Information icon.svg Voting in the 2023 RationalWiki Moderator Election is now closed. Results to come!


From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives for this talk page: , (new)

Censorship vs Criticism[edit]

"There is probably an overlap with self-censorship, in that vociferous criticism may lead to self-censorship. But what is required is not an absence of criticism but a free debate in which both sides can put their case and the better argument wins."

That certainly sounds good on paper, but first of all, sometimes it's not the better argument that wins, but the loudest or the most popular argument, even if said arguments are rooted in populist opinions rather than pure logic. And if that still meets your personal definition of "better", then my second point; should it be justifiable for an offended minority to be able to force a change contrary to the artist's vision through sheer social pressure? Finally, I would point out that it's disingenuous to use the term "self-censorship," when oftentimes it's the guy from PR caving on the artist's behalf.

With regards to video games, sometimes changes can be made without compromising the vision. The gamergate types may whine about the dev "giving in", but I see it as a win-win. Some artists are open to new points of view, which may lead to new inspiration. Other times, the artist has a specific vision in mind, in which case his freedom of expression should be respected, even if the vision itself is open to criticism. The line is blurry and situational, which is something both sides seem to overlook at times, but it should be respected. To put it bluntly, I support both the concepts of social progress and creative expression, but feel the latter is more important. You're right in that I don't see many folks on the Left calling for censorship and boycotts, but the debate is worth having. (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The Bible[edit]

While there are a large number of apocryphal religious Jewish and Christian religious texts, very few of them were ever widely regarded as authentic

What's the criteria for authenticity? It's well established that the nominal authors weren't responsible for the texts (being as they were mostly of a legendary nature). --Scherben (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Scherben Being a fictionalized entity does make it difficult to write books, or do much of anything for that matter. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I meant the human 'authors' (Moses, Matthew, Mark etc.), but I get your point; which, incidentally, in tandem with my general uselessness, renders me as very possibly imaginary. 😁 --Scherben (talk) 21:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Varieties of censorship[edit]

A TV series has a fight sequence in which one character boxes another's ears (for a matter of seconds): this is removed from 'the replay version' (to prevent potentially dangerous copycat activities). Does this count as censorship?

What about the calls to remove a scene from Home Alone 2, main characters smoking from 'productions of a certain age' (eg the iconic Isambard Kingdom Brunel in front of ships' chains photo)? Anna Livia (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


I think the general structure of this article is rather disorganized. There are a lot of different ideas, but they aren't really grouped together well. "Burying the needle in straw", "Timing bias", and "free speech zones" all discuss some form of censorship, but then it's followed "The Bible", which describes allegations of censorship that don't hold water. "Censorship in films" talks about forms of censorship per country/region, and then "Censorship of books" goes over the censoring books across different historical periods (I'll admit I in some way contributed to this issue in recent edits). Then there's "Self-censorship", and self-censorship is a real form of censorship, but its contents focus specifically on that in film. I'm not sure how this article could organized better. DietMondrian (talk) 06:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)