ask
tags
about

animatedamerican:

emperorirene:

animatedamerican:

emperorirene:

animatedamerican:

patrickat:

Censorship: The government says, “No, you cannot publish that.”

Not censorship: Your consumers say, “No, I find this problematic and I will not buy it.”

[SNIP]

It’s not the ‘being disagreed with’ that made me see OPs opinion as wrong, it’s the “I find it problematic and therefore will not view”.

I mean, unless it was just about the difference between buying something and torrenting it? But I didn’t get that impression on first read. Mainly because it would be immensely hypocritical: “I watch it, but you shouldn’t make it.” Like, who does that? If you viewed something and didn’t like it and chose not to carry on with it, that’s picking your preferences, it’s not black-listing something because you think it should not be there in the first place.

No, this is just about electing to stay away from certain stuff. Not viewing the opposition’s media/arguments/presentations, because you disagree with them out of principle. Not reading pornography because you disagree with it out of principle, etc. That is a form of censorship through the “public opinion” factor.

Something might not be censured by some official decree, but if you avoid it as if it were illegal because “it’s immoral” or “it’s shameful” or “it’s problematic”, all these generalized categories that are formed by groups, that is as good as censorship. (It might be valid! Not all censorship is invalid, after all our popular porn websites lack paedophilia and bestiality videos for a reason.)

But if it’s just a question of spending money rather than actually viewing, carry on.

You still seem to be conflating “I am not going to consume this media item,” or even “I believe that nobody should be producing or consuming this media item,” with “I have the power to shut down production of this media item regardless of whether or not anyone wants to consume it and I am doing so.”

The difference between censorship and not-censorship is entirely to do with whether or not somebody other than me gets to decide what media items are available for my consumption, and can enforce that decision. People getting to choose what media to consume or to avoid, and/or to encourage others to consume or to avoid, for whatever reason — including the desire to go along with (or to deliberately flout) public opinion — is how freedom of speech works.

Is there such a thing as social pressure that influences individual choices?  Of course there is, and of course it does.  But it isn’t censorship; it’s the grassroots social process that censorship attempts to circumvent by imposing an artificial public opinion from above.  It is exactly the state of affairs that outlawing censorship is intended to safeguard.

And OP’s point is that the label of “censorship” tends to be a poor argument that supporters of problematic media use to try to shut down critics — as though critics wielded (or sought) governmental power to enforce their criticism.

See, no. This is why I was explaining the two forms of censorship. You might call it non-censorship because it is not done by an official body. I argue it’s censorship anyway, even if it is not done by an official body, because censorship does not depend on who does it: whether it’s the government or society, it’s still something above you that you obey.

That’s why I called it censorship via endoxa, to distinguish it from classical censorship. But as I said, it’s more academic. When you talk legal stuff and whatever, sure go with the classical terminology. But from a social or anthropological perspective, endoxa-censorship is what it is. The fact that you don’t think it is, doesn’t really matter.

Whether supporters of problematic media should undergo censure or not, the fact that they see an attempt at censorship through public opinion is not, I think, just a mass hallucination. They’re probably right on some level, exactly because of the effects of endoxa that they are aware of, and that you are aware of. You wouldn’t try to get people to not watch a thing if you thought it had no chance of working. I can tell now that you don’t want to call it censorship because it’s full of negative connotations and you don’t want to be associated with that. But if something deserves to be collectively shunned, or censured, there’s no shame in saying that. Again, censorship is used on a host of really ugly things and we should be grateful for that.

llesim:

weirdo kitties I.

friend: isn't that... a little bitchy?
me: does it seems like i care about that?

animatedamerican:

emperorirene:

animatedamerican:

patrickat:

Censorship: The government says, “No, you cannot publish that.”

Not censorship: Your consumers say, “No, I find this problematic and I will not buy it.”

Yup.

Also not censorship: Your consumers say “All of you writers/artists need to stop doing the problematic thing if you want us to buy your product,” and encourage other consumers to say the same.

Also also not censorship: A fellow consumer of media says “Your arguments about how this is not problematic are wrong, and/or you are a jerk.”

(Arguably a form of censorship but not a violation of constitutional freedom of speech: the publisher / network / producer / website owner says “No, you cannot use my platform to say that.”)

And while I am pretty vehemently anti-censorship for a whole host of reasons, if you cite freedom of speech as a defense when called out for saying something repugnant, I will almost immediately take you a hell of a lot less seriously.

Aaaaactually, that’s censorship too. It’s technically censorship through endoxa, in which the viewers weigh the work against what society tells them they should like, and elect to limit their consumption out of modesty or fear of being judged. But it is a more academic type of censorship.

Like, take the Hong Kong riots. There’s lots of arguments on both sides - which is ridiculous because how can you argue against democracy? But if you go in the tag here on tumblr you will find plenty enough posts from Hong Kongers saying how useless and troublesome those protesters are, and how the police are in the right because the students are breaking the law, etc. etc. That is endoxa at work, and those people are the type who would avoid media speaking against the government because they find those critical arguments problematic. The government so far allows protesters and journalists on the ground and relies on a sufficient number of docile citizens to elect not to consume their media/statements, and produces endoxa-compliant media for them to support their beliefs and discredit the protesters, i.e. censorship by endoxa.

Nnnnno, that is a form of maintaining (or attempting to maintain) control over public opinion without the use of censorship.

"We’ll let them talk because we can safely assume no one will listen" is the opposite of censorship.  So is “We’ll let them talk and we’ll talk louder about how wrong they are.”

Being disagreed with or discredited is. not. censorship.

(“Endoxa,” incidentally, appears to be Old High Academianese for “public opinion.”  The wikipedia and simplepedia articles on it are pretty interesting.  I may have found fault with emperorirene​’s comment here, but credit where credit is due, I’ve learned a new word from it.)

It’s not the ‘being disagreed with’ that made me see OPs opinion as wrong, it’s the “I find it problematic and therefore will not view”.

I mean, unless it was just about the difference between buying something and torrenting it? But I didn’t get that impression on first read. Mainly because it would be immensely hypocritical: “I watch it, but you shouldn’t make it.” Like, who does that? If you viewed something and didn’t like it and chose not to carry on with it, that’s picking your preferences, it’s not black-listing something because you think it should not be there in the first place.

No, this is just about electing to stay away from certain stuff. Not viewing the opposition’s media/arguments/presentations, because you disagree with them out of principle. Not reading pornography because you disagree with it out of principle, etc. That is a form of censorship through the “public opinion” factor.

Something might not be censured by some official decree, but if you avoid it as if it were illegal because “it’s immoral” or “it’s shameful” or “it’s problematic”, all these generalized categories that are formed by groups, that is as good as censorship. (It might be valid! Not all censorship is invalid, after all our popular porn websites lack paedophilia and bestiality videos for a reason.)

But if it’s just a question of spending money rather than actually viewing, carry on.

thegestianpoet:

Autumn: A Jazz Mix

Here’s a laid-back little jazz playlist for the season. Hope you guys like it! I tried to keep it cool and not too coffeehouse-cute. 

(Album art is Childe Hassam, Street Scene in Paris, Autumn, 1889)

DOWNLOAD HERE!

and not a single f*** was given

❝ Poor Chilty. So frightened. Like a mouse who’s had his tail complimented by a cat. ❞
my friend Aida on the first dinner scene between Hannibal and Chilton

theseromaniansarecrazy:

We’ve been to Rasinari this year, close to Sibiu (central Romania), and its a great and rather wealthy shepherd village. But the greatest wealth there is nature and culture. Very lovely!