What is the point of censorship?

[Father Heathen]

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

Would you allow a satanist to give a sermon in your church?

 

[Father Heathen]

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

But are they doing so in equal proportion, and shouldn't our concern in turn be proportionate to that?

 

[Father Heathen]

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

Like the boycott against Target and Bud Light?

 

[Stevicus]

Like the boycott against Target and Bud Light?

I would say there's a difference between cancel culture and boycotting. Boycotting is when people might organize to refrain from buying a product or service for whatever reason. Cancel culture goes a step further by demanding that something be removed entirely, so that no one can buy it. Or, in cases of colleges where they might invite a speaker, others who dislike the speaker might want them cancelled, in which case no one would get to attend.

So, boycotting is making the choice for oneself, while cancel culture is imposing it on others.

 

[icehorse]

But are they doing so in equal proportion, and shouldn't our concern in turn be proportionate to that?

I suppose. But it seems like there is plenty to go around, so I choose to focus on the excesses of the far left because I think they're a little more under the radar.

Recently a top UK comedian Graham Linehan was canceled from the Fringe comedy festival because the "inclusive" organizers decided he'd said some off-the-accepted dogma things about trans activists. This kind of thing happens a lot.

 

[PureX]

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

There is no "cancel culture". That's just propaganda. There are people that want to deny us access to ideas and information that they don't like or agree with. They want to decide for us what we should reject and accept. And in some instances this would be appropriate. But in most instances it is not.

 

[Estro Felino]

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.

If you give me an example of justified censorship, I can understand.
By censorship I mean (in my language) preventing someone from publishing something.
A book, a magazine, etc...etc...

 

[PureX]

If you give me an example of justified censorship, I can understand.
By censorship I mean (in my language) preventing someone from publishing something.
A book, a magazine, etc...etc...

Yes, like publishing the formula and process for creating a highly contagious and deadly virus. Or like publicly slandering other people for fun and profit.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes, like publishing the formula and process for creating a highly contagious and deadly virus. Or like publicly slandering other people for fun and profit.

We are speaking of political ideas. Read the OP.
Not something involving crimes or people's reputation.

 

[Father Heathen]

I suppose. But it seems like there is plenty to go around, so I choose to focus on the excesses of the far left because I think they're a little more under the radar.

Recently a top UK comedian Graham Linehan was canceled from the Fringe comedy festival because the "inclusive" organizers decided he'd said some off-the-accepted dogma things about trans activists. This kind of thing happens a lot.

I don't blame venues for protecting their reputation; they're businesses, and they shouldn't be obligated to provide a soapbox for bigots at their own detriment.

 

[Estro Felino]

I don't blame venues for protecting their reputation; they're businesses, and they shouldn't be obligated to provide a soapbox for bigots at their own detriment.

But it's not a thread about law.
I understand your legal argument.
My thread is about morality.

Isn't a bit intolerant to prevent the ones you disagree with from speaking?

I am speaking of goodness and tolerance. Moral values.

 

[Father Heathen]

But it's not a thread about law.
I understand your legal argument.
My thread is about morality.

Isn't a bit intolerant to prevent the ones you disagree with from speaking?

I am speaking of goodness and tolerance. Moral values.

Paradox of tolerance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Estro Felino]

Paradox of tolerance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Karl Popper has been debunked and sneered many times.

It all depends on the perpetrator-victim cycle.
For example, Marie Antoinette considered the French people a bunch of intolerant peasants who couldn't tolerate the aristocracy and their luxurious lifestyle.
Or the banking dynasties can call socialists like me intolerant, because I don't tolerate the fact that they stole the monetary sovereignty from the American people, and deny them social services like a National Health Service.

Even the serial killer who feels the urge to kills random people, considers, in his twisted mind, Government intolerant, because it won't tolerate his crimes, and wants to execute him by lethal injection.

Popper's argument is pure logical fallacy.
It all depends on whether one is victim or perpetrator.

The people who undergo censorship are victims, most of the times.

 

[PureX]

You wanted examples of when censorship is appropriate. Both of these examples of censorship occur by government edict. Both will be punished by the force of governmental laws and agencies. Another example would be documents being labeled "secret" and thereby censored from public and press access.

 

[Father Heathen]

Karl Popper has been debunked and sneered many times.

It all depends on the perpetrator-victim cycle.
For example, Marie Antoinette considered the French people a bunch of intolerant peasants who couldn't tolerate the aristocracy and their luxurious lifestyle.
Or the banking dynasties can call socialists like me intolerant because I don't tolerate the fact that they stole the monetary sovereignty from the American people, and deny them social services like a National Health Service.

Even the serial killer who feels the urge to kills random people in his twisted mind, considers the Government intolerant, because he won't tolerate his crimes, and wants to execute him by lethal injection.

Popper's argument is logical fallacy.
It all depends on whether one is victim or perpetrator.

The people who undergo censorship are victims, most of the times.

Your mental gymnastics and mangling of what social tolerance means is the fallacy. It doesn't mean tolerating injustice. Let's keep the discussion intelligent and logical, or just bow out.

 

[Father Heathen]

Would you allow a satanist to give a sermon in your church?

@Estro Felino You keep forgetting to answer this question.

 

[Estro Felino]

@Estro Felino You keep forgetting to answer this question.

Censorship is forbidding a Satanist from speaking in a venue or publishing a book of theirs.
I would never do that.

If I owned a venue, I would allow a Satanist to speak there.
But since the parish is not mine, you should ask the priest, not me.

 

[Estro Felino]

Your mental gymnastics and mangling of what social tolerance means is the fallacy. It doesn't mean tolerating injustice. Let's keep the discussion intelligent and logical, or just bow out.

Give me an example of something that should be censored.

 

[Father Heathen]

Censorship is forbidding a Satanist from speaking in a venue or publishing a book of theirs.
I would never do that.

If I owned a venue, I would allow a Satanist to speak there.
But since the parish is not mine, you should ask the priest, not me.

But if you were in charge of the parish, would you?

 

[Father Heathen]

Give me an example of something that should be censored.

By who? On what?