1. an official who examines material that is about to be released, such as books, movies, news, and art, and suppresses any parts that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
verb
verb: censor; 3rd person present: censors; past tense: censored; past participle: censored; gerund or present participle: censoring
1. examine (a book, movie, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it.
Now that we know what the word "censor" means, continue.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Water Dog wrote:At least one of you is willing to be honest about it, thanks! Now that we're being honest, the more interesting discussion to have is how far are you willing to go?
Do you mean to ask how far you’re willing to go to force some media networks to carry, for free, other people’s crap content produced for profit?
Did you have trouble typing ‘InfoWars’ into your browser, or something? How helpless are Alex Jones fans?
Water Dog wrote:At least one of you is willing to be honest about it, thanks! Now that we're being honest, the more interesting discussion to have is how far are you willing to go?
Do you mean to ask how far you’re willing to go to force some media networks to carry, for free, other people’s crap content produced for profit?
Did you have trouble typing ‘InfoWars’ into your browser, or something? How helpless are Alex Jones fans?
They can stay in their little corner and talk amongst themselves, but they want to be taken seriously and part of the mainstream. They don't like being on the margins of society and mocked by the "elites". I get that. It sucks for them. But life's not fair.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
DarkHelmet wrote:They can stay in their little corner and talk amongst themselves, but they want to be taken seriously and part of the mainstream. They don't like being on the margins of society and mocked by the "elites". I get that. It sucks for them. But life's not fair.
These children want to be spoon fed their pablum wherever they sit their lazy arses down, and expect everyone else to clean up their spit-up afterwards. Let the entitlement-minded whiny little infants roll around in their own slop while in their own rooms, as far as I’m concerned.
canpakes wrote:Do you mean to ask how far you’re willing to go to force some media networks to carry, for free, other people’s crap content produced for profit?
Did you have trouble typing ‘InfoWars’ into your browser, or something? How helpless are Alex Jones fans?
Come on now, let's not play these games. I think we all know the score at this point, so how about we quit damned around and get right to it?
Water Dog wrote:Come on now, let's not play these games. I think we all know the score at this point, so how about we quit damned around and get right to it?
OK. You apparently want only Trump-run media that is forced to play Alex Jones. There, done.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Well. I think the problem with free speech is that it works. And that doesn't work for a lot of people. The key to advancing one's agenda is to shut down the opposition's ability to broadcast their ideas on any given issue.
Would I shut down Trump if I could? As much as it pains me to read his tweets or hear him speak I wouldn't. Ever. And believe you me it's distressing to know this guy is our President.
But here's the rub. I voted for Hillary Clinton and half of what she would say irked the ever living crap out of me. So I understand how the Right felt when Obama and Hillary Clinton would get their platform to say what they wanted to say.
So, back to OP's point. I think unless Facebook becomes a utility it has every right to run its business how it wants, and it's up to us to use it or not. Same with bakers. Same with tailors. Whatever. We may not like how people think, speak, and conduct business, but I find it far more problematic to force people to do something they don't want to do. That's authoritariansim and that's un-American.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Well. I think the problem with free speech is that it works. And that doesn't work for a lot of people. The key to advancing one's agenda is to shut down the opposition's ability to broadcast their ideas on any given issue.
Or to drown them out with a deluge of advertising (Citizens United).
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:Well. I think the problem with free speech is that it works. And that doesn't work for a lot of people. The key to advancing one's agenda is to shut down the opposition's ability to broadcast their ideas on any given issue.
Or to drown them out with a deluge of advertising (Citizens United).
One man dollar one vote. Money talks, so why shouldn't it vote?
That is (alas!) now the American Way, and the habit is spreading to other countries.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
