Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

This banning culture is getting ridiculous watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    There are many, many things I dislike that people say. There is no doubt that I'd like to hear people stop saying all these things. However, I do not want anyone to be banned from saying them. I do not want to influence people by sheer force of power and fear. I would be delighted if people heard my views, and on completely their own terms, came to agree with them. I, however, would not like to force people to pretend to agree with them.

    It seems though, that in the eyes of many today, if you don't like certain a word, phrase, opinion, song, film, TV show, video game, or publication, then you must therefore want it banned.

    Whenever I see someone complaining about something such as the phrase "man up" being banned in schools, or pop songs being banned on campuses, or public figures being banned from debates, I can always expect to see a response that constitutes something along the lines of: "So you think they/it have/has a good influence on society?"

    That is beside the point. The point is that we don't want to live under the regime of little totalitarians who have appointed themselves the arbiters of what other people can and can't say, think, watch, listen to, or read.

    And no, people such as myself do not want to be totalitarians. I would not like to use the state to punitively enforce my opinions. I would not even like to gather up hundreds and thousands of supporters to pressure a publication (that I do not purchase) to stop printing something on one of it's pages for it's own paying customers. I am very happy to criticize things and I hope that people come to agree with me, but I would not be happy to try to force people to live in my personal conception of some utopia against their will.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with what you are saying, the banning stuff that isn't really affecting them is getting ridiculous
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scorpion95)
    I agree with what you are saying, the banning stuff that isn't really affecting them is getting ridiculous
    Even if it affects you, banning it shouldn't be the go-to option.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    There are many, many things I dislike that people say. There is no doubt that I'd like to hear people stop saying all these things. However, I do not want anyone to be banned from saying them. I do not want to influence people by sheer force of power and fear. I would be delighted if people heard my views, and on completely their own terms, came to agree with them. I, however, would not like to force people to pretend to agree with them.

    It seems though, that in the eyes of many today, if you don't like certain a word, phrase, opinion, song, film, TV show, video game, or publication, then you must therefore want it banned.

    Whenever I see someone complaining about something such as the phrase "man up" being banned in schools, or pop songs being banned on campuses, or public figures being banned from debates, I can always expect to see a response that constitutes something along the lines of: "So you think they/it have/has a good influence on society?"

    That is beside the point. The point is that we don't want to live under the regime of little totalitarians who have appointed themselves the arbiters of what other people can and can't say, think, watch, listen to, or read.

    And no, people such as myself do not want to be totalitarians. I would not like to use the state to punitively enforce my opinions. I would not even like to gather up hundreds and thousands of supporters to pressure a publication (that I do not purchase) to stop printing something on one of it's pages for it's own paying customers. I am very happy to criticize things and I hope that people come to agree with me, but I would not be happy to try to force people to live in my personal conception of some utopia against their will.
    Doubleplus good mate. In 1984 more and more words got banned which resulted in newspeak.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    It's time to ban bans.
    Offline

    17
    It's the same people who advocate for free speech.
    'All people are free to say whatever they want just so long as it doesn't offend me'
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrawbAri)
    It's the same people who advocate for free speech.
    'All people are free to say whatever they want just so long as it doesn't offend me'
    I advocate free speech, but I actually mean it. There are no "but"s.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    a culture that promotes a "ban" over a "discussion" is not only nasty, but cowardly
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    UK needs more libertarians.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    There are many, many things I dislike that people say. There is no doubt that I'd like to hear people stop saying all these things. However, I do not want anyone to be banned from saying them. I do not want to influence people by sheer force of power and fear. I would be delighted if people heard my views, and on completely their own terms, came to agree with them. I, however, would not like to force people to pretend to agree with them.

    It seems though, that in the eyes of many today, if you don't like certain a word, phrase, opinion, song, film, TV show, video game, or publication, then you must therefore want it banned.

    Whenever I see someone complaining about something such as the phrase "man up" being banned in schools, or pop songs being banned on campuses, or public figures being banned from debates, I can always expect to see a response that constitutes something along the lines of: "So you think they/it have/has a good influence on society?"

    That is beside the point. The point is that we don't want to live under the regime of little totalitarians who have appointed themselves the arbiters of what other people can and can't say, think, watch, listen to, or read.

    And no, people such as myself do not want to be totalitarians. I would not like to use the state to punitively enforce my opinions. I would not even like to gather up hundreds and thousands of supporters to pressure a publication (that I do not purchase) to stop printing something on one of it's pages for it's own paying customers. I am very happy to criticize things and I hope that people come to agree with me, but I would not be happy to try to force people to live in my personal conception of some utopia against their will.
    So we were wrong to ban guns.

    You want a society were anybody can ge ttheir hands on guns then?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by stochasticking)
    Doubleplus good mate. In 1984 more and more words got banned which resulted in newspeak.
    SUCH A GOOD BOOK

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    I advocate free speech, but I actually mean it. There are no "but"s.
    The next group of black people I see I am going to insult their race as it is my right due to free speech.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eggs20)
    The next group of black people I see I am going to insult their race as it is my right due to free speech.

    What will/ would you be saying about their race I'm dying to know?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eggs20)
    The next group of black people I see I am going to insult their race as it is my right due to free speech.
    You don't get it do you
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I've got fed up of seeing people decry how our rights to freedom of speech are being taken away from us, and in the same breath saying the gender pay gap is not a problem, making racist remarks, treating women as objects or perpetuating demonstrably false myths about differences in cognitive ability between different socio-economic groups. It's not a nice society to live in, and you can clearly see the effect that it has on people's behaviour. I think tackling myths and prejudice is a valid cause, and if it means you have to take firm actions such as banning the use of sexist phrases in schools, then I support that.

    Nonetheless, I am conflicted. While I think freeing society from the shackles of prejudice is certainly a just cause, there is a great extent to which this mission, if you like, is being extended beyond its justifiable remit. Why, for instance, should I believe in equality of sexes, and then be expected to not criticise Islam for superstitious practices relating to gender. Some people believe that prejudice is a one-way street, and solving it is a matter of identifying oppressor groups and admonishing them. I disagree. I think in order to solve the issue, everyone has to abide by the same standards and if that means traditionally oppressed groups also have to give up some cultural practices then that's simply tough. This isn't a black and white issue and you can't treat any group as being innocent by default, as that simply doesn't reflect reality.

    So while I'm happy for legislation, whether via the equality act or otherwise, to be enacted in order to achieve a social objective, we have to ensure that this legislation is fair, and also that people with localised authority, whether the police or students' unions, aren't abusing their power to enact systems which go beyond legislative boundaries. In this case I agree with OP, it isn't acceptable for students' unions to ban undesirable material and speakers when, we have to bear in mind, the students' they are supposed to represent are adults and should be treated as such. And it's certainly not acceptable for people to be using mob power "to pressure a publication to stop printing something on one of it's pages for it's own paying customers". We have to keep everything in proportion, and page 3 is probably not the source of all evil in society.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eggs20)
    So we were wrong to ban guns.
    We haven't banned Guns. I own 3
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eggs20)
    So we were wrong to ban guns.

    You want a society were anybody can ge ttheir hands on guns then?
    Absolutely we were wrong to ban guns. BRB need the government deciding for us whether we are entitled to self defense or not.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Sure is, they're banning so much even those in charge don't know what or who they are criminalising any more.

    http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015...-doesn-t-under
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    TIL totalitarianism = banning an explicit pop song in a school.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    I've got fed up of seeing people decry how our rights to freedom of speech are being taken away from us, and in the same breath saying the gender pay gap is not a problem, making racist remarks, treating women as objects or perpetuating demonstrably false myths about differences in cognitive ability between different socio-economic groups. It's not a nice society to live in, and you can clearly see the effect that it has on people's behaviour. I think tackling myths and prejudice is a valid cause, and if it means you have to take firm actions such as banning the use of sexist phrases in schools, then I support that.

    Nonetheless, I am conflicted. While I think freeing society from the shackles of prejudice is certainly a just cause, there is a great extent to which this mission, if you like, is being extended beyond its justifiable remit. Why, for instance, should I believe in equality of sexes, and then be expected to not criticise Islam for superstitious practices relating to gender. Some people believe that prejudice is a one-way street, and solving it is a matter of identifying oppressor groups and admonishing them. I disagree. I think in order to solve the issue, everyone has to abide by the same standards and if that means traditionally oppressed groups also have to give up some cultural practices then that's simply tough. This isn't a black and white issue and you can't treat any group as being innocent by default, as that simply doesn't reflect reality.

    So while I'm happy for legislation, whether via the equality act or otherwise, to be enacted in order to achieve a social objective, we have to ensure that this legislation is fair, and also that people with localised authority, whether the police or students' unions, aren't abusing their power to enact systems which go beyond legislative boundaries. In this case I agree with OP, it isn't acceptable for students' unions to ban undesirable material and speakers when, we have to bear in mind, the students' they are supposed to represent are adults and should be treated as such. And it's certainly not acceptable for people to be using mob power "to pressure a publication to stop printing something on one of it's pages for it's own paying customers". We have to keep everything in proportion, and page 3 is probably not the source of all evil in society.
    The "gender" pay gap is not a problem because it doesn't exist.
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.