic society, their rights to decide what should be happening and what shouldn't generally end at the door of their house (and even that just within legal framework).
Otherwise lets give some room for neonazis too for example, they certainly have a vision about how the society should look like and behave. They are at the end just bunch of folks who want to change society for what they consider a better one, right?