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

maxgale wrote:


Schmooples wrote:



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.


Yes, all those parts of the left you mention aren't "parts" of the left. How silly of me to confuse "parts" with parts.

You make sweeping generalizations about those on the left, and simply put, that is absurd. The same can be done for the right, but you refuse to. Very clearly, you are biased, and you are refusing to see reason here. Once more, allow me to point out some of the issues with your reasoning here.

As I've pointed out, I am Communist - far-left - and dislike most of the mainstream left in the US. I abhor censorship. You are saying I don't exist. My father isn't quite as far left as I am, but he also abhors censorship. He doesn't exist. Anarchists abhor censorship, they don't exist. Countless other types of leftist groups also don't exist in your eyes.

When it comes to the right, you consider separate groups separate. With the left, you consider them all the same. Can you honestly not see the problem there?
3349 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / Ente Isla
Offline
Posted 10/26/15

maxgale wrote:

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.


The context of the sentence changes with the inclusion of the word just. A single word can drastically change what one is expressing and in this case, I feel that rings more than true. Hence, why I wouldn't support such a sticker.

Referring to evolution as just a theory gives off a different message then referring to it simply as a theory.


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.


As I've stated before, it's not a trigger warning.Telling people that events in the book might trigger reminders of the experience of being raped or watching your fellow soldiers die horribly in war is not the same as telling people what evolution is or isn't.


Trigger warnings are warnings that the ensuing content contains strong writing or images which could unsettle those with mental health difficulties.

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

And by the way, I didn't showed support of trigger warnings when evolution arose. I expressed how I was against putting such a label on the textbooks. By your own definition of what is and isn't a trigger, wouldn't supporting placing the label on textbooks would have been support of the "trigger warning"?





wyrvan 
59250 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
45 / M
Online
Posted 10/26/15

Ejanss wrote:

I remember seeing Fahrenheit 451 on a list of "Ten Classic Books Everyone Always Gets WRONG."
In F451's world, books aren't burned because they're "banned", they're burned for being "unnecessary", as society has moved past reading for TV. (Remember, people, this is the future! )



If someone really wrote that in an article, then that is hilarious because it gets the book WRONG.
There is a whole section in Fahrenheit 451 that explains why the fireman burn books. Despite being written in the 1950's, in reads just like the current censorship treads in the modern Left (with some of the equality arguments thrown in as well).



35059 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 10/26/15

maxgale wrote:

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.


Well, the people who submitted complaints about the work in question were online readers of the magazine (it's published electronically). They were consumers, so you have to make that concession. These were people with every right to complain about the work even by your own standards, and they exercised that right. A market analysis was appropriate.

As for the "for the time being" clause you've put in, I don't see adolescent boys and young men abandoning Morning 2 forever. It could happen, but it doesn't seem to be what's happening. Instead what's happening is the josei manga in question is having its plot revisited in response to that demographic's complaints. I don't necessarily think that's best, and I think the complaints against this manga may have been hollow, but that's the direction this thing took.

Moving on, you've misread me (you seem to be at the centre of some chaos at the moment, so I don't hold it against you). What I said was that people who aren't members of a work's target demographic can still submit criticism about it, which is essentially to say that young men who for whatever reason read josei manga (such as its being placed in a historically seinen periodical to which they've a subscription) can't be disqualified from being considered a legitimate part of the market just because they're young men and it's a josei. That doesn't work.

That's what I called ridiculous, though now I have to add accusations of economic terrorism to the list since we're effectively talking about the equivalent of a large group of angry old grannies sending letters to Elvis Presley's record label complaining that his dern'd hip shakin' nonsense and sexually provocative lyrics are corruptin' the youths' minds. Terrorism. You called that terrorism.
17077 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M / Verginia
Offline
Posted 10/26/15 , edited 10/26/15

wyrvan wrote:


Ejanss wrote:

I remember seeing Fahrenheit 451 on a list of "Ten Classic Books Everyone Always Gets WRONG."
In F451's world, books aren't burned because they're "banned", they're burned for being "unnecessary", as society has moved past reading for TV. (Remember, people, this is the future! )



If someone really wrote that in an article, then that is hilarious because it gets the book WRONG.
There is a whole section in Fahrenheit 451 that explains why the fireman burn books. Despite being written in the 1950's, in reads just like the current censorship treads in the modern Left (with some of the equality arguments thrown in as well).





Just a question, have either one of you actually read that ray bradbury clasic, or you two just googling your arguments? I strongly suggest you put down your digital toys, go to your nearest public library, and yes, perish the thought actually sit down and read a novel. And when you are done i reccomend Izac Azimov's robots and empire series. Then graduate to robert heinlin's works.
Gawd i hate it when people lazy google quote works they have never taken the time and effort to read.
Azimov gives a presentiant view of the world were technoligy trumps actula human contact (i imagine this is something you two are intimately familiar with)
Heinlin explores relidion in " a stranger in a strange land" and the inherrent injustice in the prizon system in "the moon is a harsh mistress"
Again stop googling your quotes and actually read a book.
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:




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.


Yes, all those parts of the left you mention aren't "parts" of the left. How silly of me to confuse "parts" with parts.

You make sweeping generalizations about those on the left, and simply put, that is absurd. The same can be done for the right, but you refuse to. Very clearly, you are biased, and you are refusing to see reason here. Once more, allow me to point out some of the issues with your reasoning here.

As I've pointed out, I am Communist - far-left - and dislike most of the mainstream left in the US. I abhor censorship. You are saying I don't exist. My father isn't quite as far left as I am, but he also abhors censorship. He doesn't exist. Anarchists abhor censorship, they don't exist. Countless other types of leftist groups also don't exist in your eyes.

When it comes to the right, you consider separate groups separate. With the left, you consider them all the same. Can you honestly not see the problem there?




The inverse of what I said is correct as well, in that while the Westboro Baptist Church does not represent all the Right, your views are currently in the minority on the Left in regard to freedom of expression.


I do not refuse to acknowledge where those on the Right are wrong (speaking of the Westboro Baptist Church, they sully both the name of my politics and my profession) but I refuse to make a false equivalency between the Left and the Right on a matter where they are not equal at all in regard to what their basic ideology speaks of and how that ideology is enacted.




GrandmasterCoolio wrote:


maxgale wrote:

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.


The context of the sentence changes with the inclusion of the word just. A single word can drastically change what one is expressing and in this case, I feel that rings more than true. Hence, why I wouldn't support such a sticker.

Referring to evolution as just a theory gives off a different message then referring to it simply as a theory.


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.


As I've stated before, it's not a trigger warning.Telling people that events in the book might trigger reminders of the experience of being raped or watching your fellow soldiers die horribly in war is not the same as telling people what evolution is or isn't.


Trigger warnings are warnings that the ensuing content contains strong writing or images which could unsettle those with mental health difficulties.

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

And by the way, I didn't showed support of trigger warnings when evolution arose. I expressed how I was against putting such a label on the textbooks. By your own definition of what is and isn't a trigger, wouldn't supporting placing the label on textbooks would have been support of the "trigger warning"?









Which might be necessitated by the popular understanding of "theory" to mean "law." For example, the very same theories you mentioned are taken by the layman as scientific laws, not theory. Again, there is literally nothing factually incorrect by the label, and what you find fault with once again is to lend itself towards the very definition you offered as to what a scientific theory is:

The underlying problem is that you appear to want it to be understood as a law, not a theory.


You are now trying to limit the category of trigger warnings even further by selectively ignoring the other forms of trigger warnings that were listed in the article in the opening post, such as racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., in an attempt to say that the trigger warning on the textbooks regarding evolution is not the same as one pertaining to crimes such as rape or the horrors of war, in addition to what I mentioned previously about your attempt to ignore the criteria of what a trigger warning could be considered under.



As far as your supposed opposition to the trigger warnings placed on textbooks about evolution, there is no evidence to make any judgment on that except for your word. I will even assume in good faith that your statement is true. However, based on the inconsistencies that I have noted here, your conclusion that you did so out of an opposition to trigger warnings and censorship due to a value placed on anti-censorship or trigger warnings is not something that I can assume to be true, as it appears, from your statements and the nature of the inconsistencies thereof, that such opposition could be viewed as due to wanting to impose your own understanding on what others were to take from those texts (that they are to be understood as scientific laws, not theories).



35059 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 10/26/15
The difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory is that a law seeks to describe what's happening while a theory tries to provide specifics about how what's observed works. Laws aren't well-substantiated theories. Laws are just statements that under a given set of conditions this or that happens. Theories attempt to explain how.
17077 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M / Verginia
Offline
Posted 10/26/15
All i see from both of you is a pile of adverb bullshit and no substantive arguments. My teen romantic comedy snafoi actually paradoy'd people like you rather aptly last spring :-D
35059 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 10/26/15

bernardwheelerjr wrote:

All i see from both of you is a pile of adverb bullshit and no substantive arguments. My teen romantic comedy snafoi actually paradoy'd people like you rather aptly last spring :-D


The whole "left-right" aspect can be entirely avoided while still addressing the matter of a mangaka altering her plot in response to complaints submitted by a magazine's consumer base.

Cookie for you! /no_sarcasm_good_job
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 10/26/15

BlueOni wrote:


maxgale wrote:

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.


Well, the people who submitted complaints about the work in question were online readers of the magazine (it's published electronically). They were consumers, so you have to make that concession. These were people with every right to complain about the work even by your own standards, and they exercised that right. A market analysis was appropriate.

As for the "for the time being" clause you've put in, I don't see adolescent boys and young men abandoning Morning 2 forever. It could happen, but it doesn't seem to be what's happening. Instead what's happening is the josei manga in question is having its plot revisited in response to that demographic's complaints. I don't necessarily think that's best, and I think the complaints against this manga may have been hollow, but that's the direction this thing took.

Moving on, you've misread me (you seem to be at the centre of some chaos at the moment, so I don't hold it against you). What I said was that people who aren't members of a work's target demographic can still submit criticism about it, which is essentially to say that young men who for whatever reason read josei manga (such as its being placed in a historically seinen periodical to which they've a subscription) can't be disqualified from being considered a legitimate part of the market just because they're young men and it's a josei. That doesn't work.

That's what I called ridiculous, though now I have to add accusations of economic terrorism to the list since we're effectively talking about the equivalent of a large group of angry old grannies sending letters to Elvis Presley's record label complaining that his dern'd hip shakin' nonsense and sexually provocative lyrics are corruptin' the youths' minds. Terrorism. You called that terrorism.





As I said, I do concede but with the understanding that they might not have as much right to expect their demands be met as if the magazine were entirely catering to them, and that there is also a slightly separate, but no less valid, moral framework to consider for the creative right of the artist and publisher to innovate within the market (which may precisely lead to those consumers complaining to no longer have any valid claim as to being the audience for the work).

The "for the time being" part had less to do with the men and young boys no longer reading the magazine, as to them no longer being the main audience for the work due to the diversification of its offered titles and attracting other audiences.


I didn't misunderstand you, so much as not clarify my own view: as the magazine may be in a transitional or experimental period where it is attempting to draw in new audiences, those who were historically the audience of the magazine but moving forward are not, do not have a valid claim as to "why isn't this catering to me and my demands!"......when it is expressly no longer catering solely, or even primarily, towards them.


I would also dispute the grannys writing letters to Elvis' record label being comparable to the economic terrorism I was describing. The former appears to be presented as individuals acting on their own under the recognizance that they are individual actors. The latter is the concerted efforts to punish a work for not conforming to their views, and demanding that it be removed from the market entirely.

17077 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M / Verginia
Offline
Posted 10/26/15 , edited 10/26/15

BlueOni wrote:


bernardwheelerjr wrote:

All i see from both of you is a pile of adverb bullshit and no substantive arguments. My teen romantic comedy snafoi actually paradoy'd people like you rather aptly last spring :-D


The whole "left-right" aspect can be entirely avoided while still addressing the matter of a mangaka altering her plot in response to complaints submitted by a magazine's consumer base.

Cookie for you! /no_sarcasm_good_job


*in my best elvis voice* "thank you, thank you verry much". Seriously i do get a case of the ass when some tool google quotes a clasic like ferenheight 451 when they clearly never read it. Just like i get annoyed by koolaid drinkers on both sidees of the isle that just parrot the sound byte of the day while wrapping it up in double talk adverb bullshit in a sad pathetic attempt to baffle what they see as the " unwashed" illterate masses with bullshit.
Note while their vocabulary might be expansive, it is at best hakneyed and miss used. Their horrible gramar and usage just scraems that they are not well read.
Much like a child trying to weild a rapier, language is much the same. Although that child might know what it is, it takes experience and training to weild it properly. And unlike the pile of gobbledoy gook bullshit above everyone can clearly understand that immagery.
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 10/26/15 , edited 10/26/15

bernardwheelerjr wrote:

All i see from both of you is a pile of adverb bullshit and no substantive arguments. My teen romantic comedy snafoi actually paradoy'd people like you rather aptly last spring :-D


It helps to quote people if you want to offer feedback, otherwise no one knows who you are talking to.


BlueOni wrote:


bernardwheelerjr wrote:

All i see from both of you is a pile of adverb bullshit and no substantive arguments. My teen romantic comedy snafoi actually paradoy'd people like you rather aptly last spring :-D


The whole "left-right" aspect can be entirely avoided while still addressing the matter of a mangaka altering her plot in response to complaints submitted by a magazine's consumer base.

Cookie for you! /no_sarcasm_good_job




But viewing it through such a flawed framework avoids the fact as to who exactly the audience is (or might be replaced by), and more importantly the fact that the topic was literally discussion about whether or not the Left recognizes censorship as such when they are doing it, and the wider question of what "equality under censorship" means.


35059 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 10/26/15

maxgale wrote:

As I said, I do concede but with the understanding that they might not have as much right to expect their demands be met as if the magazine were entirely catering to them, and that there is also a slightly separate, but no less valid, moral framework to consider for the creative right of the artist and publisher to innovate within the market (which may precisely lead to those consumers complaining to no longer have any valid claim as to being the audience for the work).

The "for the time being" part had less to do with the men and young boys no longer reading the magazine, as to them no longer being the main audience for the work due to the diversification of its offered titles and attracting other audiences.


I didn't misunderstand you, so much as not clarify my own view: as the magazine may be in a transitional or experimental period where it is attempting to draw in new audiences, those who were historically the audience of the magazine but moving forward are not, do not have a valid claim as to "why isn't this catering to me and my demands!"......when it is expressly no longer catering solely, or even primarily, towards them.


This doesn't really move me to alter my own point of view, however. I still hold that people can voice their complaints about the magazine and its individual manga as they please, and I still hold that it's the artists/writers and publishing staff that ultimately ought to get to decide how to respond to those complaints. This satisfies both the right of audience members to submit feedback and artists' and publishers' creative rights. Finally, a magazine's focus, its target, doesn't actually dictate the composition of its audience. That dictates the composition of its intended audience. Like it or not, if adults are watching children's shows they're part of the audience and get to submit feedback. The producers of children's shows would probably roll their eyes and delete whatever e-mail they received from an adult complaining about their program's content from a viewer's perspective rather than a caretaker's perspective, but those adults are still part of the audience. Young men who read shoujo and josei manga are part of those manga series' audience, like it or not.


I would also dispute the grannys writing letters to Elvis' record label being comparable to the economic terrorism I was describing. The former appears to be presented as individuals acting on their own under the recognizance that they are individual actors. The latter is the concerted efforts to punish a work for not conforming to their views, and demanding that it be removed from the market entirely.


So all it would take for those little old ladies' actions to constitute economic terrorism would be for them to get together in a town hall one evening, collectively agree that they should have a letter campaign, agree about what complaints they want the campaign to address, and...really that's it. Concerted effort. That's the only difference you've presented. They'd be concertedly declaring Elvis' music a corrupting influence that ought to be taken off of the airwaves and stages in their letters. That, somehow, makes it terrorism.
17077 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
44 / M / Verginia
Offline
Posted 10/26/15 , edited 10/26/15

maxgale wrote:


bernardwheelerjr wrote:

All i see from both of you is a pile of adverb bullshit and no substantive arguments. My teen romantic comedy snafoi actually paradoy'd people like you rather aptly last spring :-D


It helps to quote people if you want to offer feedback, otherwise no one knows who you are talking to.


BlueOni wrote:


bernardwheelerjr wrote:

All i see from both of you is a pile of adverb bullshit and no substantive arguments. My teen romantic comedy snafoi actually paradoy'd people like you rather aptly last spring :-D


The whole "left-right" aspect can be entirely avoided while still addressing the matter of a mangaka altering her plot in response to complaints submitted by a magazine's consumer base.

Cookie for you! /no_sarcasm_good_job




But viewing it through such a flawed framework avoids the fact as to who exactly the audience is (or might be replaced by), and more importantly the fact that the topic was literally discussion about whether or not the Left recognizes censorship as such when they are doing it, and the wider question of what "equality under censorship" means.



And in that big steaming pile of self absorbed bullshit could you actually try to come across with a coherrent thought. Look lets get real here. Vocabulary is just narsisitic bullshit if you lack the ability to make people understand what you are saying.
As i said words are imagery.
I am a monk sitting in the vally between a bunch of childish gods throwing around big words they themselvs barely understand.. I imagine they originally intended to persuade the humans but somewhere along the way it became more about impressing their fellow vocabulary gods with the size of their words and less about the original discussion.
In a few lines i communicated more than you did with a wall of text :-p
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 10/26/15 , edited 10/26/15

BlueOni wrote:


maxgale wrote:

As I said, I do concede but with the understanding that they might not have as much right to expect their demands be met as if the magazine were entirely catering to them, and that there is also a slightly separate, but no less valid, moral framework to consider for the creative right of the artist and publisher to innovate within the market (which may precisely lead to those consumers complaining to no longer have any valid claim as to being the audience for the work).

The "for the time being" part had less to do with the men and young boys no longer reading the magazine, as to them no longer being the main audience for the work due to the diversification of its offered titles and attracting other audiences.


I didn't misunderstand you, so much as not clarify my own view: as the magazine may be in a transitional or experimental period where it is attempting to draw in new audiences, those who were historically the audience of the magazine but moving forward are not, do not have a valid claim as to "why isn't this catering to me and my demands!"......when it is expressly no longer catering solely, or even primarily, towards them.


This doesn't really move me to alter my own point of view, however. I still hold that people can voice their complaints about the magazine and its individual manga as they please, and I still hold that it's the artists/writers and publishing staff that ultimately ought to get to decide how to respond to those complaints. This satisfies both the right of audience members to submit feedback and artists' and publishers' creative rights. Finally, a magazine's focus, its target, doesn't actually dictate the composition of its audience. That dictates the composition of its intended audience. Like it or not, if adults are watching children's shows they're part of the audience and get to submit feedback. The producers of children's shows would probably roll their eyes and delete whatever e-mail they received from an adult complaining about their program's content from a viewer's perspective rather than a caretaker's perspective, but those adults are still part of the audience. Young men who read shoujo and josei manga are part of those manga series' audience, like it or not.


I would also dispute the grannys writing letters to Elvis' record label being comparable to the economic terrorism I was describing. The former appears to be presented as individuals acting on their own under the recognizance that they are individual actors. The latter is the concerted efforts to punish a work for not conforming to their views, and demanding that it be removed from the market entirely.


So all it would take for those little old ladies' actions to constitute economic terrorism would be for them to get together in a town hall one evening, collectively agree that they should have a letter campaign, agree about what complaints they want the campaign to address, and...really that's it. Concerted effort. That's the only difference you've presented. They'd be concertedly declaring Elvis' music a corrupting influence that ought to be taken off of the airwaves and stages in their letters. That, somehow, makes it terrorism.





The matter is more when they attempt to unduly wield economic sway comparative to their size as a percentage of the overall audience and the tactics they use to try to hold that sway, or when they tried to crowd out other members of the audience to retain their sway (much like otaku in general have made anime anathema to the general public).




As far as the grannies go, yes, the key difference can be summed up in the difference between the individual actor and the efforts of a concerted politic. The former is mostly expressed as a form of venting (and even if actually more than that, the power relationship is that of the individual making the demand as an individual in the market, and recognize as such that they are only one member of it). The latter as a way to impose upon, deny, or destroy, and attempts to exert power over the market that is not representative of their size in relation to the overall audience. For example, if a Brony were to write a letter to Hasboro saying, "It sucks that Pony X isn't in the show, I don't want to watch it if that character doesn't get more scenes." Compared to Bronies decide they need to get Pony X in the show and decide to show up to a public event where the young female fans of the show are surrounded by Bronies shouting "No Pony, No Justice!" and create economic harm for the brand with the threat that they'll only cease when their demands are met.


And even then, that is being charitable and assuming they actually are part of the market, and not intending solely to censor that which disagrees with their sensibilities.






bernardwheelerjr wrote:


maxgale wrote:




But viewing it through such a flawed framework avoids the fact as to who exactly the audience is (or might be replaced by), and more importantly the fact that the topic was literally discussion about whether or not the Left recognizes censorship as such when they are doing it, and the wider question of what "equality under censorship" means.



And in that big steaming pile of self absorbed bullshit could you actually try to come across with a coherrent thought. Look lets get real here. Vocabulary is just narsisitic bullshit if you lack the ability to make people understand what you are saying.
As i said words are imagery.
I am a monk sitting in the vally between a bunch of childish gods throwing around big words they themselvs barely understand.. I imagine they originally intended to persuade the humans but somewhere along the way it became more about impressing their fellow vocabulary gods with the size of their words and less about the original discussion.




It's a big vocabulary....



......for you.




Or do you not understand memes, either?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.