Who here likes Censorship? Is Censorship good for the community or bad for the community?
Censorship directed to adults, and its associated viewpoints, is stupid, ignorant, murderous and evil in its truest sense.
It has always been used the very same way: By denying people information, for whatever reason, you keep from them the things they should know about their leaders. Once there is no freedom of information, people can no longer check if their representatives truly represent them. While many things do get censored without directly pertaining to this, such as pornography, censorship ALWAYS opens a "ghost area" where government misdeeds can be safely stowed away. I believe the rest of the discussion of censorship is mainly a smokescreen; every politician in a democracy always feels there is a little too much scrutiny.
It's also a question of keeping a democracy. One of the deepest building blocks of democracy is the concept that the population needs the tools to make good choices for leaders. By denying information to them, or even just supervising who gets what information, you strike a long-term fatal blow to this idea. Getting information about anything you like, be it diseases, nuclear weapons, various companies, political philosophies, war crimes and so on, takes energy. If that path becomes too tiring, the population will remain uneducated - and controllable.
I believe a quote from the Alpha Centauri game said it best: "Beware of he who denies you information. In his heart, he dreams himself your master."
This is a very open ended statement and must be better defined.
On one hand we as a society say that ANYTHING involveing children being abused is wrong and therefore subject to "censorship" however on that same hand we have movies that are so controversial for there time such as the "Billy Jack" series that they are not allowed up until recently to be shown in america because the censors objected to the defamation of the way the senate and congress were portraid as well as the D.C. police being used as private enforcers/goon squad.
Now the series is a cult classic for over dramatic acting and a period peice but back then it was censored.
Censorship is a double edged sword and must be weilded with the utmost care, responsibility and humility.
Who here likes Censorship?
Two types of people..
1) The ones mentioned in Sissyl post. Who want to keep people uninformed...though most in America actualy don't use censorship for this...they tend to use propganda and misinformation here...usualy aided by a press that has gone corrupt in trying to 'change the world'. They rather have people 'know' the 'truth' than keep them clueless.
2) The people who think other people can not decide things on their own. Usualy targets music, movies, RPGs, etc. These are 'wrong' and you should not allowed to be access to them. They also like to keep new ideas coming about.
But if you mean by censorship being thing kept secret...something do need to be kept secret.
Is Censorship good for the community or bad for the community?
It is good if you want to keep you community stagnate and the same. Bad if you want a evolving sopciet. Good ideas will be accpeted...bad ones will not be.
No. ONE type of people. Authoritarian people, whether they actually try to make their society authoritarian, or they are too stupid to understand that that's what they are doing. America is hard at work doing exactly this.
Secrets are terrible things. Once someone has been allowed a "ghost area" to crap in, these people are prepared to commit any murder, make any threat, indeed do literally ANYTHING to make sure proof of their misdeeds stays hidden. Once secrecy has been allowed, and used, it will take blood and fire to excise the taint. Compare, if you will, the policies on torture espoused by latter american presidents. That we have yet to see a society NOT tolerating government secrets is only a testimony of a failure of imagination of the human race.
And no, there is NO good censorship for adults. Whether it is good for children is debatable, but for adults, the focus lies on stagnation, which is what it will always bring.
No. ONE type of people. Authoritarian people, whether they actually try to make their society authoritarian, or they are too stupid to understand that that's what they are doing. America is hard at work doing exactly this.
Things are not that simple...it is not actualy One Type as you said...some are merely corupt and wants to keep power...other are believers etc... all are bad but that is a very simplistic viewpoint and just...as dangerous as anything else. Pointing though Censorship is not actualy that commonly used by these people.
Secrets are terrible things. Once someone has been allowed a "ghost area" to crap in, these people are prepared to commit any murder, make any threat, indeed do literally ANYTHING to make sure proof of their misdeeds stays hidden. Once secrecy has been allowed, and used, it will take blood and fire to excise the taint. Compare, if you will, the policies on torture espoused by latter american presidents. That we have yet to see a society NOT tolerating government secrets is only a testimony of a failure of imagination of the human race.
So you would advocate releasing all the names of our secret operatives the world over? Including under cover cops and such?
Or what about those imprtessions we have our people write about foreign countries and leaders? Which can be insulting but are very useful.
Sure secrets should be revealed after it becomes moot to keep it secret...which we do have a system built in for that reason.
And no, there is NO good censorship for adults. Whether it is good for children is debatable, but for adults, the focus lies on stagnation, which is what it will always bring.
Depends how you define censorship...
One could argue basic politness is a form of censorship.You veiw tends to a very simplistic...fearmongering tone to your posts about this kinda of stuff. Remember out greatest freedom comes from being able to think...fear tends not to make people think...so personaly I think any form of fearmongering is a bigger limition on our freedoms.
Also can you point at any big piece of censorship America has done?
Also read my post again...I did not say it was good.
John Kretzer: It is a sad day when sticking to the basic principles of a free society is rendered as "fear-mongering" and "simplistic". The basic principles of democratic society ARE simple, and have always been. Free debates about ideas, an educated population, presumtion of innocence, and so on. Do I understand you correctly that you strive for a more "balanced" view between censorship and freedom?
I would advocate not HAVING those secret operatives in the first place, nor writing about foreign leaders. And your precious system of revealing secrets doesn't seem to work at all, does it now?
And as to "fearmongering", well, I guess you find it unlikely that your government would institute laws that compel telcos to send copies of all communications to the government, and indeed even give them immunity to lawsuits for that, right?
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I would advocate not HAVING those secret operatives in the first place, nor writing about foreign leaders. And your precious system of revealing secrets doesn't seem to work at all, does it now?That would be very nice, but not all of us live in magical innocent rainbow pony land.
On behalf of myself and all other inhabitants of the magical innocent rainbow pony land, I have but one thing to say:
Haters gonna hate.
If I were smarter, that one thing would also be a linked to an on-point meme picture or something. But I'm not.
Also, we don't do that meme shit in pony land.
I posted this a few days ago on another forum on another topic, but it seems appropriate to the discussion at hand, when we lump in white lies along with government conspiracies:
That’s the thing... objective truth is one of the most scorned commodities in the world. Ever notice how people say things like “Oh, yeah, we’ll definitely get together soon,” in order to mean “I’m tired of talking to you, and I’m going to leave now and never speak to you again if I can help it, but I’m too polite to say so”?
I think that most people value lies far more highly than they do the truth. Lying to each other, and pretending to believe those lies, is perceived as a social “glue” (although I’d personally consider it a lousy glue, but that’s not the point).
I always censor my answers with my wife. It's a matter of self-preservation.
Her: Do these jeans make me look fat?
Me: Of course not. Why would you even think such a silly thing.
Heh. I remember that routine with my ex-wife. She asked me three times in a span of ten minutes. After the third time, I told her if she wants a second opinion, ask her mother.
There was another time she went through that routine. Her father remembered me telling him that story and when she had asked that question a second time, he cut into the conversation essentially saying that I have already answered her question and there should be no further discussion. She buckled down to daddy.
Every time I'm around younglings and "Santa Claus" is mentioned, I immediately censor myself such that I don't say something that might cause harm.
My parent's lying to me about that caused all kinds of harm that might have been mitigated if another adult had spoken up sooner. When I finally figured out what the deal was, I spent the rest of my childhood assuming that all adults were lying to me about almost everything -- and found an alarming number in instances in which this was the case. Every one eroded my trust in humanity as a whole, and helped make me the nasty, cynical bastard I am today.
Unless you want your kids to end up like me -- do. not. lie. to. them.
I can see a very limited number of situations where agree with or at least tolerate like censorship, if done right.
I approve of this as long as the censors are being reasonable. Once a kid is 12 or so, it won't destroy his or her childhood to see a naked person (as long as it's not a close-up and they're just naked, I'm not saying they should watch porno), someone being shot in a film (again, as long as it's not a close-up and it's not detailed) or someone saying f@$~ or shit.
This point includes Paizo having a profanity filter, a film maker deciding not to use swear words, realistic violence or sex, and your mom telling you not to swear at her dinner table.
Beyond that, no, I don't approve it at all. It's not okay to rate something (computer game, film) "adult only" (with laws in place that make it hard for non-adults to get their hands on the stuff, since nobody is allowed to sell it to you) and still cut out stuff that is in there originally.
John Kretzer: It is a sad day when sticking to the basic principles of a free society is rendered as "fear-mongering" and "simplistic". The basic principles of democratic society ARE simple, and have always been. Free debates about ideas, an educated population, presumtion of innocence, and so on. Do I understand you correctly that you strive for a more "balanced" view between censorship and freedom?
Defintly....because just like everything else in a society we trade certain freedoms to be a society.
Would you like all your private infomation just out here on the internet? Because the people doing it have freedom of speech.
Anytime you don't associate with somebody who is rude socialy you are censoring them. The very concept of politeness is all about censorship in some ways.
Also yes life is never simple. And you do use fear tactics in debate. Trust me I have read many proganda and your post are proganda...not that I disagree with what you are saying..just the way you are saying it.
I would advocate not HAVING those secret operatives in the first place, nor writing about foreign leaders. And your precious system of revealing secrets doesn't seem to work at all, does it now?
Well it is evident in this world we need them...without them...well it is sorta like disarming the military...when everybody else still has a military.
As for a diplomat's impression of forgein leaders( and diplomat) are highly useful and usualy very helpful in dealing with these people...but again for the sake of politeness they should be kept secret.
As for the laws which things become no longer secret...they work just fine. In that secrets do get revealed...actualy alot of heinous activities that the USA has done in the past have been revealed though these laws. Do you even know the laws which I am talking about?
And as to "fearmongering", well, I guess you find it unlikely that your government would institute laws that compel telcos to send copies of all communications to the government, and indeed even give them immunity to lawsuits for that, right?
Sure I know about it...sure I don't like it. But the way I would actualy fight against this to explain this to people(fellow Americans) and get them to see the dangers with facts...not simple statements of fear inducing you have done previously.
|
hi5 Aberzombie.
Every time I'm around younglings and "Santa Claus" is mentioned, I immediately censor myself such that I don't say something that might cause harm.
I go find the younglings's caregivers / parents / bosses to figure out how to proceed.
I'm not married, but I suspect any sane spouse'd do the same.
This scenario was my "set" and "setting" question to Elton.
-- Andy
I love lying to children. It lets me indulge my creativity.
I love lying to children. It lets me indulge my creativity.hi5 Aberzombie.
Every time I'm around younglings and "Santa Claus" is mentioned, I immediately censor myself such that I don't say something that might cause harm.
I go find the younglings's caregivers / parents / bosses to figure out how to proceed.
I'm not married, but I suspect any sane spouse'd do the same.
This scenario was my "set" and "setting" question to Elton.
-- Andy
It's almost more fun to tell outrageous lies to adults; some of them don't catch on as quickly as children do.
Well, generally, don't lie to any intelligent entity.
Lying is great. Especially to children. Very useful.
I advocate lying to children! Lies like: "No, you cannot divide 4 by 3", later followed by "If you divide 4 by 3, you get 1 rest 1".
I'm also a fan of a bunch of liars and really like their lies. Lies like "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit". That Tolkien guy lied through his teeth, but reading his lies was quite entertaining, and inspired many other lies, like "The greatest heroes of the Inner Sea region record their victories in an ongoing series of chapbooks known as the Pathfinder Chronicles."
Great stuff, lies. If done for the right reasons.
|
John Kretzer: It is a sad day when sticking to the basic principles of a free society is rendered as "fear-mongering" and "simplistic". The basic principles of democratic society ARE simple, and have always been. Free debates about ideas, an educated population, presumtion of innocence, and so on. Do I understand you correctly that you strive for a more "balanced" view between censorship and freedom?
I would advocate not HAVING those secret operatives in the first place, nor writing about foreign leaders. And your precious system of revealing secrets doesn't seem to work at all, does it now?
And as to "fearmongering", well, I guess you find it unlikely that your government would institute laws that compel telcos to send copies of all communications to the government, and indeed even give them immunity to lawsuits for that, right?
You watch waaaay too many half-baked, conspiracist documentaries. I also notice, once again, you're never able to disclose specific, evidentiary examples to back up your fear-mongering.
Actually, I'm starting to wonder if you're not one of those shadowy government types just trying to distract us from any relevant discussion...
|
|
All hyperbole aside, I find censorship of ideas to be generally bad--I'm ready to give equal time to all ideas until the evidence bears out one idea as better than another; and even then, I'm all for maintaining the faulty-wrong notion in a kind of archive for later reference.
As to censorship in the interest of public well-being and the general good order of a functioning social structure, I'm all for maintaining certain things where they're available to a portion of the matured public and not to the remaining portion--think blatant, deliberate pornography as defined by the majority of the particular society. In this case, the only material that would remain uniformly unavailable would be blatantly criminal material produced against the will of, contrary to the health of, or preliminary to the matured reason of the persons directly involved.
As to written works, this is why we have separate sections in the library for children and adults. Should a child not be allowed access to the entire library? A child whom you wouldn't allow to play outside unsupervised, and wouldn't allow to wander a department store unsupervised, probably shouldn't be wandering the library unsupervised.
Finally, the fact and maintenance of State Secrets is a condition of the world in which we live--get over yourself and join the rest of us in Reality--the USA is a far cry from Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia; we're whole universes apart.
Who here likes Censorship? Is Censorship good for the community or bad for the community?Define "Censorship," and the context.
:D
-- Andy
Define Censorship? Alright.
Censorship -- the control of the information and ideas circulated within a society. -- http://gilc.org/speech/osistudy/censorship/
Sorry, Andy, man at work for most of the day yesterday. I couldn't be bothered to read this thread and get my work done at the same time. Everyone, I have an ulterior motive for asking this question.
Yes, the blanket question goes to all kinds of censorship, but I wanted to know who liked it and who did not. However, the main reason why I asked it is in context of Censorship -- both overt and subvert. However, it also applies to a Censorship Law that had its beginning in 16th Century England and Ancient China during the Qin Dynasty.
So I take it that generally, you all believe that Censorship is a bad thing? That's so far, a majority of adults that replied to this thread. Except those masquerading as smurfs.
(I'd rather you masquerade as Mickey Mouse).
'Westerners have come to understand their political arrangements in the terms of what may be called modern liberalism, a view that affirms the value of freedom in both private and public life without passing judgment on the ends for which that freedom is to be used. Modern liberalism originally intended to make politics more just by removing from the public arena the occasion for bloody quarrels over moral and especially religious questions, quarrels that had long wracked Europe. However, it has gradually become apparent that the liberal solution may have been bought at the price of man's degradation. At the base of modern liberalism, in the thought of such men as Hobbes, lies the claim that man is a being without sacred restraints, without obligation to anything higher than himself. But a life that stands in awe of nothing is a life in want of meaning. A political community that endorses that life eventually arouses self-hatred, frantic but aimless activity, or tired indifference. Such a community is all too likely to bring upon itself the deserved contempt of its own citizens, preparing the way for tyranny. Perhaps the most striking example of such a regime is the 1920s Weimar democracy in Germany, whose collapse was largely due to the disaffections of its own citizens. Freedom without purpose affords no firm basis for political order. In the words of The Federalist: "Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It has ever been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit."'
I would advocate not HAVING those secret operatives in the first place, nor writing about foreign leaders. And your precious system of revealing secrets doesn't seem to work at all, does it now?That would be very nice, but not all of us live in magical innocent rainbow pony land.
SO agressive, isn't she?
Yes we use it, yes it's good for the community, no you can't have order without things like this.
Agreeing with censoring doesn't make anyone a specific kind of person.
All hyperbole aside, I find censorship of ideas to be generally bad--I'm ready to give equal time to all ideas until the evidence bears out one idea as better than another; and even then, I'm all for maintaining the faulty-wrong notion in a kind of archive for later reference.
As to censorship in the interest of public well-being and the general good order of a functioning social structure, I'm all for maintaining certain things where they're available to a portion of the matured public and not to the remaining portion--think blatant, deliberate pornography as defined by the majority of the particular society. In this case, the only material that would remain uniformly unavailable would be blatantly criminal material produced against the will of, contrary to the health of, or preliminary to the matured reason of the persons directly involved.
As to written works, this is why we have separate sections in the library for children and adults. Should a child not be allowed access to the entire library? A child whom you wouldn't allow to play outside unsupervised, and wouldn't allow to wander a department store unsupervised, probably shouldn't be wandering the library unsupervised.
Finally, the fact and maintenance of State Secrets is a condition of the world in which we live--get over yourself and join the rest of us in Reality--the USA is a far cry from Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia; we're whole universes apart.
Universes? No. More than a few steps? Yes. It would take a crushing reversal of fortunes and specific situations, like those outlined in the post above, to even begin moving this country in such a direction. But it isn't impossible, and should not be considered such.
Again, I note that democratic principles are seen as "rainbow candy land". This is the typical authoritarian rhetorics for protecting the process of instituting an authoritarian society.
The US still has a way to go to become nazi Germany. However, it is foolish to believe that a concerted effort to impose totalitarianism in society would "tip its hand" by actually using all the rules as far as they will go UNTIL the day when the process can no longer be stopped. Checks and balances are removed, "emergency rules" are instituted that subordinate the individual to the whim of the government, and troublesome individuals are removed from positions of influence, by whatever means are useful and quiet. This is how it has always been done.
That is why rules must always be judged regarding fairness by how they could be misused in the worst thinkable manner, not how a sane and tolerant person would use them.
Consider: The american president now has the power to declare ANYONE, even an american citizen, an illegal combatant. In fact, this has already happened to an american citizen.
And it is far from true that anything in particular would be needed to "even begin moving this country in such a direction". It is happening now, and those claiming otherwise simply have not bothered to check what is going on. Nazi Germany didn't suddenly start sending people to death camps. From 1933, there was a long stretch of years where the government removed liberties, changed the laws to suit them, and consolidated control of the country. If you wish to learn a little more, perhaps you should read up on what "night and fog" means.
As to censorship for the children, that is the parents job. Keep track of what your kids watch, where they go, do your damn job instead of telling the rest of us to do it for you.
Sure, but recommendations are necessary for parents to decide. Especially if there is surprise sex&crime involved.
You can't watch everything before showing it to your kids, that usually only works with stuff you have on video. If you just want to watch some TV with the whole family, it's hard to do that.
So you should get information about the contents of whatever film or broadcast you're watching so you can decide whether you'll watch it with your kid.
You could watch some do a reportage about something, and there are three articles that are perfectly okay, but then suddenly, someone in the TV station has taken leave of his senses, and they're having a show on birth. No big introduction about the topic, they start with a close-up of a baby's head sticking out of his mother.
That's not something I'd like young children to see. Heck, I don't want to see that.
I'll be the first to agree that the parents can't expect the government or TV to raise their kids for them, the parents are those who ultimately have to decide what's appropriate for their kids, but recommendations at least are necessary.
And depending on when something is aired, there should also be certain limits to its content.
but then suddenly, someone in the TV station has taken leave of his senses, and they're having a show on birth. No big introduction about the topic, they start with a close-up of a baby's head sticking out of his mother.
Dunno... kids who grow up on farms see all kinds of animals being born, and as far as I know it doesn't scar them for life in any way. I think the fact that we set up a huge big deal of "YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO SEE THAT AND IF YOU DO THE WORLD WILL END!" means, in a lot of cases, they're damaged by seeing some things because now they think the world will end, not because of anything inherently damaging in what they're seeing.
I generally draw the line at violence because we don't want impressionable kids to get the idea that violence is an appropriate manner for adults to act. I don't see any reason, though, why we'd want to prevent them from getting the idea that people are born, rather than being carried in by storks or whatever.
You could watch some do a reportage about something, and there are three articles that are perfectly okay, but then suddenly, someone in the TV station has taken leave of his senses, and they're having a show on birth. No big introduction about the topic, they start with a close-up of a baby's head sticking out of his mother.That's not something I'd like young children to see. Heck, I don't want to see that.
Do you have a sound objection, or are you just going from your personal nausea here? Because I can think of many things that nauseate me but that seems infinitely far away from a justification to censor them. Quite the opposite, it sounds like an extremely good reason never to censor them.