yes i'm aware that "censorship is bad and the people who advocate for and enforce it are bad actors" is not exactly a hot take but as a trained professional educator i will say that the way people will try to frame censorship as "protecting" children is so bullshit when so much of what we know about building safety for children is related to giving them access to information
Maid of Void
- 🏳️⚧️she/they🏳️⚧️
hi ima trans kittygirlthing, ask me if you wanna know anything about me and i'll answer if im comfy with sharing :3
i have a lovely girlfriend, she's @aluria-sevhex
go check her page out too! :3
profile from https://picrew.me/en/image_maker/2219859
You must log in to comment.
in reply to @ladytimpani's post:
I think censoring Nazis is right and good, but it's not really put under this frame. Lately people been using this framing to justify trans erasure, which is different from how we censor Nazis in Brazil. We don't censure teaching about Nazism, we censor nazis, but kids still learn about it in schools. So yes using this framing isn't great or honest, in this trans book banning cases they're actually just protecting cishetero status quo.
I am in no way trying to imply that being trans is comparable to Nazism, I'm using the huge gap between two unrelated things that can be censored to argue about censorship itself.
There's a difference between censoring and tolerating.
Like, Nazis being censored in Wolfenstein - that's dumb.
Making sure people can't fly nazi flags - that's good. But that isn't censorship.
Because it's not the definition of the word.
"the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."
Nazi flags being banned in your front yard isn't censorship.
Oh, I thought you meant nazi flags anywhere, not front yard (because HOA).
Because if you were talking about, like, a nazi flag everywhere, like on a car, I'd say that is (good imho) censorship. It is the prohibition of expressing something that is a threat to security. I believe expression is under that "etc" as is other forms of expression: cartoons, music, speeches.
I misinterpreted what you were saying.
Again, I'm content with censorship of Nazism in Brazil. We still have books that show their imagery, their rhetoric, speeches, etc... but for teaching purposes. When something is produced supporting Nazism, it is censored here.
We don't have what we called "prior censorship", which is like, prohibiting people from talking because they're known nazis. Whatever they produce that is then determined pro-nazi by the legal system (like that fool youtuber Monark saying the we should have a nazi party) that content is censored.
So to return to the original point of this comment, the justice system has deemed the nazi flag as apology for Nazism, therefore flying it anywhere is prohibited, but making an educational documentary with such imagery present about it is permitted .
"Because if you were talking about, like, a nazi flag everywhere, like on a car, I'd say that is (good imho) censorship."
Again, that isn't censorship.
Oh so I didn't misunderstand you.
In that case, I disagree with you completely, it literally is.
But with all due respect, I don't think there's much value in determining a criteria for what fits under "censorship".
Whatever you may call it, we use the same word as "censorship" in Portuguese for all kinds of prohibition of expression, but I still think what I said is relevant to the topic. I'd like to focus on that.
Because saying "censorship is bad" means the suppression of information is bad. Which I think most would agree on.
Confusing censorship with hate speech or causing public upset merges the 2 topics.
Even if your own language uses the word for a more umbrella term, for the matter at hand it's important to acknowledge the difference as your current argument suggests censorship has merit which holds untrue as you are using the word too broadly.
You arguing for censorship having value with an argument that universally holds no merit due to the word being given a meaning it has no attachment to in this discussion.
No one is going to say "censorship is good because it stops people wearing caps with nazi symbols on" because no one views that as censorship.
Hate speech is speech, and it should still be censored.
I explained the attachment to such meaning. Any prohibition of expression is censorship.
No one is going to say "censorship is good because it stops people wearing caps with nazi symbols on" because no one views that as censorship.
I literally said that, except that censorship CAN be good, not IS good, depending on where it's used.
I apologize, I might be getting too agitated. What I'm understanding is "this is not censorship because it's good" and since I know this is not what you mean, my emotional is clouding my judgement, and therefore I'm withdrawing for now to cool off.
Even the most simplest of things like censoring the word "fuck" with "f***" or a beeping sound makes no sense. Kids know that word. If it needs censoring just don't use it.
As for information etc - I mean look at China. No one thinks that's a good idea. But then we'll do it anyway.
Censorship doesn't make sense. Age suggested guidelines - sure. But parents will break those (aka GTA) or enforce unnecessary ones (Christians banning Harry Potter* etc)
*who'd have thought I'd end up agreeing with them?