Shit, did you not get your membership package? The first rule of shadowy Twitter cabal is to NOT TALK ABOUT IT!
8 Likes
And this is what people are clucking their tongues over with regards to âpolitical correctnessâ.
Gross.
I donât modern punishment and corporal punishment are the only two possible options, thankfully.
1 Like
I guess so? I have no idea⌠apart from that article last week, and this post by Anne Rice, Iâve not heard anyone say boo about anything or any author. Methinks its all a little tempesty-teapoty.
1 Like
Crazy how often those go missing in the post.
1 Like
I donât attend church and I am not in daycare. Furthermore, I donât have to justify or explain why I express myself as I do. That is because this IS who I am. A foul-mouthed fucking asshole. As a result, my friends are all people who accept me as I am. Those who donât, they end up fucking off pretty quick.
Oh, and to answer before it is asked, no, I do not swear when I am working or on a contract. That is not professional behaviour. But, the rest of the time, I donât have to be professional. So I speak the way I damned well please.
1 Like
She didnât know she wanted to make her own House of Dolls tinged forced-conversion erotica until someone was told they were shitty for doing so, I guess?
1 Like
Thereâs a gulf of difference in content (versus presentation) between âbeing offensiveâ and swearing.
Example: Ann Rice didnât swear, but her appeals to blood libel-level Jewish conspiracy are pretty gross.
1 Like
Maybe not, but @caze asserted that the stocks are a bad idea without argument. Maybe theyâre a bad idea, but theyâre not an obviously bad idea compared to all the other stuff weâve thought up to punish criminals.
Stocks allowed the public to humiliate, but also further assault/rape the criminals directly sans any ability to defend themselves. Why not just suggest that they wear a sign, which we already to do criminals in America?
Itâs a silly suggestion that theyâre inherently more humane.
This desire does not trump my desire not to have my ears filled with obscenities.
These desires are equal, and in public, we would have to come to a compromise, here we can just not reply to each other.
2 Likes
Really though, itâs usually the message thatâs disagreeable for people who âdonât self-censorâ and âarenât PCâ versus the occasional âfuckâ and âshitâ peppering.
Iâll take a good-natured foul mouth over a âpoliteâ person with terrible opinions any day!
5 Likes
Well, they could always post a guard or something. It doesnât require a criminal justice degree or really much imagination at all to come up with improvements.
GFY. Iâm so sick of people accusing me of arguing things I never even remotely argued.
1 Like
Oh, I agree. I think this is a forest for the trees kind of thing. Usually as soon as someone starts complaining about the âPC Policeâ weâve gone so far off track its pointless to even engage.
4 Likes
Or you could just create something not from a shitty and inherently flawed beginning, if you truly had imagination. Aping the evils of the past is not progress.
Iâd love to explain to you why this is a stupid criticism of what I said above, but putting words in my mouth above demonstrated that youâre trying to score moralism points instead of having a good faith discussion. Donât talk to me and I wonât talk to you.
It is what the word literally means, I explained as much in the post.
This is rather distinct from saying that
âjusticeâ can be defined as âa toasted bagel with chive cream cheeseâ
I agree that it is better to avoid ambiguity, but the word âcensorshipâ has several meanings and usages which we donât get to revoke when it seems convenient. What we can and should do is specify and limit our scope of usage in a given discussion, which is more clear and practical than insisting that some meanings should not exist.
That is not what the word means, nor what most of the public understand the word to mean.
You can think that a âcake walkâ is a dance, because originally the term did mean that, but now it is generally understand to be an easy thing.
Words change meaning over time.
Criticism is not censorship, not unless you have a time machine and speak latin.
4 Likes
I agree that the correct approach is to limit the usage of the term âcensorshipâ to what is useful in context. However, I disagree with your perception of the connotations of the term âcensorship,â and I also believe that the connotations you are bringing into the definition of âcensorshipâ are not useful in any context.
Also, you flat out contradict yourself here.
the word "censorship" has several meanings and usages which we don't get to revoke when it seems convenient.
But then youâŚpropose revoking meanings and usages when it seems convenient:
What we can and should do is specify and limit our scope of usage in a given discussion
(Before you argue with me, âIt is what the word literally meansâ. Limiting the scope of usage for a given discussion is exactly ârevoking meanings and usages when it seems convenientâ.)
Now, onto the âit is what the word literally meansâ part.
No, it isnât. âCensorshipâ is not a strict synonym for âcriticismâ or vice versa. They have very clearly different connotations. We can see that just by looking at dictionary definitions (which are catalogues of recent usages):
(From google:)
censorship: the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts.
criticism: 1. the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes. 2. the analysis and judgment of the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work.
From wikipedia:
Criticism is the practice of judging the merits and faults of something.
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions. (And let me just be super clear here, given everyoneâs propensity for mis-attributing arguments: I NEVER CLAIMED THAT CENSORSHIP CAN ONLY BE DONE BY THE STATE.)
Your argument to the contrary involved making an etymological argument on the basis of the Latin root of âcensorâ. Etymology, however, is no guide to modern usage â especially when the etymology in question is several thousand years old. I can make a similar etymological argument that âawfulâ means âreally impressiveâ and âterrificâ means âinspiring horrorâ â and yet, those etymologically-derived definitions are very nearly antonyms of any modern usage of those terms.
1 Like
Nobody has more power than anybody else. What people interpret as power differentials are simply:
- people with different abilities
- people with many friends
- people who who have gullible people who listen to them
Censorship can be as simple as destroying a single book so that it canât be read. Or refusing to let your kid read it because of its content. Or refusing to have it in your town or school library because of its content. It includes any acts undertaken to prevent people from obtaining or reading the book due to differences of what the author says. On a small scale, this does not need to prevent the book from existing, or prevent everybody from possibly reading it. It could be very localized.
1 Like
