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.

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

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.

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.

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.

If you read the thread dagnabitt made on race and pedo threads (http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2073781), 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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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

Thank you.

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.

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?

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.

Good Quote by Joe: 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.

Haha, just made me think that these guys would probably get along great with old Bushy.

Bump for my right to a thread about Jews.

The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859


Thought this quote would be a nice addition.

Ron, Hare and I had a discussion and we agree the thread on jews has some potential for merit, and hasn't been done to death like some other race topics, so we're going to reopen it.

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

LOLLLLLLLLL

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

Yes it is a crappy system. The whole majority/minority issue doesn't seem to make any sense, because even if 80% of a population gets what they want, you've still got small groups of people living miserably. There has to be a way where everybody gets what they want, but unfortunately that is not possible.

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 "perceived 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.

Joe, if you weren't a Pedophile I think we would get a long very well in real life.

As for the topic at hand. I agree with Joe, but I don't agree with the OP's statement that censorship achieves the opposite results then intended.

Censorship was heavily used in Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia.

It was very effective... until a point.

I find that censorship can work, but it almost always ends in a revolution... of some sort.

In America we have the FCC and other organizations to censor our mainstream media. But, they don't do it a lot... Well under the limit to piss anyone off beyond a waving "Angry fist".

If you consider the heavy censorships put in the aforementioned countries, they were censored so much that eventually everything exploded on itself.

If my ramblings are hard to follow... I simply mean that the only difference with censorship and normal ability to have access to information (Normal as in U.S. normal standards) is that in the U.S., we get moderately pissed when we're censored occasionally, but when it's fully implemented then no one knows to be pissed... until one day everyone is furious and "the shit hits the fan".

I have been effectively censored on another forum here on Totse.

I laugh at the home page with the first admentment proudly displayed, as if it means anything to some of the mods on here.

Joe, if you weren't a Pedophile I think we would get a long very well in real life.

Aww, thanks. :) If you weren't trying to genocide my people, you'd be pretty alright yourself. ;)

...but if I may, I'd like to derail the thread just a bit to the topic of, well, censorship. :)

In America we have the FCC and other organizations to censor our mainstream media. But, they don't do it a lot... Well under the limit to piss anyone off beyond a waving "Angry fist"... I simply mean that the only difference with censorship and normal ability to have access to information (Normal as in U.S. normal standards) is that in the U.S., we get moderately pissed when we're censored occasionally, but when it's fully implemented then no one knows to be pissed... until one day everyone is furious and "the shit hits the fan".

Just to play a little devil's advocate - how much money do organizations like the office for national drug policy, or the department of homeland security, spend on advertising annually?

Now, add in solely government-funded and government-controlled 'nonprofit' organizations, such as the sex trafficking organization NCMEC or the unregistered branch of the CIA known as the IRI.

'n then, when you consider that the appropriations for these advertising budgets are controlled by party-affiliated congresspersons, and add to that the ungodly fuckload of money and media expenditures controlled by party-affiliated 527s... an argument can be made that the government owns and controls 100% of signifigant media, by virtue of footing the bill.

From my own (private) analysis, I'd certainly say it's a more effective means of censorship - I can think of a number of topics in which I've never seen an opposing point of view... but more importantly, I think that having government as the lead advertiser by orders of magnitude across all networks has... disturbing... implications for a free society, wouldn't you think?

Personally, I'd sleep better if not one dollar stolen from me by force was ever used to bid against me in the paid marketplace of ideas which has replaced the free marketplace of ideas. It's remarkably undemocratic, IMO... but what's your take?

Aww, thanks. :) If you weren't trying to genocide my people, you'd be pretty alright yourself. ;)

...but if I may, I'd like to derail the thread just a bit to the topic of, well, censorship. :)



Just to play a little devil's advocate - how much money do organizations like the office for national drug policy, or the department of homeland security, spend on advertising annually?

Now, add in solely government-funded and government-controlled 'nonprofit' organizations, such as the sex trafficking organization NCMEC or the unregistered branch of the CIA known as the IRI.

'n then, when you consider that the appropriations for these advertising budgets are controlled by party-affiliated congresspersons, and add to that the ungodly fuckload of money and media expenditures controlled by party-affiliated 527s... an argument can be made that the government owns and controls 100% of signifigant media, by virtue of footing the bill.

From my own (private) analysis, I'd certainly say it's a more effective means of censorship - I can think of a number of topics in which I've never seen an opposing point of view... but more importantly, I think that having government as the lead advertiser by orders of magnitude across all networks has... disturbing... implications for a free society, wouldn't you think?

Personally, I'd sleep better if not one dollar stolen from me by force was ever used to bid against me in the paid marketplace of ideas which has replaced the free marketplace of ideas. It's remarkably undemocratic, IMO... but what's your take?

I completely agree with you. What I posted above was more of the "average American" point of view. The majority of America doesn't give a fuck. The way they see it is we're not getting censored... the information that we get from the Mass Media is just getting a Patriotic spin to it. That's all.

Personally, I think government should be incredibly limited (Minarchism).

I've got a lot of personal and family history that throws my point of view to be out raged at a lot of things the U.S. government does. My point was that our government knows how to manipulate and censor us through impression while the more traditional censorship tried to deny anyone of a stray thot.