Tuesday, March 2, 2021

What is missing from this definition of censorship

The word "Government",  that's what.  I was unable to find one dictionary that said censorship is only when the government does it.  That, of course, is the excuse of the Left as censorship, like racism, becomes officially endorsed and codified in our country.  

Last year saw 'Equity not Equality' emerge, which was merely a way to officially resurrect racism and racial discrimination.  It says, basically, that seeking a color blind society where all are equal is racism.  The correct way to address ethnicity is to judge, condemn or exonerate based on skin color, and provide benefits or strip benefits based on skin color.  Jim Crow done right.

Now, almost overnight, we have censorship.  If literature, film, art or music offends the demographic group that matters, it must be banned.  And on a point of technicality, it isn't censorship since apparently, as of now, censorship only exists when it's the government passing laws do do so.  Otherwise, it isn't censorship.  It's good ethics.

For me, that's like saying the world is flat.  All my young life, through school and college, in the media and press, it wasn't just the government that could censor.  Censorship started at home.  If we weren't willing to tolerate, respect, and allow for divergent beliefs and expressions, no matter how offensive, we were fascists.  Copious examples were used: a record store owner not wanting to carry Madonna's Like a Virgin album; the old Fantastic Beatles Boycott of the 1960s; a Florida dentist sending video types of Daytime Talk Shows to their sponsors resulting in some sponsors pulling their ads. From professors, authors, entertainers, teachers to news anchors like the late Peter Jennings, nothing said teetering on the edge of Big Brother more that instances like these. 

So once again, we have something that was sacred mantra for me growing up, something repeated a million times a year by our liberal nation as good, that's suddenly bad.  And that which was equally called evil and wrong is now good. 

Judging based on skin color, banning offensive literature or art, suppressing hate speech, violence, imposing values on others, judging others, forgiveness and reconciliation - all of these things are the polar opposite of what I learned from our liberal nation in the 70s and 80s.  As I tell my boys, it's almost as if my whole life I heard liberals say they only wanted a nation where all animals are equal.  Now that the Left has complete power, having won over Corporate America, it now can modify that by saying we must concede that some animals are more equal than others.

Expect the Leftist revolution to go the same way all other revolutions that pull such tricks go.  It won't be pretty.  But we're the ones who let it happen.  Shame on us. 

9 comments:

  1. We cannot oppose censorship in principle, because that would entail allowing child pornography (amongst other horrors). So the problem is not censorship per se, but the abuse of censorship. Abusus non tollit usum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right there of course. But here's my thing. I am actually not against it in some vague, general sense. What I'm against is that the side that forever said people - like Christians - were three paces from Himmler because they dared say things (like pornography, or blaspheme, or other goodies) were wrong and, worse, shouldn't be allowed in public places, or on network TV. The post-war liberal solution? Complete openness and tolerance of all things. Which, of course, it never intended. As we're now seeing. And the excuse they are using right now is that it's only censorship, and therefore only wrong, when the government does it.

      Delete
    2. Sure, but that's an objection to hypocrisy and dishonesty, not censorship; though of course you object also to the abuse.

      It's like the case with the police. No sane person wants to get rid of all police. Also, no sane person want a police state. Stupidity on one extreme cannot be allowed to drive us to the other extreme.

      Delete
    3. True. Unfortunately, the history of the human race seems to be a constant jump from one extreme to another and back again. Every generation over corrects the previous generation's extremes.

      Delete
    4. Technically my post was more on the hypocrisy than the censorship. Though, if you think on it, they're not really being hypocritical. They're still acting as if censorship is bad. They're just changing the definition. It's more dishonesty than hypocrisy.

      Delete
    5. Next you'll be telling us they have changed the definitions of marriage, man, and woman.

      Delete
  2. Of course that leaves the obvious solution to all of this 'unbalance' of extremes: Put God back in our society and censor anyone who is against it. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah. That would fly like saying 'since we're now ok with banning offensive content, can we bring back the debate about banning pornography?' See how long that lasts.

      Delete

Let me know your thoughts