Concerns about censorship

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Lorelyen

You've only got to look at the evolution of "woke" on social media to see how censorship has crept in both by followers on social media and government. It's difficult to say anything today even in America without offending someone. And some of the minority groups are getting pretty aggressive. Wrecking people's careers is just the start. And these people can censor the rest of us. There's a saying now that Twitter and Google are editors of the world.

Even the Archbishop of Canterbury, leader of the Anglican church, has started demanding traditional statues and stained-glass windows of Jesus should be taken down to appease the BLM movement....for what reason I can't even guess.

I've cynically suggested that the gov should ban or destroy anything pre-the year 2000. When are they coming around to burn the books?
.

Yes, I've noticed the same aggression. There's a lack of dialogue, people will tear down things and have people's careers destroyed because they say something that goes against the beliefs. There are witch hunters everywhere now. You can't reason with them, they use force. We are going back many decades in time, any genuine progress of understanding one another is eroding..

That Archbishop doesn't seem to appreciate the history of his own tradition. His church developed in a country where most people looked a certain way, just as it applies to the rest of Europe. The historical churches in Egypt, Ethiopia and India will show Jesus and saints in a different way and in different garb.

Books aren't burned yet but are removed from stores, ''cancelled'' as it is now called. Just like movies, cartoons with a police dog, etc. Americans and Brits that saved Europe from the nazis are no longer seen as heroes. What a mess!

[Found Goat]

The unspoken motto that has been embedded in my heart of hearts from day one, without even my having to think of it (as for me it's not a conceptual matter, or an ideological stance, or anything to do with the mind/ego), has always been an innately anti-censorship knowing -- an intuitive sense of the soul, which when phrased reads: I'd rather be offended than muzzled.

Offend me if you must. Sticks and stones, chestnuts and groans. I don't give a blankety-blank. They're only words.

As a passive introvert and pacifist, as one who wouldn't even harm a fly and who regards non-resistance as an admirable and noble quality to have (a la Gandhi), obviously (i.e. it goes without saying), I abhor any type of violence, as do the greater part of humanity. Violence hurts. Words do not.

Words do not. Physically, they don't. Emotionally, at times, they can. A thoughtless remark here, an insult there. That is for freedom-loving and freedom-practicing individuals to civilly decide for themselves, sans the need for and involvement of any intermediary, self-appointed speech police.

All speech police are anti-democratic, intolerant, controlling.

Each and every person on the planet would react to violence the same way: Ow, that's painful. Me don't like. Violence is objective and abhorrent.

When it comes to words that "hurt" or that are accused of being "harmful," we live on a planet of over 7 billion inhabitants, and everyone reacts differently to language, based on any number of factors: religious or political conditioning, or simply on an individual basis the person might be umbrageous, overly sensitive, taken to sobbing at the slightest perceived slight or insensitive remark; or if one has an ego, becoming quickly upset or angry on account of their being "dissed."

It is for the one dissed to learn a lesson in humility, as opposed to wanting to shut up his offender. It is for the one easily given to tears not to be so overly sensitive. Enter the speech police, and very soon others -- perhaps the larger majority -- who are not so easily offended or overly sensitive, are being told in undemocratic fashion what they can and cannot say.

And I haven't even begun to talk about those who -- based on their own freedom of religion and/or expression -- set out to impose their restrictive anti-democratic views on others, only to then twistedly cry intolerance at the slightest of skewedly perceived linguistic offenses. What a bleeping joke this is, if there ever was one!

Those who abide by the principle stated in italics in the opening paragraph of this post have witnessed Western society gradually over the years becoming more and more anti-democratic as far as freedom of speech is concerned. Some have chalked this up to multiculturalism, a noble ideal admittedly but one in acknowledgement of the fact that not everyone wishes to live in a free democratic society but would rather live in an imposing and puritanically theocratic one. Whereas others have pointed the middle finger at would-be totalitarian wolves in sheep's wool, radical progressives who have infiltrated academia and the mainstream media with their anti-democratic self-appointed notions of what is and what isn't acceptable to say in the (cancel) culture.

When I was a kid and would watch television with my family, if there was something my parents didn't want me watching, they'd simply switch the channel or turn off the TV. They certainly didn't and would never call in to some commission to have the program or station removed! They were freedom lovers, after all, not wannabe tyrants. They understood the simple fact that others in their free society might find the program watchable, and were not out to tell others how to live or what to say or, God forbid, what to think, a la a cult.

You can't say that! is the common refrain of the politically correct language police. Sooner or later that person will be told the same thing and enter the domino effect, until everyone is living in psychological straightjackets and tiptoeing on eggshells, which is exactly what anti-democratic groups wish upon the rest of us not of their totalitarian mentality.

If a television or radio talk show offends me, no biggie, I simply stop watching or listening to it. I don't write in to the station or network with my knickers in a twist and demand that the show be removed. If a book is published that I don't like, I don't demand that it be banned. No biggie, I simply will choose not to read it. And in both of these examples, it will have been my decision and no one else's.

If something offends me, I have the freedom to ignore it or the right to be offended. Put simply, and to reiterate, I'd rather be offended than muzzled.

[FallingLeaves]

somewhere in the bible it was stated that god placed all the powers and principalities (including governmental leaders/materialists/everyone else you may have issue with) where they are to specifically further his purpose. They aren't there by accident, they aren't there because they know some magic way to get 'ahead' they are there because god wanted their help to further whatever it is he's got going on. And that is the end of it.

I assume when they are no longer needed for whatever god is doing it would be just as easy for him to take them away as it was to put them there. Meanwhile fighting with them probably isn't in our best interests, given they were put there possibly for our own benefit...

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Lorelyen

Even the Archbishop of Canterbury, leader of the Anglican church, has started demanding traditional statues and stained-glass windows of Jesus should be taken down to appease the BLM movement....for what reason I can't even guess.

I've cynically suggested that the gov should ban or destroy anything pre-the year 2000. When are they coming around to burn the books?
.

Very interesting discussion on the Church of England and how it handles the issues:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NWLNvNbkfY

One argument brought forward is that the Church sees themselves more as political activists instead of offering spiritual care of the community. It tries to flirt with a section of society that isn't even interested in Christianity, whilst alienating a much larger section of society that would be more likely to have an interest in church attendance. That churches were/are closed down, not just services, but also just to people coming in to pray, and this could lead to an even more damaged image.