Books Shouldn't Be Censored

[RealEgg]

Title

[davidb11]

Can we not go derail this thread by bringing up loli?
I hate it so much and even I know it's different than real life people.

Good grief.

Make another thread about that.

Censorship is a bad idea in very large amounts.

[Q-T_3.14.exe]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย davidb11:

Can we not go derail this thread by bringing up loli?
I hate it so much and even I know it's different than real life people.

Good grief.

Make another thread about that.

Censorship is a bad idea in very large amounts.

You know what? I wouldn't be surprised if this got derailed into an argument about loli and shota.
Trust me, this has happened before on Off Topic. Mention that and the topic catches aflame fast and it gets locked, in best cases deleted.

*Remembers the previous threads to which this has happened before*
*Gunshot and explosion noises*
*Stares into nothing*

[Morkonan]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย VCR86:

In my opinion, I don't think anything should be censored or banned unless it's ACTUAL illegal sh*t.

But, wouldn't a law censoring something actually be censorship?

What if pictures of housepets were made illegal? No more cat pics or happy dog photos for... reasons.

Can one justify censorship using a principle that is objectively just? Or, one that has some similar level of fidelity?

Rhetorical, or actual if anyone wishes, question:

Is there a rule for judging what should be censored that can be applied in many/all instances? What would it be?

[davidb11]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Morkonan:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย VCR86:

In my opinion, I don't think anything should be censored or banned unless it's ACTUAL illegal sh*t.

But, wouldn't a law censoring something actually be censorship?

What if pictures of housepets were made illegal? No more cat pics or happy dog photos for... reasons.

Can one justify censorship using a principle that is objectively just? Or, one that has some similar level of fidelity?

Rhetorical, or actual if anyone wishes, question:

Is there a rule for judging what should be censored that can be applied in many/all instances? What would it be?

as the line goes, "Who watches the Watchmen."

[hi friends]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Not Big Surprise:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย jok tran:

As a respectful loli appreciator I highly agree.

stay away from children

I mean, we do. unlike americans or englishmen with money.

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย davidb11:

Can we not go derail this thread by bringing up loli?
I hate it so much and even I know it's different than real life people.

Good grief.

Make another thread about that.

Censorship is a bad idea in very large amounts.

It's hard not to when you start talking about censorship. It's an easy example with full of double standards.

censoring arts or whatever is bad. it just so happens that arts include them. so are banning books.

[davidb11]

Yeah, but the point is, I hate that discussion chain.
It always goes crazy off the rails.

[hi friends]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย davidb11:

Yeah, but the point is, I hate that discussion chain.
It always goes crazy off the rails.

Of course it goes crazy (off the rail is debatable), i mean we've always got random ass christian that can't admit to their own double standards. ;)

[crunchyfrog]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย The Decadent:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย crunchyfrog:

Why do so many of these people bring up things that literally don't exist?

How far down silliness have we gone that they don't ever even check up to see if it's correct? It speaks volumes about their laziness and dishonesty.

What I find amusing is that I saw the other day that all books that have been banned in certain places thus far have had their sales skyrocket.

It's almost like not only are they lying but they're wrong too ;)

If they omitted placing 50 shades of labias and the Enchiridion of ♥♥♥♥ on the front shelf (in the children's section) at your local library, consider yourself blessed.

Cool, you have any evidence of this?

[Thisha]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Morkonan:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Thisha:

Censorship is becoming ridiculous.

I agree. But...

Street names are being changed, TV series episodes being removed, words are being changed...

Revisionism. They're not removing them, they're changing them to what they want them to say/mean.

Politicians and other people deciding such things are being caught themselves for all kinds of wrong.

They obey the mob and if they can get what the mob can give them, power, they'll agree to anything.

And here in Belgium for example can our royalty just keep on doing what they do while they are a big example of wrong:, being able to still pass status, privileges and wealth over the bloodline just because someone took power once.
If something should not be of this era anymore...

If one is so stupid of thinking that making something disappear will make things better... Then they shouldn't cast out the news, block as good as every movie, forbid hell of a lot of songs, forbid a lot of sports...

I don't think if for example rapes would stop if we made the concept disappear and never spoke of it again.

It's all about education, context, thinking for yourself, building towards a decent society...

But I guess sticking our heads into the ground is just much easier.

No matter if it's a dictatorship, a monarchy, or a representative republic, the few always only govern by the consent of the many. "The Many" always have the choice and the true power to make change happen.

So... do that?

Haha, I don't know but changing a street name (of a bad guy) does imply removing the first one and putting on a new one (let's say Pancake street), no? And removing an episode in a series, well, is removing.
Statues and art of historical bad people have been removed too here by the way.

I'm more of a person who still believes most people can just use common sense (if they at least want to). I think teaching kids about placing things in context, teaching them about wrong and good (...) can only be more of a value than trying to erase what once happened and never talk about it anymore.


And about the ruling... I really have nothing against a few ruling for the mass.
But man... Here they are turning this country into a third world country (if one can still say that).
And our royalty (only still in there for the international relations, ha) is just a bunch of soap material. The weirdest one in the family himself even called out recently if the royal family thing was still of this time.
and this wasn't even really about them but was another example to state those removers are mostly nothing more than hypocrites.

And doing... Well, I tried. I tried....
I once signed up as a co-founder for a community project. My family, their heads exploded. They made me call it off as they panicked and saw us losing our house in some way. They even wanted to listen to the legal setup.
One of those people later complained about how sour society got, why nobody did something.
Oh, did I reply her then. She stood there in silence when I told her if she remembered how she made me stop doing actually that very thing: creating a piece of change.

And I had this multiple times. Asking complaining people to gather and brainstorm about what we could do... Total silence.

But maybe read my post in 'What doesn't surprise you anymore'. It's probably the last as there again, total silence.

[Alby]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย SlowMango:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Alby:

though i agree with most of your post, all books are not art lulz

They are.

Calculus by Ron Larson is art?

Lmfao

[crunchyfrog]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Thisha:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Morkonan:

I agree. But...



Revisionism. They're not removing them, they're changing them to what they want them to say/mean.



They obey the mob and if they can get what the mob can give them, power, they'll agree to anything.



No matter if it's a dictatorship, a monarchy, or a representative republic, the few always only govern by the consent of the many. "The Many" always have the choice and the true power to make change happen.

So... do that?

Haha, I don't know but changing a street name (of a bad guy) does imply removing the first one and putting on a new one (let's say Pancake street), no? And removing an episode in a series, well, is removing.
Statues and art of historical bad people have been removed too here by the way.

I'm more of a person who still believes most people can just use common sense (if they at least want to). I think teaching kids about placing things in context, teaching them about wrong and good (...) can only be more of a value than trying to erase what once happened and never talk about it anymore.


And about the ruling... I really have nothing against a few ruling for the mass.
But man... Here they are turning this country into a third world country (if one can still say that).
And our royalty (only still in there for the international relations, ha) is just a bunch of soap material. The weirdest one in the family himself even called out recently if the royal family thing was still of this time.
and this wasn't even really about them but was another example to state those removers are mostly nothing more than hypocrites.

And doing... Well, I tried. I tried....
I once signed up as a co-founder for a community project. My family, their heads exploded. They made me call it off as they panicked and saw us losing our house in some way. They even wanted to listen to the legal setup.
One of those people later complained about how sour society got, why nobody did something.
Oh, did I reply her then. She stood there in silence when I told her if she remembered how she made me stop doing actually that very thing: creating a piece of change.

And I had this multiple times. Asking complaining people to gather and brainstorm about what we could do... Total silence.

But maybe read my post in 'What doesn't surprise you anymore'. It's probably the last as there again, total silence.

That's a very interesting point - about statues of certain people being removed as it's something I have mixed opinions about and cannot come to a definitive answer.

Here in Britain (I obviously don't know where you're from) we've had a few examples.

Typical one being a notorious Bristolian, Thingy Colston (can't remember his first name). Amongst other things, statues included, he had a well-known concert hall named after him which was changed. This was changed as he had a history of getting his welath and notoriety by being a slave trader.

On the one hand I absolutely think we should not erase history as they saying goes "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it". As it's definitely a salient point.

But on the other hand, it ain't a good idea to glorify such people.

So it leaves me in a bit of a conundrum.

What might be a good idea is a bit of a middle ground. For example, if I were in charge of such things, I'd rename the hall, and put up a plaque at the front explaining "this hall was formerly known as Colston Hall, named after Lord Colston. It was decided in 2022 to rename it after his history with slave trade as being unseemly."

'm still not entirely happy as there might not be a perfect answer to this, but I think that's possibly the best compromise.

[Thisha]

That's a nice idea, the plaque, the mentioning of... Less possibility of offending but still educative....
Statues are indeed a bit trickier.

I personally don't have an issue with names or statues. People are normally dead anyway. I don't believe in any kind of afterlife so I'm pretty basic about it. Dead, gone.
I don't visit graves, I don't think it's not honorable towards a dead person to not remind him... One has only chances during life.
Honouring after death by giving someone for example a postuum doctorate... I'm sorry, but for who is that actually? It's just giving some of the living a good feeling.
I hope when we die I will be processed into biofuel or something but if I still were to be buried, I wouldn't mind now a drunk peeing on it then.

Oh dear, I'm wanderi'g off again.

I just wanted to make a statement about seeing something as a glorification or not.
It's not about the statue, it's the person looking at it or placing it.
For me, an existing statue of Hitler is a piece of stone or metal. Nothing more. It's been placed once, in other times... Let it be a reminder of not letting such horror happen again.
And if my neighbour were to put one in his front yard tomorrow, I would rather have my thoughts about my neighbour than about the statue.

My biggest issue with it all is the hypocrisy.

Here in Belgium, some stuff had to go but Napoleon could stay (at that time). It's not that he didn't have blood on his hands...

They removed for example an episode of an old Flemish comedy series from 1990 or so where an older white woman asked a black guest 'So, you Africans also eat with a knife?".
Any person with the least amount of common sense can put this in it's context but apparently this could not appropriate anymore.
But heavy drinking, smoking and the many loose relationships with women were no problem at all while a lot of people can be offended or feel hurt by that due to personal experiences...

The churches here still stand tall, getting their financial support after all those pedofilie scandals .. not even taking into account all the victims religions have caused over the centuries, and still are causing... The one bad thing or guy is definitely not like the other...

It's just way easier to change a street name....

Somewhere, someone is gonna be offended or hurt by something.
We just can't remove it all...

And what's the point of removing the past when we can't (don't want to) build a decent society going for a better future for all now being and the ones coming?

[RealEgg]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Thisha:

That's a nice idea, the plaque, the mentioning of... Less possibility of offending but still educative....
Statues are indeed a bit trickier.

I personally don't have an issue with names or statues. People are normally dead anyway. I don't believe in any kind of afterlife so I'm pretty basic about it. Dead, gone.
I don't visit graves, I don't think it's not honorable towards a dead person to not remind him... One has only chances during life.
Honouring after death by giving someone for example a postuum doctorate... I'm sorry, but for who is that actually? It's just giving some of the living a good feeling.
I hope when we die I will be processed into biofuel or something but if I still were to be buried, I wouldn't mind now a drunk peeing on it then.

Oh dear, I'm wanderi'g off again.

I just wanted to make a statement about seeing something as a glorification or not.
It's not about the statue, it's the person looking at it or placing it.
For me, an existing statue of Hitler is a piece of stone or metal. Nothing more. It's been placed once, in other times... Let it be a reminder of not letting such horror happen again.
And if my neighbour were to put one in his front yard tomorrow, I would rather have my thoughts about my neighbour than about the statue.

My biggest issue with it all is the hypocrisy.

Here in Belgium, some stuff had to go but Napoleon could stay (at that time). It's not that he didn't have blood on his hands...

They removed for example an episode of an old Flemish comedy series from 1990 or so where an older white woman asked a black guest 'So, you Africans also eat with a knife?".
Any person with the least amount of common sense can put this in it's context but apparently this could not appropriate anymore.
But heavy drinking, smoking and the many loose relationships with women were no problem at all while a lot of people can be offended or feel hurt by that due to personal experiences...

The churches here still stand tall, getting their financial support after all those pedofilie scandals .. not even taking into account all the victims religions have caused over the centuries, and still are causing... The one bad thing or guy is definitely not like the other...

It's just way easier to change a street name....

Somewhere, someone is gonna be offended or hurt by something.
We just can't remove it all...

And what's the point of removing the past when we can't (don't want to) build a decent society going for a better future for all now being and the ones coming?

Very interesting.

[Ȼħⱥꞥꞥēł8753452]

Books, movies etc cannot hurt you, they aren't going to take a gun to your head.

Anyone who'd pull a gun on you over what they've read in a book/seen in a movie, wouldn't be worth being around anyways.

You can observe something without believing in it.

The best people are confident enough to form their own opinions and make their own decisions, regardless of what others think of them or the things they've seen.

[crunchyfrog]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Thisha:

That's a nice idea, the plaque, the mentioning of... Less possibility of offending but still educative....
Statues are indeed a bit trickier.

I personally don't have an issue with names or statues. People are normally dead anyway. I don't believe in any kind of afterlife so I'm pretty basic about it. Dead, gone.
I don't visit graves, I don't think it's not honorable towards a dead person to not remind him... One has only chances during life.
Honouring after death by giving someone for example a postuum doctorate... I'm sorry, but for who is that actually? It's just giving some of the living a good feeling.
I hope when we die I will be processed into biofuel or something but if I still were to be buried, I wouldn't mind now a drunk peeing on it then.

Oh dear, I'm wanderi'g off again.

I just wanted to make a statement about seeing something as a glorification or not.
It's not about the statue, it's the person looking at it or placing it.
For me, an existing statue of Hitler is a piece of stone or metal. Nothing more. It's been placed once, in other times... Let it be a reminder of not letting such horror happen again.
And if my neighbour were to put one in his front yard tomorrow, I would rather have my thoughts about my neighbour than about the statue.

My biggest issue with it all is the hypocrisy.

Here in Belgium, some stuff had to go but Napoleon could stay (at that time). It's not that he didn't have blood on his hands...

They removed for example an episode of an old Flemish comedy series from 1990 or so where an older white woman asked a black guest 'So, you Africans also eat with a knife?".
Any person with the least amount of common sense can put this in it's context but apparently this could not appropriate anymore.
But heavy drinking, smoking and the many loose relationships with women were no problem at all while a lot of people can be offended or feel hurt by that due to personal experiences...

The churches here still stand tall, getting their financial support after all those pedofilie scandals .. not even taking into account all the victims religions have caused over the centuries, and still are causing... The one bad thing or guy is definitely not like the other...

It's just way easier to change a street name....

Somewhere, someone is gonna be offended or hurt by something.
We just can't remove it all...

And what's the point of removing the past when we can't (don't want to) build a decent society going for a better future for all now being and the ones coming?

I can dig your approach there! Hypocrisy is certainly a very valid point.

If you're going to be logical you MUST be consistent. Case in point the Israel war.

It's not difficult to simply point out this basic logic:
Israel government bad,
Hamas bad,
Israeli people fine,
Palestinian people fine.

And yet if you DARE to criticize the Israeli government in mainstream media, where there's TONS of money in weapons to be thrown around, you lose you job or are tarred and feathered.

It's incredibly dishonest.