Thread: The political culture of censoriousness

Originally Posted by sabang

So where do you get Mein Kampf these days?

I'm sure you know . . . but it's freely available

Originally Posted by sabang

Who decides?

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

This:
It's a free-market decision and they're not preventing anyone from getting a copy elsewhere so it's not even remotely close to censorship

Originally Posted by sabang

^^ Das Kapital, much better. Much.

Up to you. Also freely available

Originally Posted by sabang

Now lets think about that in the context of todays world. Yeh, that's a H'mmm.

It's a "H'mmm", is it? What does that mean?

Do you consider "Little House on the Prairie" to be incendiary, racist rhetoric? Some do, and apparently it is now banned in primary school. Ditto "Uncle Toms Cabin", and whatever else.
I'll try to be polite, but do you not consider this to be a bit, h'mmmm?


The political culture of censoriousness

Originally Posted by sabang

I'll try to be polite

Is there a reason not to be?

Originally Posted by sabang

Do you consider "Little House on the Prairie" to be incendiary, racist rhetoric?

From Mein Kampf, freely available in most places, to Das Kapital (I hope you are fluent in German), also freely available to Little House on the Prairie baned in Primary School . . . where? Everywhere? Is there a world Censor?

. . . you do realise your constant veering on topics and books doesn't help your position in any way.

The topic is the OP. Censorship. And there is more and more of it. I do not like that, and further believe it does not augur well for our society and culture. Or future.
I happen not to believe that average people are so stupid as to be only allowed what "We" approve them to see. (waddya mean We?). And I am seeing more of it, and so is the OP.
A very worrying trend, indeed.

Originally Posted by sabang

Do you consider "Little House on the Prairie" to be incendiary, racist rhetoric? Some do, and apparently it is now banned in primary school. Ditto "Uncle Toms Cabin", and whatever else.
I'll try to be polite, but do you not consider this to be a bit, h'mmmm?

Do I consider it a bit hmmmmm to not let kids read books that say "the only good indian is a dead indian"?

Or refer to African Americans as "Nigger" and "the House Negro"?

Not, not at all.

By the way, Uncle Tom's Cabin was previously banned by Plantation owners because they didn't want their slaves getting ideas.

I expect you're OK with that.

Originally Posted by sabang

And there is more and more of it.

Maybe it just seems that way to you because you conflate things such as the withdrawal of a book by a vendor with censorship.

^^ To me, those are lessons hazza. Lessons to be learned from, not denied. Because they will find out anyway, and conflate it in their own ways.

^I have already said, one has the right to censor books of one's own choosing as a vendor. I don't personally like that, but I have no right to deny You the right.




But it seems strange to me that I can watch a female impersonator buggering an actual female prostitute dressed as a Catholic Nun up the chutney, and that's quite OK, but Uncle Toms Cabin is considered taboo.

Originally Posted by sabang

I have already said, one has the right to censor books of one's own choosing as a vendor.

And as has been repeatedly pointed out to you: it's not censorship.

Originally Posted by sabang

^^ To me, those are lessons hazza. Lessons to be learned from, not denied. Because they will find out anyway, and conflate it in their own ways.

Not if they learn first about slavery and its subsequent effects, and how such terms offend people. Then they can read these books in context.

^I have already said, one has the right to censor books of one's own choosing as a vendor. I don't personally like that, but I have no right to deny You the right.

You don't seem to understand "rights".

They are perfectly in their right to choose what they want to sell. You dumbarse.

But it seems strange to me that I can watch a female impersonator buggering an actual female prostitute dressed as a Catholic Nun up the chutney, and that's quite OK, but Uncle Toms Cabin is considered taboo.

What do your porn watching habits have to do with this topic?

Other than if someone chooses to let you watch this, it's up to them, as long as it is legal.

Originally Posted by sabang

I can watch a female impersonator buggering an actual female prostitute dressed as a Catholic Nun up the chutney, and that's quite OK.

Where? Asking for a friend.

Originally Posted by nidhogg

Where? Asking for a friend.

It's a bit fucking niche innit, he must have searched for it for hours.

Originally Posted by sabang

But it seems strange to me that I can watch a female impersonator buggering an actual female prostitute dressed as a Catholic Nun up the chutney, and that's quite OK, but Uncle Toms Cabin is considered taboo.

Now you're saying that you want your nun fantasy equated with children reading Uncle Tom's Cabin?


Hmm . . . nah, you're losing it. Best not do a Skidmark and double down further and further

Originally Posted by sabang

OK, no bullshit. I am finding the political climate of censoriousness overbearing these days. And it doesn't apply to me personally- I am self sufficient. So I have nothing to lose.
Questions you cannot ask, that might even cost the curious their career. So they cower as cowards, or take the fall.
Thoughts you cannot express, for fear of offending the great consensus. Who's consensus?
Books you cannot read, that are harmless and works of art actually. Who assumed this right?
Statues that must be torn down, because our people cannot see such a thing. According to whom- a mob of underperformers?
Sanitising history- not to be learnt from, just erased. You really think that works?

Is this what made our social model great? No, it isn't quite the opposite. What made us great in the first place, you are destroying.
And only those 'lucky' few like me, that are OK and have no career or shit like that to lose any more, can speak out about it. Except a brave few.
The rest must cower or consent. Is this really what you wanted, your ideal model society? In which case, I suggest you learn to eat with chopsticks.

tl;dr version:

'I'm Offended Over People Taking Offense!', Says Man Manufacturing Things to Be Offended Over.

Talking of underperformers.....

And ad hominem for that matter, to borrow one of your pet phrases.
Why don't you just think about the Post a bit, and the OP? I am just the poster.

Originally Posted by sabang

Talking of underperformers.....

And ad hominem for that matter, to borrow one of your pet phrases.
Why don't you just think about the Post a bit, and the OP? I am just the poster.

Good gawd you're a ridiculous hypocrite!

You waffle on, call people names, construct ridiculous straw men one after the other, and then demand how and on what parameters other posters are allowed to respond, cry when they don't.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Good gawd you're a ridiculous hypocrite!

You waffle on, call people names, construct ridiculous straw men one after the other, and then demand how and on what parameters other posters are allowed to respond, cry when they don't.

That seems a long winded way of saying "You fucking twat".

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

That seems a long winded way of saying "You fucking twat".

True, though short or long form he'll miss the point I guess.

Boomers gonna, err, Boomer!

Gentlemen, you seem to assume the post was actually addressed to you. Fools. You are just the low (well, no) rent springboard.
It is addressed to the many more who read this, and perhaps think about it, maybe even copy it. Not you, but thanks for the springboard anyway.
You have the option obviously, but lets face it- you are not exactly movers, shakers, or even thinkers. I don't answer to toothless weasel packs.
But I invite you to think- everyone is invited.

You waffle on, call people names, construct ridiculous straw men one after the other, and then demand how and on what parameters other posters are allowed to respond, cry when they don't.

Originally Posted by sabang

Gentlemen, you seem to assume the post was actually addressed to you. Fools. You are just the low (well, no) rent springboard.
It is addressed to the many more who read this, and perhaps think about it, maybe even copy it. Not you, but thanks for the springboard anyway.
You have the option obviously, but lets face it- you are not exactly movers, shakers, or even thinkers. I don't answer to toothless weasel packs.
But I invite you to think- everyone is invited.

Q to the muthafucking E to the muthafucking D, homie!

Keep posting- the more you post, the more people get the message.

Originally Posted by sabang

Keep posting- the more you post, the more people get the message.

Oh you're right there.

Originally Posted by sabang

You have the option obviously, but lets face it- you are not exactly movers, shakers, or even thinkers.

Oh, god now you are sounding like Psuedo. Anyone that disagrees with your disagreeable points must be a loser or a fool.

You mean, this :-

OK, no bullshit. I am finding the political climate of censoriousness overbearing these days. And it doesn't apply to me personally- I am self sufficient. So I have nothing to lose.
Questions you cannot ask, that might even cost the curious their career. So they cower as cowards, or take the fall.
Thoughts you cannot express, for fear of offending the consensus. Who's consensus?
Even Facts you might express, can cost you your career and reputation. Compliments of mental midgets.
Books you cannot read, that are harmless and works of art actually. Who assumed this right?
Statues that must be torn down, because our people cannot see such a thing. According to whom- a mob of underperformers?
Sanitising history- not to be learnt from, just erased. You really think that works?

Is this what made our social model great? No, it isn't quite the opposite. What made us great in the first place, you are destroying.
And only those 'lucky' few like me, that are OK and have no career or shit like that to lose any more, can speak out about it. Except a brave few.
The rest must cower or consent. Is this really what you wanted, your ideal model society? In which case, I suggest you learn to eat with chopsticks.

Quite. You are free to disagree with it, or not as the case might be. I just offer it as food for thought, to the many that are not thinking- but above all the quiet majority becoming ever more discontented by these jackals.
Weak people always gather together in packs. But I offer the above to anyone that wishes to read it, and think for themself. I am not alone, but I do not need to run with toothless weasels.
John Cleese, JK Rowling, Noam Chomsky, "Jonathan Pie", and many many others are saying the same thing- if that is what it really takes to prompt you to think as an individual.

Originally Posted by sabang

Do you consider "Little House on the Prairie" to be incendiary, racist rhetoric? Some do, and apparently it is now banned in primary school. Ditto "Uncle Toms Cabin", and whatever else.

Removed from a curriculum or booklist does not equate with banned

stop erecteing spurious windmills to tilt at