What is the point of censorship?

[Father Heathen]

It's about the European context.
In my country, my employer cannot dismiss me for expressing a political opinion that he doesn't like.
If he does, he will have to compensate me for the hedonic damage.
Or in the most serious cases, he will be forced to re-hire me.

So...the private companies argument is something I am not interested in. Since in the USA anything is private. Even the air people breathe.

Again, what are some examples of leftists censoring something?

 

[Estro Felino]

Again, what are some examples of leftists censoring something?

Here...from ...

 

[Father Heathen]

Here...from the guy from Kenya...

Anyone who actually believes that he was born in Kenya or any other sort of cretinous conspiracy theory doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

As you've said, this thread is about the EU. What does Obama have to do with censorship there? If you keep dodging questions we'll just have to assume that your claims are garbage.

 

[Estro Felino]

Anyone who actually believes that he was born in Kenya or any other sort of cretinous conspiracy theory doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

Isn't that intolerance?
I mean...I am tolerant towards your assumptions about Trump.

As you've said, this thread is about the EU. What does Obama have to do with censorship there? If you keep dodging questions we'll just have to assume that your claims are garbage.

There you go

Another attempt to censor freedom of thought and speech in the European Union: 8 left-wing MEPs called for denying access to the EU spaces of all pro-life NGOs | Ordoiuris

· On 28 June 2022, eight Renew Europe MEPs wrote a letter to the President of the European Parliament demanding the immediate withdrawal of the accreditation of all conservative NGOs from EU premises.

en.ordoiuris.pl

 

[Father Heathen]

Isn't that intolerance?
I mean...I am tolerant towards your assumptions towards Trump.
I see there's no mutual respect, here.
That's what creates censorship: intolerance.

While I support peoples' right say irrational, unsubstantiated garbage, I certainly don't respect the irrational, unsubstantiated garbage that they say. I value critical thinking and frown upon ignorance and dishonesty.

There you go

Another attempt to censor freedom of thought and speech in the European Union: 8 left-wing MEPs called for denying access to the EU spaces of all pro-life NGOs | Ordoiuris

· On 28 June 2022, eight Renew Europe MEPs wrote a letter to the President of the European Parliament demanding the immediate withdrawal of the accreditation of all conservative NGOs from EU premises.

en.ordoiuris.pl

Your source is an "institute" that opposes reproductive rights and LGBT rights, thus is untrustworthy in matters pertaining to freedom.

 

[Father Heathen]

Also, @Estro Felino As a transwoman who supports anti-trans politicians, surely you understand why some might question your judgement? Not saying this to be mean, but it's like a black person supporting the Ku Klux Klan; it makes no sense.

 

[Laika]

Isn't that intolerance?

For the sake of clarity, here's the birth certificate of Barack Obama. (Original Source if needed). He's a natural born US citizen who had the right to run and hold office as President of the United States.

 

[Father Heathen]

Because I am a serious, educated person.
I am not interested in US politics that is about sex exclusively. What kind of sex Trump does. Or what kind of sex Clinton does. What kind of sex LGBT do.

I think politics is seigniorage, banking system, fiscal system, tax havens, GDP . So if someone wants to talk about politics, they should talk about these things.

U.S. politics are far from "sex exclusively", and it's not even about sex, it's about rights and freedom. If you're a serious, educated person, then stop with the desperate, obvious attempts to dodge and distort. It's insulting and tiresome. Besides, it still doesn't explain why you support those who oppose your existence. Make it make sense.

 

[Estro Felino]

U.S. politics are far from "sex exclusively", and it's not even about sex, it's about rights and freedom. If you're serious, educated person, then stop with the desperate, obvious attempts to dodge and distort. It's insulting and tiresome. Besides, it still doesn't explain why you support those who oppose your existence. Make it make sense.

I would never vote for Trump. I think I have said it multiple times.
I would vote either for RFK Jr or for Tulsi Gabbard.

 

[Stevicus]

It's called the Streisand effect.
The more you want to hide something, the more that something will draw people's attention.
Censorship is self-detrimental.

Yes, I remember that whole business with Barbra Streisand and Google Maps. I think that was more a matter of personal privacy, though - not an attempt to censor ideas.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes, I remember that whole business with Barbra Streisand and Google Maps. I think that was more a matter of personal privacy, though - not an attempt to censor ideas.

I agree. But they needed a name for the effect, anyhow.
It's studied in criminology too. The more a suspect tries to cover up or censor an aspect of the victim, the more the investigators will think he's the murderer, because he has something to hide.
It can be applied in politics too. Censoring something because people have something to hide.

 

[icehorse]

In the US it's the right that's all in for censorship. They want to censor books about black history, gays/lesbians, transgender and actual history such as the cause of the Civil War. Librarians have gotten fired for resisting their attempts to control what is in the library. They have also attacked teachers, colleges and businesses to stop them from anything that the right disapproves of.

No doubt the far right is hugely problematic, in many ways.

That said, there are plenty of far left folks who are also all in on censorship.

For my money, being unaffiliated as I am, I'm concerned about extremists of all stripes.

 

[Estro Felino]

No doubt the far right is hugely problematic, in many ways.

That said, there are plenty of far left folks who are also all in on censorship.

For my money, being unaffiliated as I am, I'm concerned about extremists of all stripes.

And then there are people who want to censor nobody...like me.

 

[PureX]

Complaining about censorship without any context is stupid. It treats it like it an absolute when it's not.

Shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater endangers people's lives. Doing it falsely, and willingly, to unnecessarily create such a danger and cause the harm that results is considered a crime. And although that IS censorship, strictly speaking, it's considered reasonable censorship by anyone with a brain.

The point being that censorship is not an absolute ideal. It's simply a condition that we apply relative to the results we desire. There is "good, reasonable, necessary, censorship", and there is "bad, unreasonable, and unnecessary" censorship. And the only way to determne which is which is via it's value context.

 

[Stevicus]

Complaining about censorship without any context is stupid. It treats it like it an absolute when it's not.

Shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater endangers people's lives. Doing it falsely, and willingly, to unnecessarily create such a danger and cause the harm that results is considered a crime. And although that IS censorship, strictly speaking, it's considered reasonable censorship by anyone with a brain.

The point being that censorship is not an absolute ideal. It's simply a condition that we apply relative to the results we desire. There is "good, reasonable, necessary, censorship", and there is "bad, unreasonable, and unnecessary" censorship. And the only way to determne which is which is via it's value context.

I think this touches upon the clear and present danger rule, which is a valid justification for controlling speech. However, it's perfectly legal and acceptable to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, provided that there actually is a fire and one is warning of the danger to the public. Censorship is more analogous to preemptive banning the use of the word "fire" in a theater under any and all circumstances - even if there is a fire.

 

[icehorse]

Complaining about censorship without any context is stupid. It treats it like it an absolute when it's not.

Shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater endangers people's lives. Doing it falsely, and willingly, to unnecessarily create such a danger and cause the harm that results is considered a crime. And although that IS censorship, strictly speaking, it's considered reasonable censorship by anyone with a brain.

The point being that censorship is not an absolute ideal. It's simply a condition that we apply relative to the results we desire. There is "good, reasonable, necessary, censorship", and there is "bad, unreasonable, and unnecessary" censorship. And the only way to determne which is which is via it's value context.

How about "canceling"? That almost always seems like censorship to me.

 

[PureX]

How about "canceling"? That almost always seems like censorship to me.

Again .... context.

Cancel an order. Cancel an appointment. We cancel lots of things all the time. We change our minds. We reject the receipt of "X" before it arrives. We refuse to buy into it, we refuse to accept it. It's a bit rude, usually, but it's bound to happen, sometimes. It comes with ours and other people's right to choose. The line is blurry, but it lays somewhere between me choosing for me, and me choosing for you.

 

[icehorse]

Again .... context.

Cancel an order. Cancel an appointment. We cancel lots of things all the time. We change our minds. We reject the receipt of "X" before it arrives. We refuse to buy into it, we refuse to accept it. It's a bit rude, usually, but it's bound to happen, sometimes. It comes with ours and other people's right to choose. The line is blurry, but it lays somewhere between me choosing for me, and me choosing for you.

Really? In the context of this discussion you didn't know what I meant by canceling? Really?

Okay, how about if I ask: How about cancel culture?

 

[PureX]

Really? In the context of this discussion you didn't know what I meant by canceling? Really?

Okay, how about if I ask: How about cancel culture?

People reject what they don't want. That's normal. Common practice. Some people want to reject it FOR YOU AND I, though, because they don't think we should want it, either. That's when they are stepping over that fuzzy line, and past free choice, and into control. Even then, sometimes it's justified. But usually not. So we need to keep a very close eye in this sort of control.

 

[icehorse]

People reject what they don't want. That's normal. Common practice. Some people want to reject it FOR YOU AND I, though, because they don't think we should want it, either. That's when they are stepping over that fuzzy line, and past free choice, and into control. Even then, sometimes it's justified. But usually not. So we need to keep a very close eye in this sort of control.

In other words, cancel culture is an attempt to censor.