Case (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
case) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomsecrets2015-03-25 06:48 pm
case) wrote in fandomsecrets2015-03-25 06:48 pm
[ SECRET POST #3003 ]
⌈ Secret Post #3003 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.
__________________________________________________
02.
__________________________________________________
03.
__________________________________________________
04.
__________________________________________________
05.
__________________________________________________
06.
__________________________________________________
07.
__________________________________________________
08.
__________________________________________________
09.
__________________________________________________
10.
__________________________________________________
11.
__________________________________________________
12.
__________________________________________________
13.
__________________________________________________
14.
__________________________________________________
15.
__________________________________________________
16.
__________________________________________________
17.
__________________________________________________
18.
__________________________________________________
19.
__________________________________________________
20.
Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 043 secrets from Secret Submission Post #429.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.
no subject
Organized terrorist cells acting on the part of a large-scale network of religious activism. Note that I don't think that those groups are a very effective censor, since groups with institutional muscle are willing to keep those cartoonists in print.
But, if we're going to exclude discussion then this case has nothing to do with censorship because that's all hashtags are, discussion. If we're going to include discussion, then am I not censoring you by pointing out the essential poverty and idiocy of your ideas on this topic?
If discussion of censorship is going to involve more than crying wolf over linguistic decisions we make hundreds of times a minute, we need to raise our bar a bit. And the best post on which to hang that bar is institutional power.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2015-03-26 12:34 pm (UTC)(link)What defines an institution in your view? Because I would say if we count terrorist organisations as an institution then it would seem that any group of people with a common (and that's a loose definition of common to begin with) goal counts as an institution.
Which if we accept that definition means that censorship can come from an almost limitless source.
And yes, it may be ineffective censorship because these magazines still exist, but if you think they will ever post a cartoon like that again without a serious sweat about it, well you're wrong. They have censored that one type of expression (The discussion of weather anything of value was lost is another thing, but its not a good thing when pictures can be expected to be met with bullets.)
I do not thing shooting up Charlie Hebdo counted as discussion. I think what is happening here is a discussion (a less pleasant discussion since we're calling eachothers ideas idiotic now, but you're not putting any more pressure on me than an exchange of words, so this is not censorship) If you were to start following me all over the internet going on about this discussion over and over, calling my work to get me fired, bringing all your buddy along to shame me for my idiocy, then you would be trying to silence me with something more than a simple discussion, and that would be an attempt to censor me.
no subject
What you don't seem to understand is that I get what you're saying. It's still wrong. It doesn't matter how much you try to shine that turd, separating institutional power from censorship so that you can yell "censorship" indiscriminately in ways that confuse it with criticism and comment is wrong.
If we're going to talk about terrorism as censorship, we need to talk about terrorism as part of heavily funded and organized ideological movements. If we're going to talk about harassment as censorship, we need to talk about levels of power and privilege and abuse of power that allows that to happen.
da
(Anonymous) 2015-03-26 01:59 pm (UTC)(link)