It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: watchandwait410
a reply to: Aphorism
Ignoring it is a hassle and it is a pain in the ass, especially if you think it is common sense.
Everyone has their own opinion but at what point does it become hostile to a persons well being?
We have freedom of speech so it is better to have that then none.
And this period of ten years or so in which literature, even poetry, was mixed up with pamphleteering, did a great service to literary criticism, because it destroyed the illusion of pure aestheticism. It reminded us that propaganda in some form or other lurks in every book, that every work of art has a meaning and a purpose — a political, social and religious purpose — that our aesthetic judgements are always coloured by our prejudices and beliefs. It debunked art for art's sake. But is also led for the time being into a blind alley, because it caused countless young writers to try to tie their minds to a political discipline which, if they had stuck to it, would have made mental honesty impossible.
originally posted by: justwokeup
This censorship push is because the traditional sources of propaganda don't like the fact thier whole 10 or 100 million dollar campaign (on whatever) can get punctured by one guy with a really great meme. They don't like tools of mass influence uncontrolled in the hands of the public.
Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
Do we censor it, hide it away, and criminalize those who believe in it? Do we make it illegal? Or do we win the argument, and in the process allow truth, not force, to dictate its influence?
It isn’t effective marketing, public relations, or state warmongering that influence us, but our own cognitive distortions and lack of critical thinking that leave us susceptible to believing everything we read.
originally posted by: Aphorism
Propaganda is overrated. The demonization and censorship of propaganda is far more dangerous than propaganda itself, simply because one man's propaganda is another man's argument. It isn’t effective marketing, public relations, or state warmongering that influence us, but our own cognitive distortions and lack of critical thinking that leave us susceptible to believing everything we read.
but our own cognitive distortions and lack of critical thinking that leave us susceptible to believing everything we read.
Firstly, your avatar is awesome. The lines... colors.. a pleasure to look at.