Whats with the heavy handed moderation deleting posts here ?

freediver wrote on Dec 10^th, 2015 at 9:40pm:


Saying that the charlie hebdo cartoons were wrong and shouldnt have been published is calling for self-censorship in your book. Thats how absurd your argument is, and there's really not much more to say.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 10^th, 2015 at 6:40am:


How can I put it any simpler? I literally don't think I can.

How about this then...

if someone holds a gun to your head and says "I kill you if you publish this" - and for that reason you don't publish, whereas you would otherwise think its a worthwhile thing to do, then its self-censorship. Extreme example I know, but I felt like I had to dumb it down for you. But of course the threat may be real or perceived, specific or non-specific. Your lily livered call for people to walk on eggshells around Charlie Hebdo and not "kick them when they're down" through fear of how that message may be received by the terrorists, is a particularly spineless form of self-censorship.

Whereas if you decide not to publish something because you think that particular expression in and of itself morally wrong - and therefore not worthwhile and unnecessarily inflammatory, then its not self-censorship. Its like how I feel no desire to hurl personal abuse at other posters, while others here think its perfectly ok. Because my personal values dictate that its not nice or necessary to abuse people, so I don't. Just like a newspaper who decides its not nice to publish something they know will cause offense to some people - and for that reason they don't publish it. On the other hand if I only refrained from personal abuse because of the fear that I would be banned (and otherwise thought it was a worthwhile thing to do), then that would be self-censorship.

freediver wrote on Dec 11^th, 2015 at 9:13am:


Of course. Censorship, self-censorship, I see no meaningful difference. The motivation for refraining from expressing themselves is the same.

freediver wrote on Dec 11^th, 2015 at 9:13am:


The two are not mutually exclusive. There is always choice - a cartoonist in a totalitarian state who is threatened with gaol, still has the choice to continue - a choice that he knows will lead to imprisonment. Likewise Charlie Hebdo received clear threats to stop publishing before the attack, but pressed on regardless - and several of them paid the ultimate price. And yet just because people have this "choice", doesn't mean that people who decide to play ball and silence themselves due to the external threat don't feel a "perception of compulsion", and therefore are being censored. No one would have blamed them for deciding to submit to intimidation - but at the same time anyone who values free speech would naturally agree that it was an outrageous position for them to be put in.

The key is what expressions someone feels are worth expressing, based on their own personal moral values. And no, making the moral choice that it is better to shut up rather than go to gaol is not changing your view of the expression's inherent worth - its merely making a decision about the inherent worth of actually publishing that expression in a particular place and time. A self-censor decides the cost of publishing something they believe has benefit in being published outweighs that benefit. Whereas someone who believes at the outset that something has no benefit in being published, and doesn't publish for that reason - is not self-censoring. From my point of view, I believe there is inherent worth in condemning Charlie Hebdo's deliberate hate mongering (plus their hypocricy in regards to jews) -  regardless of what tragic circumstances the employees of that publication find themselves in. The notion that their material should be considered somehow less offensive, or that people should suddenly be silent about their offensive material because the employees were victims of an horrific attack - is absolutely non-sensical to me, and a the clearest case of self-censorship you can get.

Quote:


I see. That explains who you make no sense. Why do you think we use the term if it is meaningless Gandalf?

Quote:


Hence my phrase "perception of choice."

Quote:


You mean like "I stand in solidarity with Charlie Hebdo" vs "They shouldn't have published those wacist cartoons in the first place, they make Muhammed look like a lecherous Arab." Do you think this choice people make reflects what they think is most important?

Quote:


So now you want to invoke some kind of 'beginning' to define self-censorship? If you cannot see the difference, why are you still trying to define it?

Quote:


How can you accuse them of hypocrisy if you do not know what message they are contradicting themselves on? Are you building on the strawman that Charlie Hebdo promoted itself as a paper that would publish any old drivel that turned up on the doorstep?

Quote:


Another strawman. No-one has the right not to be offended Gandalf. This is not the same as saying they are not actually offended. In fact I believe it was only you who argued the attackers were not actually offended. Are you disagreeing with yourself?

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 11^th, 2015 at 2:14pm:


There is a big difference to disagreeing with what someone has to say (but fighting to the death for their right to say it) and agreeing with what someone has to say (and fighting for that).

To date, those from the no-right-to-not-be-offended school of thought have only expressed the latter. They have been either silent or hostile to the former. They’ve called for bans, carpetbombings, declarations of "contempt" and outright porkies to silence or rattle those they disagree with.

Espousing Voltairean motherhood statements while you seek to stifle self expression is no more than hypocritical spinelessness. The right to hold and express religious views is central to modern Western civilisation.

Using Voltaire to argue the opposite is sheer doublethink, as every schoolboy knows.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 11^th, 2015 at 9:11am:



You publish a novel and your translators are killed because a guy in a far away country who has never read your book said that all his followers who have also not read your book, should kill you and anyone who has anything to do with your book. You live under police protection for years.

Your friend is thinking of writing a book that may or may not upset the guy in the far away country and his followers, so you drop the idea of the book (cartoon, whatever).

Is that self-censorship?

Karnal wrote on Dec 11^th, 2015 at 6:15pm:


Actually rushie's satanic verses which exposed mohammeds attempt to get the pagans into islam by allowing them to worship their moon god's daughters was priceless. It exposed the lunacy islam is and how fake the whole quran is. When musseys rejected such nonsense old mo claimed it was satan that made him do it. Darn now allah is satan what a demise muslims have.

Rushdie never put up with islamic bullshit and good on the man. He will be a thorn in islams side along with mohammed until the silly made up religion dies.