Censorship is a valuable tool
The Chinese government doesn't allow depictions of paranormality in Chinese movies. This is supposed to arise from some aspect of Marxism, but the unfortunate side effect is that the Chinese watch foreign movies on Halloween because their own avenue to superstitious catharsis is blocked by sensibilities. This made me think about the censoring of Galileo by the Catholic Church. Same tactics, opposing sides.
I think the goal of censorship is broadly speaking to protect the population, but there is also a streak of aggression to it, as when Stalin erased purge victims from photos.
Censorship is like a self administered antibiotic intended to kill something that has the potential to cause social disease. It's a dangerous drug because targets of censorship gain fame possibly beyond what they might have had. For instance: did I really need to read Naked Lunch? Was there anything redeeming about it? Not that I recall. But I read it.
I'm going to take the stance that censorship has a place in human life. There is value in it despite its downside. The Chinese and Russians are presently taking advantage of the West's sentimental attachment to freedom of speech.
The West should meet foreign intrusion with censorship. Who disagrees?
I think the goal of censorship is broadly speaking to protect the population, but there is also a streak of aggression to it, as when Stalin erased purge victims from photos.
Censorship is like a self administered antibiotic intended to kill something that has the potential to cause social disease. It's a dangerous drug because targets of censorship gain fame possibly beyond what they might have had. For instance: did I really need to read Naked Lunch? Was there anything redeeming about it? Not that I recall. But I read it.
I'm going to take the stance that censorship has a place in human life. There is value in it despite its downside. The Chinese and Russians are presently taking advantage of the West's sentimental attachment to freedom of speech.
The West should meet foreign intrusion with censorship. Who disagrees?
Comments (68)
During wartime there's a fair amount of censorship designed to protect troops. Surely you don't argue against that?
Ideological warfare, yes. Shouldn't we wage war ideologically against fascism, for instance?
Shouldn't we wage ideological war against climate change deniers?
Shouldn't we isolate ourselves through censorship from foreign aggressors looking to undermine our decision making processes?
Censorship is the tool used by Fascist regimes to subjugate their citizens.
Quoting frank
Yes. But also this is a war that is fought by propagation accurate information (scientific truths). It is not achieved through censorship. Preventing people from denying climate change is counter productive.
Quoting frank
To an extent yes. The authorities are trying to 'censure' stop 'foreign aggressors' (China and Russia) to place ads with Google and Facebook to influence our political process.
Depend on how you define foreign aggressors.
If one is against an authority, through nothing but political ideology through civil disobedience, or a recognition that the authority is also looking to undermine our decision making process, then what is problem?
To an extent yes. The authorities are trying to 'censure' stop 'foreign aggressors' (China and Russia) to place ads with Google and Facebook to influence our political process.
They're just trying to protect their citizens. Do we love ourselves any less?
Quoting ovdtogt
That's a noble thought, unfortunately climate change deniers have usually been inoculated against education. They've been led to believe that apparently legit sources are actually arms of Noxious Leftist Propaganda. A person who uses the term "main stream media" has been inoculated. The grief of it is that some leftist sources actually are biased and prone to misinformation. With global warming, the bullshit is always more titillating than the drab old truth.
We have to take matters into hand and censor. To do otherwise would show a lack of commitment.
Because nuclear war is on the trail started by this kind of interference.
True. Self censorship is the price we already have to pay for being social animals.
We wouldn't be stepping outside our universe in our efforts to censor. We'd be following the rule that says: Protect yourself.
Can you give me an example of a regime that protects it's citizens from Fascism through censorship?
I do agree with authorities that are trying to 'censure' stop 'foreign aggressors' (China and Russia) to place ads with Google and Facebook to influence our political process. These are external threats to our democracy.
How do you envisage censoring the internal threat of 'climate deniers' and/or fascists?
Anti-censorship is about truth of what is being said/written and censorship is about the dangerous effects of what is being said/written.
Would you rather have censorship or an enraged mob with molotov cocktails outside your house? Perhaps it's a choice between knowing the truth and a fake peace that is liable to break down on the slightest provocation; the ensuing chaos being proportional to the length of time the truth was hidden?
An interesting "fact" of censorship is that it exists and thrives in environments where the prevalent ideology or whatever can't stand up to scrutiny, requiring an additional line of defense in the form of a censor board. That should mean something if not everything there is about muzzling peoples' voices.
They're also forgetful about numbers of casualties since nuclear would be the only way to defeat either Russia or China.
True. But when I'm all righteous in my anti-fascism it doesn't occur to me that I might be wrong.
All censorship is like that isnt it?
Dont fret China. The Donald is looking to make a better deal. He will profit from it in the end. Russia? Don't fret them either. They own Donald's personal finances.
:chin: Didn't get that. Sorry.
That situation doesn't seem to end in the way you suggest. Look at 'The West'...
You said it's creeds that feel vulnerable to scrutiny that resort to censorship. I agree, but censors are always sure that their fight is important.
My story about Chinese horror movies and Galileo was supposed to convey that everybody does it.
Sorry, for some reason theres a secondary spell check,l on this site which is making typing by phone an obstacle course.
It's all relative to the size of your steeple.
Everybody does it.
Many once practiced slavery. But that everyone does it certainly isn’t an argument against its opposite.
I think you should take that more seriously... if you're serious about censorship.
I'm curious about censorship and the strong feelings it inspires (F 451, for example).
How do you think it would show up if I took your question more seriously?
You would consider what's being censored and by whom and for what reason(s)? In addition, you would consider how censorship is affecting/effecting all of those involved.
I mentioned a number of cases of censorship in the OP. Did you happen to check it out?
Let's zero in on my own victimisation, though. There were no books by or about Marx in my high school library, which as eventually learned, was the result of censorship.
I suppose the purpose was to keep the USA from sliding tragically into leftist hell. The effect: I became enraged and I thought it was evidence of the power of 1 percenters to control the American conversation.
It was probably just a few old people carrying genuine fear about where their country was headed. Thoughts?
Censorship never works in the long run.
"You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."
Would you say we should allow fascist propaganda?
I don't watch that, but I think they're missing the anti-Semitic piece.
So you deflect the question? Are you missing the courage of your convictions?
I don't know what you mean with that statement. But I do consider Fox News a fascist news organization. And no I would not censure it.
Not much to stir up that rage... eh?
I was more talking about today's media outlets...
It's damned if you do, damned if you don't, I fear.
On one hand, censorship I think has value depending on the situation. If you are a dictator and need to maintain the people's vision of your rule, censorship is valuable. It can maintain order that way.
On the other, keeping your society in a state of submission keeps it from changing. When a newer people who accept the way the world is now gain strength from that, you will be vulnerable.
Of course, when things are not changing as much and the "free" people grow restless, maintaining order will be hard without censorship. They will be overtaken by those who have no problem with squashing opposition within their own borders.
There is a reason why no ancient empires still exist. It is this. The balance between telling people what to do and letting them tell you what to do is hard to keep. Cults of personality, religious fanaticism, as well as both the reverence and disgust of the past add to the difficulty of maintaining a people that can adapt when needed and stay the same when beneficial. On top of even that, how is one to even know when to change or stay the same?
Sure, taking a certain action today may keep you alive today, but what of tomorrow? Eventually you will make the wrong choice.
I have no doubts that censors think they're right and to be fair some things that are said or written have the real potential of flaring up simmering tensions, in a locality or even the country as a whole, with terrible consequences. This is the good side of censorship and I support such actions.
However, there's a dark side to censorship and that's when an oppressive regime uses it to block and/or neutralize opposition.
The difference between the two is that in one censors are actually doing what's right and in the other they're nothing more than duct-tape in the hands of villains, used to stop victims from calling for help.
Stark. I think every target of censorship feels like a victim, though. Those who wield it always feel righteous. No?
But that's true of most tools. You risk cutting your thumb off if you use a table saw.
Yes and I'm interested to know what follows.
That whether you say it's good or bad just depends on which end of it you're on. Not exactly a profound insight, I know. I've tended to be reflexively against it, so it's a new idea for me.
And table saws have helped to build many fine estates and family homes.
Perhaps you took me the wrong way. While I personally don't enjoy the media I consume to be censored in any way, (which is what I assume most people arguing against the usefulness of censorship really care about) I do accept it can be useful. However, I also see it as just a tool. It can't solve our problems on its own. A tool can only be used effectively by a skilled user. If the user of a tool isn't proficient enough, or maybe even unlucky, a tool can hurt them as well.
So, to put it in modern context, You say that Russia and China use censorship to their advantage and I agree. However, what happens when they begin to stagnate as all empires do at some point? Where will the innovation be? They ridded themselves of everyone who dared to disagree long ago.
As for the west, agreements are rarely made. Deep political divisions keep them from fighting off foreign threats. A chivalrous distaste for control weakens them.
Personally, I don't even care who comes out on top. As long as I can be a scientist when I finally grow up, it doesn't really matter to me. All I'm saying is that our leaders play with fire that they are almost never good enough to mess with. As of now, I don't think there's any strategy to keep an empire going forever. You can only prolong its suffering.
I feel you're using "good" and "bad" too flexibly. For me the agenda of the censors determines good or bad in a moral sense. If the censors want to prevent a violent mob causing mayhem then they're good. On the other hand if the censors are in cahoots with an authority that impedes basic freedoms then they're bad.
:strong:
Quoting TheMadFool
St. Peter might be up there waiting to explain to us which sort of censorship is righteous and which sort is evil. What I think we humans all have in common is that we think we're right if we're doing it and we're wronged if they're doing it to us.
In any event good reading:https://magazine.areweeurope.com/stories/the-ocean-between-us/sticks-and-stones
What are you going on about? Are you saying that all the goodness we see is just an outward appearance; that it hides a more sinister agenda? That this is a dog eat dog world, fierce competition everywhere and anytime? Are you trying to sell cynicism through a discussion on censorship?
Quoting frank
I think that’s too sweeping. I know when I’m being unfair, manipulative or dishonest. I know when I’m wrong.
Cynicism is just hope that's been disappointed. Hopeless people have no cynicism. I was just saying that there may be some grand truth regarding which kind of censorship is righteous and which kind is evil. But that judgement is otherworldly. How would we know which is which down here in the thick of the fungus?
If you did something wrong, did you not justify it at the time?
Justification could be thing that was wrong, or maybe how much justice was wrong, maybe punishment not fit crime.
Censorship is sign of weakness and mistrust of community intelligence.
Censors fear truth, censors fear rationality and compromise.
If the object of censoring cannot speak then censor can frame narrative however they want and claim justice when really it is just that everyone has right to defend and appeal censorship.
Be skeptical of story where only one side of narrative is available.
It's like if two men have race and one cross finish line before other man. If man who came last binds and gags other man and hides him and expects to be given first place prize at award ceremony because of winners absence and claim winner said horrible things about everyone and the competition then should we take at face value or try and find winner to corroborate?
It is hard to see the free speech value of "kill all the $$$ (pick you favorite minority or ethnic group).
It is hard to see the free speech value of denial of the moon landing, the efficacy of vaccines or the reality of climate change. It may be necessary to impose some limits on speech to ensure a society cohesive enough and rational enough to function.
If man is sharing dangerous idea because true then he should be willing to face consequences of speaking truth to power and being a shot messenger. Take vaccines or climate change problem. Do you think it economically realistic to preempt and censor every denier? Censorship is used often but why not for these things when so much evidence shows antivacs are hurting themselves and others as are climate change deniers?
Is because of who is doing censoring.
Rules and laws might not be arbitrary but sometimes people who create them are not right people. When not right people, censorship is enemy of public. In both where is and isn't being implemented.
Internet has made mad men more crazy in that it gives them giant megaphones. When only a few people can hear and see the crazy you don't have to censor. When people are removed from the crazy and read or hear of sane sounding middleman then the idea change from harmless to dangerous.
There is left to doubt when censorship is bad - an oppressive regime is usually lurking in the shadows. That leaves us with what is viewed as "good" censorship and that as I pointed out is only to snuff out the spark that ignites a conflagration. The dry tinder for a fiery disaster exists in every and all societies just waiting for poorly considered words to ignite it. The fabric of society is usually strained to breaking point; saved only by the better judgment of a few sensible people. This tension makes the peace we enjoy nothing more than an uneasy truce in a society fractured by ideology, race, religion, etc. In other words "good" censorship while effective in preventing large scale violence, is actually a symptom of an underlying social illness - discrimination based on whatever that is that divides societies.
Differences and similarities both it seems. How often do the ex slavers call the ex enslaved dangerous predators despite history of them being the predators. A guilty projection maybe.
I see two dividing forces that both stem from prejudice. Othering or rejecting evidence of similarity. If a person thinks they are better than everyone else, then someone who is similar to them is percieved as being like that for bad reasons because nobody could possibly be as good as them right?
Is why men are intimidated by intelligent women, why everyone is intimidated by intelligent children. I have more examples but I think my point is clear.
It is not the speech that is valuable; it is the freedom of speech that is valuable.
Both censorship and freedom of speech will be abused, but we must pick which abuse would be preferable. Freedom of speech allows for the distortion of truth, but censorship allows for the distortion of truth and its suppression.
I understand what you're saying.