The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Reading manifestos: restricting Brenton Tarrant’s The Great Replacement > Comments

Reading manifestos: restricting Brenton Tarrant’s The Great Replacement : Comments

By Binoy Kampmark, published 21/3/2019

Removing the manifesto does a disservice to any arguments that might be mounted against him, but having a debate is not what this is generally about.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
"The censor, in attitude, practice and assumption, remains as great a danger to society as any dangerous text ever could be."

What a profound appraisal by Binoy of the concept of thought control!

One's thinking and attitude is determined by awareness of as many differing propositions as possible, a factor in reasoned debating of an issue.
A nuanced effect of any form of externally imposed censorship is the self-censoring of ideas which flow after one's exposure to a range of arguments - this is normal and natural but needs to be realised as part of personal bias.
This is a reason why it is difficult for journalists to achieve balance in their reporting of any contentious matter; they should try to report facts, not impressions.

Truth is best realised by those who are fortunate to have been educated in the skills of scepticism and the appreciation of the effect of each word or deed upon another fellow being.
Censorship is a fall-back for individual lack of awareness
Posted by Ponder, Thursday, 21 March 2019 8:29:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ponder,

Alliteration is a temptation!

However, I shall resist and simply say that I agree entirely.
A one-sided discussion is no discussion at all and censorship, especially in this case, aids the one being censored.
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 21 March 2019 8:46:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Children are not born knowing hate! It has to be learned! From parents most probably!? And or, educators? Clerics, scheming inherently disingenuous politicians, especially those seeking reelection and needing scapegoats to get them over the line.

Those appealed to and radicalised have an average IQ lower than the ambient temperature. Or are seriously intellectually challenged?

Civil discourse, can and often does include heated passionate debate.

But never ever, anything like the cold, calculated, mass murder carried out in a house of prayer as the occupants were communing with their maker!

People like Trump, Edowan, Netanyahu, I believe, have a lot to answer for!?

As they work the crowd and the mass media stirring and using ignorance and hate!?

Real leaders like Nelson Mandella, Mahat Gandhi and similar others, (I have a dream) would use a very different approach and wise counsel.

If I had my druthers, I'd re-open devil's Island and incarcerate that animal there for the term of his natural life! As the sole occupant!

There are worse things than death!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 21 March 2019 9:29:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The people who want this censored have either:

1. Not read it - in which case how do they know it ought to be censored?

2. Read it. If they've read it were they radicalised by it? Clearly not. So they read it and were unchanged, unaffected. But they think that others will be swayed. Why? Because they assume that others aren't as intelligent as themselves and won't be able to make sober decisions, unlike themselves.

In the end censorship is about superiority. Their thinking goes...We can watch/read this because we are sober, intelligent, discerning people...you can't read it because, in comparison, you're a moron who won't be able to make a discerning judgement about the subject. So we have to make the judgement for you.

(queue screams..think of the children).

Censorship is always wrong, never right. Always counter-productive, never effective. Always elitist, never democratic.

(For my part, I decided that I wasn't going to watch the video....until they said I couldn't. I wasn't going to keep a copy of the manifesto until they said they'd ban it from the WWW. Now I have a copy hidden in my own special way such that no-one will find it - you do this by compressing into a passworded zip file, which is compressed into a passworded zip file, which is compressed into a passworded zip file and so on ...10 times. )

Russians used to have to go to such lengths to read 1984. Where are we headed? We are doing exactly what the terrorists, Mohomedian and others) want.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 21 March 2019 11:55:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Binoy Kampmark, this is one of the best things you've ever written in my opinion. That's probably because I agree with your words. I usually find disagreement in your work, but not today.

You are correct in pointing out that censorship, the opposite of free speech, is having a detrimental effect on this Islamic calamity. The same can be said of all other topical issues in today's political environment as well.

There's a simple principle in physics, which is analogous to this problem. I have observed that people, with physical bodies and brains, also react and respond to this simple principle in the same way.

That is, if we view the terrorism wars as being inflamed and increasing, then we can see that temperature is causing an escalation of extremism and violence. Things are hotting up.

In physics, if we increase the temperature of the contents of a closed container, then the pressure increases; simple. This is what happens when politicians and media conceal, censor, don't allow discussion, quash free speech about an issue and call it hate-speech, shut down debate and screw the lid on even more tightly. A heated closed container creates an increase in social pressure resulting in extremism and radicalisation.

If society adopts a different approach, an open container, an open society permitting all of the opposites I listed above - then increasing the temperature of the contents of a container results in a decrease of pressure. In fact, remove the pressure through free speech, open debate, enlightenment and discussion, and social harmony may ensue. Open containers and societies don't allow a dangerous build up of destructive and explosive pressures.

In summary, if someone increases the temperature in society by policy, legislation or actions, then they'd better loosen the cap and let excess pressure be released. A safety valve.

Censorship is analogous to screwing the lid down tighter. Big mistake, which is happening all over the western world. It's such a simple thing to understand, it makes one wonder why global western governments are keeping lids screwed down tightly? I don't think it's by accident.
Posted by voxUnius, Thursday, 21 March 2019 1:32:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For decades academia argued that we were not affected by what we saw and read hence the flood of pornography, violent video games and putried reality tv sewerage. A man writes as to why he commits a gross crime and the reasons are hidden. Yep Binoy for once I also agree but probably for difference reasons.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 21 March 2019 1:43:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy