the inefficiency of censorship

[Advocate]

Censorship causes an unnatural shift in language which undermines social stability.

When an idea is censored, people will find another way to express it, but the new way will inevitably be slightly different than before, and slightly different from place to place. This causes more friction in communication and more outright misunderstandings with all the problems that entails. All aspects of society that rely upon stability, especially the most important ones, are undermined by this process.

The forced evolution of language either by force, as here, or by ideological or political fiat is intellectually And pragmatically regressive.

[Age]

Censorship causes an unnatural shift in language which undermines social stability.

When an idea is censored, people will find another way to express it, but the new way will inevitably be slightly different than before, and slightly different from place to place.

And, the new way might be, although slightly different, actually be more succinct, more accurate, more efficient, and/or much more sufficient, thus IMPROVING social stability.

And, again, what is with the 'unnatural' word here. How could absolutely ANY 'thing' be so-called 'unnatural'?

This causes more friction in communication and more outright misunderstandings with all the problems that entails.

The way 'you', adult human beings, disagree, argue, and bicker with each other, a LOT of what 'you' SAY would be better censored, completely, from those younger forming ones anyway.

All aspects of society that rely upon stability, especially the most important ones, are undermined by this process.

Well this appears to be one CERTAINLY ABSURD and RIDICULOUS CLAIM.

What aspects, supposedly, rely upon stability?

Which aspects are, supposedly, the most important ones?

As I just SHOWED and PROVED above censorship can lead to EFFICIENCY.

The forced evolution of language either by force, as here, or by ideological or political fiat is intellectually And pragmatically regressive.

The way 'you' 'try to' 'argue' for your current BELIEFS "advocate" is Truly ABSURD.