So, once every month or so, I come across something that inspires me to open up a huge can of worms here on the forums. No religion this time! Woo!

Declines in Free Speech

I want you all to read that. All of you. All of the article. Yes, it's relatively long. Make time.

The demonization of ideas is a more nuanced issue than the author implies. Even I'm guilty of it.

I'd like to start by saying that I'm not in favor of censorship of anything. Period. End of story. However, I don't live in a culture where debates are held in the market forum twice a week. I live in a culture where the marketplace of ideas is dominated by the relatively cliqueish Internet, fueled by input from mass media, the educational system, and organized religion. There is no dialogue. Not real dialogue. It's very possible to selectively read articles that present palatable ideas to you. Because of this, I feel compelled to steer people towards certain dogmatic stances, very few of which I hold myself, because their group affliation will encourage them to read the articles and listen to the stories I hope they agree with.

If you haven't read the linked article yet, go do it! If you have, then discuss.

Nothing new here.

It was the hypocrisy of universities stance on freedom of speech that made me regret going to college, and wishing I had just gone to a local community college where the lack of "university culture", I felt, allowed for more learning and less brainwashing.

Lately I've seen a rise on people who seem to support the notion of a 'nanny state' - People who think it's their right not to be offended, and that it's the government's job to protect people from themselves. Those people, of course, make me sigh and fear for democracy. The left in many places seem to be infested with faux-liberals - Personally, I'm going to go right ahead and blame ultra-feminism (People who condemn porn need to realise that pornography is the only industry where women make more money than men) religion, 9/11 fear-mongers, and crackpot politicians on both sides of the spectrum.

Why don't you take a closer look at reality and, like the article, blame everybody? I can't think of a single thing that bind John Ziegler, and the protagonist of this essay, other than they both think free speech is dieing, if not already dead.

Because it seems to me those groups have a bigger share of the guilt? Of course, we can blame everyone for letting this kind of crap happen.

I was about to go on a rant defending feminism.

And then I decided not to.

But man, I want to.

Oh, don't get me wrong. Feminism is great, and was very important in shaping modern society - But feminists eventually became obsolete and started coming after more and more unlikely targets, like pornography and the word 'man'.

Go ahead with the feminism defense. It's something that always seemed a little hypocritical to me. Either, in extreme forms, you're preaching that women are better than men, which becomes just as reproachable as the current patriarchal society, or you're focusing solely on women, saying that they should be treated equally to men based on an inherent equality, while ignoring inequality in every other form, such as racism. *brandishes the Stick of Antagonism*

Edit: Oh, and the whole "womyn" irks me for some, indescribable reason.

I think it's humorous that the right is always being accused of intolerance, yet the left is just as guilty. People who view homosexuality as offensive are called homophobic. This is a subtle form of brainwashing that says "You're diseased if you think this way". Or you may be assigned to "sensitivity training" if you speak in defense of some conservative views, such as sex being for marriage.

As for censorship, I do agree that in some cases censorship has gone too far, however I also think that censorship is too lax in some areas. I don't watch prime time television anymore because of the high degree of sensuality to be seen. I don't think it's ok for kids to watch porn or other highly sensual material. Socialogists will tell you that conformism is in our nature, thus if we are flooded by the media, the campuses, and society in general with liberal ideas, we find ourselves steadily brainwashed, and only those who hold strongly to conservative ideals are likely to withstand the tide of brainwashing

By that same token, the Right is just as guilty of "brainwashing," though. It's all in the terminology used. Both sides are adopting words and phrases, using connotations and denotations to imply that whatever they support, the other side inherently opposes.

That's stupid.

"If you think its bad to be a bigot, then you're a bigot!" WTF? That isn't how it works. Some things are wrong. Plain and simple. To saying someone is wrong is not to in turn be just as bad.

People deserve freedom to the extent that it doesn't infringe on someone else's freedom in most situations. Is it wrong to teach abstinence only in school? Yes. Its a fact that STDs are higher amongst people who are only taught not to have sex at all. Does that make me intolerant? No. Because they are wrong, and its a fact.

As for censorship being too lax.. why not just avoid watching it? Its not like its not a known fact that there is sensuality on prime time tv, and that is why there are tv ratings just like movies.

And where do you get this idea of brainwashing? Throughout history is been known as an Enlightenment. The government is conservative and the people are liberal. Conservative factions own most media outlets. How is it liberal brainwashing when its the Conservative money that's actually paying for it all?

Seriously.

Homophobes have all the right to bash gay people (Verbally). Enlightened, tolerant, right-thinking individuals have all the right to think they're creepy bigots who need to be kept from imposing their silly superstitious views on the rest of us.



I love it when people stop attacking positions, and start attacking words. It's the true sign that someone doesn't have anything worthwhile to say anymore.

ETA:

Censorship too lax? Censorship is bad, period-end-of-story. If you're concerned by what your children are watching, then don't let them watch TV, or better yet, watch TV with them and make sure they're not seeing anything you find objectionable, or buy a TV/PVR/Cable service with parental control features.

I really see nothing wrong with censorship if there is an open debate/forum over what is going to be censored. There are things that should be censored I.E. porn to little children. However there must be allowed review of the reasons over censorship and the ability to turn over the censor.

As for the why the censorship in the article exists, it is because it is much easier to to tell someone no you are not allowed to talk about that, view that, or write that, then it is to give them reasons and convince them why they should avoid something. Censorship actually creates a reverse effect in that it brings light to a topic and makes people want to view it. The best example I can think of is when a parent tells a kid to not touch a stove. The child will never know the truth about the stove until he actually touches it though. So he does is burned and then makes up his own mind about the stove.

Since you used my quote, am I to assume you're implying I have nothing worthwhile to say, or are you implying that the adoption of various terms by either side is not a reflection of their positions?

If it's the former, I was responding to Daruin's rant about language, and I see no reason to "attack" anything whatsoever.

Any form of censorship eventually turns into a tool to suppress whatever the censors find objectionable. An open debate about censorship would ultimately be run by consensus, at which point you have tyranny by majority - People with minority opinions would be shut up. I don't think media outlets and people in general should be censored on the premise that children might have access to inappropriate content; parents, teachers, social workers and society as a whole need to take care of children, but the responsibility ultimately falls on the parents. Trying to built a rubber-padded world where it's virtually impossible for children to be hurt is far too costly (In social terms) and would not work; it would also totally fail to raise children in an environment where they can be aware of personal responsibility.

Oh, I was going on a tangent. Wasn't talking about your post; was noting that people objecting to 'homophobe' (Which is a purely descriptive and harmless term) or 'man' or whatever word are the deepest reach of stupidity in argument; it's what happens when a movement has run out of things to oppose - It moves into reforming language into a bizarre, Orwellian sort of move.

I' not trying to create a rubber paded world. I was just trying to say that censorship can have a use in the right hands for the right reasons. However I don't belive the right hands will ever be found. As for rubber paded worlds go my highschool is an extreamly good example. Next year they will be removing all junk food from machines and lunches, the reasoning is that it will allow us to make healthy choices, Instead it is really leaving us without a choice. A fact that I have brought to many.

That seems to be at odds with your notion that censorship by consensus is okay.

And that's what I mean by 'nanny state' - Enforcing 'right' choices by eliminating all wrong ones.

Funny, I don't remember calling anyone a biggot. I said that labeling us as homphobes is a form of brainwash.

*cough*



A bigot is someone who is intolerant.. so.. yes, yes you did.

Labeling you intolerant is not brainwashing you.. its stating the truth. You are intolerant of a certain group of people who simply want to live their life and would be glad to let you do what you want to do.