Honestly, people should be able to make their own choices about what they think is appropriate. Read it, if you don't like it, don't read it again. Simple as that.
Printable View
Honestly, people should be able to make their own choices about what they think is appropriate. Read it, if you don't like it, don't read it again. Simple as that.
Has anybody here actually physically read a published writing that personally upset you? or offended/outraged you?
I can't say I have. Like it's been mentioned here, reading books such as Uncle Tom's cabin may be offensive to some, but at the time it was written, it was contextually and linguistically appropriate given the era and socio-political climate. People are merely projecting their present-day values and `insight' or political correctness on something that is of `dated' lexicon. I love reading old stuff. Because I like to try to gain insight in times past. I guess these censorists aren't historians.
But as I was just telling someone in PM, I'm not a debater. I hate arguing. I have some _very_ strong opinions about some things, but I really don't feel a need to expound on them and try to convince others the `errors' of their thinking. I know there's controversial topics that polarise people. I avoid them like the plague :p
I should have been a diplomat. :D
I have, but I already discussed it. I couldn't stand The Awakening by Kate Chopin. But I wouldn't ban it.Quote:
Originally posted by den
Has anybody here actually physically read a published writing that personally upset you? or offended/outraged you?
I remember, before I read the Harry Potter books I fell into the category of criticizing it for the "witchcraft" thing. Then I decided to read it and see for myself. I was pleasantly surprised. It was no more harmful than Gandalf or any Narnian character. Even the beloved The Secret Garden deals with magic on a very innocent level. Are they going to ban that too???
I learned a very great lesson, and because I was an ignoramous that took other people's opinion instead of forming them for myself, that is how I see the people who love to ban practically any book.:mad:
Yeah Shea, I wonder if all the people involved in the censoring process actually read what they're trying to ban from public schools and libraries.
I have, actually. All of them were writings of a right-winged politic or economic nature. Most of the local fauna of economists here is neoliberal, and sometimes I have a masochistic impulse to hear them or peek at their books. I wouldn't mind if they were censored, although I don't support it. I guess that whatQuote:
Originally posted by den
Has anybody here actually physically read a published writing that personally upset you? or offended/outraged you?
I'd really like is that people was smart enough to pay them no attention. Maybe I'll get to see that someday (when I move to another country, sigh).
It almost seems like parents who don't guide their children see the reactions from the books via their children. Obviously, that would cause serious misunderstandings.Quote:
Originally posted by den
Yeah Shea, I wonder if all the people involved in the censoring process actually read what they're trying to ban from public schools and libraries.
Originally posted by den
<Has anybody here actually physically read a published writing that personally upset you? or offended/outraged you?>
No, but I am a very tolerant of peoples differences and don't get easily offended.
Originally posted by Kiwi Shelf
<Honestly, people should be able to make their own choices about what they think is appropriate. Read it, if you don't like it, don't read it again. Simple as that.>
Agreed. Why then do you think people have such a strong need to enforce their beliefs on others?
LOL! A man after my own heart.Quote:
Originally posted by crisaor
I have, actually. All of them were writings of a right-winged politic or economic nature. Most of the local fauna of economists here is neoliberal, and sometimes I have a masochistic impulse to hear them or peek at their books. I wouldn't mind if they were censored, although I don't support it. I guess that what
I'd really like is that people was smart enough to pay them no attention. Maybe I'll get to see that someday (when I move to another country, sigh).
The term "Neoliberal" is misleading for some. Here's a good definition:
"Neo-liberalism" is a set of economic policies that have become widespread during the last 25 years or so. Although the word is rarely heard in the United States, you can clearly see the effects of neo-liberalism here as the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer.
"Liberalism" can refer to political, economic, or even religious ideas. In the U.S. political liberalism has been a strategy to prevent social conflict. It is presented to poor and working people as progressive compared to conservative or Rightwing. Economic liberalism is different. Conservative politicians who say they hate "liberals" -- meaning the political type -- have no real problem with economic liberalism, including neoliberalism.
"Neo" means we are talking about a new kind of liberalism. So what was the old kind? The liberal school of economics became famous in Europe when Adam Smith, an English economist, published a book in 1776 called THE WEALTH OF NATIONS. He and others advocated the abolition of government intervention in economic matters. No restrictions on manufacturing, no barriers to commerce, no tariffs, he said; free trade was the best way for a nation's economy to develop. Such ideas were "liberal" in the sense of no controls. This application of individualism encouraged "free" enterprise," "free" competition -- which came to mean, free for the capitalists to make huge profits as they wished.
Economic liberalism prevailed in the United States through the 1800s and early 1900s. Then the Great Depression of the 1930s led an economist named John Maynard Keynes to a theory that challenged liberalism as the best policy for capitalists. He said, in essence, that full employment is necessary for capitalism to grow and it can be achieved only if governments and central banks intervene to increase employment. These ideas had much influence on President Roosevelt's New Deal -- which did improve life for many people. The belief that government should advance the common good became widely accepted.
But the capitalist crisis over the last 25 years, with its shrinking profit rates, inspired the corporate elite to revive economic liberalism. That's what makes it "neo" or new. Now, with the rapid globalization of the capitalist economy, we are seeing neo-liberalism on a global scale.
A memorable definition of this process came from Subcomandante Marcos at the Zapatista-sponsored Encuentro Intercontinental por la Humanidad y contra el Neo-liberalismo (Inter-continental Encounter for Humanity and Against Neo-liberalism) of August 1996 in Chiapas when he said: "what the Right offers is to turn the world into one big mall where they can buy Indians here, women there ...." and he might have added, children, immigrants, workers or even a whole country like Mexico."
The main points of neo-liberalism include:
THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers' rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say "an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone." It's like Reagan's "supply-side" and "trickle-down" economics -- but somehow the wealth didn't trickle down very much.
CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- again in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.
DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.
PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.
ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."
Around the world, neo-liberalism has been imposed by powerful financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank. It is raging all over Latin America. The first clear example of neo-liberalism at work came in Chile (with thanks to University of Chicago economist Milton Friedman), after the CIA-supported coup against the popularly elected Allende regime in 1973. Other countries followed, with some of the worst effects in Mexico where wages declined 40 to 50% in the first year of NAFTA while the cost of living rose by 80%. Over 20,000 small and medium businesses have failed and more than 1,000 state-owned enterprises have been privatized in Mexico. As one scholar said, "Neoliberalism means the neo-colonization of Latin America."
In the United States neo-liberalism is destroying welfare programs; attacking the rights of labor (including all immigrant workers); and cutbacking social programs. The Republican "Contract" on America is pure neo-liberalism. Its supporters are working hard to deny protection to children, youth, women, the planet itself -- and trying to trick us into acceptance by saying this will "get government off my back." The beneficiaries of neo-liberalism are a minority of the world's people. For the vast majority it brings even more suffering than before: suffering without the small, hard-won gains of the last 60 years, suffering without end.
hal9000, just a thought: do you want to quote your source?
Elizabeth Martinez and Arnoldo Garcia, with the
National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights.
http://www.pepeace.org/current_repri...Neoliberal.htm
Here's aditional information by Noam Chomsky:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ch...mPOP_Chom.html
I think they have that need because enforcing their beliefs on others gives them power. They decided the fate of these people...Quote:
Agreed. Why then do you think people have such a strong need to enforce their beliefs on others?
You've described my Catholic grandparents! They love a power trip (well now it just my grandmother, my grandfather passed away).Quote:
Originally posted by Kiwi Shelf
I think they have that need because enforcing their beliefs on others gives them power. They decided the fate of these people...
The weirdest thing happened, I was reading this post and such and then this morning I had to make a quick stop at the library at my university and they are having this big display about banned books and whether or not it is censorship... I really think it is because we are suppose to have freedom of speech and writing and then they go and make is so you can't read certain books.
Hal9000, that's good stuff.
In my country, during the 50's-60's, the president was a leftist, claimed to be an anti west. So during those times western books and music were banned. But in 65 there was this commnunist revolt which was failed to take over, then a new regime (which was a pro-west) gained powered. Since then many books from authors which considered as leftist were banned. So did musicians whose music were considered to spark leftist opinions. Then in 98, that regime was overthrowned and suddenly freedom of press gained power.
One thing that I learned from those events is that today's generation somehow got a misconception about the history of my country. Many events were twisted around without clear explanations because during those times information were controlled and censored. Even worst, those misleading information were given in schools. So, I agree that cencorship is a very dangerous thing to do and there's no way some authorities can determine which book can or cant be read by their citizens. It's our selves who has he ultimate right to decide which book is good or bad to read.
I remember one Rage Against the Machine's concerts where the band members stripped their clothes off to protest cencorship. Bravo guys.