SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the I-Disapprove-of-What-You-Say,-But-I-Will-Defend-to-the-Death-Your-Right-to-Say-It dept.
From an editorial in the Otago Daily Times out of New Zealand, Censorship a Trojan Horse:
It's an oft-cited maxim that the news media is the "fourth estate" upon which a healthy democracy stands.
It ensures the three traditional powers of state — the legislature, executive and judiciary — can be critiqued, challenged and curbed from quietly drifting into the arms of corruption and authoritarianism.
A free, fair, open and uncensored media is an antidote to state power and, for all its failings (and there are many), should be treasured as such. There are many countries around the world whose people would give anything for such a freedom.
Yet calls for the banning of certain opinion pieces, cartoons and commentary have risen in recent months, especially from those using social media, a world where such talk is becoming a trend. It is a trend we must confront.
Censorship is to suppress the harmful, the unacceptable, the obscene and the threatening from the media and other forms of public communication. Like a virus attacking democracy from the inside out, it was traditionally the tool of the dictator, though it is one used by many in power.
[...] It pays to query what those demanding censorship — be they celebrities, social-media activists or anybody else — see their ultimate goal as being.
To reduce hurt? To make the world a better place? Possibly, and those motivations are laudable. But the method employed to achieve them is not.
While censorship may be meant as a figurative horse upon which a better future rides, inside the belly of that horse lurks an army of conformity, quite capable of unwitting oppression.
History shows what happens when the fourth estate is no longer free to table all opinions.
It is a bleak picture. Without the disinfectant of exposure, power and ideals tend to corrupt even the most seemingly incorruptible.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday October 02 2018, @05:20PM (4 children)
You don't statistics very well, do you? Gay women are *cleaner* than everyone else on every metric except, IIRC, one form of chlamydia. I know, I know, lesbian invisibility; we don't even register in your worldview unless you're on a porn site. But it seems like what you have a problem with is *male* homosexuality. Now, looking closer, the data show that what we have isn't a gay problem, it's a male problem.
Face it, you men are goddamn filthy, and this is coming from someone who spends the better part of a week every month bleeding out her crotch. Males are promiscuous when they can get away with it, semen is basically white blood with all that that entails, and the rectum was never meant for sex.
I get it, you need a justification for your icks. You want data that show you have a right to be, pardon the choice of words here, a complete gaping asshole, and you think you found it. Except, they don't say what you think they say. Risky sex is risky sex no matter who's doing it, and the way males are plumbed means their sex is inevitably going to be riskier, much more so when it's two of them, both because of basic biology and because of how men approach sex.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Tuesday October 02 2018, @05:51PM (1 child)
I modded you informative, but I just want you to know, it was a real debate between that and modding your post funny...
...so I modded you informative while laughing. At least I managed not to spit coffee. :)
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday October 02 2018, @05:57PM
LOL, thanks. Yes, I've done the cat /usr/local/bin/mug/coffee | /dev/marissa/nose > /mnt/desktop thing before and it's no fun. Sorry about that =P
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 02 2018, @11:17PM (1 child)
You missed a couple of points. Gay women may be much cleaner than everyone else now, but he was talking about evolutionary selection not the current situation.
The other thing is the historical difference in reaction to male (1) and female (2) gays combined with your assertion, actually supports his view.
1 kill it with fire
2 Meh, lets watch and then rape
They are both nasty, but from an evolutionary perspective they are very different.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday October 03 2018, @02:59PM
Careful with that evo-psych crack pipe there...too many people point to some half-assed evo-psych idea as justification for poor behavior. We are intelligent animals, and the purpose of that intelligence is to tell Mother Nature and her abusive pimp Malthus where to go, what to do when they get there, with whom, and for how long. Evolution is an explanation, not an excuse, and we're more than the sum of our genes.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...