A new era of censoriousness?

brianlux

An interesting article here that talks about recent censorious leaning in the worlds of publication and speech.  The quote that stands out here is:

"...the letter goes on to decry what it calls “a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity”.

Hitting out at how a “panicked damage control” is leading to the delivery of “hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms”, the letter criticises how “editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organisations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes”.

The article points towards a distinct aggressiveness toward those who voice opinions that  others disagree with.  We hear a lot about "tolerance", but the ideas presented her beg the question, "How tolerant are we as a society?"  It's one things to strongly disagree with an opinion, and other to disallow dissension and opposing views.  Do we want this kind of suppression- let alone censorship- to proliferate?

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jul/08/jk-rowling-rushdie-and-atwood-warn-against-intolerance-in-open-letter

Thoughts are very much welcome/encouraged but please consider reading the article first.

hedonist

hedonist

^^^

I was watching a bit on this last night; though I love all things Cleese, this particularly struck me. 

I’ll read the article once I properly wake up. 

dankind

A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

 

DarthMaeglin

brianlux said:

An interesting article here that talks about recent censorious leaning in the worlds of publication and speech.  The quote that stands out here is:

"...the letter goes on to decry what it calls “a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity”.

Hitting out at how a “panicked damage control” is leading to the delivery of “hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms”, the letter criticises how “editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organisations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes”.

The article points towards a distinct aggressiveness toward those who voice opinions that  others disagree with.  We hear a lot about "tolerance", but the ideas presented her beg the question, "How tolerant are we as a society?"  It's one things to strongly disagree with an opinion, and other to disallow dissension and opposing views.  Do we want this kind of suppression- let alone censorship- to proliferate?

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jul/08/jk-rowling-rushdie-and-atwood-warn-against-intolerance-in-open-letter

Thoughts are very much welcome/encouraged but please consider reading the article first.

I didn’t read this specific article but did read others about this yesterday (and posted about it elsewhere, lol). I agree with much of what was said and have been troubled by the lack of tolerance shown by both sides the last several years. I do appreciate that both left and right are held accountable for this. We all need to open our ears and minds (myself included) and work ourselves back to the mindset of not agreeing with someone but standing firm on their right to express themselves (with reasonable limits like not promoting violence against anyone).

Or, we need to adopt the George Carlin mentality of if you don’t like what’s on tv, change the channel (a comment made on one of the articles I read, lol).

brianlux

DarthMaeglin said:

brianlux said:

An interesting article here that talks about recent censorious leaning in the worlds of publication and speech.  The quote that stands out here is:

"...the letter goes on to decry what it calls “a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity”.

Hitting out at how a “panicked damage control” is leading to the delivery of “hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms”, the letter criticises how “editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organisations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes”.

The article points towards a distinct aggressiveness toward those who voice opinions that  others disagree with.  We hear a lot about "tolerance", but the ideas presented her beg the question, "How tolerant are we as a society?"  It's one things to strongly disagree with an opinion, and other to disallow dissension and opposing views.  Do we want this kind of suppression- let alone censorship- to proliferate?

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jul/08/jk-rowling-rushdie-and-atwood-warn-against-intolerance-in-open-letter

Thoughts are very much welcome/encouraged but please consider reading the article first.

I didn’t read this specific article but did read others about this yesterday (and posted about it elsewhere, lol). I agree with much of what was said and have been troubled by the lack of tolerance shown by both sides the last several years. I do appreciate that both left and right are held accountable for this. We all need to open our ears and minds (myself included) and work ourselves back to the mindset of not agreeing with someone but standing firm on their right to express themselves (with reasonable limits like not promoting violence against anyone).

Or, we need to adopt the George Carlin mentality of if you don’t like what’s on tv, change the channel (a comment made on one of the articles I read, lol).

LOL, I'm always up for Carlin advice!

brianlux

dankind said:

A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

 

I can see why the edit might be a conclusion drawn.  I'm just not so sure that in the letter they signed, Rowling, Rushie and Atwood are of so narrow a mind as to be referring to a single issue here.  I took what they wrote as being in a broader context.

static111

brianlux said:

dankind said:

A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

 

I can see why the edit might be a conclusion drawn.  I'm just not so sure that in the letter they signed, Rowling, Rushie and Atwood are of so narrow a mind as to be referring to a single issue here.  I took what they wrote as being in a broader context.

You have the right to free speech bug you will be held accountable

brianlux

static111 said:

brianlux said:

dankind said:

A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

 

I can see why the edit might be a conclusion drawn.  I'm just not so sure that in the letter they signed, Rowling, Rushie and Atwood are of so narrow a mind as to be referring to a single issue here.  I took what they wrote as being in a broader context.

You have the right to free speech bug you will be held accountable

I've always had the free speech bug. 

OnWis97

JK Rowling is probably the reason for that "edit."  She's not just skeptical, she's making a point to almost be on a crusade against the notion that trans women are women. 

brianlux

OnWis97 said:

JK Rowling is probably the reason for that "edit."  She's not just skeptical, she's making a point to almost be on a crusade against the notion that trans women are women. 

Yeah, that's her part.  But I didn't see this as being just about her.  She just happens to be the most famous of the signers.  Her presence actually detracts from the message because of that.

DarthMaeglin

static111 said:

brianlux said:

dankind said:

A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

 

I can see why the edit might be a conclusion drawn.  I'm just not so sure that in the letter they signed, Rowling, Rushie and Atwood are of so narrow a mind as to be referring to a single issue here.  I took what they wrote as being in a broader context.

You have the right to free speech bug you will be held accountable

I'm curious what you consider proper accountability to be for essentially holding an unpopular opinion?  Actual hate speech (promoting violence and the denigration of groups) is generally policed criminally which I would call accountable.

brianlux

DarthMaeglin said:

static111 said:

brianlux said:

dankind said:

A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

 

I can see why the edit might be a conclusion drawn.  I'm just not so sure that in the letter they signed, Rowling, Rushie and Atwood are of so narrow a mind as to be referring to a single issue here.  I took what they wrote as being in a broader context.

You have the right to free speech bug you will be held accountable

I'm curious what you consider proper accountability to be for essentially holding an unpopular opinion?  Actual hate speech (promoting violence and the denigration of groups) is generally policed criminally which I would call accountable.

For sure.  Hate speech, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc., those need to be held accountable.  But simply stating an opinion- even one that is strong opposing one's own opinion, I don't see as worthy of censorship.

static111

brianlux said:

static111 said:

brianlux said:

dankind said:

A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

 

I can see why the edit might be a conclusion drawn.  I'm just not so sure that in the letter they signed, Rowling, Rushie and Atwood are of so narrow a mind as to be referring to a single issue here.  I took what they wrote as being in a broader context.

You have the right to free speech bug you will be held accountable

I've always had the free speech bug. 

lol god damn it!!!!!

DarthMaeglin

brianlux said:

DarthMaeglin said:

static111 said:

brianlux said:

dankind said:

A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

 

I can see why the edit might be a conclusion drawn.  I'm just not so sure that in the letter they signed, Rowling, Rushie and Atwood are of so narrow a mind as to be referring to a single issue here.  I took what they wrote as being in a broader context.

You have the right to free speech bug you will be held accountable

I'm curious what you consider proper accountability to be for essentially holding an unpopular opinion?  Actual hate speech (promoting violence and the denigration of groups) is generally policed criminally which I would call accountable.

For sure.  Hate speech, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc., those need to be held accountable.  But simply stating an opinion- even one that is strong opposing one's own opinion, I don't see as worthy of censorship.

Over time I've found some of the most interesting and informative discussions have been with people of different (even opposite) viewpoints, both here (the only other forum I was active on was for the show 24, lol) and in real life.  I just hope the people on the other end have felt the same, lol.

static111

DarthMaeglin said:

static111 said:

brianlux said:

dankind said:

A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

 

I can see why the edit might be a conclusion drawn.  I'm just not so sure that in the letter they signed, Rowling, Rushie and Atwood are of so narrow a mind as to be referring to a single issue here.  I took what they wrote as being in a broader context.

You have the right to free speech bug you will be held accountable

I'm curious what you consider proper accountability to be for essentially holding an unpopular opinion?  Actual hate speech (promoting violence and the denigration of groups) is generally policed criminally which I would call accountable.

brianlux said:

DarthMaeglin said:

static111 said:

brianlux said:

dankind said:

A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

 

I can see why the edit might be a conclusion drawn.  I'm just not so sure that in the letter they signed, Rowling, Rushie and Atwood are of so narrow a mind as to be referring to a single issue here.  I took what they wrote as being in a broader context.

You have the right to free speech bug you will be held accountable

I'm curious what you consider proper accountability to be for essentially holding an unpopular opinion?  Actual hate speech (promoting violence and the denigration of groups) is generally policed criminally which I would call accountable.

For sure.  Hate speech, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc., those need to be held accountable.  But simply stating an opinion- even one that is strong opposing one's own opinion, I don't see as worthy of censorship.

I'm not speaking of legal repercussions, but if you are the Costco idiot that "feels threatened" or some Karen Supreme wannabe, or someone that speaks legal hate speech, be prepared for the societal consequences of being called out. Don't like it, put a mask on, stop being a karen, quit saying racist shit and explaining it away that it was a different time or saying that your views on trans are right because of science...keep your shit to yourself in other words if you can't take the heat.  The worst thing for free speech is people pretending they have to give it space and legitimacy if it is harmful.   If you have some backward fucked up view that's great, say it don't spray it, but don't expect the rest of us to put you on a pedestal as a "free speech" warrior, and if what you are saying infuriates a bunch of people be ready to reap the whirlwind.  Your right to speech is protected but that doesn't include a shield to the consequences of your words and it was never meant to.  Let's not forget Trump, that guy has free speech, but we would all better off if no one legitimized his nonsense or gave him a platform.

DarthMaeglin

static111 said:

DarthMaeglin said:

static111 said:

brianlux said:

dankind said:

A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

 

I can see why the edit might be a conclusion drawn.  I'm just not so sure that in the letter they signed, Rowling, Rushie and Atwood are of so narrow a mind as to be referring to a single issue here.  I took what they wrote as being in a broader context.

You have the right to free speech bug you will be held accountable

I'm curious what you consider proper accountability to be for essentially holding an unpopular opinion?  Actual hate speech (promoting violence and the denigration of groups) is generally policed criminally which I would call accountable.

brianlux said:

DarthMaeglin said:

static111 said:

brianlux said:

dankind said:

A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

 

I can see why the edit might be a conclusion drawn.  I'm just not so sure that in the letter they signed, Rowling, Rushie and Atwood are of so narrow a mind as to be referring to a single issue here.  I took what they wrote as being in a broader context.

You have the right to free speech bug you will be held accountable

I'm curious what you consider proper accountability to be for essentially holding an unpopular opinion?  Actual hate speech (promoting violence and the denigration of groups) is generally policed criminally which I would call accountable.

For sure.  Hate speech, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc., those need to be held accountable.  But simply stating an opinion- even one that is strong opposing one's own opinion, I don't see as worthy of censorship.

I'm not speaking of legal repercussions, but if you are the Costco idiot that "feels threatened" or some Karen Supreme wannabe, or someone that speaks legal hate speech, be prepared for the societal consequences of being called out. Don't like it, put a mask on, stop being a karen, quit saying racist shit and explaining it away that it was a different time or saying that your views on trans are right because of science...keep your shit to yourself in other words if you can't take the heat.  The worst thing for free speech is people pretending they have to give it space and legitimacy if it is harmful.   If you have some backward fucked up view that's great, say it don't spray it, but don't expect the rest of us to put you on a pedestal as a "free speech" warrior, and if what you are saying infuriates a bunch of people be ready to reap the whirlwind.  Your right to speech is protected but that doesn't include a shield to the consequences of your words and it was never meant to.  Let's not forget Trump, that guy has free speech, but we would all better off if no one legitimized his nonsense or gave him a platform.

Thanks for clarifying, funny enough some of what you said is my own mindset when posting.  Since I identify as a right-leaning individual I know some of my opinions won't be popular around here and post with the expectation of blowback but the hope for discussion.  I've had to put up with some nasty (and inaccurate) labels as a result (not so much here, thankfully), and I work to not generalize or name call myself.  Calling out public persons is fair game though (see my comments about my current Prime Minister in the Canadian Politics thread, lol).

brianlux

static111 said:

DarthMaeglin said:

static111 said:

brianlux said:

dankind said:

A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

 

I can see why the edit might be a conclusion drawn.  I'm just not so sure that in the letter they signed, Rowling, Rushie and Atwood are of so narrow a mind as to be referring to a single issue here.  I took what they wrote as being in a broader context.

You have the right to free speech bug you will be held accountable

I'm curious what you consider proper accountability to be for essentially holding an unpopular opinion?  Actual hate speech (promoting violence and the denigration of groups) is generally policed criminally which I would call accountable.

brianlux said:

DarthMaeglin said:

static111 said:

brianlux said:

dankind said:

A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

 

I can see why the edit might be a conclusion drawn.  I'm just not so sure that in the letter they signed, Rowling, Rushie and Atwood are of so narrow a mind as to be referring to a single issue here.  I took what they wrote as being in a broader context.

You have the right to free speech bug you will be held accountable

I'm curious what you consider proper accountability to be for essentially holding an unpopular opinion?  Actual hate speech (promoting violence and the denigration of groups) is generally policed criminally which I would call accountable.

For sure.  Hate speech, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc., those need to be held accountable.  But simply stating an opinion- even one that is strong opposing one's own opinion, I don't see as worthy of censorship.

I'm not speaking of legal repercussions, but if you are the Costco idiot that "feels threatened" or some Karen Supreme wannabe, or someone that speaks legal hate speech, be prepared for the societal consequences of being called out. Don't like it, put a mask on, stop being a karen, quit saying racist shit and explaining it away that it was a different time or saying that your views on trans are right because of science...keep your shit to yourself in other words if you can't take the heat.  The worst thing for free speech is people pretending they have to give it space and legitimacy if it is harmful.   If you have some backward fucked up view that's great, say it don't spray it, but don't expect the rest of us to put you on a pedestal as a "free speech" warrior, and if what you are saying infuriates a bunch of people be ready to reap the whirlwind.  Your right to speech is protected but that doesn't include a shield to the consequences of your words and it was never meant to.  Let's not forget Trump, that guy has free speech, but we would all better off if no one legitimized his nonsense or gave him a platform.

I don't see that this is saying something Trump (or something someone else you and I may disagree with or even loathe) says should be legitimized by those of us who disagree with it.  But should they be allowed their opinion- even if we think it is fucked up bullshit?  I say yes, for sure.  As soon as you take away the right to someones opposing view, you enter a world I for one am not interested in. 

hedonist

Second attempt here, but where does common sense come in? Yes, the yelling fire situation, etc. I’m more concerned about silencing (your valid or perceived) opposition. Speak your mind, defend it intelligently, and let the chips fall where they may.

Or - such a concept! - keep an open mind and make a small effort to see the other’s point of view. 

Lastly, some people are just itching to be offended - by anything, anyone. 

brianlux

hedonist said:

Second attempt here, but where does common sense come in? Yes, the yelling fire situation, etc. I’m more concerned about silencing (your valid or perceived) opposition. Speak your mind, defend it intelligently, and let the chips fall where they may.

Or - such a concept! - keep an open mind and make a small effort to see the other’s point of view. 

Lastly, some people are just itching to be offended - by anything, anyone. 

Very well said- right on!

static111

brianlux said:

static111 said:

DarthMaeglin said:

static111 said:

brianlux said:

dankind said:

A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

 

I can see why the edit might be a conclusion drawn.  I'm just not so sure that in the letter they signed, Rowling, Rushie and Atwood are of so narrow a mind as to be referring to a single issue here.  I took what they wrote as being in a broader context.

You have the right to free speech bug you will be held accountable

I'm curious what you consider proper accountability to be for essentially holding an unpopular opinion?  Actual hate speech (promoting violence and the denigration of groups) is generally policed criminally which I would call accountable.

brianlux said:

DarthMaeglin said:

static111 said:

brianlux said:

dankind said:

A handy edit by Twitter user Lauren L Walker:

 

I can see why the edit might be a conclusion drawn.  I'm just not so sure that in the letter they signed, Rowling, Rushie and Atwood are of so narrow a mind as to be referring to a single issue here.  I took what they wrote as being in a broader context.

You have the right to free speech bug you will be held accountable

I'm curious what you consider proper accountability to be for essentially holding an unpopular opinion?  Actual hate speech (promoting violence and the denigration of groups) is generally policed criminally which I would call accountable.

For sure.  Hate speech, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc., those need to be held accountable.  But simply stating an opinion- even one that is strong opposing one's own opinion, I don't see as worthy of censorship.

I'm not speaking of legal repercussions, but if you are the Costco idiot that "feels threatened" or some Karen Supreme wannabe, or someone that speaks legal hate speech, be prepared for the societal consequences of being called out. Don't like it, put a mask on, stop being a karen, quit saying racist shit and explaining it away that it was a different time or saying that your views on trans are right because of science...keep your shit to yourself in other words if you can't take the heat.  The worst thing for free speech is people pretending they have to give it space and legitimacy if it is harmful.   If you have some backward fucked up view that's great, say it don't spray it, but don't expect the rest of us to put you on a pedestal as a "free speech" warrior, and if what you are saying infuriates a bunch of people be ready to reap the whirlwind.  Your right to speech is protected but that doesn't include a shield to the consequences of your words and it was never meant to.  Let's not forget Trump, that guy has free speech, but we would all better off if no one legitimized his nonsense or gave him a platform.

I don't see that this is saying something Trump (or something someone else you and I may disagree with or even loathe) says should be legitimized by those of us who disagree with it.  But should they be allowed their opinion- even if we think it is fucked up bullshit?  I say yes, for sure.  As soon as you take away the right to someones opposing view, you enter a world I for one am not interested in. 

I'm not saying take away their right.  They have every right to speak.  they do not have the right to be heard or protected from the potential fiscal consequences or job losses etc.  Case in point  aren't we all trying to Cancel Donald by taking away his job?