First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply "It's Not Censorship When WE Do It!"
2270 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Southern US
Offline
Posted 10/26/15

PeripheralVisionary wrote:



I agree with everything you said.


What a coincidence, I agree with everything you just said.
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 10/26/15 , edited 10/26/15

Schmooples wrote:


maxgale wrote:

It's PBS.

Also know as the (Far Left) Propaganda Broadcast Station.


Really, though, can you go five minutes without making some comment on how evil you think the left is? Really, it doesn't even make sense - there is ample diversity of opinion. Hell, I'm as far left as you can really get (Communist) and I don't advocate this sort of stuff.

I could easily make digs on how the right wants to bomb everything outside their country, let companies do whatever they want without consequence and enforce "family values," but I don't. I'm not blind or bigoted enough to think that people are so one dimensional... I'm surprised you can see it that way at all.




Because none of those things the Right supposedly do have anything to do with the topic?


It's like what that other dude asked.


It's kinda hard to talk about why and how modern censorship comes about without directly addressing the fact it is coming from the Left.


3349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Ente Isla
Offline
Posted 10/26/15

maxgale wrote:

Yet, strangely enough, put a sticker saying "Evolution is just a theory" on textbooks and the crowd applauding trigger warnings find it unacceptable that they be permitted.

Which what I was addressing in the original post. The sheer double standard of the Left when they do or do not consider something censorship.


I fail to see how this is relevant to trigger warnings and/or my response to them whatsoever. The hypothetical scenario you outlined has absolutely nothing to do with censorship and, even if it did, there's nothing to suggest that trigger warnings are causing or encouraging the mentality. Correlation does not imply causation.

As for your dismissal sticker...

In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better characterized by the word 'hypothesis'). Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

A theory is not just a guess or hypothesis. Framing it as such is misleading and ignorant.

Evolution has overwhelming amounts of evidence to support it. When a textbook intended for usage in an academic environment knowingly and willingly practices a dismissal attitude toward the very subject it was created to teach (that is, science), it deserves to be removed from the curriculum and replaced with something new.

You can believe whatever you want, but evolution has its place in the textbooks.
2270 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Southern US
Offline
Posted 10/26/15

maxgale wrote:


Schmooples wrote:



Because none of those things the Right supposedly do have anything to do with the topic?

It's like what that other dude asked.

It's kinda hard to talk about why and how modern censorship comes about without directly addressing the fact it is coming from the Left.


It doesn't come from all of the left, and it doesn't even come entirely from the left; the right has censored and attempted to censor quite a lot, as well.
Posted 10/26/15
Why are we even arguing? He's one of the few people I automatically dismiss.
2270 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Southern US
Offline
Posted 10/26/15

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

Why are we even arguing? He's one of the few people I automatically dismiss.


It's so hard not to. You don't have even the slightest tingle telling you to correct things that are wrong or point out obvious and unwarranted bias?
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 10/26/15

GrandmasterCoolio wrote:


maxgale wrote:

Yet, strangely enough, put a sticker saying "Evolution is just a theory" on textbooks and the crowd applauding trigger warnings find it unacceptable that they be permitted.

Which what I was addressing in the original post. The sheer double standard of the Left when they do or do not consider something censorship.


I fail to see how this is relevant to trigger warnings and/or my response to them whatsoever. The hypothetical scenario you outlined has absolutely nothing to do with censorship and, even if it did, there's nothing to suggest that trigger warnings are causing or encouraging the mentality. Correlation does not imply causation.

As for your dismissal sticker...

In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better characterized by the word 'hypothesis'). Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

A theory is not just a guess or hypothesis. Framing it as such is misleading and ignorant.

Evolution has overwhelming amounts of evidence to support it. When a textbook intended for usage in an academic environment knowingly and willingly practices a dismissal attitude toward the very subject it was created to teach (that is, science), it deserves to be removed from the curriculum and replaced with something new.

You can believe whatever you want, but evolution has its place in the textbooks.



I have no problems with evolution being taught in schools.

However, according to the definition you gave, there is nothing wrong with putting the sticker on those books, is there? It literally meets the definition you offered as it makes no other statement except it is a theory.


But because it goes against your personal beliefs you find fault with that "trigger warning", yet find no problem when ones that align with your beliefs are added.


This is literally the exact thing I was describing in the original post.




Schmooples wrote:


maxgale wrote:


Schmooples wrote:



Because none of those things the Right supposedly do have anything to do with the topic?

It's like what that other dude asked.

It's kinda hard to talk about why and how modern censorship comes about without directly addressing the fact it is coming from the Left.


It doesn't come from all of the left, and it doesn't even come entirely from the left; the right has censored and attempted to censor quite a lot, as well.



When talking about modern censorship, yes, it does mostly come from the left.

Trying to obscure that with some sort of "but they're both guilty" rhetoric is to avoid the facts of the matter.
3349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Ente Isla
Offline
Posted 10/26/15

maxgale wrote:
I have no problems with evolution being taught in schools.

However, according to the definition you gave, there is nothing wrong with putting the sticker on those books, is there? It literally meets the definition you offered as it makes no other statement except it is a theory.

But because it goes against your personal beliefs you find fault with that "trigger warning", yet find no problem when ones that align with your beliefs are added.

This is literally the exact thing I was describing in the original post.



Creationist and Intelligent design proponents often like to describe the theory of evolution as just a theory. This relies on equivocating the common usage of the term theory (meaning "idea" or "guess" - more literally speaking, "hypothesis") with the scientific meaning. Theories are the single highest level of scientific achievement and nothing is just a theory - that would be like saying Bill Gates is just a multibillionaire. Additionally, one might say that the notion of evolution is "just a theory" in the same way that Cell Theory and the Theory of Gravitation (fundamental principles of biology and physics, respectively) are "just theories."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Except I never expressed support for trigger warnings. If you actually bothered to read my post beyond that small excerpt you highlighted, you'd know that I was very critical of the idea. I simply didn't buy into the belief that it was censorship.

And even so, a sticker telling people that evolution is a theory is not a trigger warning. A trigger warning is intended to alert the reader that the content they're viewing addresses certain ideas and issues that may bring up traumatic experiences and/or memories. There is nothing "triggering" about the hypothetical you outlined. It has nothing to do with the issue of trigger warnings.

35035 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 10/26/15

maxgale wrote:

It was a Josei comic, which leads me to believe that men were not even the intended audience, so a market-based evaluation would not apply here.


Morning 2 is a seinen magazine, which means its primary sales targets are adolescent boys and young men. Whether the particular manga is Josei or not, whether Kodansha was trying to diversify its magazine's consumer base or not, adolescent boys and young men cannot be excluded from the periodical's (and thus the manga's) consumer base.

And besides, since when do you have to be a member of a work's target demographic to either consume it or provide feedback on it? That's ridiculous.
2270 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Southern US
Offline
Posted 10/26/15 , edited 10/26/15

maxgale wrote:


Schmooples wrote:


maxgale wrote:


Schmooples wrote:



Because none of those things the Right supposedly do have anything to do with the topic?

It's like what that other dude asked.

It's kinda hard to talk about why and how modern censorship comes about without directly addressing the fact it is coming from the Left.


It doesn't come from all of the left, and it doesn't even come entirely from the left; the right has censored and attempted to censor quite a lot, as well.



When talking about modern censorship, yes, it does mostly come from the left.

Trying to obscure that with some sort of "but they're both guilty" rhetoric is to avoid the facts of the matter.


Modern censorship? Alright, I won't mention the myriad examples from the past. Many groups on the right have made motions to ban books such as Harry Potter or the Da Vinci, it has frequently pushed to ban Origin of the Species in schools, among other things.

See, you seem to forget that there are multiple dimensions to political views and that it is less a matter of left versus right and more a matter of whether an individual is authoritarian or not. Just as some on the left seek to censor and label things, there are many on the right who do the same - often those that are very nationalistic or religiously fundamental. Hell, on the left you have various form of anarchism, and that ideology quite clearly is anti-censorship. How is this a left/right issue?

Trying to obscure that with some sort of "but muh rightwing" rhetoric is to avoid the facts of the matter.
Oh, look, I just replaced the words in the quotes and it fits even better!

27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 10/26/15 , edited 10/26/15

GrandmasterCoolio wrote:


maxgale wrote:
I have no problems with evolution being taught in schools.

However, according to the definition you gave, there is nothing wrong with putting the sticker on those books, is there? It literally meets the definition you offered as it makes no other statement except it is a theory.

But because it goes against your personal beliefs you find fault with that "trigger warning", yet find no problem when ones that align with your beliefs are added.

This is literally the exact thing I was describing in the original post.



Creationist and Intelligent design proponents often like to describe the theory of evolution as just a theory. This relies on equivocating the common usage of the term theory (meaning "idea" or "guess" - more literally speaking, "hypothesis") with the scientific meaning. Theories are the single highest level of scientific achievement and nothing is just a theory - that would be like saying Bill Gates is just a multibillionaire. Additionally, one might say that the notion of evolution is "just a theory" in the same way that Cell Theory and the Theory of Gravitation (fundamental principles of biology and physics, respectively) are "just theories."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Except I never expressed support for trigger warnings. If you actually bothered to read my post beyond that small excerpt you highlighted, you'd know that I was very critical of the idea. I simply didn't buy into the belief that it was censorship.

And even so, a sticker telling people that evolution is a theory is not a trigger warning. A trigger warning is intended to alert the reader that the content they're viewing addresses certain ideas and issues that may bring up traumatic experiences and/or memories. There is nothing "triggering" about the hypothetical you outlined. It has nothing to do with the issue of trigger warnings.




Yes, I am well aware of why the proponents of the trigger warning desire to have it included on the textbooks, but that doesn't change the material fact that the label in no way is not factual or was unable to meet your own definition of what a legitimate exercise of the word would be.


You did show support for trigger warnings when more examples of trigger warnings (such as the one in question regarding evolutionary theory) were included. You are now attempting to exclude that example from the category of trigger warnings because it betrays an inconsistency in a prior claim. You literally give the reason why the proponents of the trigger warning desire to have it applied then go on to state that it isn't a trigger warning, despite describing exactly how it is one.


BlueOni wrote:


maxgale wrote:

It was a Josei comic, which leads me to believe that men were not even the intended audience, so a market-based evaluation would not apply here.


Morning 2 is a seinen magazine, which means its primary sales targets are adolescent boys and young men. Whether the particular manga is Josei or not, whether Kodansha was trying to diversify its magazine's consumer base or not, adolescent boys and young men cannot be excluded from the periodical's (and thus the manga's) consumer base.

And besides, since when do you have to be a member of a work's target demographic to either consume it or provide feedback on it? That's ridiculous.




The second claim invalidates the first.

If it is attempting to diversify its consumer base then it is no longer a seinen magazine, at which I will concede that currently the male demographic may have some valid claims to complaining about the overall product, for now, until so long as they are no longer a consumer base with enough capital to pay the fee to enter the market.



It matters when that group is demanding that material be changed or made unavailable for purchase if they aren't the ones purchasing it. They literally have no valid complaint if that is the case. It is instead ridiculous to believe that special interests should be able to dictate spheres of culture they are not involved in except when it offends their sensibilities and go on to engage in economic terrorism to stop someone from daring to say something they disagree with.



Schmooples wrote:



Modern censorship? Alright, I won't mention the myriad examples from the past. Many groups on the right have made motions to ban books such as Harry Potter or the Da Vinci, it has frequently pushed to ban Origin of the Species in schools, among other things.

See, you seem to forget that there are multiple dimensions to political views and that it is less a matter of left versus right and more a matter of whether an individual is authoritarian or not. Just as some on the left seek to censor and label things, there are many on the right who do the same - often those that are very nationalistic or religiously fundamental. Hell, on the left you have various form of anarchism, and that ideology quite clearly is anti-censorship. How is this a left/right issue?

Trying to obscure that with some sort of "but muh rightwing" rhetoric is to avoid the facts of the matter.
Oh, look, I just replaced the words in the quotes and it fits even better!





Isolated groups, many of which are recognized as fringe by their allies, does not constitute the entirety of a political movement.

Those are the examples on the Right you speak of.

On the Left?

We are talking about the entirety of the institutional infrastructure.

Media.

Academia.

Hollywood.


The two aren't comparable at all.


So yes, one can make the statement "Most modern censorship is coming from the Left," as that represents the foundation both of its ideology and its institutions, whereas one cannot make the same claim as to the Right.



Suddenly, as soon as valid criticism of the Left comes in, it is "no longer about Left versus Right."



What a surprise.

11774 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / McDonough
Online
Posted 10/26/15

maxgale wrote:

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?


Funny you mention Farenheit 451, a book about censorship, that ended up falling to censorship when used in schools
2270 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Southern US
Offline
Posted 10/26/15 , edited 10/26/15

maxgale wrote:


Schmooples wrote:



Modern censorship? Alright, I won't mention the myriad examples from the past. Many groups on the right have made motions to ban books such as Harry Potter or the Da Vinci, it has frequently pushed to ban Origin of the Species in schools, among other things.

See, you seem to forget that there are multiple dimensions to political views and that it is less a matter of left versus right and more a matter of whether an individual is authoritarian or not. Just as some on the left seek to censor and label things, there are many on the right who do the same - often those that are very nationalistic or religiously fundamental. Hell, on the left you have various form of anarchism, and that ideology quite clearly is anti-censorship. How is this a left/right issue?

Trying to obscure that with some sort of "but muh rightwing" rhetoric is to avoid the facts of the matter.
Oh, look, I just replaced the words in the quotes and it fits even better!





Isolated groups, many of which are recognized as fringe by their allies, does not constitute the entirety of a political movement.

Those are the examples on the Right you speak of.

On the Left?

We are talking about the entirety of the institutional infrastructure.

Media.

Academia.

Hollywood.


The two aren't comparable at all.


So yes, one can make the statement "Most modern censorship is coming from the Left," as that represents the foundation both of its ideology and its institutions, whereas one cannot make the same claim as to the Right.

Suddenly, as soon as valid criticism of the Left comes in, it is "no longer about Left versus Right."

What a surprise.



I've been saying this isn't a left/right issue this entire time. Dude, are you even serious? Really, if you're being sarcastic, mark it or something. At least, I hope that's the case - otherwise you might be a little dyslexic or have some other disability messing with your reading comprehension. Or maybe English isn't your native language? No offense intended.

"It's only parts of the right that wants to censor things!"
"Parts of the left want to censor things, the left is evil!"

You do see how contradictory this is, right? Saying that you can't hold the entire right accountable for what some groups do but saying that the left should be? You're providing only your side of things a reprieve, while I'm here pointing out that this is not a left/right issue. Both ends of the spectrum have authoritarian groups.

Now, be sure you actually read my post this time.
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 10/26/15 , edited 10/26/15

Southern55 wrote:


maxgale wrote:

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?


Funny you mention Farenheit 451, a book about censorship, that ended up falling to censorship when used in schools




This person knows what's up.


It's like a microcosm of what the problem in higher education is right now, how centers of learning have become "safe spaces" where students only "learn" that Ideas Are Bad.



Schmooples wrote:


maxgale wrote:


Schmooples wrote:



Modern censorship? Alright, I won't mention the myriad examples from the past. Many groups on the right have made motions to ban books such as Harry Potter or the Da Vinci, it has frequently pushed to ban Origin of the Species in schools, among other things.

See, you seem to forget that there are multiple dimensions to political views and that it is less a matter of left versus right and more a matter of whether an individual is authoritarian or not. Just as some on the left seek to censor and label things, there are many on the right who do the same - often those that are very nationalistic or religiously fundamental. Hell, on the left you have various form of anarchism, and that ideology quite clearly is anti-censorship. How is this a left/right issue?

Trying to obscure that with some sort of "but muh rightwing" rhetoric is to avoid the facts of the matter.
Oh, look, I just replaced the words in the quotes and it fits even better!





Isolated groups, many of which are recognized as fringe by their allies, does not constitute the entirety of a political movement.

Those are the examples on the Right you speak of.

On the Left?

We are talking about the entirety of the institutional infrastructure.

Media.

Academia.

Hollywood.


The two aren't comparable at all.


So yes, one can make the statement "Most modern censorship is coming from the Left," as that represents the foundation both of its ideology and its institutions, whereas one cannot make the same claim as to the Right.

Suddenly, as soon as valid criticism of the Left comes in, it is "no longer about Left versus Right."

What a surprise.



I've been saying this isn't a left/right issue this entire time. Dude, are you even serious? Really, if you're being sarcastic, mark it or something. At least, I hope that's the case - otherwise you might be a little dyslexic or have some other disability messing with your reading comprehension. Or maybe English isn't your native language? No offense intended.

"It's only parts of the right that wants to censor things!"
"Parts of the left want to censor things, the left is evil!"

You do see how contradictory this is, right? Saying that you can't hold the entire right accountable for what some groups do but saying that the left should be? You're providing only your side of things a reprieve, while I'm here pointing out that this is not a left/right issue. Both ends of the spectrum have authoritarian groups.

Now, be sure you actually read my post this time.




Except I'm not talking about "parts" of the Left.

The Westboro Baptist Church doesn't represent all of the Right. It isn't a thought leader or even large compared to other religious groups on the Right. Even one single suburban mega church literally is a magnitude of hundreds of thousands times greater in regard to membership.

But when the institutions that are cornerstone of the modern Left share the same ideological view, then one can make the claim that the Left shares that view because they disproportionately shape the discourse within the Left and the worldview of the individuals in it who constitute a large percentage of those on the Left.
17077 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M / Verginia
Offline
Posted 10/26/15
Sigh* as an an independant i always find it depressing how both sides seek to silence any view that is not their own. If you have never read ray bradbury's 'Farenheight 451' i strongly reccomend you do. I know moast of you would rather grind your own teeth off with an angle grinder before you would actually read annything harder than the harry potter books but, honestly give a few of the scifi clasics a try.you might actually learn a bit of tollerence
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.