The Big Picture: Don't Censor Me!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

JarinArenos:

medv4380:
It's not Capitalism that people are mad at. It's Monopolies. Capitalism doesn't exist unless there is competition, and though you might think MSNBC was the competition for FOX News it actually isn't. FOX has a monopoly on Conservative news coverage, and MSNBC has a pretty solid monopoly on the Liberal end. Even Hollywood tries not to compete by carving up the Calender and doing everything to collude to ensure that major films don't compete.

Monopolies are a part of capitalism.

A part generally considered negative to the consumer...

I didn't think this week was that heavy, unless I'm just used to The Big Picture when it shifts into taking a stand on something.

My captcha simply reads: stand up guy. Given that the show is based on Bob being allowed his soap box to stand on, it's quite fitting.

Except you're wrong, free speech and you need to grow a thicker skin IS the correct application of free speech, at least online. And I will fight tooth and nail against any prat with an agenda who comes along attempting to change that.

I liked this episode because censorship is one of those words that gets bandied around all the time by asshats looking for an excuse to keep being asshats, but I do disagree with Bob on a couple details.

I would argue that what happened to the Dixie Chicks was censorship of a kind. Censorship does not have to necessarily come from the government (though thank you for pointing out that technical and colloquial definitions are not the same). While government bans are the biggest specter of censorship, anyone with power over how opinions are distributed can censor people. The problem with the Dixie Chicks wasn't that they were just shouted down, it's that their opponents blocked every outlet they could use for spreading their opinion. They didn't just disagree until people stopped listening, they stopped the Dixie Chicks from being able to say anything or respond. That is censorship.

Blocking comments on Youtube is also a form of censorship, though admittedly a minor and inconsequential one, as is deleting negative reviews on your game, banning people from a forum for disagreeing, filing a false DMCA on Youtube videos you disagree with, or otherwise stopping an opinion from being stated at all rather than addressing the opinion itself. That isn't just the technical definition, it is what the common definition means and how the word should be used.

That said, asking game developers to be more inclusive or less misogynistic is not censorship. Disliking something because it is offensive or problematic and asking that it be changed is not censorship. Calling out asshats for being asshats is not censorship and that seems to be when the word is pulled out the most, so good episode and thanks for bringing up a topic that really needs to be discussed more.

medv4380:
It's not Capitalism that people are mad at. It's Monopolies. Capitalism doesn't exist unless there is competition, and though you might think MSNBC was the competition for FOX News it actually isn't. FOX has a monopoly on Conservative news coverage, and MSNBC has a pretty solid monopoly on the Liberal end. Even Hollywood tries not to compete by carving up the Calender and doing everything to collude to ensure that major films don't compete.

Capitalism can exist regardless of the existence of competition. Monopolies are a natural result of unhindered capitalism, which is why we invented anti-monopoly laws.

OT: Good episode Bob.

josh4president:
So is it me or is Big Picture basically just Bob's blog now?

When was it ever not?

Seriously, go watch the first episode. He basically says upfront that's what it is. A space the escapist gave him to muse on whatever takes his fancy in a given week. There is literally nothing other than that.

The most ironic part, I think, are the people who will describe the ME3 ending protest people as "entitled", but see "I don't like this characters outfit and I'm going to call you and all your customers sexist bigots until you change it" as entirely justified.

Since you brought up a certain right wing moral panic boogeyman from the past, I'm going to point out that there are two ways moral panics try to enforce their vision on the rest of us.

If they can get leverage with lawmakers and it's not openly and outright unconstitutional, then they try to force their vision into law.
If they cannot, they try to create a climate where no one would dare transgress their preferences in the first place.

One of those is capital-C censorship, the other is de facto censorship by threat of destroying their ability to continue creating. To not see that implied threat, is to not see the implied threat in a classic protection racket.

In the case of video games, politicized reviews combined with the sort of political hegemony that seems to be present among the largest review sites can functionally serve that role thanks to Metacritic and its influence on developer compensation. Since giving every Metacritic employee one in the head and one in the chest, then burning the servers, quenching them in holy water, embedding them in a concrete block and sinking it to the bottom of the ocean is probably out of the question...

Sorry, but if services online en masse are censoring a subject because it is harmful to their bottom-line or that of their friends, it may not be a government-mandated censorship, but it's still a form of censorship. It's still denying people speech.

I also take issue that we're all against censorship except when it's censorship "of something you don't like".
I'm against censorship of things I don't like. That to me is the difference between someone who's pro and against censorship.

Someone against censorship chooses to hear things he or she disagrees with, because free speech and a free discourse of ideas is important.

The "don't take it personally" thing is fine until SOMEONE tries to say that if I don't personally feel effected by perceived sexism in a video game... than I am the MOST susceptible to sexism.

Also, yeah, I'm super angry about capitalism. Making the foundation of everything we do or even COULD do *greed* is a good way to corrupt every social movement we start. And if it's not corrupted, then it's immediately discredited in the minds of the majority as being "costly" or "a waste of time" because it doesn't actually exist for profit.

medv4380:
It's not Capitalism that people are mad at. It's Monopolies.

Speaking of which, screw the lighter stuff, Bob should talk about net neutrality next week.

Well, this one will be hell before I get home.

I do agree with most of it, though this starts in a problematic area. Terminology changes over time, especially in efforts to re-brand something without actually changing it (ie calling comic books graphic novels fooled no one but the people trying to change the name.) Hence I'm more inclined to look at the more general intent of the activity or product that whatever titles it has. Call yourself a sandwich artist all you want, to me you're a counter person at a fast food place.

Hence I find any form of attempts to silence speech troubling, even if capitalistically allowed. You say we value free speech so much, but we don't get an understanding why: specifically that a stronger government would be formed if it couldn't silence dissenters trying to tel them they were screwing up, becoming corrupt, or missing something important. It's the general equivalency to why we (at one point) vilified "yes men" and "brown nosers" as problematic people that only serve to prop up an ego, not get pragmatic things done. Yes running a government is harder that way, but it's better and keeps you honest and stronger in the long run for it.

Sadly we don't take this value into our lives and far FAR too many people are willing to use any tool at their disposal to silence an opinion because they know there will never be a law against it for no other reason than they don't want to hear it. Sticking with the Dixie Chicks (and avoiding current controversies) a lot of people couldn't just let some shitty singers have an opinion that was poorly worded and probably worse thought out and leave it be, they couldn't even just follow their own heart and stop buying their CDs. They had to punish them. They had to quiet them. And that took a mob. What didn't happen, any real attempt to provide a counterargument. Face it, their minds never changed about Bush, and they probable had a lot less respect for people that could only voice disagreement in a mob. I know I did.

Of course, that's much of the problem, it isn't just geeks that internalize. People internalize their beliefs and politics so yes, they get just as mad because Peach or Bayonetta are somehow projections of all women and their place in society, not just overused character designs in their minds. Same goes if something doesn't hold the "correct" political, social, or religious values. The problem is, that's what art exists to do, challenge those views. Forgive the term, but if the current SJW ideals of avoiding offending comments had existed 30 - 50 years ago, we might not have been able to make things saying interracial marriage is okay, being gay is natural, and sex outside of marriage won't condem you to hell. People fought against those, and still do because they didn't want their worldview challenged, and today, not much has changed even with the new worldview more in prominence.

I mean, honestly, did people really think that the two "racist" autobots in Transformers 2 were making some sweeping statement about blacks, or did people not like the reminder that a section of culture still based in said stereotype exists in hip hop radio. Do we as geeks not like TBBT because is isn't funny, or because we don't like being the butt of the joke for things we all know we fall victim to from time to time. Did people really care about the Duck Dynasty guy's anti- gay marriage comments, or were they afraid they might spread if not silenced. We have the right to stand up to speech we don't like, but few possess the common sense to know when to do so, and come off at best crazy, and at worst, like they really hate free speech with it's used against them. No one wants to hear why they shouldn't be offended by something and that they're overreacting and reading too much into something, and if they can't speak, or their speech gets invalidated as being "unsensitive" then at least Jack Thonpsom was honest, whereas the person claiming offense just won't listen or given in until they get their way and what was said is silenced.

And that is censorship.

Does this mean that people will stop saying that it's censorship for an advertiser to pull their ads from a website due to the toxic nature of the articles written on said site?

I realize Bob is trying to use an example that won't piss conservatives off and that by disagreeing with his political instincts will make the more left wing of us think about it, but I think he's fallen into a really weird moral trap here if he's going to effectively go "Welp if someone can in effect buy the media and prevent any opposing views from airing if they have sufficient cash, that's just capitalism."

No, sorry. That's 1) still the kind of censorship people mean when they say censorship and 2) still not okay in a democratic society that wants to stay actually democratic.

The reason it's okay for a hypothetical internet personality to close the comments section of their youtube is not because free speech doesn't to some extent give you the right to a platform of your choice. If we were to have a situation where some powerful, but private political group owned all the newspapers and prevented certain views from being aired (say, a political party or a giant cyberpunk megacorp) then we would clearly not have free speech in any meaningful sense.

The difference is that the relationship between the sides in an internet fight is far more equal than the relationship between normal person and large company, or even normal income person and billionaire. Not being able to make a response into the comments of a YT video or blog post is not going to reduce your exposure enough to actually prevent you from gaining the audience you might want.

That's a whole lot different from a bunch of rich guys (or one) getting together and going "We're going to use our money to effectively destroy anyone who airs views we don't like."

Sorry Bob, but that's still censorship under any definition that matters.

I'd call out the government bit. It's generally censorship when an authority makes a change to your output that is beyond your control... for instance, if The Escapist blocked out parts of your video. That is censorship, but I'd imagine it would have been difficult to argue that point without discussing the selective removal of discussion and commentary that many forums participate in.

You see, I'm a firm supporter of many of the things you say (bar when you slip into nonsense on Twitter, because Twitter), and I follow your output. I also believe in the things I do not out of totalitarian ideology, but because the argument has been made and I make my decision based on what I perceive to be the most beneficial outcome. Because of this, I'm not afraid to have a discussion online. However, many do not share this confidence, and will selectively remove dissenting voices from comments (which is different from disallowing comments in the first place). Unfortunately, this seems to be currently as prevalent from the guys on "our side" - because if we're being honest, these videos have been thinly veiled jabs at gamergate - as it is on "their side".

I wonder what your opinions are on the concept of censorship as a way of maintaining competitive balance in arguments... if one side censors, and the other does not, the censoring side seems to have a majority voice?

Huh, a fairly calm, middle of the road video from Bob. I did enjoy the portion where he said that the fight for what should be protected under speech was probably endless. A person heavily inspired by Bob and the content of this site in general actually made a video a few days prior on the subject too, granted it is a bit more blatant and hostile. I guess I can share it:

The Deadpool:
The distinction between ACTUAL definition of "censorship" and this "practical" definition is nonexistent.

Censorship by the government without just cause is ILLEGAL.

Censorship by people just shouting out the opposition is totally legal, but it is still IMMORAL. It is dishonest, and sometimes just as harmful as the illegal kind depending on WHAT is being drowned out.

Agreed. If the Dixie Chicks were jack asses, say so. Stating, hey everyone, lets mess with their backers to get them silenced, even if it is legal, is censorship. When a bunch of jack asses show up to a speech to shout down someone they don't like, they are not spreading information or countering it: they're attempting to make it not heard in the first place. Legal maybe (or not: disturbance of peace, violation of someone Else's civil rights) but bad for society and the promotion of diverse ideas.

Sorry Bob. You got this one waaaaay wrong. I still treasure hearing you though.

I kinda wish Bob had convinced the Escapists web folks to disable comments on this video. It would've made a point, and it would've been funny!

In all honesty, I was expecting a bit more of a "freedom of speech does not mean say whatever you want without facing the consequences" kind of episode.

Also, it's very hard to focus when "Blame Canada" is stuck in one's head the whole time. Thanks for that Mr Chipman!!!

josh4president:
So is it me or is Big Picture basically just Bob's blog now?

That has always been the entire point of The Big Picture.

MahouSniper:
The problem with the Dixie Chicks wasn't that they were just shouted down, it's that their opponents blocked every outlet they could use for spreading their opinion. They didn't just disagree until people stopped listening, they stopped the Dixie Chicks from being able to say anything or respond. That is censorship.

dunam:
Sorry, but if services online en masse are censoring a subject because it is harmful to their bottom-line or that of their friends, it may not be a government-mandated censorship, but it's still a form of censorship. It's still denying people speech.

As Bob said, Freedom of Speech doesn't include a right to force others to hear you, nor a right to force others to let you use their platform. I doubt you guys would advocate for the legal precedent that the KKK can walk into your home and shout a megaphone in your ear under the guise of "freedom of speech", because forcing a private radio station or a private internet forum to allow a discussion that they don't wish to hold is no different from forcing a person to house a discussion within the private property of their own home. There is no obligation to give them a voice. Now Bob did say that this could rightfully be considered immoral, but there is no obligation whatsoever to house such a discussion - especially when it gives them a platform to spread harmful ideals. I'm reminded of Michael Shermer, who has in the past debated Holocaust Deniers, but refuses to do so anymore because he feels that it gives them a platform that they otherwise wouldn't receive to spread their ideas that are harmful to society. Would you, personally, allow a Holocaust Denier in your home to tell your susceptible children, nieces and nephews about how it was all part of the Zionist Occupied Government, or would you go "fuck that shit" and utilize your right to keep those harmful ideas away from them within the confines of legal free speech.

Actually free speech rights were not originally in the Constitution, they were the first AMENDMENT to the Constitution as a part of the first 10 AKA the "Bill of Rights" that ended up being a political compromise to get the Constitution ratified in the first place.

The first part of the Constitution is the Preamble:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

That said, Censorship is not solely government action. It IS the only action that is prohibited under the First Amendment, but that doesn't mean that only things that violate the First Amendment are censorship. This is especially true accepting your modern parlance definition because people describe bad words as being "censored" on network television.

What you're really saying is that the First Amendment doesn't protect your right to not be criticized or drowned out or to use the platform of your choice. This is absolutely correct, but I wouldn't conflate it with the colloquial definition of censorship.

Rellik San:

Windknight:

canadamus_prime:
So in other words "Censorship" is another one of those buzzwords that people keep using without actually knowing what they mean. I'll add it to the ever growing list.

It has a certain weight and negative aura to it, so its great for making something sound worse than it is.

'she wants game creators to put more thought into how they design and create certain elements' sounds reasonable, and harder to argue with. 'she wants to censor videogames' is much more villainous and much more easier to argue against.

The problem is... when the person making it phrases the point as: "This is bad, games shouldn't do this, because this reinforces negative..." it's didactic, confrontational and puts people on the defensive. (I was having this conversation with a friend of mine last night), saying "Well I think this didn't work, but if they tweaked it a little and gave it a little more thought, it could have been more like... ...and that'd have been awesome."

It's the old carrot and stick metaphor, it's "you catch more flies with..." it's stuff we're taught from a very young age. But then there is of course the problem, no one cares what the well reasoned people think, they don't grab headlines or drive up view counts... and without those, the people saying those things don't get paid (that's not to say their intent is disingenuous, just their presentation). But that's a wider cultural issue.

Two points.

1.) Sometimes games do things that are bad, that they shouldn't do, and that reinforces negative stereotypes. You need to point out the problems and say why they are problems before you can suggest solutions. No one is going to fix a problem if they don't think there is a problem.
2.) You actually catch more flies with balsamic vinegar than with honey.

Anita Sarkeesian says before every video that you can like these games and still admit there are problems. However, many people ignore this part of the video, because they need to be attacked by outside forces in order to have an identity. That's the most important lesson to learn from GamerGate. There are some people who need an outside enemy to have an identity. These people will never be satisfied.

Sigh... here's my thing against censorship (or, the more broad term being anything that offends anyone else but either can't be legally censored and has to just be shoved aside or ignored).

Regardless of the opinion being spewed out of said person's mouth or megaphone, it's still wrong to try and silence them whether your a company, government entity, or a regular person. My opinion is that all sides should be heard, no matter how wrong they are. Not because the sides that are wrong have and validity. It's so you know how and why they're wrong and how to then counter their logic with your own. It also alerts people who aren't directly in the argument what the different sides are and who is on them IF all sides of the argument can be represented and/or acknowledged. That way a true discussion on whatever an issue is can really be had with all parts of the discussion being represented to some capacity.

Also, the Dixie Chicks thing really doesn't feel like censorship at all. Just them doing something their fans/core demographic doesn't like and then getting ostracized for it. Not really a great example. A better example would have been when the former social media guy for Nintendo got in trouble for sympathizing with consumers about region lock on twitter and getting banned for those comments. Under your definition, Nintendo is doing censorship. But for the most part, they kind of basically are, just not in the legal-sense of it. Ironically, a move made even stupider with recent comments from Iwata on the same fucking subject. lol

Hmm, this was a good video on the subject. Correctly explaining what negative censorship is seen as and explaining what we have rights to and what we don't.

Good video, Bob. Credit where it's due. It somehow makes me feel a lot better that you recognize our right to disagree with you in the same video you're explaining this.

A'right, how about this, before we get all warm and fuzzy and people start patting themselves on the back for semantic superiority of not using that word "censorship" outside of a strict context of government media crackdowns:

What people are "mis"-describing as censorship, if one insists on taking that way, happens far more often, requires far fewer people to bring about, and is, arguably, worse.

I may not be "censored" if I'm trying to run for office on a genuinely grassroots campaign, accepting money from actual people who are capable of actually voting, while my opponent enjoys the support of a super-PAC that offers five television advertisements alleging I tortured animals in fifth grade for every folksy issue ad I can squeeze onto local radio. But if I can't be heard over the noise, the semantic propriety means approximately jack shit.

If I post a review on YouTube and a big company throws a DMCA takedown at me, and they have a big legal team that can keep the court case running for years while my Youtube blacklisting means I don't have the money to pay my electric bill, maybe I haven't been "censored", but I'm still screwed six ways from Sunday.

If I have the whole big, wide, wonderful, supposedly free and open Internet to shout my beliefs- but my blog site decides to take me offline (and possibly take my only proof of my writing with it), and discussion board moderators quietly agree that the subject I want to address is flat-out verboten even if my broaching of it is otherwise entirely within their terms of use- what does my "non-censorship" matter if even people who want to hear my ideas can't find them?

Taking issue with someone saying someone has been "censored" seems to me a lot like taking issue with someone using "theoretical" interchangeably with "hypothetical": Yeah, there will be individual cases where it's misguided, as in the latter case when they're suggesting Gravity or Evolution is "just a theory". But a lot of the time, it's just going to be a smug and entirely unearned presumption of one's intellectual superiority on the basis of semantics, a dodge to undermine an argument without having the honesty to actually address the underlying issue. Don't do it.

The Deadpool:

JarinArenos:

medv4380:
It's not Capitalism that people are mad at. It's Monopolies. Capitalism doesn't exist unless there is competition, and though you might think MSNBC was the competition for FOX News it actually isn't. FOX has a monopoly on Conservative news coverage, and MSNBC has a pretty solid monopoly on the Liberal end. Even Hollywood tries not to compete by carving up the Calender and doing everything to collude to ensure that major films don't compete.

Monopolies are a part of capitalism.

A part generally considered negative to the consumer...

Which was kinda the point, I think.

I have very limited time for IRL reasons but I'll make a comment here.

Bob is technically correct, but wrong in a practical and moral sense. The reason why "censorship" is defined this way is because at the time we were granted the right to free speech modern technology and the power of current information technology was not even considered. It was believed that only a government could effectively shut someone down. The argument that private platforms have the right to control who and what is said is by definition repugnant because what this means is that your giving more power over a fundamental right of other people to express themselves than the duly elected government. What's more the ability of private citizens to control the right of expression of other private citizens for all intents and purposes leads to the suppression of political and social voices, and preventing that was the primary purpose of this being the very first right people in the US were granted. Simply put when you engage in controlling someone else's access to media platforms, effectively shutting down any political or social position you find offensive or disagree with, that represents a problem. To be frank few people, if anyone, really care that much about people discussing fantasy, science fiction, or other things, all of this comes down to social and political commentary.

Right now you see people like Bob making academic arguments in defense of the control of platforms and claiming "the problem isn't solvable anyway" because the current status quo favors them. If your politically to the left in the US right now, there is no real reason to want a change. Ironically the shoe was on the other foot decades ago with the right wing controlling most of the platforms, this however changed, and opened the door, because people were convinced that it was wrong, and you started seeing things like an "equal time" standard applied to most platforms which has since been done away with. Basically it was wrong then, and it's wrong now, no matter what kinds of arguments you make trying to sell it one way or another. Sure maybe "censorship" doesn't apply by it's literal definition, but then again the evolution of language and popular use might very well have changed the term by this point, although English majors and the like are always slow to accept that.

That said, it does show that Gamersgate is at least having some impact, given that Bob and a few other people have at least felt the need to try and defend themselves, that said, I do not expect any real changes. To put things into perspective remember guys like Bob, and most websites and forums for that matter, have a vested interest in preserving the current status quo due to it giving them power, and of course benefitting their own social and political beliefs. Imagine for example what The Internet would be like for example if those running articles were required to give equal time to opposing points of view, at least putting in an effort. It could be done, but it certainly wouldn't work out in the favor of guys like Bob.

That said, I do not expect any kind of radical changes anytime in the near future. Nor do I expect much agreement from the general population of this site.

At any rate, perhaps I'll have time to go on another day-long posting spurt or two in a few weeks, things have gotten a bit hectic IRL, which I saw coming and mentioned in some of my early posts.

dragonswarrior:
Really enjoyed the video.

While it may not be censorship, what happened to the Dixie Chicks was really fucking wrong. I guess what I'm saying is, while I agree that it isn't censorship, using power in that way to silence a group whose opinions you disagree with is really fucking wrong.

Trying to silence any group whose opinions you do not agree with is really fucking wrong.

If you're right, then debate. If you aren't, then change your views. No where does silence have to come into play.

It IS censorship per John Henry Faulk. What happened to the Dixie Chicks was simply the modern version of _Red Channels_ and its Mccarthyist ilk.

The Deadpool:

JarinArenos:

medv4380:
It's not Capitalism that people are mad at. It's Monopolies. Capitalism doesn't exist unless there is competition, and though you might think MSNBC was the competition for FOX News it actually isn't. FOX has a monopoly on Conservative news coverage, and MSNBC has a pretty solid monopoly on the Liberal end. Even Hollywood tries not to compete by carving up the Calender and doing everything to collude to ensure that major films don't compete.

Monopolies are a part of capitalism.

A part generally considered negative to the consumer...

And a part that used to be, and still technically is, forbidden by law because it is antithetical to the aims of capitalism. What runs our economy now is not capitalism as it was conceived, just as no communist country is a communism as it was conceived. What runs our economy now is a corporate oligarchy. An oligarchy that, had certain laws not been removed from the system or rewritten, could never have gained power because the government would have the means and authority to restrict that kind of activity.

But that's not a problem of capitalism. That's a problem of society in general. There is no society in the world that has not, given enough time, gone lax in its own laws, become lazy and ultimately set up its own deconstruction. It's never not happened. That's why Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must sometimes be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Corruption is a constant thing, whereas our attention is limited, so it eventually gains a foothold, no matter how hard you try. Everything breaks down over time and if you don't repair them, they fall apart.

TheKasp:

WhiteTigerShiro:
]Right? I would love to see Bob do an episode talking about how the vast majority of things that people dub as sexist/racist as a sort of gut instinct aren't actually sexist/racist, and that crying foul at the slightest hint of any stereotype hurts creativity more than it helps any demographic.

Don't even need to cover that. In my experience a big chunk of people don't even know how racism is defined and go by the old, debunked race teachings as a guiding point. According to them a German can't be racist towards a French because French is not a race.

There is no French race it's an ethnicity but Racism isn't defined just by race it's also colour, descent, national and ethnic origin. Though xenophobia is a better term for a German person being prejudiced against a French person.

Though in Europe most of it is banter rather than mean spirited (unless footballs involved) as lets face it with all the hundreds of years of different European wars taking the piss out of other countries is just normal.

Did Bob just use the Dixie Chicks to segway into a not-so-subtle justification of the past sh*t most of us are kind of bored with now?

Bob, just go back to being a geek! We love it, you love it...

Did you know that Quinoa was the cultural staple food in some South American countries like Peru/Bolivia/Ecuador but now because all you latte sipping hippies are eating so much of it they can no longer afford it? For the average Bolivian the food they grew up eating now costs more than chicken. Which obviously they can't afford to eat everyday like in America.

P-89 Scorpion:

There is no French race it's an ethnicity but Racism isn't defined just by race it's also colour, descent, national and ethnic origin. Though xenophobia is a better term for a German person being prejudiced against a French person.

Though in Europe most of it is banter rather than mean spirited (unless footballs involved) as lets face it with all the hundreds of years of different European wars taking the piss out of other countries is just normal.

To be precise, humans are one race. This is what I meant, I also worked with the definition you used with which, in my example, a German can be racist towards a frenchman (due to the different ethnicity).

Yes, xenophobia would be a term that works. Doesn't change that the legal application of racism is like you defined.

Yeah, racism in Europe (well, western Europe) is in most areas rather confined in small communities.

Edit: To clarify: I often see the argument that, and I just take a personal example for it, russians can't be racist towards me (Ukranian) because there is no difference in race.

Moviebob why is your cursewords coutn reduced now, and the few remaining ones get beeped out? In Transformeers 2 review they were not, and other Escapists' cursewords are not beeped out to this very day, such as Yahtzee or Sterlingjim.

Gorfias:

The Deadpool:
The distinction between ACTUAL definition of "censorship" and this "practical" definition is nonexistent.

Censorship by the government without just cause is ILLEGAL.

Censorship by people just shouting out the opposition is totally legal, but it is still IMMORAL. It is dishonest, and sometimes just as harmful as the illegal kind depending on WHAT is being drowned out.

Agreed. If the Dixie Chicks were jack asses, say so. Stating, hey everyone, lets mess with their backers to get them silenced, even if it is legal, is censorship. When a bunch of jack asses show up to a speech to shout down someone they don't like, they are not spreading information or countering it: they're attempting to make it not heard in the first place. Legal maybe (or not: disturbance of peace, violation of someone Else's civil rights) but bad for society and the promotion of diverse ideas.

Sorry Bob. You got this one waaaaay wrong. I still treasure hearing you though.

Well said.

For everyone who's wondering, here's an example.
From 00:18 to 00:25

The result of that shouting is preventing other people a chance to speak. Does it really matter whether this kind of censorship comes from the government, from a mob of people or from well-connected and collaborating journalists?

If you're right, debate it. It should be easy to do so.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.