Back in the day, it was most assuredly conservatives who would try to censor games, movies, etc.
But that was a long time ago. There's still some groups that advocate for it, but they have literally zero power to affect any change in anything.
Liberals, on the other hand, have been the ones who have been canceling and censoring absolutely everything they can the last 6 or 7 years that makes them feel even the slightest bit uncomfortable. They very much do have the power to do so as well in many cases.
Seems you're too young to remember Jack Thompson, who was pretty influential in his time. Or even Jesse Helms, who introduced legislation for censorship. Did you forget the shitstorm Bush caused because of Janet Jackson's tit? Or were you simply not old enough? Not to mention all the Christian conservative groups, who, at the time, weren't shy about advocating for it as well.
For some reason, people like you seem to think you can't condemn both simultaneously. That pointing out the past is somehow condemnation of the present. The fact that you bring up your strawman only demonstrates one thing very clearly: you're becoming no different than the people you claim to be fighting against. To get triggered to such a degree that you deny what actually took place. That's known as fanaticism.
At no point did I say that liberals didn't participate in it as well, but you immediately got triggered and offended. It was just spearheaded by public outcry from certain Christian groups of people. Back then, there was no internet. You didn't have the entire worlds worth of information available to check shit out. Democrats would routinely pander to Christian conservative groups to get votes, and they believed it, because they literally had no reason not to until the internet arrived and gave them the ability to see the duplicitous nature of these people.
Sorry that history bothers you and several others, I guess?
I'm old enough to remember that Jack Thompson never actually got anything done.
I'm also old enough to remember that social discourse, and society in general, went to hell in a handbasket when people stopped gatekeeping against degeneracy and Marxism.
Which doesn't mean he didn't leave an indelible mark on the minds of people, creating stereotypes that are still believed to this day. He has a long Wiki page that shows just how much of an impact he had across all of youth culture at that time.
I agree that things have gone to hell because of degeneracy, but in order to gatekeep that, censorship is a prerequisite.
So you have retards downvoting me for saying that in the past a lot of Christian conservative groups participated in censorship, then the same retards simultaneously agree that we need to gatekeep (i.e. censor) to keep degeneracy out of society.
Just because the word censor is changed to gatekeep, doesn't change what it fundamentally is.
Which doesn't mean he didn't leave an indelible mark on the minds of people
That's not actually relevant. Leftists hold grudges forever, hell they spent all last year destroying the graves of war veterans because they're still butthurt about the Civil War.
Jack Thompson doesn't mean jack shit to anyone who isn't a wannabe polemicist themselves. And the opinions of such people don't matter anyway.
It is relevant because it's the entire point of what I was speaking of.
I feel you're contradicting yourself a bit. There's an entire generation of millions of people who believe the Christian conservative censorship stereotype because of him and those like him, which we still see brought up today, and if these people hold grudges forever, then it stands to reason that he's most certainly not irrelevant to the discussion.
Although I would definitely agree that he himself is irrelevant now, the impact that he had on people's beliefs definitely isn't. Plenty still remember Rap music controversy, Mortal Kombat, Bully, or GTA controversy.
His insanity wasn't even just limited to gaming either, he went after TV, movies, comics, and music as well — gaining plenty of airtime on 24-hour news channels at the time.
But thankfully times have changed and people like him aren't given the airtime they once were. It's also hilarious how the same people who fought against him back then tend to openly embrace censorship in 2021.
No we don't. The only regards it gets brought up in, are when people try to point away from the fact that leftism is inherently and inarguably censorious, and always has been. Stalin was proverbially cutting the tongues off of entire nations, and the USSR never stopped.
"B-b-b-b-but Jack Thompson!" doesn't excuse the fact that leftism itself is a threat to human freedom at the most fundamental level. And gatekeeping the trappings of leftism is how human freedom is preserved.
Did you forget the shitstorm Bush caused because of Janet Jackson's tit?
Was that unreasonable? There is good reason for broadcast television to be subject to restrictions that would be unreasonable in other media: the radio spectrum only had room for half a dozen analog channels so a license to broadcast television is by necessity a ban against everyone else. If you don't like The Sun putting nudity on Page Three you are free to publish your own newspaper that doesn't, but in broadcast television it takes very few actors independently deciding to show something - or not show something - before it encompasses the entire medium.
That's an interesting read, thank you. As I've said a couple times, I never said that liberals didn't participate in censorship — nor would I ever take that position. Why the hell people think the two are mutually exclusive is beyond me.
Here's an example of public perception from 2004 by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
First published Wed May 5, 2004; substantive revision Mon Oct 1, 2012
Traditionally, liberals defended the freedom of consenting adults to publish and consume pornography in private from moral and religious conservatives who wanted pornography banned for its obscenity, its corrupting impact on consumers and its corrosive effect on traditional family and religious values. But, in more recent times, the pornography debate has taken on a somewhat new and surprising shape. Some feminists have found themselves allied with their traditional conservative foes in calling on the state to regulate or prohibit pornography-although the primary focus of feminist concern is on the harm that pornography may cause to women (and children), rather than the obscenity of its sexually explicit content. And some liberals have joined pro-censorship feminists in suggesting that the harms that violent and degrading pornography causes to women's social standing and opportunities might be sufficiently serious to justify prohibiting such pornography on liberal grounds. Many others, both liberals and feminists, remain unconvinced. They are doubtful that pornography is a significant cause of the oppression of women or that the “blunt and treacherous” instrument of the law is the best solution to such harm as pornography may cause. As we shall see, the debate over whether pornography should be censored remains very much alive.
Even back then, liberals most certainly participated in censorship in large amounts as well — mostly in colleges (surprise) and other educational settings — but that doesn't negate that there's a very real history of Christian conservatives who advocated for censorship, and who are responsible for much of the stigmas applied to people today.
Especially since, as mentioned elsewhere, thee left controls the vast majority of consumer entertainment institutions and can promulgate that narrative as frequently as they'd like.
This does not mean it's happening today. This does not mean I'm saying "lol conservatives bad." This does not mean people should get butthurt and feel it's some sort of personal attack on their political alignment. What it does mean is that we shouldn't participate in revisionist history because then we're almost certainly bound to repeat certain mistakes and play right into the hands of the people who are the real problem today.
How this is lost on so many people (not you) is truly beyond me. All of these beliefs can be seen for ourselves in the tropes of media/entertainment released during those days.
I think that's a realization that many people eventually come to. It's the way that Media/Hollywood/Entertainment prey on people.
What I mean is, there's a very real reason that they target certain demographics with such focus — same with Democrats, who are some of the most egregious offenders.
When we're young, we want to believe that overall, people are mostly good; that if given a platform/voice, they would use that to promulgate "good." Therein lies the trap that they create. They target younger people because they lack experience and still hold very idealistic views of life. They prey on their insecurities, low self-esteem, goodwill, etc. They inculcate fear into them and make them believe in ghost stories of bad people who are trying to harm them, and these people, desiring to do good, trust them and believe that those bogeymen really do exist.
It's all a product of the consumerism that they participate in. If they can hook them in early, they can have a fanatic follower for life. Even if other people throw the truth in their face, years, and years, of nonstop programming in every facet of what they consume would have them believe that the truth is a lie.
Typically, when someone breaks out of their hold, it's not because people showed them the truth; it's because they were finally able to see it for themselves.
Something that's lost on the zoomers of today, is that the "Boomers" that they hate so much were the original SJW's. Many of them did many of the same things that the zoomers are doing today in terms of activism — the juxtaposition is truly crazy. Yet, it never actually clicks in their heads that a large portion of these people now lean right, when they once leaned left. In fact, it never clicks at all that as people get older, the somehow become more conservative. Do they believe that, somehow, people honestly get stupider as they get older? Or, is it more reasonable to believe that at some point, they were able to see through the predatory behavior, the lies, the countless empty promises, and so much more?
That is a good example. Hollywood and Media only need a small amount of truth in order to carry it and create a vast narrative out of it. When we look at history, there's little doubt that there were certainly some right-oriented groups that advocated for censorship; however, what history rarely mentions is that there was also a ton of leftists who did the same exact thing. Except one group has been stigmatized by theirs, while the others has more-or-less been scrubbed.
That's why it's important that we recognize the past, so it can't be used against us again — in fact, I would say it's critical to accept it and learn from it.
The left wing does better because the people who can make the changes are largely New York and LA leftists. They most likely agree with the changes or at least care personally about the opinions of people that do. Not so with the opinions of a bunch of yokels in flyover country, as they tend to view us.
I agree. I've noticed that women in cities in middle-America in particular seem to idolize coastal elites far more than most people. Maybe it's the image that's pumped through their screen to them? At the same time, those coastal elites also control every large institution that can really reach the public's consciousness, so it's not surprising that they've been much more effective at censorship.
It's truly hilarious that the modern liberals scream about Christian morals trying to be pushed on society (as if that's a bad thing) but simultaneously censor everything and everyone who may make them feel slight uncomfortable. They've become far more puritan than religious groups ever were. There's is just motivated by wanting to alleviate their insecurity.
I'm literally just telling you what happened in the past. Whether or not you want to believe it or not I don't give a shit. It doesn't change that that's how it was.
It doesn't mean its reflective of current society at all. No idea why you're getting so butthurt.
Basically, you are exactly like your leftoid brothers. You just don't like it that they are more successful than you have been at oppressing people.
Plus, if you think Jews are a Monolith or behind at everything, or controlling something, then you must subscribe to the same idea your brothers and sisters do when they refer to whites.
Back in the day, it was most assuredly conservatives who would try to censor games, movies, etc.
But that was a long time ago. There's still some groups that advocate for it, but they have literally zero power to affect any change in anything.
Liberals, on the other hand, have been the ones who have been canceling and censoring absolutely everything they can the last 6 or 7 years that makes them feel even the slightest bit uncomfortable. They very much do have the power to do so as well in many cases.
Ah yes. Those conservative Christians like.. Hillary Clinton and.. Joe Lieberman and.. Teresa Heinz. Whoops.
Seems you're too young to remember Jack Thompson, who was pretty influential in his time. Or even Jesse Helms, who introduced legislation for censorship. Did you forget the shitstorm Bush caused because of Janet Jackson's tit? Or were you simply not old enough? Not to mention all the Christian conservative groups, who, at the time, weren't shy about advocating for it as well.
For some reason, people like you seem to think you can't condemn both simultaneously. That pointing out the past is somehow condemnation of the present. The fact that you bring up your strawman only demonstrates one thing very clearly: you're becoming no different than the people you claim to be fighting against. To get triggered to such a degree that you deny what actually took place. That's known as fanaticism.
At no point did I say that liberals didn't participate in it as well, but you immediately got triggered and offended. It was just spearheaded by public outcry from certain Christian groups of people. Back then, there was no internet. You didn't have the entire worlds worth of information available to check shit out. Democrats would routinely pander to Christian conservative groups to get votes, and they believed it, because they literally had no reason not to until the internet arrived and gave them the ability to see the duplicitous nature of these people.
Sorry that history bothers you and several others, I guess?
I'm old enough to remember that Jack Thompson never actually got anything done.
I'm also old enough to remember that social discourse, and society in general, went to hell in a handbasket when people stopped gatekeeping against degeneracy and Marxism.
Which doesn't mean he didn't leave an indelible mark on the minds of people, creating stereotypes that are still believed to this day. He has a long Wiki page that shows just how much of an impact he had across all of youth culture at that time.
I agree that things have gone to hell because of degeneracy, but in order to gatekeep that, censorship is a prerequisite.
So you have retards downvoting me for saying that in the past a lot of Christian conservative groups participated in censorship, then the same retards simultaneously agree that we need to gatekeep (i.e. censor) to keep degeneracy out of society.
Just because the word censor is changed to gatekeep, doesn't change what it fundamentally is.
That's not actually relevant. Leftists hold grudges forever, hell they spent all last year destroying the graves of war veterans because they're still butthurt about the Civil War.
Jack Thompson doesn't mean jack shit to anyone who isn't a wannabe polemicist themselves. And the opinions of such people don't matter anyway.
It is relevant because it's the entire point of what I was speaking of.
I feel you're contradicting yourself a bit. There's an entire generation of millions of people who believe the Christian conservative censorship stereotype because of him and those like him, which we still see brought up today, and if these people hold grudges forever, then it stands to reason that he's most certainly not irrelevant to the discussion.
Although I would definitely agree that he himself is irrelevant now, the impact that he had on people's beliefs definitely isn't. Plenty still remember Rap music controversy, Mortal Kombat, Bully, or GTA controversy.
His insanity wasn't even just limited to gaming either, he went after TV, movies, comics, and music as well — gaining plenty of airtime on 24-hour news channels at the time.
But thankfully times have changed and people like him aren't given the airtime they once were. It's also hilarious how the same people who fought against him back then tend to openly embrace censorship in 2021.
No we don't. The only regards it gets brought up in, are when people try to point away from the fact that leftism is inherently and inarguably censorious, and always has been. Stalin was proverbially cutting the tongues off of entire nations, and the USSR never stopped.
"B-b-b-b-but Jack Thompson!" doesn't excuse the fact that leftism itself is a threat to human freedom at the most fundamental level. And gatekeeping the trappings of leftism is how human freedom is preserved.
Was that unreasonable? There is good reason for broadcast television to be subject to restrictions that would be unreasonable in other media: the radio spectrum only had room for half a dozen analog channels so a license to broadcast television is by necessity a ban against everyone else. If you don't like The Sun putting nudity on Page Three you are free to publish your own newspaper that doesn't, but in broadcast television it takes very few actors independently deciding to show something - or not show something - before it encompasses the entire medium.
^^^ yep pretty much what Happily_Grim said here.
The trope "think of the children" wahman on old Simpson's episodes exist for a reason. It was created to mock these people.
That's an interesting read, thank you. As I've said a couple times, I never said that liberals didn't participate in censorship — nor would I ever take that position. Why the hell people think the two are mutually exclusive is beyond me.
Here's an example of public perception from 2004 by Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
Even back then, liberals most certainly participated in censorship in large amounts as well — mostly in colleges (surprise) and other educational settings — but that doesn't negate that there's a very real history of Christian conservatives who advocated for censorship, and who are responsible for much of the stigmas applied to people today.
Especially since, as mentioned elsewhere, thee left controls the vast majority of consumer entertainment institutions and can promulgate that narrative as frequently as they'd like.
This does not mean it's happening today. This does not mean I'm saying "lol conservatives bad." This does not mean people should get butthurt and feel it's some sort of personal attack on their political alignment. What it does mean is that we shouldn't participate in revisionist history because then we're almost certainly bound to repeat certain mistakes and play right into the hands of the people who are the real problem today.
How this is lost on so many people (not you) is truly beyond me. All of these beliefs can be seen for ourselves in the tropes of media/entertainment released during those days.
I think that's a realization that many people eventually come to. It's the way that Media/Hollywood/Entertainment prey on people.
What I mean is, there's a very real reason that they target certain demographics with such focus — same with Democrats, who are some of the most egregious offenders.
When we're young, we want to believe that overall, people are mostly good; that if given a platform/voice, they would use that to promulgate "good." Therein lies the trap that they create. They target younger people because they lack experience and still hold very idealistic views of life. They prey on their insecurities, low self-esteem, goodwill, etc. They inculcate fear into them and make them believe in ghost stories of bad people who are trying to harm them, and these people, desiring to do good, trust them and believe that those bogeymen really do exist.
It's all a product of the consumerism that they participate in. If they can hook them in early, they can have a fanatic follower for life. Even if other people throw the truth in their face, years, and years, of nonstop programming in every facet of what they consume would have them believe that the truth is a lie.
Typically, when someone breaks out of their hold, it's not because people showed them the truth; it's because they were finally able to see it for themselves.
Something that's lost on the zoomers of today, is that the "Boomers" that they hate so much were the original SJW's. Many of them did many of the same things that the zoomers are doing today in terms of activism — the juxtaposition is truly crazy. Yet, it never actually clicks in their heads that a large portion of these people now lean right, when they once leaned left. In fact, it never clicks at all that as people get older, the somehow become more conservative. Do they believe that, somehow, people honestly get stupider as they get older? Or, is it more reasonable to believe that at some point, they were able to see through the predatory behavior, the lies, the countless empty promises, and so much more?
That is a good example. Hollywood and Media only need a small amount of truth in order to carry it and create a vast narrative out of it. When we look at history, there's little doubt that there were certainly some right-oriented groups that advocated for censorship; however, what history rarely mentions is that there was also a ton of leftists who did the same exact thing. Except one group has been stigmatized by theirs, while the others has more-or-less been scrubbed.
That's why it's important that we recognize the past, so it can't be used against us again — in fact, I would say it's critical to accept it and learn from it.
The left wing does better because the people who can make the changes are largely New York and LA leftists. They most likely agree with the changes or at least care personally about the opinions of people that do. Not so with the opinions of a bunch of yokels in flyover country, as they tend to view us.
I agree. I've noticed that women in cities in middle-America in particular seem to idolize coastal elites far more than most people. Maybe it's the image that's pumped through their screen to them? At the same time, those coastal elites also control every large institution that can really reach the public's consciousness, so it's not surprising that they've been much more effective at censorship.
It's truly hilarious that the modern liberals scream about Christian morals trying to be pushed on society (as if that's a bad thing) but simultaneously censor everything and everyone who may make them feel slight uncomfortable. They've become far more puritan than religious groups ever were. There's is just motivated by wanting to alleviate their insecurity.
I'm literally just telling you what happened in the past. Whether or not you want to believe it or not I don't give a shit. It doesn't change that that's how it was.
It doesn't mean its reflective of current society at all. No idea why you're getting so butthurt.
Wait, are you telling me you are not a person, and a terrorist and a gaslighter?!
You are socialist, hence leftist.
I'm surprised how little your side cares about hypocrisy. You leftists are all the same.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Removed:
Basically, you are exactly like your leftoid brothers. You just don't like it that they are more successful than you have been at oppressing people.
Plus, if you think Jews are a Monolith or behind at everything, or controlling something, then you must subscribe to the same idea your brothers and sisters do when they refer to whites.
Do you think Jews are a monolith, and subsequently whites are also a monolith?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Robert_Oppenheimer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein