Censorship and the elites and the rest of us. What is your take on this?

Some parents think they have the right to tell YOUR child what they may/may not read; what altered history is ok to learn. No censorship say I.
And yet other folks feel the need to try and 'block' history, by removing the statues of some of those that were a part of history. Whether we agree with what those men stood for or not, they were indeed a part of our history.

So ! Why are we censoring that ?
 

So ! Why are we censoring that ?
Because those assholes were treasonous traitors against our Union. Most were built when southern blacks started getting 'uppity.' Most do not date back to Civil War. That's why. The history they were a part of was The Confederacy; The Confederacy, those that betrayed and were renegades against The United States of America.
 
It's always some mysterious cabal of "elites", who control the world. But I think most of the calls for censorship are from fanatical religious, and fanatical ideological believers.
They're not so mysterious. they are blatant, I think, which is how we catch them out. Bill Gates has never been shy about his agenda. Henry Kissinger, during his lifetime was not shy about his either. And so we learn.
 
Initially, protesters targeted monuments related to the Confederate States of America. As the scope of the protests broadened to include other forms of systemic racism, many statues of other controversial figures such as Christopher Columbus, Junípero Serra, Juan de Oñate and Kit Carson were torn down or removed. Monuments to many other local figures connected with racism were also targeted by protestors. Statues of American slave owners such as Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant, and Francis Scott Key were also vandalised or removed. According to the Huffington Post, by October 2020 over a hundred Confederate symbols had been "removed, relocated or renamed", based on data from the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Some monuments that were not associated with the Confederacy, slavery, or racism were also targeted. In Madison, Wisconsin, the statue of abolitionist Hans Christian Heg, was torn down and thrown into a lake. Protestors also tore down a statue titled Forward, by sculptor Jean Pond Miner, which depicts the embodiment of the Wisconsin state motto. In Portland, a statue of an elk was removed after several bonfires lit beneath the statue caused structural damage to the statue's base. A statue of York, a Black slave with the Lewis and Clark Expedition, was removed by the University of Portland after it was vandalised.
And those are just the ones admitted to by the extremists.
 
It's a big mistake to think that if you ignore a problem and ban people from discussing it, it will quietly go away. There are plenty of people writing books explaining what is the hidden agenda....basically controlling the population. It used to be the church keeping control but so many people have literally lost faith.
Preventing people from speaking out causes frustration and anger, which will eventually find an outlet.
 
Recently, there has been violence committed in a country now on fire in many ways. Instead of listening and helping a wounded nation to heal, laws are being drawn up to censor anyone who complains with arrest, fines and even jail time. This goes for online sharing as well and even reposts on places like social media facebook or twitter/X. This is extreme. Why is it happening? Where is it going? How will it end? Is it Orwellian? That is my guess. The billionaire elites have priorities. Preserve the status quo unless it benefits them to change.

Here's the thing - in many ways, the internet is lawless. However, if people misuse it, then they're inviting regulation. Laws have to change with changing times, and when current laws aren't sufficient, they need to be rewritten and updated. It's inevitable and sadly, necessary. Else how can we police our societies and protect it from riots the like we've seen in the UK?

I don't think anyone is overtly happy about legislation online, but if there is someone inciting and organizing riots online, then the authorities need to have the ability to identify them, and to perform an arrest. I don't know what you mean by having laws for "anyone who complains", because to my knowledge there's no such law being suggested.

Facebook and X, and essentially all Social Media sites, are a poison in our society. You won't be surprised to see me writing this, I've mentioned it many times. I see potential utterly wasted, and people seem unable to follow simple rules. Ethics and morality have no place on Social Media, but without it you just have a cesspool of nonsense, imo. YMMV.

Note, the call for laws to protect our society isn't coming from the "elites". In fact, the elites - or the people that own these Social Media sites - are dead against any kind of regulation. Their profits are greater without government intervention, and they lobby against proposed laws all the time. This is a case where governments are left with little choice.

I think terms such as "Orwellian" are over-wrought and cliche at this point. If you're in the UK you've got a high chance of being on a CCTV camera 90% of the time. It's how we operate. Given that, the whole "is it Orwellian" argument is somewhat mute.

I wonder if it's all happening because we were discouraged/forbidden to discuss anything important in the first place? People don't talk to each enough anymore.

The laws do not prevent you from discussing any single topic. It's not the subject that is the issue. Same as you can write about murder all day long. However, you commit a murder, then any talk can be used against you. This is the level they want to get to with incitement. We know from the recent riots that Social Media was extensively used to coordinate attacks on stores. Blame the bad actors for putting the spotlight on Social Media.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."

How do you feel about censorship and where it is going? What are your thoughts on this??

I think "censorship" is an emotive word and people tend not to put it on context. Do I think people should be able to incite violence and organize attacks? No, no I don't. I'm much prefer if they were held to account before any incident takes place. So we need laws to help with that. But is the organizer in such a case being "censored"? I guess at a stretch you could claim it - but for me no, it's not really censorship in the way people think about it.

The thing is, in other areas of life, this is already against the law. So, you can try and arrange the murder of someone online or off, but you should know you can be arrested for doing so (conspiracy). We don't have to wait for the murder attempt to take place.

Ideally we'd not need such laws. But this is the way the worst amongst us force us to go. What is the alternative?

Also, over time, the internet is going to become increasingly regulated. It's inevitable, I'm afraid. Even the wild west didn't last forever.
 
Since I don't see a better place to post this - I just wanted to say how proud I am of the counter protestors and courts. Fantastic stuff.
 
The supreme court voted that down. If allowed they might be fueling serious reactions. Globally, this is becoming a serious problem which no one is dealing with successfully because the old solutions are no longer working. :unsure:

Supreme Court nixes Jordan Peterson’s fight to not enter remedial coaching program | Globalnews.ca
Canada’s top court has closed the door on Jordan Peterson’s legal fight against an order that he enter a remedial coaching program.
So they concurred with his sentence. Canada has no free speech.
 
The extremists agendas come in lots of different shapes and sizes. Either it is Pro-this or Anti-this. Big money backs the propaganda for it's particular cause. Who is in change of regulating this propaganda? I have heard that Russia and China have used propaganda on places like "X" "Facebook" and "Instagram". Can these media giants also be places like MSM, the Guardian, Al Jazeera, the Washington Post, Fox and media we think is unbiased?
Who thinks any of the mainstream media is unbiased? Especially the U.S. media? Journalism in the States is dead. I got my master's in journalism in the early 90s. Our professors encouraged us to even refrain from voting in an attempt to remain impartial.

All I've seen over the past couple of decades are "journalists" engaged in partisanship, picking and choosing what they think ought to be covered. So much for the Fourth Estate. I find it truly sad.

I have yet to see one U.S. media outlet that is not biased. I can't speak for the news media in other countries.
 
"How do you feel about censorship and where it is going? What are your thoughts on this??"

My thoughts: you have to look at what kids from 12 to 20-something are doing, and how they're responding to what's going on in their worlds. Internet access is a major part of that. It exposes them to what's going on in the world at large, and literally connects them to it. They equate internet exposure with actual experience, and that's not entirely unreasonable. And in that way, a lot of them experience a lot more than most adults do.

Where censorship is ultimately going depends on them, imo. These kids thrive on information, and have done basically all their lives. They feel entitled to it. And I agree, they are. I doubt they're going to tolerate being robbed of it by any means.
 
Who thinks any of the mainstream media is unbiased? Especially the U.S. media? Journalism in the States is dead. I got my master's in journalism in the early 90s. Our professors encouraged us to even refrain from voting in an attempt to remain impartial.

All I've seen over the past couple of decades are "journalists" engaged in partisanship, picking and choosing what they think ought to be covered. So much for the Fourth Estate. I find it truly sad.

I have yet to see one U.S. media outlet that is not biased. I can't speak for the news media in other countries.
So true my friend. Journalists used to expose the truth. Now they cover it up. It would be sad if it were not so outrageous.
 
Because those assholes were treasonous traitors against our Union. Most were built when southern blacks started getting 'uppity.' Most do not date back to Civil War. That's why. The history they were a part of was The Confederacy; The Confederacy, those that betrayed and were renegades against The United States of America.
They were not traitors to our union , they were Confederates , We weren't united yet. They just stood for their beliefs, but their place in history is fact, and should not be erased, just because now 150-160 years later someone doesn't like them, or agree with what they stood for back then.

Are you one of those that just cannot stand an opposing view to yours ? Even though it was 15 decades ago, and in context , formed when society was entirely different ?

History should never be erased/forgotten ...... for it is then that it may well be repeated.
 
They were not traitors to our union , they were Confederates , We weren't united yet. They just stood for their beliefs, but their place in history is fact, and should not be erased, just because now 150-160 years later someone doesn't like them, or agree with what they stood for back then.

Are you one of those that just cannot stand an opposing view to yours ? Even though it was 15 decades ago, and in context , formed when society was entirely different ?

History should never be erased/forgotten ...... for it is then that it may well be repeated.
I don't believe it should be altered either. A fact is a fact and we learn from them. :unsure:
 
I don't believe it should be altered either. A fact is a fact and we learn from them. :unsure:
Exactly ! And removing monuments & such removes the fact that [whatever] may have/did happened, and all aspects of it. And IMO that is the pinnacle of altering history.
 
I have read small bits about the Chinese social credit system. One of the things that drops your credit score is criticizing the government. What I read is you can be blocked from using transportation, using vending machines, and more.
 
I think you got this backwards.

Where they (kids) are ultimately going is being driven by censorship. We live in deepening and darkening authoritarian times.
More of them than you might think can immediately spot AI-generated fakes and can recognize censorship. Using one of several international chat platforms that are not censored, email, and PM apps, they talk to people in many different countries, often in real-time, so can share, confirm, and debunk information. Lastly, they believe they know more than most adults, and that keeps them skeptical / distrustful of major media publications and reports.
 
They were not traitors to our union , they were Confederates , We weren't united yet. They just stood for their beliefs, but their place in history is fact, and should not be erased, just because now 150-160 years later someone doesn't like them, or agree with what they stood for back then.

Are you one of those that just cannot stand an opposing view to yours ? Even though it was 15 decades ago, and in context , formed when society was entirely different ?

History should never be erased/forgotten ...... for it is then that it may well be repeated.
I basically agree, we can always add a footnote to history but we should never attempt to erase it or destroy the monuments that were erected by previous generations.

Let people have the symbols of the past that were important to their parents and grandparents while making room for the monuments that are important for today’s generation.
 


Back
Top