Censorship

[Ron Smythberg]

Well this thread is obviously inspired by the fact "Hare Geist" (the new moderator of this forum) shut down my thread about Jews the second I posted it.

I now understand that discussions on Jewish people or things related to them are not something the moderators here want discussed (obviously for their own reasons). So I will play along and stop my talk of these folk here.

But the fact that my curiosity was suppressed so quickly and without really any explanation gave me a new thought: "Does censorship of certain issues or ideas, ever successfully quell their presence within the general consciousness?".

Personally I see that throughout history, the act of censorship actually has a reverse effect of what those performing it intend.

I believe the only way to resolve troubling issues is not suppress, but to discuss.

Thoughts and others viewpoints on this issue is appreciated.

[Mufasa09]

My viewpoint is that right now its best to go with the majority. Most people don't want nudity on public television, for example, and so it shouldn't be put on. It's easier to have an upset minority than an upset majority.

Its a crappy system

[dagnabitt]

FYI I feel the "jewish question" is valid. I find Jewish history and culture fascinating. The problem is that race issues are not treated with respect around here, and inevtably wind up being the same old idiotic song and dance. IE, the thread has good potential, worded as it is, to degenerate into something we as mods dont want here. We dont want to censor, but this is how we're moderating the forum. Plus Ron, you have a history of trolling, which, like it or not, puts you on thin ice. I might not have closed that thread, but I think Hare was well within good conscience to do so - particularly the way its worded. If you disagree, shoot him an email and plead your case.

Also, this thread needs to remain about censorship in general, not about that closed thread, or it will be moved to bitch and moan.

Cheers.

[easeoflife22]

Censorship is there to keep us from venturing thoughts too far from the reality we are expected to believe. If we weren't censored, people would simply start to realize that reality is an organized matrix for the good of the majority. However, for those of us that rise above this system of control, we are free to do whatever we want.

As for your thread, Jews are probably the most hated race/religion in the world and they don't need anymore press pointing to their extreme hypocrisies and power mongering. If you do like to think about racial stuff, I suggest getting a book called "A practical guide to racism". The authors last name was Dalton. Freemasons know the truth about the world. If you're decently educated, you'll find the book hilarious.

[JoePedo]

I, for one, shall take this opportunity to object to the R&P censorship in this forum.

Sure, they tend to degrade. 'n they tend to degrade mostly because of the same fuckwits on both counts, to be honest.

But truly - does the existence of a "percieved potential future risk" that there will exist someone who would use speech poorly justify the removal of right to speech? I would say the opposite - that to apply speech towards the furtherance of humanity requires and relies on not only the allowance, but the embrace, of speech so free that it will be misused.

Human advancement relies more on the "infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters" thought-experiment than it does on rarified selectivity.

I could (and do) go farther, and appeal to constitutional patriotism - is this &totse, the &totse upon which NirvanaNet was founded, which rests upon its charter? And this is a true and legitimate statement... but I phrase my objection to this censorship not on this censorship, but on censorship itself, and not on this board, but on speech itself, for the good of all humanity - for great justice, as seen throughout the progression of history.

God knows that the Athenian marketplace had greater freedom of inquiry than europe during the black plague. How are they remembered, their philosophies, in history? Is this not a warning, both to dagnabit and hare_geist, and to all who would curtail speech in the misguided belief that it will make speech more civilized?

It is instead the very foundation of the barbarism it seeks to avoid.

[Hare_Geist]

If you read the thread dagnabitt made on race and pedo threads, you will see that we are not stopping you from discussing the topics, but making new threads about them. You can still discuss them, if you wish, by posting in already existing threads that are about racism and peadophilia.

[Ron Smythberg]

To easeoflife: Yeah I think I know a bit on Jews. But all that stuff supposedly attributed to them (power mongering, etc) bugs me and I wish I could of made a thread to try to come to some kind of clearer understanding. Thanks for the recommendation, I may read that, and yeah, if written by masons then It probably has some truth in it, haha.

I don't think my thread was technically a "Race" thread as I wasn't going into the "race" part of Judaism, but I guess you guys are really touchy about talk of Jews for some personal reasons. I can see what you mean by degenerate, but alot of threads degenerate and usually the rational people ignore the degenerate posts and try to lead a productive conversation. I also do believe race and pedophilia discussions should be allowed here.

Yes Ease, It seems much of censorship is an attempt to maintain the status quo. The government and those in charge are against any kind of advancement in thought. Probably with good reason. If we change the way we think, "they" could lose money. An example I think of this was the Hippy movement. This movement lost the corporations tons of money as the youth of America were not spending as they "should".

I suppose the only Government that probably would not be for censorship is the one proposed by Ron Paul. He would probably see censorship as an intervention of the "free market". Damn you Americans better elect this guy.

Edit: That Dalton guy's real name is Sam Means. He is a former writer for Saturday Night Live. I don't think he is a Mason.

[dagnabitt]

Originally Posted by JoePedo

I, for one, shall take this opportunity to object to the R&P censorship in this forum.

Sure, they tend to degrade. 'n they tend to degrade mostly because of the same fuckwits on both counts, to be honest.

But truly - does the existence of a "percieved potential future risk" that there will exist someone who would use speech poorly justify the removal of right to speech? I would say the opposite - that to apply speech towards the furtherance of humanity requires and relies on not only the allowance, but the embrace, of speech so free that it will be misused.

Human advancement relies more on the "infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters" thought-experiment than it does on
rarified selectivity.

I could (and do) go farther, and appeal to constitutional patriotism - is this &totse, the &totse upon which NirvanaNet was founded, which rests upon its charter? And this is a true and legitimate statement... but I phrase my objection to this censorship not on this censorship, but on censorship itself, and not on this board, but on speech itself, for the good of all humanity - for great justice, as seen throughout the progression of history.

God knows that the Athenian marketplace had greater freedom of inquiry than europe during the black plague. How are they remembered, their philosophies, in history? Is this not a warning, both to dagnabit and hare_geist, and to all who would curtail speech in the misguided belief that it will make speech more civilized?

It is instead the very foundation of the barbarism it seeks to avoid.

Yes well, you're a baby raping piece of shit.

Noone has prevented you from having your say. Feel free to bump any of the threads already covering these sacred cows you feel are so important. No issues have been "banned".

If you cant grasp the difference between "doing whatever you want, because YOU want to" and "free speech", you've got about as much insight into the issue as an 8 year old.

You are not entitled to carte blanche rule on a subject or in a forum just because you feel you should. This is why Totse has mods. Every act of moderation is that of limiting a users use of the site for their own personal ends. This is very different from "censorship" and "free speech". If you dont like it, find another site - or write to the Admins and ask them to get rid of the mods. Otherwise, its a big internet. Stop being a whiny bitch and find somewhere you like better.

[JoePedo]

Originally Posted by dagnabitt

Yes well, you're a baby raping piece of shit.

...and that still makes me better than a breeder.

Originally Posted by dagnabitt

Noone has prevented you from having your say. Feel free to bump any of the threads already covering these sacred cows you feel are so important.

Rant completely off-topic? On someone else's thread?

Doesn't that usually get one infracted?

Originally Posted by dagnabitt

you've got about as much insight into the issue as an 8 year old.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by dagnabitt

If you cant grasp the difference between "doing whatever you want, because YOU want to" and "free speech"

If you can't grasp the difference between "doing whatever you want," which is not free speech, and "saying whatever you want," which is free speech...

...then I invite you to strive for the insight of many an eight year old I have met, post haste.

Originally Posted by dagnabitt

You are not entitled to carte blanche rule on a subject or in a forum just because you feel you should. This is why Totse has mods. Every act of moderation is that of limiting a users use of the site for their own personal ends. This is very different from "censorship" and "free speech". If you dont like it, find another site - or write to the Admins and ask them to get rid of the mods. Otherwise, its a big internet. Stop being a whiny bitch and find somewhere you like better.

Easily butthurt, much?

[Ron Smythberg]

Originally Posted by dagnabitt

Noone has prevented you from having your say. Feel free to bump any of the threads already covering these sacred cows you feel are so important. No issues have been "banned".

Okay Dagnabbit I ran a search of Humanities for the term "Jews" so I could bump a thread and get a conversation going. Unfortunately not a single thread devoted to what I was discussing existed. Unless I am allowed to have a thread on Jews, then yeah, you are censoring certain subjects you personally do not want discussed.

It appears that your quote up there isn't exactly honest. I know you never, in plain words, said talk about Jews and their activities are not allowed here, but the circumstances you laid out pretty much ensure no further discussion.

I also believe this is an infraction against what Totse stands for. I don't buy at all Dagnabbit's idea of the role of a Moderator. He seems to think of it as being some kind of ruler. We are his peons and we are meant to act how he'd like us. Nah. Thats bullshit. A Moderator is meant to serve the forum. If there is a thread better suited somewhere else he moves it, if there is a thread that has diverged too far from it's intended subject he informs those involved it would be better to get back on subject.

All this "I don't like seeing threads on -----" (fill in the blanks), "so I will put on outright ban on that subject matter", is a disgrace to Totse.