Censorship | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
 
(nobody)
...and 534 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2614201
Today 5
Topics 127548
  
 
Messageboard index
Censorship
 

offline Key_Secret from Sverige (Sweden) on 2003-05-19 20:57 [#00706120]
Points: 9325 Status: Regular



What are your opinions on the subject,
and do you every censor yourself or somebody else?


 

offline corrupted-girl on 2003-05-19 20:58 [#00706122]
Points: 8469 Status: Regular



I don't appreciate cencorship.



 

offline JivverDicker from my house on 2003-05-19 21:00 [#00706127]
Points: 12102 Status: Regular



1. necessary

2. all the time

!


 

offline spoonz from Edmonton, AB (Canada) on 2003-05-19 21:04 [#00706139]
Points: 3219 Status: Regular



it can be good or bad.

if censorship is necessary, and used properly, it's fine. it
can however be used to do very bad things. people, the
government in particular, can use censorship as a way to
change what people believe.

it's a tough call to say how far you should be able to go
with censorship, before it's taking away peoples' right to
free speech.

i'd write an essay on it, like i should be doing for school,
at the moment, but i'll stop there for now.


 

offline manticore from London (ON) (Canada) on 2003-05-19 21:05 [#00706140]
Points: 651 Status: Addict



here are some thoughts:
fuckpissshitcuntmotherfuckingtittysuckingsonofabitch

translation - we should have more parental advisory
stickers! i mean, how many young people have been corrupted
by that hideous and morally perverse picture of richard d.
james on the 'windowlicker' cover?!? that sort of thing is
an abomination of family values!!!


 

offline Key_Secret from Sverige (Sweden) on 2003-05-19 21:10 [#00706149]
Points: 9325 Status: Regular



Parents need to censor their childrens idea of what the
world is.
They have no need to experience (through one or more of
their senses) things they do not understand - that will just
be confusing.
You grow, and when you're ready, you'll find out.

Stuff should take time. It shouldn't be rushed. And parents
should be responsible for everything that concerns their
children.


 

offline Key_Secret from Sverige (Sweden) on 2003-05-19 21:10 [#00706150]
Points: 9325 Status: Regular | Followup to Key_Secret: #00706149



They = the children.


 

offline GIR from Easton on 2003-05-19 21:12 [#00706155]
Points: 828 Status: Addict



i hope you are being sarcastic....children need to be awake
to reality as soon as possible...as long as its a good
outlook on reality...which for the most part i believe i
have.


 

offline optimus prime on 2003-05-19 21:16 [#00706163]
Points: 6447 Status: Lurker | Followup to GIR: #00706155



no of course not, reality is fucking horrifying, let kids be
kids for as long as they can.


 

offline Key_Secret from Sverige (Sweden) on 2003-05-19 21:18 [#00706167]
Points: 9325 Status: Regular | Followup to GIR: #00706155



Well maybe I could have
put things better...
But I belive things should take time,
and that kids should not watch a certain
type of movies, etc, until they understand
what is going on.

Also how do you define reality?
I can say you know nothing about my
life...
I still think I didn't write my last post properly, so
nevermind that.
I'm kinda tired, it's late here.


 

offline Key_Secret from Sverige (Sweden) on 2003-05-19 21:21 [#00706175]
Points: 9325 Status: Regular | Followup to optimus prime: #00706163



yeah dude.
Kids should be allowed to be kids.



 

offline alnuit on 2003-05-19 21:53 [#00706233]
Points: 1113 Status: Lurker



Censorship should not exist. Those that do not understand
reality should have it explained to them by those that do.
And those that don't should not complain or have ojections
that they do not understand.


 

offline weatheredstoner from same shit babes. (United States) on 2003-05-19 21:55 [#00706234]
Points: 12585 Status: Lurker



well theres "reality" (the bullshit human created reality)
and then theres REALITY. I think kids need to know about the
REALITY at a young age, the other "reality" can wait.


 

offline mimi on 2003-05-19 22:06 [#00706240]
Points: 5721 Status: Regular



jello biafra's letter to tipper gore -- i'm on his side.


 

offline alnuit on 2003-05-19 22:08 [#00706244]
Points: 1113 Status: Lurker | Followup to weatheredstoner: #00706234



Well, if it is a man-made reality, then by defenition, it
can't be real. Because it has been made. Reality is not
made. It just is.


 

offline mimi on 2003-05-19 22:10 [#00706246]
Points: 5721 Status: Regular



that's why it's "reality" :)


 

offline corticalstim from Canada on 2003-05-19 22:16 [#00706247]
Points: 3885 Status: Regular | Followup to alnuit: #00706244



well - thats not technically true - while what you are
saying can be seen as accurate in some senses - but you have
to accept that human development is what really develops
what is "real" and what isnt.

if we have evolved our society and developed it differently
- then it is real is it not? it is hard to argue that what
has been established as our society is fake - and that what
we embrace as culture after 100s of years of traditions must
be real

something that is man-made can be a reality - if it is
developed and embraced - then there is nothing to oppose its
state of reality


 

offline weatheredstoner from same shit babes. (United States) on 2003-05-19 22:31 [#00706252]
Points: 12585 Status: Lurker | Followup to corticalstim: #00706247



Humans can create their own reality. That doesn't change
what REALITY is.


 

offline corticalstim from Canada on 2003-05-19 22:33 [#00706253]
Points: 3885 Status: Regular | Followup to weatheredstoner: #00706252



sorry - but what do you mean by REALITY?


 

offline alnuit on 2003-05-19 22:36 [#00706254]
Points: 1113 Status: Lurker | Followup to corticalstim: #00706247



The problem with that you see is that it leads to the kind
of world that we live in today where everybody is
comfortable with the version of reality that they have grown
up with and their society has created and embraced, but have
little respect for similar evolutions in other societies.

Human beings have an ego problem, and a feeling of
insecurity. They need to feel correct (ego) and
validated(insecurity). More often than not, I find people
accepting the majority because they then feel that are a
part of something and that leads to feeling secure. This
obviously cannot be a part of reality. And while it may be
an inescapable part of our life these days, it does not mean
that we should chose to accept it. Our kids should be tought
to realise the differences between reality and REALITY.

Censoring REALITY does not help anybody in understanding it.
It needs to brought out into the open, discussed and only
then accepted. Hiding it in the folds of censorship will
not help.


 

offline corrupted-girl on 2003-05-20 06:54 [#00706441]
Points: 8469 Status: Regular | Followup to alnuit: #00706254



i agree.


 

offline NeoExmnist from United States on 2003-05-20 06:57 [#00706443]
Points: 1385 Status: Lurker | Followup to alnuit: #00706254



the first two paragraphs remind me of religion.


 

offline marlowe from Antarctica on 2003-05-20 07:03 [#00706444]
Points: 24591 Status: Lurker



I think that censorship is unforgivable -- tolerance means
allowing others unlimited freedom of speech and expression,
as long as it does not physically imperil another -- we need
people to challenge conventions and to push the boundaries
of so-called taste -- the progression of humans has depended
upon pushing boundaries and smashing conventions.

So what if some nazi wants to deny the holocaust - it is
that person's right to give vent to their opinions, even if
some people find it disgusting. So what if some pervert
wants to wax lyrical about the sexual beauty of children -
it is his right to do so (but not his right to physically
imperil children by molesting them)... if a society faces
its underbelly instead of pretending it doesn't exist, then
it will be healthier.


 

offline alnuit on 2003-05-20 07:14 [#00706456]
Points: 1113 Status: Lurker | Followup to NeoExmnist: #00706443



Well, that explains why the more rigid strains of certain
religions like Catholicism and some Islamic states view
censorship as an instrument of state policy. Doesn't it ?

After all, any named organized religion is just a man-made
social structure. It would do well in its own interests to
censor whatver/whoever claims that its tenets are untrue.


 

offline NeoExmnist from United States on 2003-05-20 07:15 [#00706457]
Points: 1385 Status: Lurker | Followup to marlowe: #00706444



i agree when you say society needs to face its underbelly,
but i think children should be protected from some of it.
when a child is in the developmental stage of their life,
their surroundings will influence their personality. i
would want my kids to know about drugs and sex so they can
use the information to make the right descisions, but i
wouldn't want things like that in my kids face all the time.
i am not for complete censorship, but i am also not for
zero censorship. some things need to be moderated.


 

offline marlowe from Antarctica on 2003-05-20 07:16 [#00706458]
Points: 24591 Status: Lurker | Followup to alnuit: #00706456



yes, Catholicism has been highly censored ever since the
remnants of Rome hijacked/procured it.


 

offline NeoExmnist from United States on 2003-05-20 07:16 [#00706460]
Points: 1385 Status: Lurker | Followup to alnuit: #00706456



i was mainly talking about how people find security in
numbers. if lots of people believe in the same thing you
do, you will feel more comfortable about your beliefs.


 

offline alnuit on 2003-05-20 07:17 [#00706462]
Points: 1113 Status: Lurker | Followup to marlowe: #00706444



Exactly. Which is why I believe that Marquis de Sade's
writing or Nobokov's Lolita or Lawrence's 'Lady Chatterley's
Lover' should not have been treated the way the way they
were.

Any man's fantasy or right to speech should be fully
admissable as long as it doesn't physically hurt another.


 

offline alnuit on 2003-05-20 07:18 [#00706465]
Points: 1113 Status: Lurker | Followup to NeoExmnist: #00706460



But security that comes from numbers says nothing about your
faith. Stronger is the faith that can stand in the face of
opposition than that which gets its security from numbers.


 

offline mimi on 2003-05-20 07:19 [#00706466]
Points: 5721 Status: Regular



i dont even remember anything from when i was under 4. i
wonder if my parents had sex in front of me.


 

offline marlowe from Antarctica on 2003-05-20 07:22 [#00706469]
Points: 24591 Status: Lurker | Followup to NeoExmnist: #00706457



the point there is that it is the Parental Decision in what
their child should be exposed to -- it is not up to the
Lawmakers to make everyone suffer censorship because some of
it might not appeal to children / conservative christians
&tc. If a christian finds the natural act of sex
distasteful, they can watch the GOD channel (to be
facetious, yet the point is valid). And likewise, if a
parent does not wish their child to watch sex, violence,
swearing on TV, then they should take command and not allow
their child to watch it, not demand that it not be shown on
TV.

In the UK, there is far less censorship of television than
in the USA, yet we're not a nation of gun-toting perverted
psychotics (in general). Not that I'm accusing the USA of
being this, but they DO have a higher percentage of murder
and sex-crimes.

It's odd, because in America you can watch car chases and
graphic operations, but you can't say "fuck" (except on
channels like HBO)... it just seems illogical.

this has been a rambling post, I apologise


 

offline NeoExmnist from United States on 2003-05-20 07:23 [#00706470]
Points: 1385 Status: Lurker | Followup to alnuit: #00706465



i disagree. the people i live around prove my point. when
i got into high school it seemed as though religion became a
fad. everyone claimed christianity, but no one really
followed through. adults are the same; they go to church
with their friends and socialize then wait to do it again
next week.


 

offline NeoExmnist from United States on 2003-05-20 07:28 [#00706475]
Points: 1385 Status: Lurker | Followup to marlowe: #00706469



i definetly agree with you. censorship should be defined by
the parents, but a man should not be able to walk around a
school playground and tell people how much he wants to fuck
the kid on the swingset. he isn't physically harming them
physically, but mental harm is just as bad as physical harm.
if i were 10 years old and i knew people were looking at me
in perversion, i would hate people and be very paranoid.


 

offline marlowe from Antarctica on 2003-05-20 07:29 [#00706479]
Points: 24591 Status: Lurker | Followup to NeoExmnist: #00706475



I agree that a person shouldn't be allowed to force their
opinion onto another when there is no avenue of avoidance.
That is mental abuse, you're right


 

offline NeoExmnist from United States on 2003-05-20 07:31 [#00706483]
Points: 1385 Status: Lurker | Followup to marlowe: #00706479



i think their should be 100% freedom of speech, but the
things you say may have consequences if you offend the
people around you.


 

offline Ceri JC from Jefferson City (United States) on 2003-05-20 07:35 [#00706489]
Points: 23533 Status: Moderator | Followup to alnuit: #00706462 | Show recordbag



Same goes for Henry Miller's tropic of cancer...

Censorship shouldn't apply to things that have artistic
merit. For people who will debate what has artistic merit,
here are some simple guidlines:
Art = Vladimir Nabokov's work
Shock Tactic crap = Damien Hirst's "work"


 

offline mimi on 2003-05-20 07:38 [#00706493]
Points: 5721 Status: Regular



damien hirst, now that's an obnoxious guy who really think's
he's god's gift.


 

offline marlowe from Antarctica on 2003-05-20 07:39 [#00706494]
Points: 24591 Status: Lurker | Followup to NeoExmnist: #00706483



that's life tho - being ready to take the consequences for
your beliefs and your actions -- people should not allow
themselves to be ruled by fear.

Ceri - but then, who decides what is art? Pornography is
defined as that which has no artistic merit but is design to
excite a person sexually - so why aren't all these cheap
adverts manipulating sexuality to whore their products
banned from TV as pornography?


 

offline NeoExmnist from United States on 2003-05-20 07:42 [#00706502]
Points: 1385 Status: Lurker | Followup to marlowe: #00706494



nice point on the second paragraph.

i don't think fear should control your actions, but when you
say whatever you want to, you must know that people will
react. i don't mean law officials when i say people.


 

offline alnuit on 2003-05-20 07:46 [#00706506]
Points: 1113 Status: Lurker | Followup to Ceri JC: #00706489



Agree. And Anais Nin as well. And Sappho who was banned onto
Lesbos. And Salman Rushdie who was(is ?) to be killed...

But you see, who is to decide what is art ? I mean, between
Throbbing Gristle and NIN's broken video...where do you draw
the line ? And who draws it ? And what do you get for not
agreeing with where the line is drawn ?


 

offline Ceri JC from Jefferson City (United States) on 2003-05-20 08:06 [#00706525]
Points: 23533 Status: Moderator | Show recordbag



He he, I had hoped my "For people who will debate what
has artistic merit,
here are some simple guidlines:
Art = Vladimir Nabokov's work
Shock Tactic crap = Damien Hirst's "work"
" would explain
I was being a bit tongue in cheek :)

Good point by Marlowe, I would ban adverts that use sex in a
base and humourless manner. It's shocking how many do- try
either watching with the sound off or listening without
looking at the screen. Somehow they only come across as
innocent when you can see both parts...


 

offline Anus_Presley on 2003-05-20 09:50 [#00706690]
Points: 23472 Status: Lurker



it can be a good
it can be a bad
it goes eitherr way


 

offline Key_Secret from Sverige (Sweden) on 2003-05-20 09:52 [#00706694]
Points: 9325 Status: Regular



All I can say is the mind is a free playground. What happens
outside the mind shouldn't need to be censored if you're a
decent person and your actions do not harm anybody
physically or mentally.


 

offline Anus_Presley on 2003-05-20 10:08 [#00706708]
Points: 23472 Status: Lurker | Followup to Key_Secret: #00706694



thats the point alot of the time, what is harrmful to one is
not to the otherr


 

offline Ceri JC from Jefferson City (United States) on 2003-05-20 10:16 [#00706713]
Points: 23533 Status: Moderator | Followup to Anus_Presley: #00706708 | Show recordbag



Yeah, I think the unabomber's example of how technology
causes stress (Take radios for example, if someone can't
play their music loud in the garden it stresses them out, if
they do, they wind up their neighbours, if there were no
stereos no one would be stressed out by the situation
described) would be a good analogy- if you can't say what
you want it annoys you, if other people say what they like
and you find it offensive it annoys you...

It's a much debated point in law too- you get conflicting
things like freedom of speech and the race relations act-
essentially, if someone is not allowed to make racial slurs,
it is infringing on their right to freedom of speech, no
matter how abhorrent what they are saying may be. If they
can say what they like, it may well be in breach of the race
relations act as it may cause racial tension in the
community.


 

offline mc_303_beatz from Glasgow, Scotland on 2003-05-20 11:41 [#00706782]
Points: 3386 Status: Regular



With censorship on a message board, folk have to remember
that the Internet is archaic and unregulated. As is the
musik discussed on this site, therefore let things flow. No
referee is required


 

offline marlowe from Antarctica on 2003-05-20 11:53 [#00706800]
Points: 24591 Status: Lurker | Followup to mc_303_beatz: #00706782



do you mean 'anarchic and unregulated'?


 

offline corrupted-girl on 2003-05-20 12:55 [#00706881]
Points: 8469 Status: Regular



I dislike how cultures think they NEED censorship.


 


Messageboard index