Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Section 8 · Oct 2, 2003, 08:20 pm

I'm tired of countless people saying that they oppose censorship. These same people think that you shouldn't be able to wear nazi propaganda. They don't realize that censorship is a double bladed sword. I would just like to hear some of your opinions on censorship. I believe that no ideas should be censored, but sometimes violence in movies and video games needs to be regulated towards minors.

Have Fun
Shalom

Geoff332 · Oct 2, 2003, 08:29 pm

I can't let this go by.

Quote:

sometimes violence in movies and video games needs to be regulated

Why?

Sodfather · Oct 2, 2003, 10:03 pm

I for one can care less what non-democratic countries do with censorship as they are not really obliged to let things go uncensored: on the other hand, when you're living in a country that's government can be summed up super-roughly as one that is supposed to allow people the right to pursue happiness, to give them freedom to do what they want, and to protect their lives, censoring just doesn't fit in there.

RebelWithanAK · Oct 2, 2003, 10:20 pm

We hate censorship not only because it stifles creativity, dissent, and all manner of cultural proceedings, but also because the people who implement it are heavily biased and repressive - like you, Section 8. You should be ashamed to call yourself a liberal.

Section 8 · Oct 3, 2003, 12:00 am

Rebel I think you misread

Quote:

I believe that no ideas should be censored

I'll phrase it differently. I believe that ideas should never be censored.
I'm not exactly repressive, don't know where that came from.

Geoff some video games and movies should be censored to minors, because it allows them to grow up in an atmosphere of killing. This might lead to violent behavior along the road.

Geoff332 · Oct 3, 2003, 12:13 am

Aren't video games representing violence?

If this is true, they are ideas, rather than actual violence. Surely you are then prohibiting an idea (the representation of violence). The subtext is that violence is bad (something I agree with, but that's unimportant). The important point is that you have made a decision that something is 'bad' and then want to try and limit this in a society. What makes 'violence is bad' different from any other possible idea I could portray?

Let me give a real example. I believe, very strongly, that one of the biggest problems we face in society is that popular entertainment has provided an unrealistic representation of how human relationships work (the fairytale romance). This is very bad for society, because it creates unrealistic expectations of what we expect from the various relationships we engage in (romantic relationships, family relationships, friendships, professional relationships and so on). This means that people are continually disappointed by their real relationships, producing a variety of social problems (I should add that society is defined in terms of social relationships; so this is literally undermining the fabric of society). The effects are quite real, very serious and extremly damaging to society. Therefore, we should start to censor the media to ensure that they provide a realistic representation of human relationships.

1. How is this (and hundreds of other possible scenarios I could describe) different from what you are proposing?
2. What effects would you expect to see from censoring violence?
3. How does one decide on a cut-off -- when is something worthy of censoring and when is it not?

RebelWithanAK · Oct 3, 2003, 01:28 am

That's an interesting take on it, Geoff. I might add my two cents:

My take on it is that what with violent video games (of which I am an avid collector) and related violent material, censorship is attacking the symptom and not the problem. The only way to deal with the problem is confrontation. We still watch Rambo flicks of mowing down dark-skinned peoples, we just don't call them Rambo flicks anymore - since that's taboo in Hollywood for much of the 90's under Clinton, but all the self-censorship serves to do is to maintain one giant smokescreen, because they still pump out Black Hawk Downs and Saving Private Ryans and Pearl Harbors and other great lessons in propoganda.

Likewise, in an effort to become more "cartoony" in order to stave off conservatives in Congress with major moral itches, game manufacturers come out with the likes of 'Command & Conquer: Generals' which is, according to Electionic Arts, "satirical," but plays more like a National Lampoon take on foreign culture - the game starts with Iraqis chemical-bombing their own civilians in Baghdad, and goes on with ever worsening platitudes about red Chinese hordes and Islamic terrorists - Every "Global Liberation Army" (the terrorist faction) building looks like a mosque. Coincidence?

There are undercurrents that must be addressed presently, and hiding them will simply delay the solution. It's pure folly to insist that once they're out of sight they're not there to be dealt with, because you can plainly see that without totalitarian measures they'll re-emerge over and over again. People buy this shit because it appeals to them. That's the real problem.

fedfem · Oct 3, 2003, 02:00 am

Parents should provide censorship over their children, not the government.

I am opposed to all forms of censorship.

Section 8 · Oct 3, 2003, 10:19 am

fedfem, if the parent censors their kids, then it is still censoship. When I was a kid I was watching Scarface, Godfather, and Resevoir Dogs. I noticed that I was getting decensitized. I started to treat school shootings as a humor topic. I don't want this to happen to my young children, or anybody elses. For children self-censoship doesn't work, because they convince themselves that it's ok, and have no idea at what might occur.

Have Fun
Shalom

fedfem · Oct 3, 2003, 10:46 am

I am against Government censorship. I support self-censorship and parental censorship. As far as the movies you mentioned, I too watched but became more aware of how corrupt the real world was and began exploring the grey areas. I find it interesting that you became "desensitized" while it had an opposite effect on me.

Section 8 · Oct 3, 2003, 10:47 am

It just depends on the type of people that are watching it. The effect could go either way.

RebelWithanAK · Oct 3, 2003, 10:52 am

If that's true, Sec 8, then isn't your basis of censorship needlessly harmful to people who aren't you (and aren't you impressionable, damn)? I saw those movies as well, yet I still know death is not a subject to take lightly.

Section 8 · Oct 3, 2003, 10:54 am

Because I know that I'm not the only one. It's not exactly like im destroying culture, but I don't want to see a 3 year old watching scarface. They would have to wait until they can fully comprehend the movie, which would usually be around 11-13

RebelWithanAK · Oct 3, 2003, 11:01 am

I wasn't aware that there were underground movie rings subjecting three year olds to this kind of nonsense! Where do you get these examples, and for that matter don't you think anyone here capable enough of figuring it all out for themselves? The reason I oppose censorship is not because I'm mysognistic pedophilic nazi who find himself inhibited, but because I hate blind devotion to any subject at all, and censorship is the tool of the willfully ignorant.

Section 8 · Oct 3, 2003, 11:07 am

For the last time, I'm not trying to censor any ideas. And I've been in a movie theater countless times when this young kid and his parents come in. I was watching We Were Soldiers, and there was this one kid crying and shit through the whole movie.

RebelWithanAK · Oct 3, 2003, 11:15 am

Newsflash, Sec 8: All forms of media are ideas, protected under free speech. You may not view them as such, but they're nothing more and nothing less.

Section 8 · Oct 3, 2003, 11:18 am

All that I'm saying, is that someone 3 or however old that kid was should not be watching peoples face getting burned off with napalm. If he was aroun 10 or so, or could comprehend it, I would be fine with it.

RebelWithanAK · Oct 3, 2003, 11:26 am

Oh, really? Tell that to this kid.

Section 8 · Oct 3, 2003, 07:24 pm

What the hell did that have to do with censorship in movies, in order to prevent desensitized kids.

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Oct 3, 2003, 07:40 pm

I find it interesting that you can be against censorship as well as free market. When free market is commercial self expression.

No, movies wanting to glorify violence does not cause violence, it is a side effect. The culture demands voilence so they get violent movies. Suppressing the movies and video games is like making a virual agent illegal. But it is funny that people can see that censorship of entertainment is censorship, but control of products to be produced is not???

The failure of capitalism is not free-market, it is the big businessmen that are coerced to work with the government and are then rewarded if they co-operate by giving them monopolies... It has already cost America her railways, next on the agenda is the airways.

Oct 2, 2003, 10:20 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	We hate censorship not only because it stifles creativity, dissent, and all manner of cultural proceedings, but also because the people who implement it are heavily biased and repressive - like you, Section 8. You should be ashamed to call yourself a liberal. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Oct 3, 2003, 01:28 am	#7 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	That's an interesting take on it, Geoff. I might add my two cents: My take on it is that what with violent video games (of which I am an avid collector) and related violent material, censorship is attacking the symptom and not the problem. The only way to deal with the problem is confrontation. We still watch Rambo flicks of mowing down dark-skinned peoples, we just don't call them Rambo flicks anymore - since that's taboo in Hollywood for much of the 90's under Clinton, but all the self-censorship serves to do is to maintain one giant smokescreen, because they still pump out Black Hawk Downs and Saving Private Ryans and Pearl Harbors and other great lessons in propoganda. Likewise, in an effort to become more "cartoony" in order to stave off conservatives in Congress with major moral itches, game manufacturers come out with the likes of 'Command & Conquer: Generals' which is, according to Electionic Arts, "satirical," but plays more like a National Lampoon take on foreign culture - the game starts with Iraqis chemical-bombing their own civilians in Baghdad, and goes on with ever worsening platitudes about red Chinese hordes and Islamic terrorists - Every "Global Liberation Army" (the terrorist faction) building looks like a mosque. Coincidence? There are undercurrents that must be addressed presently, and hiding them will simply delay the solution. It's pure folly to insist that once they're out of sight they're not there to be dealt with, because you can plainly see that without totalitarian measures they'll re-emerge over and over again. People buy this shit because it appeals to them. That's the real problem. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Oct 3, 2003, 10:52 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	If that's true, Sec 8, then isn't your basis of censorship needlessly harmful to people who aren't you (and aren't you impressionable, damn)? I saw those movies as well, yet I still know death is not a subject to take lightly. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Oct 3, 2003, 11:01 am	#14 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	I wasn't aware that there were underground movie rings subjecting three year olds to this kind of nonsense! Where do you get these examples, and for that matter don't you think anyone here capable enough of figuring it all out for themselves? The reason I oppose censorship is not because I'm mysognistic pedophilic nazi who find himself inhibited, but because I hate blind devotion to any subject at all, and censorship is the tool of the willfully ignorant. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Oct 3, 2003, 11:15 am	#16 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Newsflash, Sec 8: All forms of media are ideas, protected under free speech. You may not view them as such, but they're nothing more and nothing less. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Oct 2, 2003, 08:20 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	I'm tired of countless people saying that they oppose censorship. These same people think that you shouldn't be able to wear nazi propaganda. They don't realize that censorship is a double bladed sword. I would just like to hear some of your opinions on censorship. I believe that no ideas should be censored, but sometimes violence in movies and video games needs to be regulated towards minors. Have Fun Shalom

Oct 2, 2003, 10:03 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Sodfather Igneous Magma Posts: 327	I for one can care less what non-democratic countries do with censorship as they are not really obliged to let things go uncensored: on the other hand, when you're living in a country that's government can be summed up super-roughly as one that is supposed to allow people the right to pursue happiness, to give them freedom to do what they want, and to protect their lives, censoring just doesn't fit in there.

Oct 3, 2003, 12:13 am	#6 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	Aren't video games representing violence? If this is true, they are ideas, rather than actual violence. Surely you are then prohibiting an idea (the representation of violence). The subtext is that violence is bad (something I agree with, but that's unimportant). The important point is that you have made a decision that something is 'bad' and then want to try and limit this in a society. What makes 'violence is bad' different from any other possible idea I could portray? Let me give a real example. I believe, very strongly, that one of the biggest problems we face in society is that popular entertainment has provided an unrealistic representation of how human relationships work (the fairytale romance). This is very bad for society, because it creates unrealistic expectations of what we expect from the various relationships we engage in (romantic relationships, family relationships, friendships, professional relationships and so on). This means that people are continually disappointed by their real relationships, producing a variety of social problems (I should add that society is defined in terms of social relationships; so this is literally undermining the fabric of society). The effects are quite real, very serious and extremly damaging to society. Therefore, we should start to censor the media to ensure that they provide a realistic representation of human relationships. 1. How is this (and hundreds of other possible scenarios I could describe) different from what you are proposing? 2. What effects would you expect to see from censoring violence? 3. How does one decide on a cut-off -- when is something worthy of censoring and when is it not?

Oct 3, 2003, 02:00 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
fedfem Igneous Magma Location: Northeastern, USA Posts: 606	Parents should provide censorship over their children, not the government. I am opposed to all forms of censorship.

Oct 3, 2003, 10:19 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	fedfem, if the parent censors their kids, then it is still censoship. When I was a kid I was watching Scarface, Godfather, and Resevoir Dogs. I noticed that I was getting decensitized. I started to treat school shootings as a humor topic. I don't want this to happen to my young children, or anybody elses. For children self-censoship doesn't work, because they convince themselves that it's ok, and have no idea at what might occur. Have Fun Shalom

Oct 3, 2003, 10:46 am	#10 (permalink) (top)
fedfem Igneous Magma Location: Northeastern, USA Posts: 606	I am against Government censorship. I support self-censorship and parental censorship. As far as the movies you mentioned, I too watched but became more aware of how corrupt the real world was and began exploring the grey areas. I find it interesting that you became "desensitized" while it had an opposite effect on me.

Oct 3, 2003, 10:47 am	#11 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	It just depends on the type of people that are watching it. The effect could go either way.

Oct 3, 2003, 10:54 am	#13 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	Because I know that I'm not the only one. It's not exactly like im destroying culture, but I don't want to see a 3 year old watching scarface. They would have to wait until they can fully comprehend the movie, which would usually be around 11-13

Oct 3, 2003, 11:07 am	#15 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	For the last time, I'm not trying to censor any ideas. And I've been in a movie theater countless times when this young kid and his parents come in. I was watching We Were Soldiers, and there was this one kid crying and shit through the whole movie.

Oct 3, 2003, 11:18 am	#17 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	All that I'm saying, is that someone 3 or however old that kid was should not be watching peoples face getting burned off with napalm. If he was aroun 10 or so, or could comprehend it, I would be fine with it.

Oct 3, 2003, 11:26 am	#18 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Oh, really? Tell that to this kid. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Oct 3, 2003, 07:24 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	What the hell did that have to do with censorship in movies, in order to prevent desensitized kids.

Oct 3, 2003, 07:40 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	I find it interesting that you can be against censorship as well as free market. When free market is commercial self expression. No, movies wanting to glorify violence does not cause violence, it is a side effect. The culture demands voilence so they get violent movies. Suppressing the movies and video games is like making a virual agent illegal. But it is funny that people can see that censorship of entertainment is censorship, but control of products to be produced is not??? The failure of capitalism is not free-market, it is the big businessmen that are coerced to work with the government and are then rewarded if they co-operate by giving them monopolies... It has already cost America her railways, next on the agenda is the airways. Logical Fallicies Link