First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply "It's Not Censorship When WE Do It!"
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 10/25/15 , edited 10/26/15
So, Crunchy.


I was reading this in Crunchy News:


http://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-news/2015/10/25/akiko-higashimura-suspends-himozairu-manga-after-complaints


And it occurred to me. If it is okay to censor classic literature from Huck Finn to Shakespeare because it upsets the right group sof people (or to be more accurate, the right groups of those on the Left), why should that power be withheld from any specific group?


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/20/trigger-warnings-college-campus-books


Why is it that when the world of Fahrenheit 451 comes around, those who brought it about don't think their books will join the flames as well?



Isn't that what equality means?
9285 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Australia
Offline
Posted 10/25/15
Yet again another example of people being afraid of this;

Its frightening how many people are.
I can see myself posting pictures of reality alot.
11622 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 10/25/15 , edited 10/26/15
I'll say this. People, regardless of what they are or what they choose to support, need to get over themselves and let authors portray what they want. If you don't like something, don't support it. Don't bitch and moan about it just because you find something "insulting or derogatory." Some people want to enjoy anothers work while another may not. Doesn't mean someone should make sure it doesn't see publics eyes because their feelings get hurt. Way too much literature and art these days gets shoved out of circulation or ends up getting crushed because there are too many "offended" people.
16757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 10/25/15
Everything is insulting to someone. Everyone on here are watching things that someone finds morally corrupt or offensive. Therefore ban everything to avoid offending anyone.
3686 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Spain
Offline
Posted 10/25/15 , edited 10/26/15
I coudn't believe what I've read.

Man, so we can see things like this in manga & anime when the ones doing the house chores are women. But if a manga depics more or less humorous situations with men, without jobs, doing house chores, is bad?

I've sent her a tweet, in japanese, showing my support...
42905 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 10/25/15

maxgale wrote:

....or to be more accurate, the right groups of those on the Left.......


Why try to make this into a left/right, con/lib thing? You know good and well both sides have their pet issues they go nuts over, be it racist language in a period novel or women's anatomy in a health book. A true Liberal or Libertarian should abhor censorship of almost any kind.
6628 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / England
Offline
Posted 10/25/15 , edited 10/26/15

mlchanges wrote:

Why try to make this into a left/right, con/lib thing? You know good and well both sides have their pet issues they go nuts over, be it racist language in a period novel or women's anatomy in a health book. A true Liberal or Libertarian should abhor censorship of almost any kind.


They're not liberals, they're authoritarian leftists. The issue is that they like to pretend they're liberals. It makes actual liberals look bad.
31958 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 10/25/15 , edited 10/26/15
Or of course, you know, maybe it's intended as a product for mass consumption and enough complaints indicate a presentation problem with the publishing vehicle it's in. Butt hurt or not, if people complain about the product you're trying to sell, you fix it to sell. Anyway the article says it's only on hiatus.'

EDIT: from Jisho.org dictionary: Himo: man who is financially dependent on a woman (such as a gigolo or, in the case of a prostitute, a pimp); pimp

Depending on tone and presentation, yeah it would be easy to see the product may turn off some of the male audience by emphasizing that they're training to be leeches rather than "house husbands."
3349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Ente Isla
Offline
Posted 10/25/15

And while a classroom conversation about emotionally fraught subjects would seem not only advisable but also just part of any decent teaching method, slapping a trigger warning on classic works of literature seems a short step away from book banning, a kind of censorship based on offenses to individual feelings.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

I feel that it's an extreme stretch to argue that trigger warnings for books will lead to the banning of books or the censorship of literature. I read through the entire article and failed to find any evidence for this. What I did find was fearmongering and the making of absurd, overwhelmingly egregious claims.

The firemen aren't coming for your books. Calm down, take a deep breath, and think rationally about the situation.

Anyway, the article's criticisms of trigger warnings (ignoring its cries that they will be the downfall of mankind) are something I personally agree with. People shouldn't flee away in terror from sensitive subjects and controversial topics, as far as I'm concerned. Hiding from your past won't make it go away or heal your wounds. If anything, it just makes your situation even worse. If you're constantly worried about shielding yourself from the horrible truths of this world then it'll only hurt all the more when that shield is shattered and your blindfold is ripped away from your eyes by force.

Though you may see no evil, it still exists. Though you may hear no evil, it still exists. Nothing has changed and the world remains as cruel as it did before you attempted to escape into your fantasy-realm. In your endeavor to avoid being "triggered", you've most likely only opened yourself up to the risk of it even more.

That being said, however, people will do as they please. The oversensitive and the misguided will still put the book down when it begins to touch on subject matters not to their liking. Ultimately, the only difference trigger warnings make is whether or not they'll read the story to begin with. Cautionary notices change nothing in the grand scheme of things and the only people they drive away are the ones who probably would have stopped reading anyway once they reached the section pertaining to the controversial subject matter(s). Hence, I find it pointless to get so riled up over them.

They're here to stay, so we might as well just shrug it off and continue on with our lives.
31958 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 10/25/15 , edited 10/26/15
Yeah, no trigger warnings! I want my media just like I want my food: Absolutely no warnings about what ingredients it may contain.

I mean, real life isn't so nice as to label all the ingredients right? People with shellfish or peanut allergies can easily google the information before digging in to a new food product. Why does everything have to be right there on the box for them!?! Damn lazy liberals ruining everything. I'm not allergic to peanuts, so slapping peanut allergen warnings on things is just ugly text getting in the way.

"Oh, but my face might swell up or I could be sent to the hospital if I accidentally eat peanuts!" What a wuss right?

This is also why I advocate removing the movie and video game rating system: It only panders to those easily offended or scared. If a kid sees Nightmare on Elm Street thinking it might be related to Sesame Street, and consequently can't sleep alone for years, it's simply Darwinism.

/sarcasm
27244 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 10/25/15 , edited 10/26/15
Just because it's not a government doing it doesn't make it any less of a suppression of ideas. It's the same severity either way, so pointing out who is doing it and making one seem less harmful than another is superfluous and pretentious.

All information, barring crucial state or business secrets, information likely to cause accidental physical harm (like recommending that people mix certain drugs or information that could cause countrywide panic), or slanderous private information should flow freely. The suppression of ideas and this type of control over the flow of information is often a serious symptom of a severe underlying problem and often leads to more, as history has shown us more than once.

I hate stupid and boring books and I acknowledge that writings exist that contradict my ideas, but I do not advocate banning these writings or otherwise making them unavailable because I see it as a form of unacceptable censorship.

It certainly is still censorship when "we do it." Perhaps not the first definition, but certainly at least one of the secondary definitions.
29382 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Australia
Offline
Posted 10/25/15 , edited 10/26/15
People are far too easily butthurt these days. They want to censor anything and everything that may offend them. It's really quite stupid. Censoring content just because it may offend certain people who are too sensitive about certain things is just ridiculous.
6628 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / England
Offline
Posted 10/25/15

marklebid wrote:

Yeah, no trigger warnings! I want my media just like I want my food: Absolutely no warnings about what ingredients it may contain.

I mean, real life isn't so nice as to label all the ingredients right? People with shellfish or peanut allergies can easily google the information before digging in to a new food product. Why does everything have to be right there on the box for them!?! Damn lazy liberals ruining everything. I'm not allergic to peanuts, so slapping peanut allergen warnings on things is just ugly text getting in the way.

"Oh, but my face might swell up or I could be sent to the hospital if I accidentally eat peanuts!" What a wuss right?

This is also why I advocate removing the movie and video game rating system: It only panders to those easily offended or scared. If a kid sees Nightmare on Elm Street thinking it might be related to Sesame Street, and consequently can't sleep alone for years, it's simply Darwinism.

/sarcasm


Food and trigger warnings are a terrible comparison. Also, trigger warnings have nothing to do with liberals.
17025 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 10/25/15
I see way more people whine about trigger warnings merely existing than I do people who ask for them. Just saying. Moreover, I don't get why people complain so much about other people saying "hey, can you put up a warning for rape/child abuse/(insert traumatic content here) please? Thanks." It's really not a big deal. It's similar to movie ratings in that it gives you an idea of what you're getting into.

I don't have PTSD, but that doesn't mean I want to read about that kind of traumatic content, and I appreciate warnings like that so I know to avoid them if I don't want to deal with that sort of content that day. Avoiding that sort of content or even wanting to avoid it says nothing about you as a person, and it also doesn't mean that you suddenly become oblivious to the fact that these things happen in real life. (In fact, the people asking for these warnings are often people who have been victimized by rape/child abuse/other traumatic events, so they are especially aware that these things happen in real life!)

Not touching the censorship thing with an 1000 foot pole though. "Censorship" is yet another word that the internet has ruined.
31958 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 10/25/15 , edited 10/25/15

Buckerss


Food and trigger warnings are a terrible comparison. Also, trigger warnings have nothing to do with liberals.


It seems "terribly" apt to me. A minority of people have problems consuming products on the market. With food, it will probably affect them physically. With media, it will probably affect them mentally.

There is no liberal party in America. For some reason the term is considered derogatory in America and lumped in with an "overactive sense of trying to coddle people."

The way that article is written, labeling a product with what's in it (a book contains graphic violence and/or rape) is being given the slippery slope treatment and immediately leaping to book burning. When all that is being asked for is a ... label about what's in something by those students so they can make informed choices.

It is also a separate issue from changing words in a book to make them more palatable. Heck yeah Mark Twain wrote racially charged things. That was the point. Just knowing that going in doesn't do any harm.

EDIT: If a person's religion instructs them not to eat a certain food item, should we stubbornly refuse to label foods because it's a minority religion? If a person really, really doesn't want to read anything about a certain topic, should we stubbornly refuse to label books?

I see a content label as better than phrasing something a "trigger warning." It would probably be beneficial to books anyway. People who have problems with certain subjects won't be afraid to open a given book because they don't know what's in it, and the number of teens and young adults who try to read will increase out of curiosity for "taboo" subjects. Telling people they are wrong for wanting to know what's in a product is some kind of bizarre, anti-authoritarian authoritarianism. It makes as much sense as the OP feeling butthurt because other people might be feeling butthurt about what they read.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.