It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Censorial Left meets the Censorial Right

page: 2
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Problem is that I don't see how to fix it because the ones who don't see it as censorship aren't like to suddenly have an epiphany and see the light, not if they don't really believe they are engaging in censorship to begin with.

And I don't think they do.


It all ties back to the ridiculing of Western culture. We simply do not teach it. They are more likely to give out copies of Communist manifesto in schools than they would John Stuart Mill or John Milton. We are more likely to get multi-culti brainwashing and social justice than we are to hear the arguments for liberty and freedom. We have spat on our legacy so much they now hold it at arms length.




posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



Why you would want to adopt their techniques is beyond me.


It's not their technique, they just found a lot to build on. Roman censor? Plato's philosopher king, immorality of the souls?

The Pax Americana makes frequently use of that with regards to islamist extremism. I'm not saying it's a perfect solution to the underlying problem, quite the opposite actually, but at some point hate is simply hate.
And if you're unable to modify (self-censor) your free speech with regards to basic T&Cs in a human society, you will always run into issues. Right?



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I agree with you.

I don't like seeing people on the Right stooping to the tactics of the Left. Free speech is too important to who we are as a nation to allow censorship of any type.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

By all counts, CNN was simply exercising their own free speech in firing Griffin and Aslan.


I don't agree with that. Penalizing speech, whether through sanction or ostracization or loss of employment, results in censorship.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



Why you would want to adopt their techniques is beyond me.


It's not their technique, they just found a lot to build on. Roman censor? Plato's philosopher king, immorality of the souls?

The Pax Americana makes frequently use of that with regards to islamist extremism. I'm not saying it's a perfect solution to the underlying problem, quite the opposite actually, but at some point hate is simply hate.
And if you're unable to modify (self-censor) your free speech with regards to basic T&Cs in a human society, you will always run into issues. Right?



Hate is hate; it's a feeling. To criminalize a feeling is tyranny.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

And yet... they seem to have quite a few murderous things in common. Which is why I was putting it that way, with regards to the topic at hand, but you're correct in your assessment.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

By all counts, CNN was simply exercising their own free speech in firing Griffin and Aslan.


I don't agree with that. Penalizing speech, whether through sanction or ostracization or loss of employment, results in censorship.


We'll have to agree to disagree on that. I see the employer hold ALL of the risk and, as a result, has every right to effectively censor their employees' public speech. In the case of things said over the air waves paid for by said employer, that is doubly true. This is consistent with my position on private businesses having every right to deny service to anyone based on any reason the business owner has. (i.e. I think it is preposterous that bakers and photographers are being forced by courts to do business with individuals they don't wish to do business with. Let the businesses decide and the free market respond.)



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Free speech isn't cherished anywhere.

It is a cudgel use to beat people into silence.

I try to remain an advocate for free speech, regardless of who is saying it or what is being said.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: burdman30ott6

And yet... they seem to have quite a few murderous things in common. Which is why I was putting it that way, with regards to the topic at hand, but you're correct in your assessment.


"Murderous" spans all political spectra.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

This is can agree with. Where I draw the line is in private or personal speech. It gets muddied when you add in social media though. Is that personal or public?

I am not talking here as any kind of representative of the company I work for, but this is a public space and things said here could be shared far and wide.

Twitter and facebook are even more insidious. Something there can make you an overnight celebrity for better or worse without your intent.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



Why you would want to adopt their techniques is beyond me.


It's not their technique, they just found a lot to build on. Roman censor? Plato's philosopher king, immorality of the souls?

The Pax Americana makes frequently use of that with regards to islamist extremism. I'm not saying it's a perfect solution to the underlying problem, quite the opposite actually, but at some point hate is simply hate.
And if you're unable to modify (self-censor) your free speech with regards to basic T&Cs in a human society, you will always run into issues. Right?



Hate is hate; it's a feeling. To criminalize a feeling is tyranny.


...said the guy in agreement with "tyrannic" board rules. Really? What the fuzz? Hate away all day long as long as you're polite about it?
Feeling something stupid and doing something stupid are two pair of shoes.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Of course they have the right. It's their business. It is up to the employee to uphold contractual obligations. Nonetheless, it is still censorship.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



Why you would want to adopt their techniques is beyond me.


It's not their technique, they just found a lot to build on. Roman censor? Plato's philosopher king, immorality of the souls?

The Pax Americana makes frequently use of that with regards to islamist extremism. I'm not saying it's a perfect solution to the underlying problem, quite the opposite actually, but at some point hate is simply hate.
And if you're unable to modify (self-censor) your free speech with regards to basic T&Cs in a human society, you will always run into issues. Right?



Hate is hate; it's a feeling. To criminalize a feeling is tyranny.


...said the guy in agreement with "tyrannic" board rules. Really? What the fuzz? Hate away all day long as long as you're polite about it?
Feeling something stupid and doing something stupid are two pair of shoes.


Hate away all day if that is required.



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So you believe that people in a business environment should be able to speak their mind and say whatever they want without any repercussions at all?



posted on Jun, 28 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

By all counts, CNN was simply exercising their own free speech in firing Griffin and Aslan.


I don't agree with that. Penalizing speech, whether through sanction or ostracization or loss of employment, results in censorship.


How did it result in censorship, what they said or did hasn't disappeared or been changed in anyway.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1   >>

log in

join