Gone with the Wind Cancelled

joe40

2u2me wrote: »

I'm objecting to how much censorship happened on the internet during that time.

what sort of things, genuine question I don't know

2u2me

joe40 wrote: »

what sort of things, genuine question I don't know

Basically anyone that was arguing against the lockdown restrictions. That interview with the 2 doctors was a good example.

GiftofGab

Every country in the world has a problem with racism. While it's terrible, I don't think it can be eliminated. It's like crime, you will have to do what you can to reduce it and punish those that commit it but you'll never completely eliminate crime. It's the same with racism.

Quantum Erasure

2u2me wrote: »

Basically anyone that was arguing against the lockdown restrictions.

and all the 5G stuff that was censored as well.... :rolleyes:

2u2me

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

and all the 5G stuff that was censored as well.... :rolleyes:

You cannot separate the air that chokes from the air upon which wings beat.

Meaning the freedom of speech is also the freedom to be wrong. The freedom to be rebutted. What if the censorship was wrong? You have Fauci now in the US admitting that they recommended against mask use because they had a shortage.

I'm not happy with being told what's good for me for my own good.

na1

Skin whitening is A RACISM!

“Conversations over the past few weeks highlighted that some product names or claims on our Neutrogena and Clean & Clear dark-spot reducer products represent fairness or white as better than your own unique skin tone,”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/19/business/johnson-and-johnson-skin-whitening-cream.html

DrPhilG

Is fake tan racist too?

These crafty women have been using subtle blackface all these years!

1800_Ladladlad

Michael Jackson has been spotted wearing blackface in his childhood.No one is safe.

kowloon

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

Lol, Things are going peak sensitive, what a crap time to live in.

What the fcuk? Is it offensive to Xenomorphs?

1800_Ladladlad

na1 wrote: »

Skin whitening is A RACISM!

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/19/business/johnson-and-johnson-skin-whitening-cream.html

img

fly_agaric

2u2me wrote: »

You cannot separate the air that chokes from the air upon which wings beat.

Meaning the freedom of speech is also the freedom to be wrong. The freedom to be rebutted. What if the censorship was wrong? You have Fauci now in the US admitting that they recommended against mask use because they had a shortage.

I'm not happy with being told what's good for me for my own good.

Can't really get behind that "US" conception of freedom of speech (or indeed freedom in general).

A toddler like "freedom" to do exactly what I like and say what I want + fcuk everyone else and the horse they rode in on.

I don't believe in any absolute freedom to spread lies, bollox, conspiracies, and pseudoscience + pass them off as truth (around issues like public health in particular).

1800_Ladladlad

L'oreal must have transition year students in the charge of their PR relations too.

Munroe Bergdorf made history in 2017 when she was hired as the face of a L'Oréal U.K. campaign, making her the brand's first transgender model. Bergdorf rehired at L'Oréal, 3 years after being fired over white supremacy comments.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/munroe-bergdorf-rehired-l-or-al-3-years-after-being-n1228376

The Titan Who Founded L’Oréal, Eugène Schueller, Prospered Under the Nazis, fell in with the Nazi-sympathizers of German-occupied France and emerged from the war as successful as ever.

Schueller was also connected with notorious German official Helmut Knochen, the commander of police and security for the SS intelligence service. Actively involved in the deportation of French Jews to the Nazi death camps, Knochen was also responsible for the execution of several thousand French Resistance members and civilian hostages. Interrogated by French intelligence services after the war, he listed Schueller among his “voluntary collaborators.” In 1947, French investigators discovered a list of 45 “agents of Knochen.” Among them: “E. Schueller. Businessman.”

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/titan-who-founded-loreal-built-his-brand-shoulders-nazis-180964805/

Own goal from L'Oreal

Quantum Erasure

kowloon wrote: »

What the fcuk? Is it offensive to Xenomorphs?

yeah, its extremely xenophobic

Silentcorner

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

L'oreal must have transition year students in the charge of their PR relations too.

Munroe Bergdorf made history in 2017 when she was hired as the face of a L'Oréal U.K. campaign, making her the brand's first transgender model. Bergdorf rehired at L'Oréal, 3 years after being fired over white supremacy comments.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/munroe-bergdorf-rehired-l-or-al-3-years-after-being-n1228376

The Titan Who Founded L’Oréal, Eugène Schueller, Prospered Under the Nazis, fell in with the Nazi-sympathizers of German-occupied France and emerged from the war as successful as ever.




https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/titan-who-founded-loreal-built-his-brand-shoulders-nazis-180964805/

Own goal from L'Oreal

They still have Amber Heard on their books...you know, the one who has allegedly s##t on her husbands bed, chopped off the top of his finger, physically abused him on multiple occasions....then painted bruises on her face and got a court to grant her a restraining order...which would go on to cost her husband $millions in lost revenue.

A right bunch of charmers working in that company alright!!!

2u2me

fly_agaric wrote: »

Can't really get behind that "US" conception of freedom of speech (or indeed freedom in general).

A toddler like "freedom" to do exactly what I like and say what I want + fcuk everyone else and the horse they rode in on.

I don't believe in any absolute freedom to spread lies, bollox, conspiracies, and pseudoscience + pass them off as truth (around issues like public health in particular).

It seems you have identified a problem with people free to speak their mind and opinion.

What about the unintended consequences of removing the freedom to one's opinion and the freedom to express it; have you considered those?

Which is worse?

1800_Ladladlad

Silentcorner wrote: »

They still have Amber Heard on their books...you know, the one who has allegedly s##t on her husbands bed, chopped off the top of his finger, physically abused him on multiple occasions....then painted bruises on her face and got a court to grant her a restraining order...which would go on to cost her husband $millions in lost revenue.

A right bunch of charmers working in that company alright!!!

#BelieveHer

Tony EH

fly_agaric wrote: »

Can't really get behind that "US" conception of freedom of speech (or indeed freedom in general).

A toddler like "freedom" to do exactly what I like and say what I want + fcuk everyone else and the horse they rode in on.

I don't believe in any absolute freedom to spread lies, bollox, conspiracies, and pseudoscience + pass them off as truth (around issues like public health in particular).

Free speech is free speech, end of. I wholeheartedly subscribe to the Noam Chomsky view on that. You are either for it or against it.

Into the bargain, you don't combat "lies, bollox, conspiracies, and pseudoscience" by banning or censoring it. You combat it by better speech. Besides, in order to determine what the above is, there would need to be a body that stands in determination of such things and that can be manipulated and distorted.

Remember, just a few short decades ago, people were called "pseudoscientists" for discussing Darwin's evolutionary principles.

Being against free speech in its purist form means that you set up a trap whereby the speech you agree with may one day be considered worthy of censorship by other parties interested in pushing the opposite view.

joe40

Tony EH wrote: »

Free speech is free speech, end of. I wholeheartedly subscribe to the Noam Chomsky view on that. You are either for it or against it.

Into the bargain, you don't combat "lies, bollox, conspiracies, and pseudoscience" by banning or censoring it. You combat it by better speech. Besides, in order to determine what the above is, there would need to be a body that stands in determination of such things and that can be manipulated and distorted.

Remember, just a few short decades ago, people were called "pseudoscientists" for discussing Darwin's evolutionary principles.

Being against free speech in its purist form means that you set up a trap whereby the speech you agree with may one day be considered worthy of censorship by other parties interested in pushing the opposite view.

I 99% agree, the one objection would be hate speech promoting terrorism. I know that is hard to define but I don't think the right to free speech should be absolutely unlimited.

Otherwise I agree, the best way to counter opinions you disagree with is better arguments.

Tony EH

joe40 wrote: »

I 99% agree, the one objection would be hate speech promoting terrorism. I know that is hard to define but I don't think the right to free speech should be absolutely unlimited.

Otherwise I agree, the best way to counter opinions you disagree with is better arguments.

That's breaking the law, however, because it's promoting violence. This has nothing to do with free speech and the exchange of ideas.

Anyone saying that people should be killed because of a set of beliefs they have is running afoul of the law, not the concept of free speech.

joe40

Tony EH wrote: »

That's breaking the law, however, because it's promoting violence. This has nothing to do with free speech and the exchange of ideas.

Anyone saying that people should be killed because of a set of beliefs they have is running afoul of the law, not the concept of free speech.

The problem is defining exactly what constitutes hate speech.

fly_agaric

Tony EH wrote: »

Free speech is free speech, end of. I wholeheartedly subscribe to the Noam Chomsky view on that. You are either for it or against it.

Into the bargain, you don't combat "lies, bollox, conspiracies, and pseudoscience" by banning or censoring it. You combat it by better speech. Besides, in order to determine what the above is, there would need to be a body that stands in determination of such things and that can be manipulated and distorted.

Remember, just a few short decades ago, people were called "pseudoscientists" for discussing Darwin's evolutionary principles.

Being against free speech in its purist form means that you set up a trap whereby the speech you agree with may one day be considered worthy of censorship by other parties interested in pushing the opposite view.

I think there are objective facts/truth and lies although it seems to me sometimes that people are less and less willing to believe that any more. You cannot beat back such lies with just "better (?) speech" if the liars are permitted the biggest megaphones and platforms available, have lots of money and buy experts in human psychology to help them craft their messages.

You take a very idealistic viewpoint that no country implements in full, not even the freedom loving USA afaik where spreading lies about people or organisations can still sometimes get you your soapbox taken away + you sued occassionally if the subject has the money/resources/will.

In all countries, even our democracies with alot of freedom of speech there are various bodies effectively making that sort of determination (re facts/truth and lies) each day or trying to in general good faith to the best of current available knowledge, the state, profesional organisations, various experts, the legal system etc.

This is all perhaps tangential to the subject of corporate censorship/restrictions on art and entertainment which is more the subject of the thread I think...so probably should have kept my "speech" to myself in this case!

2u2me wrote: »

It seems you have identified a problem with people free to speak their mind and opinion.

What about the unintended consequences of removing the freedom to one's opinion and the freedom to express it; have you considered those?

Which is worse?

I'm undecided. Think many democracies are getting a live demonstration over last few years of the huge damage very well funded and crafted lies spread about under rubrik of absolute "free speech" can do.

Tony EH

fly_agaric wrote: »

I think there are objective facts/truth and lies although it seems to me sometimes that people are less and less willing to believe that any more. You cannot beat back such lies with just "better (?) speech" if the liars are permitted the biggest megaphones and platforms available, have lots of money and buy experts in human psychology to help them craft their messages.

You don't beat anything with censorship. That will just drive things underground, regardless of the content. Into the bargain, it makes it desirable to seek out as well.

fly_agaric wrote: »

You take a very idealistic viewpoint that no country implements in full, not even the freedom loving USA afaik where spreading lies about people or organisations can still sometimes get you your soapbox taken away + you sued occassionally if the subject has the money/resources/will.

It's pragmatic. It has to be absolute. Because you free speech you like today may be the target of someone else in the future and you'll find that the ideas you agree with under attack. In fact, look to the past and there's a good chance that you see theories and ideas that you support the target of those they disagreed with.

What you are talking about with "spreading lies about people or organisations" is law breaking. Defamation and slander are not free speech and are subject to prosecution.

fly_agaric wrote: »

In all countries, even our democracies with alot of freedom of speech there are various bodies effectively making that sort of determination (re facts/truth and lies) each day or trying to in general good faith to the best of current available knowledge, the state, profesional organisations, various experts, the legal system etc.

They are. But doesn't necessarily make them correct or even desirable. Such bodies will have to be taken on a case by case basis.

It still doesn't change the fact that free speech has to be applied evenly, for the reasons I've already said.

fly_agaric wrote: »

This is all perhaps tangential to the subject of corporate censorship/restrictions on art and entertainment which is more the subject of the thread I think...so probably should have kept my "speech" to myself in this case!

It probably is and in any case, corporate entities are free to impose whatever censorship they please regarding the product they have in their bag of wears. A business, any business, is free to decide what they want to allow and what to restrict and as a private enterprise, nobody has a leg to stand on in opposition to that in any real terms.

Free speech doesn't exist in the private, corporate, world. It never has.

fly_agaric wrote: »

I'm undecided. Think many democracies are getting a live demonstration over last few years of the huge damage very well funded and crafted lies spread about under rubrik of absolute "free speech" can do.

It would be remiss of me to suggest that there a no problems with free speech. But they are less problematic than the issues that arise with censorship, because I'll repeat, one day the censor will be silencing things you believe and hold dear.

2u2me

joe40 wrote: »

The problem is defining exactly what constitutes hate speech.

Hate speech is a catch all term that doesn't really mean anything, or rather it means what people want it to mean.

A man doing a joke video with his pug dog was considered 'hate speech'.

fly_agaric

Tony EH wrote: »

It's pragmatic. It has to be absolute. Because you free speech you like today may be the target of someone else in the future and you'll find that the ideas you agree with under attack. In fact, look to the past and there's a good chance that you see theories and ideas that you support the target of those they disagreed with.

....

What you are talking about with "spreading lies about people or organisations" is law breaking. Defamation and slander are not free speech and are subject to prosecution.

I agree with most of what you are saying, but there seems to be an implicit contradiction there. Laws are just a codified/agreed morality and there are laws against defamation because of the harm it can do.
Such laws mean in practice that freedom of speech is not "absolute" and you may be punished pretty harshly for publishing something defamatory which is of course a restriction on speech. The case is I think similar to "hate speech" mentioned above.
I'd be of the opinion that certain other speech should be illegal also. I probably draw the line in a different place to you.

Tony EH wrote: »

They are. But doesn't necessarily make them correct or even desirable. Such bodies will have to be taken on a case by case basis.

It is better than a free for all world without them IMO where equal weight is given to coronavirus conspiracy theorist with the bully pulpit of social media & alot of followers to disseminate his "free speech", and a government health agency.

Tony EH

fly_agaric wrote: »

I agree with most of what you are saying, but there seems to be an implicit contradiction there. Laws are just a codified/agreed morality and there are laws against defamation because of the harm it can do.
Such laws mean in practice that freedom of speech is not "absolute" and you may be punished pretty harshly for publishing something defamatory which is of course a restriction on speech. The case is I think similar to "hate speech" mentioned above.
I'd be of the opinion that certain other speech should be illegal also. I probably draw the line in a different place to you.

The likes of defamation laws are fairly easy to write up though and such laws don't infringe upon the freedom of people to exchange ideas in general. Deliberate slander and defamation clearly cross over and away from freedom of speech in discussion and are quite a different prospect.

Laws against people's beliefs, as they stand at the point time and no matter how absurd one might think they are, are not. That opens up not only a can of worms, but a whole factory making them.

In addition, defamation is also usually rather easy to spot, or at least eventually spot.

Again though, I am not saying that freedom of speech is gloriously free of any problematic areas. Such freedoms generally do carry an element of risk. But as I said earlier those problems are of a far less impact than having a situation where speech is subject to a censor, because censors change.

Quantum Erasure

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

Lol, Things are going peak sensitive, what a crap time to live in.
ALIENS this film has outdated attitudes, language, and cultural depictions which may cause offence today...

it caused offence at the time, i know Bill Paxton was a good actor, but he could be pure cringe sometimes...

da_miser

Silence of the lambs, apparently its Transphobic , buffalo bill is problematic in todays SJW world.

Biker79

Has there ever been a time in human history when so many useless people gained so much influence? In the 90's/00s..crusties and hippies were often jeered but they were harmless. People didn't pay much attention to them. It was as much a passing phase as being into punk/ metal..etc..

" If you're not a leftie in your twenties, you have no heart. If you're a leftie in your 40s you have no brain ( or work for a media company that needs to signal virtue to keep advertisers happy ) "

A poignant story out of the US - An Antifa/ BLM protestor got nabbed by the FBI for throwing a molotov cocktail at a police car.

What struck me from the article was how pretty this person was in her (presumably ) mid-twenties. Then, disaster strikes...she gets caught up in a militant left cult. At the age of 33 she is barely recognizable...very overweight, crude tattoos,..hair unkempt. What happened to her?

Actually quite sad to see because it represents so many of those protestors. Their issues are more personal than external and they cant see it.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11896821/lore-elisabeth-blumenthal-floyd-george-cops-car-fire/

da_miser

Biker79 wrote: »

What struck me from the article was how pretty this person was in her (presumably ) mid-twenties. Then, disaster strikes...she gets caught up in a militant left cult. At the age of 33 she is barely recognizable...very overweight, crude tattoos,..hair unkempt. What happened to her?

Actually quite sad to see because it represents so many of those protestors. Their issues are more personal than external and they cant see it.

Leftisim! Not even once, more dangerous than heroin
See mouldylocks for the perfect example of the lefist mind virus in action, sad.

1800_Ladladlad

da_miser wrote: »

Silence of the lambs, apparently its Transphobic , buffalo bill is problematic in todays SJW world.

Why because buffalo bill portrays mentally ill murdering psychopath?