0
34

[–] The_Adventurist 0 points 34 points (+34|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Great argument, furthermore it should be argued that dangerously bad ideas do not need to be censored to be defeated, a far more potent solution is to simply let this person say their bad, possibly hateful idea, so you can soundly defeat it with reason and expose it for the hateful nonsense it is using logic. Say you are presented with two products, one being kept hidden away from you by your parents so you don't even know what it looks like or what it does and the other, in plain view, operating badly and possibly injuring bystanders. Are you going to be more attracted to the hidden, secret product or the plain to see terrible one? Even if they both end up being the same exact thing, people will always be more attracted to the hidden thing than the shown thing, that curiosity is part of the human condition. Censoring an idea only increases its appeal while allowing it to be free and do ideological battle against far better ideas will show everyone why it's a bad idea or why it doesn't make sense.

Censorship might feel comfortable for people who agree with the censor, but the censor is a human and can be subject to change in attitude, so one day you might find yourself on the receiving end of the censor's wrath.

Lastly, does anyone know of a time when censorship actually made things better? Is there any point in history where we look back and think, "good on you, censors, thanks for fighting the good fight". Was it McCarthyism? What about when network standards and practices wouldn't let Lucille Ball say the word "pregnant" on TV because it was too obscene for TV audiences? The best art comes despite the censors, not because of them. Really, I am curious if there's an example of censorship being a good thing for everyone outside of sensitive military intelligence reports.

1
4

[–] I_like_stuff 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

Well if I may speak freely here (pun intended) Not all "bad ideas" are bad ideas. He even gives examples in this video. I disagree with your comment because you going against the opposite of what he said by people believing in their own truths. Logic is not a measured in a form that plays the same role for everyone. Take poker for example. There are lots of ways to get to a conclusion that might not be the same as how the other guy got to the same conclusion. If you took two people who played the exact same hands against another guy, a lot of times the way they made their decision were not the same.

0
5

[–] PlayByPlayAnnouncer 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Further, it's actually important that bad ideas and bad logic are put on display so that people can familiarize themselves with it and recognize it.

This is the great evil of paternalism: it treats people like children, and so children is what they remain.

0
0

[–] The_Adventurist 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

"Logic is not a measured in a form that plays the same role for everyone."

But it is, though. It is exactly measured in a form that is the same for everyone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

I think the misunderstanding here is you're thinking I mean "logic" in a colloquial form instead of the philosophical/scientific form of the term "logic". Logical form is an incredibly important tool for providing valid reasoning.

When people are shouting "AD HOMINEM!!" that's a reference to logical form and how to spot a logical fallacy, an invalid argument. Usually people don't actually care to study logical form or really know what the fallacies are and as such they use the terms incorrectly all the time. When someone isn't making an argument at all but rather just insulting someone, the insulted person goes, "I know you're wrong because you have to resort to ad hominem attacks!" which is also an illogical statement, being a "fallacy fallacy", demonstrating their ignorance of what fallacies and logical form actually is.

So there is actually a set structure to logic that anyone can use to debate their point. If you can logically argue your point then it can only be considered on it's merits, not on it's fashionability or whether or not it's tasteful. That's the whole point of using logic.

If you ever get the chance to take a class in Logic, I'd go for it. It makes you a better decision maker and debater, plus I thought it was a lot of fun.

0
1

[–] threelite 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

But when you don't have any logic or facts to make a counterargument, you're left with only your feefees! You wouldn't dare suggest that feefees are irrelevant? I believe that is mansplaining, sir.

0
0

[–] 1F4A9 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Lastly, does anyone know of a time when censorship actually made things better?

Hate to be the devil's advocate here, but post-WW2 Germany comes to mind. But it's pretty ridiculous that they are keeping the censorship 70 years later. Germany doesn't have to be denazified anymore.

0
0

[–] The_Adventurist 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Hmmm, interesting example. I hadn't thought about that before. I guess it was primarily to keep Germans from being drawn into any possible domestic resistance/terror groups that might spring up in the aftermath of the war, using Hitler as some kind of martyr for their cause.

0
19

[–] KoKansei 0 points 19 points (+19|-0) ago  (edited ago)

To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.

-- Voltaire

0
1

[–] DeliciousGuave 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Sad day for our aussie brothers. I hope they don't try to fuck with the internet freedoms of Australia. I will be very bitter if they deprive me of aussie humor.

0
2

[–] EckyThump 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

It's already beginning. The mental framework is in place.

Interestingly the transformation that reddit is going through will be a foreshadowing for our personal freedoms

[–] [deleted] 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
5

[–] Aramande [S] 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Well, crazy depends on if they stand up to the men-hating movement within feminism that seems to be the at least vocal part of it now a days. I for one prefer Egalitarianism, equality for all. :)

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
5

[–] un_salamandre 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Wise words. Also, I really like the fact that voat is a good place for this.

0
3

[–] EckyThump 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I agree. Though I'm free to disagree

2
-1

[–] Hellenomania 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

He's a far right wing crack pot who is trying to advocate the destruction of truth in news to allow wholesale propaganda.

Look into him one inch and your cock will fall off in horror - he is a fucking tard.

0
4

[–] un_salamandre 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

How is his persona related to the wise-ness of his message?

0
0

[–] JohnnyKaboom 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Look into him one inch and your cock will fall off in horror - he is a fucking tard.>

Yeah the video is full of Hyperbole with only a few substantiated/cited cases, and it's pretty obvious it has a political agenda when he's referring to specific legislation. However, The line my cock will fall off in horror is the best quote I'm going to hear today so +1 for you.

0
4

[–] Moondanther 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Worth noting that this video was made in 2012, I believe it died a natural death, both sides of politics rely on the media for support and this would have got them all offside.

0
2

[–] Aramande [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The message of the video still holds true though. Free speech is always a contested point, and even though they may not be any power hungry individuals going after it at the moment, doesn't mean it's any less valuable. Sometimes people need to be reminded of what free speech actually means, so that we can properly utilize it.

0
0

[–] Moondanther 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

By a quick skimming of the report, I can see where it was coming from (Britain's phone hacking scandal was a catalyst) and can see why they were trying to bring some sections of the media back under control but it had the ability to be used differently.

For Americans, the freedoms given away during the War on Terror and War on Drugs probably seemed small at first too, there may have even been promises that it would never be used on innocents or even that there will always be checks and balances but these things morph over time, and next thing you know you are one step away from an Orwellian nightmare.

I personally agree with the video even though I don't think it was created with "the best interest of the public" in mind, the cynic in me sees that media outlets (and specifically Murdoch) had much more to lose than the average person and would have been the driving force behind the pro free speech agenda.

1
3

[–] AntoineDoinel 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Very interesting.

Thx for sharing!

0
2

[–] NinjaPeppers 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Does anyone know the name of the actually policy this video is talking about?

This chap, said to share the video but hasn't presented any supporting links or documentation to the thing he is in debate against.

0
2

[–] Hellenomania 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

He's and extremist right wing shill who is trying to advocate for the removal of laws governing libel, slander and media integrity in Australia - a fucking cunt.

0
0

[–] NinjaPeppers 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I would argue that mainstream media doesn't have integrity these days. It is very difficult to find a news paper where articles aren't biased and obviously slanted by the authors view. The reality is that media companies provide what sells and what sells is fear-mongering, pandering to an audience, emotional stories and what ultimately can be described as a story.

PS: What I am describing as a lack of integrity is likely different to what you had in mind when you wrote your comment. I have no opinion about the bloke who posted the video other then he had an agenda to push by presenting it.

0
0

[–] Moondanther 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The policy hasn't been enacted yet but is being proposed/debated (well it was in 2012 when the report was released).

While the video makes a lot of points why it's bad, one can also look at the positive effects on some of the more extreme media companies. Imagine if Fox news in the US had to correct their mistakes and issue apologies.

0
0

[–] NinjaPeppers 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Unfortunately I think large media organisations would be apply to bribe or gain favour from those on the proposed council to negate this.

Free speech is a hard thing to provide when you consider how easy most people become upset over what is said to them, how easy it is to manipulate people (especially large groups of them) by use of speech. Either moderating it or allowing it to be as free as the birds in the trees, someone will always be unhappy. Words can kill.

0
1

[–] Allrightsreserved 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

The message here is very important and needs more attention. Free speech is under constant assault from those who seek to control people and stifle dissent. Politically correct speech is an excellent example of this and we see its negative effects on a daily basis. All points of view need to be available so that we can choose the best course of action in our public and personal lives.

load more comments ▼ (7 remaining)