Censorship helps keep countries in order - Discuss Watch

This discussion is closed.
kingslaw
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#21
Report 15 years ago
#21
(Original post by Howard)
I don't quite follow but surely "order" is a good thing for society isn't it? Generally anyway?
Orders not always a good thing. The opportunity for exploring a different, better life can often be sacrificed for the sake of order. The most orderly of societies were medievil monarchys, but they werent necessarily 'a good thing'.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#22
Report 15 years ago
#22
(Original post by kingslaw)
Orders not always a good thing. The opportunity for exploring a different, better life can often be sacrificed for the sake of order. The most orderly of societies were medievil monarchys, but they werent necessarily 'a good thing'.
I think you have a fanciful view of medieval society. There was nothing very ordered about it at all. A monarchy in a perpetual state of arms, constant riots and rebellion, religious upheaval, you name it! If I want a picture of order I don't think about the 13th century!

I don't really agree with you anyway. If we all decided to take the opportunity to explore different and better lifes as individuals society would fall to pieces in the absense of order.
0
kingslaw
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#23
Report 15 years ago
#23
(Original post by Howard)
I don't really agree with you anyway. If we all decided to take the opportunity to explore different and better lifes as individuals society would fall to pieces in the absense of order.
So was the Charter movement, and various other labour movements throughout the last 150 years, a bad thing? They were not very orderly times in our history, but they helped to guarantee decent working conditions, eradicate child labour, set-up a welfare state for the vulnerable, and generally improved conditions for the vast majority of our citizens.

Or the Civil Rights movements in America. They were very disorderly times, but the courage and determination of the oppressed ethnic minorities won them equal legal and political rights. However, using your theory King and other civil rights leaders should have just shut up to preserve precious order.

To say the breaking of order is always a bad thing is just absurd and extremely backward. Whether or not order is a good thing depends on the society it attempts to preserve.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#24
Report 15 years ago
#24
(Original post by kingslaw)
So was the Charter movement, and various other labour movements throughout the last 150 years, a bad thing? They were not very orderly times in our history, but they helped to guarantee decent working conditions, eradicate child labour, set-up a welfare state for the vulnerable, and generally improved conditions for the vast majority of our citizens.

Or the Civil Rights movements in America. They were very disorderly times, but the courage and determination of the oppressed ethnic minorities won them equal legal and political rights. However, using your theory King and other civil rights leaders should have just shut up to preserve precious order.

To say the breaking of order is always a bad thing is just absurd and extremely backward. Whether or not order is a good thing depends on the society it attempts to preserve.
Good points!
0
Weejimmie
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#25
Report 15 years ago
#25
(Original post by kingslaw)
Orders not always a good thing. The opportunity for exploring a different, better life can often be sacrificed for the sake of order. The most orderly of societies were medievil monarchys, but they werent necessarily 'a good thing'.
Well mediaeval monarchies certainly weren't at all orderly: take a look at any mediaeval chronicle. However, you are right about orderly societies: the societies which tried to achieve the greatest order in history were probably Cambodia under Pol Pot and contemporary North Korea- not very good recommendations for it.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#26
Report 15 years ago
#26
(Original post by Weejimmie)
Well mediaeval monarchies certainly weren't at all orderly: take a look at any mediaeval chronicle. However, you are right about orderly societies: the societies which tried to achieve the greatest order in history were probably Cambodia under Pol Pot and contemporary North Korea- not very good recommendations for it.
But what about Hitler? He certainly got the trains running on time didn't he?
0
Weejimmie
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#27
Report 15 years ago
#27
(Original post by Howard)
But what about Hitler? He certainly got the trains running on time didn't he?
Only to the camps.
Mussolini said he got the trains running on time, but that was PR. Only the trains Mussolini caught, and the photographers took pictures of, ran on time.
Actually Nazi Germany wasn't a very ordered society: there were too many competing interests within the Nazi party and outside it. Hitler himself seems to have had no particular long-term plans (aims, yes, but they're rather different), but acted on the spur of the moment and said it was genius. Take a look at Kershaw's biography.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#28
Report 15 years ago
#28
(Original post by Weejimmie)
Only to the camps.
Mussolini said he got the trains running on time, but that was PR. Only the trains Mussolini caught, and the photographers took pictures of, ran on time.
Actually Nazi Germany wasn't a very ordered society: there were too many competing interests within the Nazi party and outside it. Hitler himself seems to have had no particular long-term plans (aims, yes, but they're rather different), but acted on the spur of the moment and said it was genius. Take a look at Kershaw's biography.
I've read that before; that the nazi government was in fact like a circus.
0
Weejimmie
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#29
Report 15 years ago
#29
(Original post by Howard)
I've read that before; that the nazi government was in fact like a circus.
Have you seen The Great Dicator? Parts are bummers, but Chaplin had this vision of the dictators as a pair of deranged clowns who can't believe what they've managed to do.
0
llama boy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#30
Report 15 years ago
#30
What is censorship?

Government censorship? Arguably, although in any instance where the government clearly has a direct influence over the press then the press tended to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Indirect censorship, though, that's more interesting. The sort that comes about partially because of the nature of corporate media companies as well as the effect of the market upon them.
0
FoxNewsRocks
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#31
Report 15 years ago
#31
Was the point of this thread about something in particular that is taboo to talk about? If so inform me of whatever it was so i know what not to say, i AM an American you know.

As long as people are talking, it usually works out in the end. We all know what happens when we stop communicating. A lot of people think these debate forums are silly useless things, but they actually serve as a way to express opinions one has bottled up and most times can be talked out in ways that in the end benefit both sides even tho it may be ugly at times. better to have ugly typing fights than maybe something worse right?

I have a lot of opinions mostly on race and religion and govt, but thats what i see on a daily basis being a congressional intern so most times i can speak on those subjects with some experience, but most people dont want to talk about the important stuff like those anymore. Well it seems that Americans do, its the Europeans and the like that tend to shy away from talking honestly about sensitive things. I guess it could be your communistic govts threatening you not to do it (haha that was a joke) wait.....maybe not.

Anyone that has read my posts can obviously see the issues that bother me. I`ve been called a racist, an atheist an anti-semite and a hater and a nazi and pretty much any other name those people can think up, but i am none of those. I just express my opinions and hope others will do the same without resorting to name calling, thats all i ever ask. I dont hate any race, i do hate some things done by people of certain race but i dont hate their race for it. Same with religion. Same with govt.

For instance, if i said "All qualified Brits should join the BNP and save your country while you still can." I`m sure someone on here would start the name calling, even tho that was just an Americans >opinion< and nothing more. Wouldnt it be more wise to tell me why you think it wouldnt benefit England for the BNP to succeed?

Yes i know i type too long, its a habit from typing every day.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#32
Report 15 years ago
#32
[QUOTE=FoxNewsRocks]Was the point of this thread about something in particular that is taboo to talk about? If so inform me of whatever it was so i know what not to say, i AM an American you know.QUOTE]

American and paranoid apparently.
0
Mr White
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#33
Report 15 years ago
#33
(Original post by Kurdt Morello)
Hmph - that can't be right - or can it?
There is balance - the government censors, the media reveals. It works well.
0
kingslaw
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#34
Report 15 years ago
#34
(Original post by llama boy)
What is censorship?
Indirect censorship, though, that's more interesting. The sort that comes about partially because of the nature of corporate media companies as well as the effect of the market upon them.
That is by far the most succesful and subtle type of censorship in the modern media. Its a view most famously expressed by Noam Chomsky in "Manufacturing Consent". I recommend anyone interested in the censorship of free speech to read it.

It basically argues that there are four things that censor the media:
1) the size, concentrated ownership, owner wealth and profit orientation of the dominent mass-media
2) advertising as the primary source of income in the mass media
3) the reliance of the media on information provided by government, business, and "experts" funded nad apporved by these primary sources and agents of power
4) "flak" as a means of disciplining the media, and
5) "anticommunism" as a national religion and control mechanism

Obviously point 5 reveals that this book was written before the collapse (only just before though) of Stalinism. However, when reading Chomskys chapter on 5) I realised "communism" was almost universally interchangable with "terrorism".
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Did you vote in the 2019 general election?

Yes (254)
48.66%
No (57)
10.92%
I'm not old enough (211)
40.42%

Watched Threads

View All