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.
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.
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.
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.