Comments on: Up with censorship! http://www.splendidsun.com/wp/up-with-censorship/ Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:33:46 -0400 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Chino Blanco http://www.splendidsun.com/wp/up-with-censorship/comment-page-1/#comment-44064 Chino Blanco Sun, 19 Aug 2007 09:08:26 +0000 http://www.splendidsun.com/wp/up-with-censorship/#comment-44064 Censorship sucks ... http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4027#comment-231983 Censorship sucks …

http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4027#comment-231983

]]> By: Steve H http://www.splendidsun.com/wp/up-with-censorship/comment-page-1/#comment-44063 Steve H Sat, 15 Apr 2006 07:15:57 +0000 http://www.splendidsun.com/wp/up-with-censorship/#comment-44063 One last bit to make a difference, though I think we'll just hit an impasse here. I think it is the very soul of public discourse that we should encounter ideas that we do not agree with, that we, perhaps, find reprehensible. I do not think it is vital, and I don't think most people would say it is, that we encounter pornography or gratuitous violence. In fact, we are best not to encounter it and to get away if we do. One last bit to make a difference, though I think we’ll just hit an impasse here. I think it is the very soul of public discourse that we should encounter ideas that we do not agree with, that we, perhaps, find reprehensible. I do not think it is vital, and I don’t think most people would say it is, that we encounter pornography or gratuitous violence. In fact, we are best not to encounter it and to get away if we do.

]]> By: RoastedTomatoes http://www.splendidsun.com/wp/up-with-censorship/comment-page-1/#comment-44062 RoastedTomatoes Sat, 15 Apr 2006 03:27:25 +0000 http://www.splendidsun.com/wp/up-with-censorship/#comment-44062 Steve, pornography isn't a problem for me at all. I just don't find it enticing, addictive, or problematic in any way. Not even interesting, in fact. So, that's that; I <em>can</em> disregard what I find disagreeable. The point is, people differ; some are more at risk from dangerous ideas, whereas others are more at risk from dangerous images. So it's problematic to extrapolate from our own experience. By the way, I fully agree that ideas I support can be as embedded in identity and thus essentially self-reinforcing and addictive as any other. I know I'm fallible. But I also realize that I can't ban ideas that I don't like; my point here is that images are really no different from any other ideas... Steve, pornography isn’t a problem for me at all. I just don’t find it enticing, addictive, or problematic in any way. Not even interesting, in fact. So, that’s that; I can disregard what I find disagreeable. The point is, people differ; some are more at risk from dangerous ideas, whereas others are more at risk from dangerous images. So it’s problematic to extrapolate from our own experience.

By the way, I fully agree that ideas I support can be as embedded in identity and thus essentially self-reinforcing and addictive as any other. I know I’m fallible. But I also realize that I can’t ban ideas that I don’t like; my point here is that images are really no different from any other ideas…

]]> By: Steve H http://www.splendidsun.com/wp/up-with-censorship/comment-page-1/#comment-44061 Steve H Sat, 15 Apr 2006 01:42:02 +0000 http://www.splendidsun.com/wp/up-with-censorship/#comment-44061 Roasted Tomatoes, You make a good point about determining what is pornography, and it is certainly not easy to do so. This doesn't however, mean that we should not exert our influence to control what is publicly viewable. the only hope we have is that the best overall standards will prevail. The problem is that we can't simply diregard what is disagreeable, and therefore, we can't simply not have standards of public decency, which is what I think you don't address in my argument. I'll be the first to admit that there are things that I find enticing phhysically that I also find revolting at the level of the spirit. When I encounter these things, it is obviously my duty to do the best I can to look the other way. When they clutter my view, however, I have to look increasingly at my shoes (unless I'm in Vegas or Soho, where I have to find somewhere to look other than down), which is every bit as restrictive as saying someone can't put up posters that show X, Y, or Z. Why should we cede that control over our necks and eyes? The first part of your argument in 19 I feel to be problematic. Surely ideas can dupe us. We can feel that we have been fooled by an idea, but if we are convinced of the erroneousness of an idea, and if we are courageous enough to leave it behind, it is, it seems to me, not likely to return to that idea because it is enticing. That, to me, seems like a danger inherent in any argumentation--that we might believe an idea that has been argued well, but which isn't sound. It doesn't seem to me to be similar to addiction, which is very difficult to shake, and which leads us to do things that we are utterly convinced are wrong. I think the experiences of overcoming addiction is fundamentally different from changing our ideas. I'm wondering if your ideas here on the addictive nature of ideas are that different from simply believing that anyone that holds ideas different from your own (on the war perhaps?) simply couldn't have made a judgement of the evidence from themselves that has any basis in rational thought? Roasted Tomatoes,
You make a good point about determining what is pornography, and it is certainly not easy to do so. This doesn’t however, mean that we should not exert our influence to control what is publicly viewable. the only hope we have is that the best overall standards will prevail. The problem is that we can’t simply diregard what is disagreeable, and therefore, we can’t simply not have standards of public decency, which is what I think you don’t address in my argument. I’ll be the first to admit that there are things that I find enticing phhysically that I also find revolting at the level of the spirit. When I encounter these things, it is obviously my duty to do the best I can to look the other way. When they clutter my view, however, I have to look increasingly at my shoes (unless I’m in Vegas or Soho, where I have to find somewhere to look other than down), which is every bit as restrictive as saying someone can’t put up posters that show X, Y, or Z. Why should we cede that control over our necks and eyes?
The first part of your argument in 19 I feel to be problematic. Surely ideas can dupe us. We can feel that we have been fooled by an idea, but if we are convinced of the erroneousness of an idea, and if we are courageous enough to leave it behind, it is, it seems to me, not likely to return to that idea because it is enticing. That, to me, seems like a danger inherent in any argumentation–that we might believe an idea that has been argued well, but which isn’t sound. It doesn’t seem to me to be similar to addiction, which is very difficult to shake, and which leads us to do things that we are utterly convinced are wrong. I think the experiences of overcoming addiction is fundamentally different from changing our ideas. I’m wondering if your ideas here on the addictive nature of ideas are that different from simply believing that anyone that holds ideas different from your own (on the war perhaps?) simply couldn’t have made a judgement of the evidence from themselves that has any basis in rational thought?

]]> By: RoastedTomatoes http://www.splendidsun.com/wp/up-with-censorship/comment-page-1/#comment-44060 RoastedTomatoes Fri, 14 Apr 2006 23:59:58 +0000 http://www.splendidsun.com/wp/up-with-censorship/#comment-44060 Steve, it would seem that nationalism/patriotism and militarism can have effectively addictive effects, as well. The same with partisan political appeals. All of these have been shown recently to eventually produce distinctive neurology that makes the recipient of the messages in question filter out contradictory information and only believe information that reinforces the original belief pattern. This is fundamentally similar to addiction, so I think ideas are as dangerous as anything else on this count, as well. The biggest problem arises, of course, when it comes to demarcating the boundary between ideas and "pornography or senseless violence." Just exactly because different groups of people will disagree about that boundary -- for reasons that are non-neutral with respect to ideas, I think it's dangerous for society when individuals try to destroy expressions that seem unacceptable to them. A free and open discourse is best served by all of us just disregarding the things we can't abide. Do you remember when someone's broadcast career was destroyed, in late 2001, for arguing that a terrorist who dies in the course of an attack is certainly evil, but doesn't meet the definition of cowardice? At the time, that statement was taken as being out of bounds -- it was not a mere expression of an idea, but in fact an evil act... That kind of attitude is the very real danger we face in these kinds of decision-making... Steve, it would seem that nationalism/patriotism and militarism can have effectively addictive effects, as well. The same with partisan political appeals. All of these have been shown recently to eventually produce distinctive neurology that makes the recipient of the messages in question filter out contradictory information and only believe information that reinforces the original belief pattern. This is fundamentally similar to addiction, so I think ideas are as dangerous as anything else on this count, as well.

The biggest problem arises, of course, when it comes to demarcating the boundary between ideas and “pornography or senseless violence.” Just exactly because different groups of people will disagree about that boundary — for reasons that are non-neutral with respect to ideas, I think it’s dangerous for society when individuals try to destroy expressions that seem unacceptable to them. A free and open discourse is best served by all of us just disregarding the things we can’t abide.

Do you remember when someone’s broadcast career was destroyed, in late 2001, for arguing that a terrorist who dies in the course of an attack is certainly evil, but doesn’t meet the definition of cowardice? At the time, that statement was taken as being out of bounds — it was not a mere expression of an idea, but in fact an evil act… That kind of attitude is the very real danger we face in these kinds of decision-making…

]]> By: ed http://www.splendidsun.com/wp/up-with-censorship/comment-page-1/#comment-44059 ed Fri, 14 Apr 2006 03:42:34 +0000 http://www.splendidsun.com/wp/up-with-censorship/#comment-44059 Too bad reverse boycotts are illegal - it seems unfair doesn't it? What is a reverse boycott? If you don't like me (or things I do) you are free to refuse to buy what I have to sell. If I don't like you (or things you do) I am NOT legally priveledged to refuse to sell to you. Too bad reverse boycotts are illegal – it seems unfair doesn’t it?

What is a reverse boycott? If you don’t like me (or things I do) you are free to refuse to buy what I have to sell. If I don’t like you (or things you do) I am NOT legally priveledged to refuse to sell to you.

]]> By: Steve H http://www.splendidsun.com/wp/up-with-censorship/comment-page-1/#comment-44058 Steve H Thu, 13 Apr 2006 18:58:20 +0000 http://www.splendidsun.com/wp/up-with-censorship/#comment-44058 Roasted Tomatoes Interchange of ideas is meant to be processed at the level of ideas. It is an excercise of the intellect. Admittedly, we might feel that some intellects are unequal to the task, but the same might be said of us. We can't have a standard for the decency of ideas. We can't tell people what to think. Images of the sort we're talking about here are meant to be processed on the level of emotion and even hormonal physicality. One can become addicted to pornography or senseless violence, and we have a right, I think to protect both our children (the usual argument) and ourselves (the thing we are less willing to note--we can't admit we are vulnerable as adults). While I may not be able to control the fact that the people around me believe stupid things (that's how a democracy works, we put up with each other while we present our ideas, stupid or not), I can use whatever influecnce I have to affect my environment (also the idea of a democracy--and I don't see democracy as a simple matter of one person/one vote--things don't work that way in reality. If the greater influence is on the side of an environment that promotes wickedness, I have to put up with that or try to create a shelter zone. I can, however, assert my influence, and hope that there is enough influence that things do't become so bad that I have to create such a large shelter zone that my children become "sheltered." Though I don't hate that word as much as some, it is better not to have to deal with the resulting diconnect with the world. Becoming sheltered myself, at this point, isn't so much of a concern. Roasted Tomatoes
Interchange of ideas is meant to be processed at the level of ideas. It is an excercise of the intellect. Admittedly, we might feel that some intellects are unequal to the task, but the same might be said of us. We can’t have a standard for the decency of ideas. We can’t tell people what to think.
Images of the sort we’re talking about here are meant to be processed on the level of emotion and even hormonal physicality. One can become addicted to pornography or senseless violence, and we have a right, I think to protect both our children (the usual argument) and ourselves (the thing we are less willing to note–we can’t admit we are vulnerable as adults). While I may not be able to control the fact that the people around me believe stupid things (that’s how a democracy works, we put up with each other while we present our ideas, stupid or not), I can use whatever influecnce I have to affect my environment (also the idea of a democracy–and I don’t see democracy as a simple matter of one person/one vote–things don’t work that way in reality. If the greater influence is on the side of an environment that promotes wickedness, I have to put up with that or try to create a shelter zone. I can, however, assert my influence, and hope that there is enough influence that things do’t become so bad that I have to create such a large shelter zone that my children become “sheltered.” Though I don’t hate that word as much as some, it is better not to have to deal with the resulting diconnect with the world. Becoming sheltered myself, at this point, isn’t so much of a concern.

]]> By: RoastedTomatoes http://www.splendidsun.com/wp/up-with-censorship/comment-page-1/#comment-44057 RoastedTomatoes Wed, 12 Apr 2006 16:09:01 +0000 http://www.splendidsun.com/wp/up-with-censorship/#comment-44057 Steve, I can't make sense of your claim that words and ideas can't be as offensive, indecent, and dangerous as images. I simply can't find any basis for this idea... Steve, I can’t make sense of your claim that words and ideas can’t be as offensive, indecent, and dangerous as images. I simply can’t find any basis for this idea…

]]> By: Mike http://www.splendidsun.com/wp/up-with-censorship/comment-page-1/#comment-44056 Mike Wed, 12 Apr 2006 05:24:38 +0000 http://www.splendidsun.com/wp/up-with-censorship/#comment-44056 Boycotts and protests are double-edged swords and must be used very judiciously. HBO's bean-counters would love nothing more than a huge Mormon uproar over Big Love. It would translate into more profit. They know who their primary audience is, and it sure isn't active members of the Church. The Evangelicals have gotten more sophisticated in this regard. They chose not to protest, boycott, or even say much about Brokeback Mountain. Why? They realized they could not stop the movie's distribution and would in effect only be providing free advertising for it. Boycotts and protests are double-edged swords and must be used very judiciously. HBO’s bean-counters would love nothing more than a huge Mormon uproar over Big Love. It would translate into more profit. They know who their primary audience is, and it sure isn’t active members of the Church.

The Evangelicals have gotten more sophisticated in this regard. They chose not to protest, boycott, or even say much about Brokeback Mountain. Why? They realized they could not stop the movie’s distribution and would in effect only be providing free advertising for it.

]]> By: Steve H http://www.splendidsun.com/wp/up-with-censorship/comment-page-1/#comment-44055 Steve H Tue, 11 Apr 2006 22:01:29 +0000 http://www.splendidsun.com/wp/up-with-censorship/#comment-44055 Roasted Tomatoes, I think the difference here is that most people aren't offended by the mere sight of Fox news reports. When you see the report, I'm sure you do not feel tainted by the images. Fox doesn't push images that many find offensive, though they might advocate ideas that people may find offensive. What you are talking about is free exchange of ideas, rather than standards of decency. You are, of course, right that mobilization is at the heart of a boycott, but what is the problem with those who have less market power, and who might be ignored one by one mobilizing to make apparent that they collectively have more market influence than might otherwise be recognized. Boycotts send a collective message that the concerns of a certain economic constituency won't go away. A network may assume that one show won't affect your decision to order their services. A boycott is no more than a way of saying, hey, shouldn't we be upset enough to jsut cancel our subscription? If you agree, then it's great that someone helped you to realize that you should have been upset enough. If not, then I would assume you won't join the boycott. To say that that is wrong would be to argue against argumentation, since the boycott is voluntary and is simply an effort to persuade others that they should join you in voting with their dollars. Roasted Tomatoes,
I think the difference here is that most people aren’t offended by the mere sight of Fox news reports. When you see the report, I’m sure you do not feel tainted by the images. Fox doesn’t push images that many find offensive, though they might advocate ideas that people may find offensive. What you are talking about is free exchange of ideas, rather than standards of decency.
You are, of course, right that mobilization is at the heart of a boycott, but what is the problem with those who have less market power, and who might be ignored one by one mobilizing to make apparent that they collectively have more market influence than might otherwise be recognized. Boycotts send a collective message that the concerns of a certain economic constituency won’t go away. A network may assume that one show won’t affect your decision to order their services. A boycott is no more than a way of saying, hey, shouldn’t we be upset enough to jsut cancel our subscription? If you agree, then it’s great that someone helped you to realize that you should have been upset enough. If not, then I would assume you won’t join the boycott. To say that that is wrong would be to argue against argumentation, since the boycott is voluntary and is simply an effort to persuade others that they should join you in voting with their dollars.

]]>