# CENSORSHIP VS TASTE:  WHEN SHOULD WE PUT ON THE BRAKES?



## clark (Apr 14, 2020)

I am concerned, however, to keep the broad topic of censorship alive as an important discussion for all of us as writers, poets and fiction writers alike. The issue is especially important _right now_ when the original standards of Political Correctness--designed to protect the rights of maligned minorities--have morphed into a nervous hysteria about using _any _words, especially those that denote a 'beleaguered'  group of people, that might offend anyone. We have all heard of absurdities such as actually changing the title in re-issues of Joseph Conrad's _Nigger of the Narcissus_ or deleting the word from current editions of Twain's _Huckleberry Finn.

_The famous obscenity trial of Lawrence's _Lady Chatterley's Lover _took place in England in 1960, though *un*censored editions of the novel  had been published in Italy (1928) and France (1929), thirty years before it was declared NOT obscene and free to be published in England. The basic principle that swayed the Court was that the use of coarse language throughout, specifically the words "fuck" and "cunt" were _integral to the fabric of the art and for that reason had literary merit in their own right _(my italics). This issue of censorship vis a vis this novel created a global shitstorm, generating further obscenity trials in the US, Canada, Australia, India, and Japan (where the trial went on for eight years and resulted in a judgment of GUILTY and hefty fines for the publisher).With the exception of Japan, the acceptance of _Lady Chatterley's Lover_ cleared the stage for Hugh Selby's _Last Exit to Brooklyn _(1964) and Jerzy Kosinsky's _The Painted Bird_ (1965), two novels so gross, so disgusting in content and language, as to make Lawrence's book seem a pleasant walk through a gentle springtime garden. [WIKI for factual details]

Lawrence, Selby, and Kosinsky are three pioneers, if you will, who granted me as a writer the freedom to write as I see fit, free of imposed standards from the community or any other outside body. Theirs was a moral battle, mine is simply a stylistic one, but the issue--holding my hand for fear of a perceived rejection by potential readers--is the same. In my view, as writers, we should accept *zero* censorship, self-imposed or otherwise, for anything we write. The publishing industry, in the first instance, and the reading public in the second, will dictate whether I have exercised appropriate 'taste' and 'judgment' in what I write about and how I write.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Apr 14, 2020)

I also have no taste for censorship (See what I did?  ) 

To my mind this says it '-holding my hand for fear of a perceived rejection by potential readers'; 'perceived', 'potential' ? It's tilting at windmills. Write it as best you can to your personal satisfaction, any less and you are cheating yourself and your readers


----------



## velo (Apr 14, 2020)

Censorship is intellectual cancer, it is succumbing to fear and small-mindedness.


----------



## escorial (Apr 14, 2020)

Hypocrisy is the name of the game and censorship is in tune with time but not a slave to it...


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Apr 14, 2020)

Normally this is where I would insert a clever gif of Han Solo blasting a comms panel.


----------



## Sir-KP (Apr 15, 2020)

Well, my novels die as fetuses then...


----------



## Olly Buckle (Apr 15, 2020)

I am not sure that "Most has been done for good", Biro. Well intentioned maybe, but the Inquisition had the good intention of saving people's souls. I always remember a friend of my youth saying "All the worst things people did to me they told me were for my own good." It's like 'This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you', it's a lie.

You used to get faggots in chip shops, a while since I have seen one, but I can say, 'When I was younger I enjoyed munching on a faggot after a few beers'.  

As the OP says, it is a matter of taste. Tasteless does not make for good writing on the whole, but from Lady Chatterley to Lolita there have been those who successfully push the boundaries. My feeling is that they are the ones who pushed it because they had something to say and that was the best way of saying it. When it is done purely for the sake of sensationalism the audience becomes limited to a particular sort of sensation seeker.


----------



## Amnesiac (Apr 15, 2020)

Figuring out how to include the term, "ass fisting," in my latest work. Stay tuned....


----------



## indianroads (Apr 15, 2020)

I recall reading an old aesop fable about a man with two wives - one younger, the other older than him. Anyway - to skip to the end, the point of the story was that if we seek to please all, we usually end up pleasing none.

IMO good tales have a point to them - something that makes the reader think... which most resist (thinking hurts maybe?). Anything that provokes thought is going to be controversial. 

Use of derogatory language could skew your audience away from YA,MG or whatever - but personally, I wouldn't let that worry censor my story.


----------



## Biro (Apr 15, 2020)

indianroads said:


> Use of derogatory language could skew your audience away from YA,MG or whatever - but personally, I wouldn't let that worry censor my story.



That never stopped or hindered Roy Chubby Brown or Kevin Bloody Wilson.

Here you go Pip.  See what you think of our Kevin.......  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwBR0qwHZBA

The farce of banning words.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Apr 15, 2020)

Nabokov had a philosophy that said that structure and style were the key elements of telling a story. He used to teach creative writing in 3 universities. Style was poetry. I don't know what he meant by structure. Anyways he would rewrite entire passages allegedly because he was looking for the right words. So rewriting to find the right words is something Olly buckle was hinting at. How do I know? I was reading a book written on one lesson Nabokov wrote who considered charles dickens, jane austen (for mansfield park and pride, and prejudice I assume), and some other writers geniuses. His lesson was on the bleakest house. Anyways I read only a small part of the book before deciding not to buy it. He was funny too and that is a reason I read. Supposedly he was pretentious. This is a person who said that an amoeba would make for a cute pet.

To him theme was important. The fog was considered a part of the theme and childhood in the bleak house.


----------



## Cephus (Apr 15, 2020)

I don't do censorship. If there's something I want to say, I say it. Whether that hurts your feelings is your problem, not mine. I cannot conceivably force offense on you, you have to take offense to things and that's your responsibility. Now granted, I don't tend to write a lot of controversial things, at least not in my fiction, but if I wanted to, I would without a moment's hesitation. If you don't like it, don't read it. It really isn't that hard.


----------



## seigfried007 (Apr 15, 2020)

I'm vehemently anti-censorship, but I've actually suffered when my art offended the wrong people.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Apr 15, 2020)

I consider you talented seigfried007. Don't lose that passion you have. The evidence would be your stories which I wish I could read, but are too violent for me. I'd need to be courageous, and hope it doesn't affect me mentally. Which you said I shouldn't do. So for the time being can't read it.

I have different struggles myself as you already knew. I am buying books that have to do with the process of writing description or prose. One is a new release called the mechanics of creative writing sold on amazon. If all my efforts fail or succeed I plan on buying spellbinding sentences when the mail office opens again to imitate the syntax of other authors. That is my long term plan. The problem with dictation is the sentence becomes too long (outlining is required and concious knowledge of rules). The microphone I bought not yet delivered mutes itself when you put it on the table. So I can try imitation. But I need to practice those sentence structures in the book. Because supposedly those are the basic syntax structures in all the language. It's hard to learn from a kindle book. That is something I will try to do in my spare time. Might have to load amazon cloud reader to see it on the screen. There's a poetry book that teaches how to observe the world. But the mail office is closed. Where I live there as if martial law because everything closes at 5: 00 p.m..

Some people dictate with the book with syntax exercises. But I must learn each sentence pattern. Which I must memorize. It's not easy, and I need to practice them. But kindle doesn't let customers save the most important highlights if these are extremely close to the text (can't be a huge area of text).


----------



## Olly Buckle (Apr 15, 2020)

seigfried007 said:


> I'm vehemently anti-censorship, but I've actually suffered when my art offended the wrong people.



I am intrigued, my imagination has you writing a story about the Mafia that was a little too accurate


----------



## Theglasshouse (Apr 15, 2020)

The young are easily influenced. Books should be rated if possible. I know because some diseases set in because if something is found to be unsettling. Such is my experience. If something is too creepy I can visualize it for a long time. It's a way to prevent disease.

On the other hand I kind of disagree with olly buckle on his last post. People watch movies based on theme of drug cartels. People who sell drugs actually copy the tactics of infamous drug lords. TV influences people in the wrong ways.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Apr 15, 2020)

That's dark posting biro. You should relax. If something is troubling you seek therapy. I can't be the only person who needs them. It's off the point and is figurative which means there is a subcontext. Anger isn't the answer, however, maybe the answer is cooling down and reasoning. If you need a break from stress do take that break. One way is avoiding everything that troubles you including avoiding certain websites that could cause emotional reactions you don't want. My doctor recommends avoidance of stress to me if on tv and other places. Avoid conflictive situations.


----------



## Squalid Glass (Apr 15, 2020)

I am against censorship, but I am all for calling out those whose words incite hatred and bigotry into the world. I also believe context matters more than anything.


----------



## seigfried007 (Apr 15, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> I am intrigued, my imagination has you writing a story about the Mafia that was a little too accurate


If only it were that easy. I could post a story like that anywhere. People are inured to sex, drugs, and violence. 

I've actually written quite a lot of stories that people found offensive. I've lost friends. My WIP I'm almost ended in divorce. For a few years, it was a "pick me or the book" and I picked him. Now, he's chill enough I can write on it and even talk about it. I mentioned to my mother that part of it included a metaphorical trip through Hell, and she says I need to be exorcised. Book is psychological horror. It makes people uncomfortable--and _it's supposed to._ Even people who like the book need frequent and often long breaks from reading it.  I respect that.

There are some subjects that inherently offend people--no matter how tastefully they're written about, or what angle they're viewed from. Said book probably has all of them in it. The only thing I haven't delved into is politics, I think, but I've got religion, mental illness, child abuse, rape, slavery, and about seventeen other cans of worms that no one in their right mind would've bothered opening--let alone stirring into one big pot to serve up to not-so-delighted dinner guests.

I can kind of boil it down to  "After a lot of harrowing experiences, a 'boring normal family man' realizes that he's never been normal in his life--he only _thought_ he was normal because he's a die-hard Apparently Normal Personality, and faking that everything's normal is his job."

Or

"A group of abuse survivors struggle to process trauma and heal. They might all be the same person."


----------



## Theglasshouse (Apr 16, 2020)

Thanks biro for taking it easy.


----------



## indianroads (Apr 16, 2020)

I believe the best books are about something beyond the usual action-adventure-romance-etc. tropes. That stuff is fun - good fodder for a transatlantic flight - but not thought provoking enough to remain with me in the years to come. Examples what I like (from the SciFi genre that I usually read) are: (off the top of my head) 1984, Atlas Shrugged, Fahrenheit 451, Childhoods End, and The Gods Themselves. They are stories that every so often I read again.

The books I listed are all classics, but at one time or the other they may have been controversial. (Or maybe not, I don't know.)

My belief is that if someone wants to be upset and make a spectacle about what I've written, they are free to do so. I won't change what I write based on what people might think. It's my story, and if I believe in it strong enough to go through the trouble of planning, writing, editing, working with an editor and a cover designer, I'll write what I damned well please and let the chips fall where they may.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Apr 16, 2020)

I agree also with what you and Cephus said. But hatred is something I dislike since if you are writing young adult it influences children who in turn want to hurt other children psychologically and when fully grown adults. Flowers of Algernon may be all fantasy (i think it is fantasy it is based on a play). It was banned in some places. I believe censorship can be defined by toning down the content and banning the book. The former I would be in favor off and is less severe. Would it make a social impact? I think schools choose books in most cases that are educational, entertaining, and tolerant. Books for adults though dont like it reaching the hands of children.

Flowers of algernon has a killer premise. A retarded person becomes a genuis. He hates people and starts to harm them or kill I dont know. But it has a sad ending I imagine.

I've seen retarded kids bullied. I tried to speak up for one when in mclean high school when I was there, but they just push an agenda that I dont like.

In this case I would defend minorities.

To kill a mockingbird is the right way to handle controversial racism imo. It does it well but I can't explain how. It's also been donated to lirbaries by the author and they have tried banning it before. She did it in reaction to the attempt to ban it.

Values based programs in schools are often based on books, poetry.

It is a way to combat bullying, make friends, and so on. Because it helps you mind-read other people who are always facing some sort of prejudice.


----------



## clark (Apr 16, 2020)

Looking at the OP in a broader context, do not most countries have anti-hate legislation? In Canada, it is illegal to disseminate "literature" that advocates hate towards just about any identifiable group, notably race, religion, colour, sexual orientation  etc. It is illegal in speech or in _distributed _written text, presumably pamphlets, articles, non-fiction books etc. The Supreme Court of Canada has deliberated long and hard on individual cases over the past forty years.

An interesting case would be a novel in which a character is an hysterical racist, let’s say. Under the ‘protection’ of his character, this vicious, bigoted individual spews his venom onto the other characters in the novel or on stage were the medium a play. How do you think the Court would or should rule?


----------



## Biro (Apr 16, 2020)

clark said:


> Looking at the OP in a broader context, do not most countries have anti-hate legislation? In Canada, it is illegal to disseminate "literature" that advocates hate towards just about any identifiable group, notably race, religion, colour, sexual orientation  etc. It is illegal in speech or in _distributed _written text, presumably pamphlets, articles, non-fiction books etc. The Supreme Court of Canada has deliberated long and hard on individual cases over the past forty years.
> 
> An interesting case would be a novel in which a character is an hysterical racist, let’s say. Under the ‘protection’ of his character, this vicious, bigoted individual spews his venom onto the other characters in the novel or on stage were the medium a play. How do you think the Court would or should rule?



Trying to stop such a thing as racism or hate by stopping people ever saying certain words or writing fictional books about it will never work and is ridiculous.  It is the lunacy and proof that the people in charge do not learn or even look as to what is going on around them.  So they just do knee jerk reactions and introduce policies on such a basis.

It has been illegal to rape or kill people since law was first introduced into civilisations.  It has never ever stopped or reduced people committing such crimes.  It just punishes those caught.

So introducing laws which have the effect of stopping people writing a book/story, which then a court could rule that it broke the law is one thing.  But the law is farcical because it does not do what it was intended to achieve, which was to stop those things happening. 

 The law just stops people writing about such things so is nothing but censorship and will not solve the problems of racism or bigotry. 

 Even more farcical can you actually prove that a fictional book made someone commit those offences?  Of course you can't.  So the court would rule that you broke their censorship rules that's all and punish you for just writing a story.

So the law has achieved nothing but pushing the problem under the carpet.

You can punish people for committing such acts.  But including writing or speaking of such isn't anything but censorship.

Is writing or speaking about such acts incitement?  I can't see how it could be unless you were on a soapbox or writing and telling a crowd to actually go out and commit such crimes.


----------



## BornForBurning (Apr 16, 2020)

> It has never ever stopped or reduced people committing such crimes


uh no offense but citation needed. First of all by your own words since rape and murder has been illegal since the dawn of time, we have very little idea what impact of these laws actually is. By that I mean, in a purely scientific sense. No objective study has ever been done on the impact of rape laws on the prevalence of the crime itself, but that doesn't necessarily prevent us from making reasonable guesses. 


> An interesting case would be a novel in which a character is an hysterical racist, let’s say. Under the ‘protection’ of his character, this vicious, bigoted individual spews his venom onto the other characters in the novel or on stage were the medium a play. How do you think the Court would or should rule?


This is where people say 'context matters' but honestly, I'm skeptical. Say we take a real-life racist and place him a venue of academic debate. Okay, we've just placed him in a context that nullifies the negative impact of his racism. The problem is that once he leaves that context, he's still just as dangerous. My point: unfortunately, due to human fallibility, the same precise principle can be applied to literature. It doesn't matter how many pains you take to make sure that the audience understands a character's actions are evil. There will always be the theoretical person running around wrecking havoc in this debate, wrecking havoc because for whatever reason, they find the evil stuff desirable. Even worse, I've actually met these theoretical people in real life, so it's not just an abstract concept. Children are especially good at this. They pick some negative element, remove it from context, and decide it's 'cool.' 

Note that in practice, I am suggesting nothing. By this observation, we could never depict anything evil in literature, ever. Still, to me it's interesting. And worth thinking about.


----------



## Biro (Apr 16, 2020)

BornForBurning said:


> uh no offense but citation needed. First of all by your own words since rape and murder has been illegal since the dawn of time, we have very little idea what impact of these laws actually is. By that I mean, in a purely scientific sense. No objective study has ever been done on the impact of rape laws on the prevalence of the crime itself, but that doesn't necessarily prevent us from making reasonable guesses.



I take your valid points and agree with you.  But to argue my point.  Would you think it was wise to introduce wide sweeping laws to solve a problem which actually silence people who had no intention of incitement?

Under the laws in question where an author falls foul of the law by including a rape scene in their story because it has technically crossed the line as incitement would be farcical.  So then do you see the point I am making regards other laws like racism and bigotry?


----------



## Olly Buckle (Apr 16, 2020)

seigfried007 said:


> If only it were that easy. I could post a story like that anywhere. People are inured to sex, drugs, and violence.
> 
> I've actually written quite a lot of stories that people found offensive. I've lost friends. My WIP I'm almost ended in divorce. For a few years, it was a "pick me or the book" and I picked him. Now, he's chill enough I can write on it and even talk about it. I mentioned to my mother that part of it included a metaphorical trip through Hell, and she says I need to be exorcised. Book is psychological horror. It makes people uncomfortable--and _it's supposed to._ Even people who like the book need frequent and often long breaks from reading it.  I respect that.
> 
> ...



My other half won't read anything of mine because she thought she saw herself in one of the first stories she read. Normally she reads in bed before going to sleep, but at the moment she is reading 'The String diaries' and won't pick it up other than in broad daylight, too scary.

Now there is another thread, 'If there was book burning, which books would you burn?'


----------



## Biro (Apr 16, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> Now there is another thread, 'If there was book burning, which books would you burn?'



Anything by an ex-political leader would give a good heat to the fire for a start.  Most likely pure fantasy anyway.:cool2:


----------



## BornForBurning (Apr 16, 2020)

> Now there is another thread, 'If there was book burning, which books would you burn?' :smile:


1. Satanic Bible (Tom Stupid)
2. Night (always hated it, hate that they made us read it in high school)
3. Brave New World (just awful literature. At least it's kind of thought provoking)
4. Any prose 'adaptions' of Beowulf (pointless)
5. Porn, porn, and more porn
6. Hentai
7. Every piece of deconstructionist philosophy ever, except for Derrida
8. That horrible book that Lauren Southern put out like three or four years ago. I think it was called BARBARIANS, and she was staring at you disapprovingly on the cover. 
9. In a similar vein, ALL CONTEMPORARY POLITICAL COMMENTARY. The Bannon Papers, or whatever!?!?!? In Barnes and Nobel?!?!? Embarrassing. 
10. One word: How-to-raise-your-teenager-manuals. 
11. That terrible children's book with a black boy who can't be much older than five running around in a dress because 'boys can be princesses too.' Probably should be classed as        child abuse. 
12. Absolutely anything with Ben Shapiro's face on it. 
13. That horrible mini-genre that's popped up around worshiping Ruth Bader Ginsburg. 
14. Outdated Javascript manuals. 
15. JORDAN. PETERSON. 
16. Those 'memoirs' by celebrities and political figures that were almost certainly written by ghost writers. (I'm looking at you, Michelle Obama) 
17. Blank Disney Property: A TwIstED tALe
18. "Hi. My name is angsty teen. I'm just like every other gender, except, I'm different." 

And last but not least, books written...by Minecraft youtubers


----------



## Olly Buckle (Apr 16, 2020)

What a can of worms I have opened there!

By all means don't read them, never give the bookstore/author your money for them, but burning them? A step too far for me.


----------



## escorial (Apr 16, 2020)

words have consequences....


----------



## Xander416 (Apr 16, 2020)

BornForBurning said:


> 1. Satanic Bible (Tom Stupid)
> 2. Night (always hated it, hate that they made us read it in high school)
> 3. Brave New World (just awful literature. At least it's kind of thought provoking)
> 4. Any prose 'adaptions' of Beowulf (pointless)
> ...


Only one I don't agree with is no. 5. The rest can go to the bonfire. :king:


----------



## Biro (Apr 16, 2020)

escorial said:


> words have consequences....




Then lets ban all spoken and written words then just to please people who believe that.  Because you never know where a spoken word may lead.  Then we will get on with our lives not speaking, not seeing, not reading, and not hearing from anybody inside our bubble.


----------



## escorial (Apr 16, 2020)

billions believe in white magic or black because of words


----------



## Biro (Apr 16, 2020)

escorial said:


> billions believe in white magic or black because of words



Only if you can spell.


----------



## Xander416 (Apr 16, 2020)

Biro said:


> Only if you can spell.


Spelling? That's incredibly offensive to some, you know.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Apr 16, 2020)

Psychology runs on theory that is field tested and peer reviewed. It may be philosophical but it is studied. Therefore, we can assume that it occurs and reoccurs when they talk of prejudice or cognitive dissonance and so on. People are the product of the environment (the physical place and the people who influence others including family) and heredity(genes). Words influence people.

Books are part of the culture you grow up in. So if you grew in a social environment or culture that happens to promote less than favorable views. People never receive a social education that is formal. That has been left to the arts. If we quote some eductors such as John Dewey (educational philosopher. You can search his quotes on arts education) then we can say agree when he says art is education is that it included books. And simple books run and ethos and pathos. That is emotion I think for ethos, and pathos for conflict it makes us believe people can turn to the imaginary and think it is real like Plato's cave. Except now we have a tv. But books do the same. When Nixon ran for president for instance he hired someone who could promote him using TV. Books promote views that are subconscious. I even studied some moral educators. Kolhberg was one of them. He created a moral education that existed once in the United States. Don't know if it still exists. But that indicates people are influenced subconsciously. His studies according to Piaget's social stages such as not breaking the law was a test done to determine from 1-5 (i think 5 being highest) how moral you were. He would present moral dilemmas to children, and they would answer. Some psychologists have done studies on racism in little children.

It may not incite to tell you the truth. But the right words influence. I believe sociology is a domain criminologists study. 

Children according to psychology copy adults and "model" their behavior. How else do you think they behave? They are innocent, naive, easily influenced. Words influence people. While not emulate by example?

Words can lie as well. The art of rhetoric is persuasion.

It's a subconscious process. You cannot say it incites violence. Obviously it does not. Influence is done subconsciously. It is not overt and blatant and the direct cause that motives someone and puts a weapon to their head and says do this. It is gradual and happens by coaxing the mind.


----------



## escorial (Apr 16, 2020)

why do children stop believing in father Christmas and not god...


----------



## Theglasshouse (Apr 16, 2020)

I think it's because morality is a language that Christians, Catholics, and so on advocate. That is why it has such a broad appeal. Christian Apologetics depend on this argument. Unfortunately I dont know the details. Some philosophers claim why does god exist if he lets people suffer? And so on... But imo religion or the belief there is a god is a (belief is a sociological term) that is tied to a story and the bible is very metaphorical. John Locke was the one who first said god can't exist due to his philosophy and what he invented as a proposition (not sure if this is a logical argument and that's the definition).

Because we have embedded it seems in our brains a sense of right and wrong. Kolberg said we have a sense of right and wrong. There have been studies shown that a part of the brain exists for beliefs in god (neurological studies). I don't know what to make of it. I just carry my duty in how it influenced me. I believe people are capable of a greater good. Because they have moral logic and avoid suffering and embracing pleasure (or happiness. Pleasure was what he advocated) was something Freud said. Freud was also the one who said a lot of thinking was subconscious. The id, ego, and superego.

Others don't want to believe in a god for many reasons. I see it as a moral sense of good to have a religion. Studies have shown Catholics in particular in psychology are more polite and have values (psychologists study them). Not to mention a priest can try to explain how sociology affects society from a religious point of view and from a moral point of view. That doesn't mean the church is always right. It simply wants to help the poor and needy. It also wants to proselytize. But people want to advocate issues that can be solved with moral reasoning. The church is good for that. They even let you confess.


----------



## Cephus (Apr 16, 2020)

Biro said:


> Trying to stop such a thing as racism or hate by stopping people ever saying certain words or writing fictional books about it will never work and is ridiculous.  It is the lunacy and proof that the people in charge do not learn or even look as to what is going on around them.  So they just do knee jerk reactions and introduce policies on such a basis.



Of course, none of this is about stopping crimes, it's about protecting people's precious little fee-fees, which is honestly childish. It's made people less mature, not more mature. If no one is able to say anything that you personally don't like, how can you ever grow as a person? How  can you ever have your ideas challenged if nobody is allowed to disagree with you? That's the world we have now. You can shut down anyone you dislike by throwing insults their way, accusing them of being a racist or a sexist or a misogynist. You don't have to actually defend these allegations, just labeling someone a "Nazi" is enough to ruin them. It's just stupid. It's ended higher-level conversation and debate in society. It's some people acting like infants, thinking that if they throw enough insults around, they get their way.


----------



## Bayview (Apr 16, 2020)

Cephus said:


> Of course, none of this is about stopping crimes, it's about protecting people's precious little fee-fees, which is honestly childish. It's made people less mature, not more mature. If no one is able to say anything that you personally don't like, how can you ever grow as a person? How  can you ever have your ideas challenged if nobody is allowed to disagree with you? That's the world we have now. You can shut down anyone you dislike by throwing insults their way, accusing them of being a racist or a sexist or a misogynist. You don't have to actually defend these allegations, just labeling someone a "Nazi" is enough to ruin them. It's just stupid. It's ended higher-level conversation and debate in society. It's some people acting like infants, thinking that if they throw enough insults around, they get their way.



Can't this be turned around? If the people you think are being attacked are silenced by someone calling them a racist or a sexist or a misogynist, then aren't THEY being the infants whose precious fee-fees need to be protected? Or are you suggesting that the words used against them have power, somehow? Almost as if words in general have power and we should be careful how we use them?

Overall, I agree that censorship is dangerous and should be avoided almost all the time, but I don't think things are as black-and-white as some seem to think. I think it's important to note, for example, that the bowdlerization of _Huck Finn_ was done (as far as I've ever read) for those versions of the book being taught in some high school classrooms. And that seems like it's an important distinction to make. In general, I agree with the "if you don't like it, don't read it" approach, but this doesn't work when we're actually assigning books to students. If we're going to essentially force children to read something, I think we should think long and hard about what we're forcing them to read. A student shouldn't be asked to to choose between reading endless uses of the most hateful term possible or failing a course. I don't necessarily think the bowdlerized version is a good solution, but I don't think it's completely absurd for someone to have tried it.

As usual, I distrust the black and white version of this issue. There's lots of grey, for me. As always.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Apr 16, 2020)

I'm just going to throw something out here: there's a difference between censoring ideas and censoring explicit obscenity (like porn or whatever). Because one engages the mind, and the other is a physical stimulus. Our bodies our programmed to respond to it. In that sense it's an infringement on the recipient in a way that ideas are not (not saying ideas aren't dangerous; there's just a difference between the dangers). So, theoretically, you could argue for the censorship of obscenity without arguing for censorship in general. 

And kind of going with Bayview's point, there's a difference between wholesale government censorship and issues like book selection or self-protection on an individual level. It's not an attack on freedom of speech when parents want to exclude Goosebumps from school libraries, or when a user gets banned from social media for breaking the rules, or when my sister snaps her old Marylin Manson CD in half (quite a reasonable decision, that last one).


----------



## undead_av (Apr 16, 2020)

Books that should be burned:

1. Lolita (please don't try to tell me this book has been helpful to _anyone_, especially children who have been sexually abused. especially don't tell _me _this)

I'm VERY serious about this. Some people say that books do not influence crimes/evil acts, which is ridiculous. As writers we _know _that books are highly influential. Books have the potential for tremendous good or tremendous evil, because they're written by humans. Maybe not every author that wrote an book that causes evil meant to--like Lolita--how can I know all of Nabokov's motives? I have seen firsthand the influence of the book. Both the 1962 and 1997 movie adaptations (especially the 1997 version) romanticize Dolores and Humbert's relationship, even if in subtle ways. I watched the movies as a teenager (not so long ago). On tumblr I found a lot of other teenage girls that were fascinated by Lolita, who put themselves in her shoes, but in a sick way--they wanted their own Humbert Humbert. You could say we took the original novel out of context. Yeah, maybe. I think that we were a group of traumatized girls, most of us who had probably gone through some form of sexual abuse ourselves, who were trying to find some sort of beauty in our trauma, some kind of Lana Del Rey sugary-sweetness in the ugliness. Sorry if this is getting too real. Problem is, it didn't help me, at least, heal from the real abuse I'd gone through. 
You could say that it's only the movies that romanticize the relationship between Humbert and Dolores. But the movies wouldn't exist without the book. And people give Nabokov too much credit. Just read his Playboy interview (oh yeah, burn those too). At one point he says, "There is a queer, tender charm about that mythical nymphet." HELLFIRE HELLFIRE HELLFIRE


----------



## undead_av (Apr 16, 2020)

> or when my sister snaps her old Marylin Manson CD in half (quite a reasonable decision, that last one)




I have to agree with your sister :friendly_wink:


----------



## Olly Buckle (Apr 17, 2020)

Biro said:


> I think they should ban censorship.



Or at least restrict certain aspects of ir.


----------



## Biro (Apr 17, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> Or at least restrict certain aspects of ir.



Spelling Olly...Tut...Tut.:wink:


----------



## Phil Istine (Apr 17, 2020)

undead_av said:


> Books that should be burned:
> 
> 1. Lolita (please don't try to tell me this book has been helpful to _anyone_, especially children who have been sexually abused. especially don't tell _me _this)
> 
> ...



If Lolita were to be banned, sections of the Bible might need to be as well - the parts that tell of what many would regard as sexually deviant behaviour: like two girls getting their father drunk and ...


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Apr 17, 2020)

There's a difference between relating the historical facts of something perverse and spending a whole book glorifying it. That said, a government bureaucracy might not be able to tell the difference....(So we'll just burn Lolita on our own time. And the Lords of Chaos movie, too, if I have anything  to say about it.)


----------



## Biro (Apr 17, 2020)

ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord said:


> There's a difference between relating the historical facts of something perverse and spending a whole book glorifying it. That said, a government bureaucracy might not be able to tell the difference....(So we'll just burn Lolita on our own time. And the Lords of Chaos movie, too, if I have anything  to say about it.)



I am not getting into this as being a bloke I would always be wrong but if you were to ban your Lolita book/film or whatever and all other things.  You have to ask yourself.............Would it solve the problem and stop what you are intending to stop?

If it doesnt then you are just wasting your time and the only thing you can achieve is make 'yourself' feel better.  This is the same with all 'banning and censorship'.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Apr 17, 2020)

*  CENSORSHIP VS TASTE: WHEN SHOULD WE PUT ON THE BRAKES?*

As soon as anyone starts suggesting books to burn. My suggestion was accompanied by an emoji that should have made it clear it was a humour I was aiming at. I apologise for my bad taste joke.

Reading the comments about books people would like to burn (especially Lolita) I do wonder if they have actually read them at all, or are simply basing their judgement on what they have picked up.

Of course if reading actually does pervert and corrupt then the most perverted and corrupt people about must be the censors who read everything, which would make them completely unsuitable people to be censors.


----------



## Biro (Apr 17, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> *  CENSORSHIP VS TASTE: WHEN SHOULD WE PUT ON THE BRAKES?*
> 
> 
> 
> Of course if reading actually does pervert and corrupt then the most perverted and corrupt people about must be the censors who read everything, which would make them completely unsuitable people to be censors.



That's absolutely brilliant Ollie as it totally destroys peoples arguments for censorship.  I wonder how many censors went out and committed crimes through watching or reading dodgy material?


----------



## Bayview (Apr 17, 2020)

Biro said:


> That's absolutely brilliant Ollie as it totally destroys peoples arguments for censorship.  I wonder how many censors went out and committed crimes through watching or reading dodgy material?



Again, I don't think things are as black and white as "totally destroys". There's often been an idea that _some people_ are strong enough to be exposed to dangerous material while others are not. Paternalistic, obviously, but possibly not completely without merit. We're used to trusting certain members of our society with powers we don't extend to all members (police can carry guns, doctors can prescribe prescription medications, pilots can fly planes) based on the idea that they are specially trained and, one hopes, carefully monitored. I could see a similar argument being used to justify censors being exposed.

In general, I think desensitization is a real phenomenon, and I think there are things we should not, as a society, become desensitized to. So far we've been talking mostly about words, but what about child pornography? Should be okay for that to freely circulate? Disgusting torture porn, with victims being degraded and damaged, maybe even killed, without their consent - okay for that to be spread around for the sexual gratification of a small minority?

Are those who are absolutely against all forms of censorship okay with having these creations freely circulating?


----------



## Biro (Apr 17, 2020)

Killed without their consent?  Can you kill someone with their consent?

Child pornography shouldn't be allowed because the child is not giving consent due to their age.  But I think someone ought to sort out at what age a child is no longer a child.  Because where I come from a teenager is not old enough to have sex at 15 years and 364 days.  But then at 16 years is old enough to lecture the world on how to live.

Watching or in possession of child pornography is illegal because someone would have to make it so it can be watched.  It's illegal so has it stopped it?  

Torture porn.  I have no idea if it is illegal.  If it is, has banning it stopped it?


----------



## Bayview (Apr 17, 2020)

Biro said:


> Killed without their consent?  Can you kill someone with their consent?



Well, yes. There are suicidal people out there. And there are certainly people who are desperate enough to 'consent' to being tortured and degraded.



> Child pornography shouldn't be allowed because the child is not giving consent due to their age.



So it's the creation of the pornography that's the issue? If the pornography is created while the child is young, and then the child grows up and gives consent for its distribution, that would be okay with you? What about photo-realistic animations of child porn?

My feeling is that sexualization of children is damaging to society, so even if there are no _direct_ victims of a specific piece of child porn, there are loads of indirect victims.



> Watching or in possession of child pornography is illegal because someone would have to make it so it can be watched.  It's illegal so has it stopped it?
> 
> Torture porn.  I have no idea if it is illegal.  If it is, has banning it stopped it?



These questions seem to be looking at efficacy rather than morality, which I'm not sure makes sense. We have laws against murder, but some people break those laws. I don't think that means we should get rid of the laws against murder. Similarly, I think it makes sense to have laws against child porn or torture porn, even if some deviants break those laws.


----------



## Biro (Apr 17, 2020)

Bayview said:


> Well, yes. There are suicidal people out there. And there are certainly people who are desperate enough to 'consent' to being tortured and degraded.



I understand.  But what if someone wanted to film their own death? 





			
				Bayview said:
			
		

> So it's the creation of the pornography that's the issue? If the pornography is created while the child is young, and then the child grows up and gives consent for its distribution, that would be okay with you? What about photo-realistic animations of child porn?
> 
> My feeling is that sexualization of children is damaging to society, so even if there are no _direct_ victims of a specific piece of child porn, there are loads of indirect victims.





There should be *no* form of child pornography but how you stop it I havent a clue.   



			
				Bayview said:
			
		

> These questions seem to be looking at efficacy rather than morality, which I'm not sure makes sense. We have laws against murder, but some people break those laws. I don't think that means we should get rid of the laws against murder. Similarly, I think it makes sense to have laws against child porn or torture porn, even if some deviants break those laws.



But the idea of censorship was to prevent 'things' influencing people who may watch or read it.  If it does not do that then what are your aims?  Are you trying to control people and control their thinking?  Where do you stop?  If you cannot stop the events then are you trying to prevent them learning of such?  That all becomes very dangerous and the same 'things' continue behind closed doors under the carpets with the same amount of victims.

*Missed a word out above*


----------



## Bayview (Apr 17, 2020)

Biro said:


> I understand.  But what if someone wanted to film their own death?



I can think of ways this could be done that I would absolutely not consider pornographic or damaging. I'm not arguing for cross-the-board censorship of all depictions of death. I'm saying that some deaths/torture/degradation are being filmed and distributed for the sexual gratification of others, and I don't think an automatic "censorship is stupid, haha!" reaction is an appropriate way to deal with this.




> There should be form of child pornography but how you stop it I havent a clue.



I'm not sure about your syntax here...



> But the idea of censorship was to prevent 'things' influencing people who may watch or read it.  If it does not do that then what are your aims?  Are you trying to control people and control their thinking?  Where do you stop?  If you cannot stop the events then are you trying to prevent them learning of such?  That all becomes very dangerous and the same 'things' continue behind closed doors under the carpets with the same amount of victims.



I'm not sure about the basis for "if it does not do that" in the first line. I think censorship can certainly reduce the number of people who have access to certain material, and if they don't have access to it then they certainly won't be influenced by it.

And, yes, I agree that it's very dangerous to try to control people and control thoughts. I don't think it's something that should be done lightly. But we do already control people's thoughts quite a bit. When we're in favour of the control we call it education, when we don't like it we call it propaganda, but in both cases we're trying to influence the way citizens think. I'm not comfortable with the idea that the state has absolutely no role in influencing the way its citizens think or behave.

And then in terms of "if you can't stop the events" - this feels like another strange "if". I certainly think we should be trying very hard to stop the creation of certain kinds of pornography; we may not ever succeed completely, but that doesn't mean we can't succeed partially. And one of the ways to stop the creation is probably to make the distribution much more difficult and therefore less profitable.

Again, none of this is black and white. I'm not arguing for a locked-down, totally censored world in which the only media we consume has been approved by the state. I'm agreeing that censorship can be a slippery slope and needs to be treated with extreme caution. But are there some things I'm happy to be protected from? Yeah, there are. I'm in favour of some forms of censorship at some times.


----------



## Biro (Apr 17, 2020)

Bayview said:


> I can think of ways this could be done that I would absolutely not consider pornographic or damaging. I'm not arguing for cross-the-board censorship of all depictions of death. I'm saying that some deaths/torture/degradation are being filmed and distributed for the sexual gratification of others, and I don't think an automatic "censorship is stupid, haha!" reaction is an appropriate way to deal with this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Every action has a reaction.  So anything you do will cause an event elsewhere.  If your censorship is to prevent 'things', but it does not have that effect.  Then why are you censoring?

In your last paragraphs you are touching on 'when we try and control people'.  The PC agenda is when censorship is jumped on and misused to where it all becomes ridiculous.

Now that statement on here is going to get the steam blowing from some ears and the keyboard hammered with venom.  But it is a very valid point and it comes back to the question of 'what are you trying to achieve'?

Take racism which is part of the PC agenda.  You can't stop it.  White people of same god and country kill each other because they disagree and hate.  Muslims of same race and colour and country kill each other because they disagree and hate.

If their was one colour, one country one or no religion.  Gangs will still form and maim or kill.

So what does censoring tv programs, books and films of racist terms and scenes solve?  I do not mean a film or book deliberately designed to incite.


----------



## Bayview (Apr 17, 2020)

Biro said:


> Every action has a reaction.  So anything you do will cause an event elsewhere.  If your censorship is to prevent 'things', but it does not have that effect.  Then why are you censoring?



Why are you assuming the censorship wouldn't have any effect? I'm confused by this.



> In your last paragraphs you are touching on 'when we try and control people'.  The PC agenda is when censorship is jumped on and misused to where it all becomes ridiculous.



I don't want to get dragged into your "PC agenda" nonsense, but if you're talking about censorship being "misused", does that mean you acknowledge that it can also be used constructively? If so, I think we're on the same page, at least for this small issue.



> Take racism which is part of the PC agenda.  You can't stop it.... So what does censoring tv programs, books and films of racist terms and scenes solve?  I do not mean a film or book deliberately designed to incite.



I assume you mean _fighting_ racism is part of the PC agenda? Can you explain why you think that fight can't be successful? Again, possibly you're saying that it can't be 100% successful, which I'm not sure I agree with but could certainly consider, but if you're saying that racism can't even be _diminished_, I'd strongly disagree. I think we've made some good steps in that direction in the last century or so. Just because we still have further to go doesn't mean we haven't improved things.

Now, possibly we haven't made those gains due to censorship. Possibly censorship isn't an effective tool for fighting racism. That's not an area I have strong opinions about.


----------



## Biro (Apr 17, 2020)

Bayview said:


> Why are you assuming the censorship wouldn't have any effect? I'm confused by this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Are you an immigrant Bayview?


----------



## indianroads (Apr 17, 2020)

Bayview said:


> Why are you assuming the censorship wouldn't have any effect? I'm confused by this.
> 
> I don't want to get dragged into your "PC agenda" nonsense, but if you're talking about censorship being "misused", does that mean you acknowledge that it can also be used constructively? If so, I think we're on the same page, at least for this small issue.
> 
> ...



As probably most of us do, I read a lot. One of my pet peeves is when an author gets up on their soap box and preaches - my personality is such that in these situations I'm likely to dig in my heels and take the opposite view. 

Our job as authors is to tell a story, and no one out there should dictate what we write. I'm a capitalist, and therefore that the market should decide; if an author is constantly offensive to a group of people (or whatever) their books won't sell very well, the market effectively silences them.

Sometime last year I picked up a dystopian SciFi book that looked promising. I downloaded the Free-Sample (that's the first 10% or so of the book) and liked it, and so bought the book. Right after that 10% mark the author started launching into tirades about a certain race and class of people - religion too. Every single bad or stupid thing that happened was a result of their actions. I never finished the book - but since I bought it and could leave a review, I did. That was the only 1 star review I've ever left. I pointed out the racism, xenophobia, cultural stereotypes, and advised anyone considering purchasing it to think again.

Did that author have the right to publish is work? Of course! Should his books be banned? NO! I believe in freedom. The author is free to continue writing his racist material, and I'm free to not read it.


----------



## Amnesiac (Apr 17, 2020)

I'm going to fight for peace and screw for chastity!! Down with this sort of thing!


----------



## Bayview (Apr 17, 2020)

Biro said:


> Are you an immigrant Bayview?



Nope.

Also...?


----------



## Bayview (Apr 17, 2020)

indianroads said:


> Did that author have the right to publish is work? Of course! Should his books be banned? NO! I believe in freedom. The author is free to continue writing his racist material, and I'm free to not read it.



Are you also okay with child pornography? Should we be showing live, sexualized murders on broadcast TV? Or are there _some_ limitations on freedom that seem okay to you?


----------



## Biro (Apr 17, 2020)

Bayview said:


> Nope.
> 
> Also...?



I am.  And everyday until recent times I probably meet people who were taught by family and authority to hate me and my country.  I may and most possibly have met people who killed my countrymen/women.  

Does the PC agenda change these views?  At best it just embarrasses people.  Does in change anything.  Nope I don't believe it does.

People learn to accept and live together organically.  They live together and work together and learn we are more or less the same.  Banning books, tv programs and films doesnt make the slightest difference.  It actually stops people laughing at themselves and people like them.

Racism/bigotry and hate can evolve in many forms.  Today I listened to briefly the most biased anti Trump and Anti British garbage dressed up as god knows what.  I imagine spouted by a raging Lefty.

So in this case censorship is wrong.


----------



## Biro (Apr 17, 2020)

Bayview said:


> Should we be showing live, sexualized murders on broadcast TV? Or are there _some_ limitations on freedom that seem okay to you?



You watch similar on the news everyday.  Does those news reports make people go out and commit crimes?  Do we censor the news more than it already is just in case it???????


----------



## indianroads (Apr 17, 2020)

Bayview said:


> Are you also okay with child pornography? Should we be showing live, sexualized murders on broadcast TV? Or are there _some_ limitations on freedom that seem okay to you?



That's a rather extreme example - especially since it's illegal. Mass market trade publishers probably won't publish it (liability and there probably isn't a big market for it) - and KDP for self publishing has filters to stop things like that. Is there a niche for something like that? I would like to hope not (ick) but probably. Is it out there? Sure. Is it awful? YES.

It turns into the proverbial slippery slope though. Some social issues are sensitive but in order for them to be addressed the must be discussed rationally. The best place to do this IMO is in literature. We have to be careful to not pontificate though - just tell the story and let the reader form their own opinion.


----------



## Bayview (Apr 17, 2020)

Biro said:


> I am.  And everyday until recent times I probably meet people who were taught by family and authority to hate me and my country.  I may and most possibly have met people who killed my countrymen/women.
> 
> Does the PC agenda change these views?  At best it just embarrasses people.  Does in change anything.  Nope I don't believe it does.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry you're encountering so much racism. But... I guess you think we should just give up? It's inevitable and you just have to accept it as part of your life if you're going to be living where you live. That sucks.

But it's not really what I'm discussing in this thread. I have no idea whether censorship is an effective tool in the fight against racism. I have no idea what group you belong to or whether things have a chance of getting better for your group, as they have gotten better for other groups. My only point in this thread is that I don't think censorship is ALWAYS a bad thing.


----------



## indianroads (Apr 17, 2020)

Biro said:


> I am.  And everyday until recent times I probably meet people who were taught by family and authority to hate me and my country.  I may and most possibly have met people who killed my countrymen/women.
> 
> Does the PC agenda change these views?  At best it just embarrasses people.  Does in change anything.  Nope I don't believe it does.
> 
> ...



_*"Whatever you do, don't look under that rock!"*_

If you say that to most people, they're compelled to pick it up and see what's there. Censorship can work contrary to its intent.


----------



## Bayview (Apr 17, 2020)

indianroads said:


> That's a rather extreme example - especially since it's illegal. Mass market trade publishers probably won't publish it (liability and there probably isn't a big market for it) - and KDP for self publishing has filters to stop things like that. Is there a niche for something like that? I would like to hope not (ick) but probably. Is it out there? Sure. Is it awful? YES.



But it being illegal is a FORM OF CENSORSHIP. That's my whole point. If we're happy that child pornography is illegal, then we're happy that censorship, in at least some forms, exists.


----------



## Bayview (Apr 17, 2020)

Biro said:


> You watch similar on the news everyday.  Does those news reports make people go out and commit crimes?  Do we censor the news more than it already is just in case it???????



I don't know what the news is like where you are, but where I am? No. They don't broadcast live, sexualized murders.


----------



## Biro (Apr 17, 2020)

Bayview said:


> I don't know what the news is like where you are, but where I am? No. They don't broadcast live, sexualized murders.



Sorry I meant horrific news reports including murders, war etc.


----------



## Biro (Apr 17, 2020)

Bayview said:


> I'm sorry you're encountering so much racism.



I dont encounter it.  But it is there if I went looking for it and you get a sixth sense and know what people may be thinking.  Also I have been told by others, and the rest well known.  

Should you give up?  Your PC is a modern day fad.  It is trendy now and of course because people are nothing but two legged sheep, it is celebrity led.

That in know way is meant as an insult either.  But I imagine another 10 years and it will just another part of history as will globalization.  Possibly because something unforeseen like a virus or something else makes people wake up and change to realism.  Who knows?  If I knew that I would concentrate on the lottery results instead.:wink:


----------



## indianroads (Apr 17, 2020)

Bayview said:


> But it being illegal is a FORM OF CENSORSHIP. That's my whole point. If we're happy that child pornography is illegal, then we're happy that censorship, in at least some forms, exists.



I see your point, but somewhere along the line societal standards need to take precedence. What sort of world do WE want to live in? In our country we won't allow child marriages, mass (bloody) executions of gay people or those of a religious faith not approved by the government. Freedom, in its truest form is anarchy - and here at least we don't choose that, which is why we have certain taboos. 

Here IMO the most poignant issue are racism, social injustice, intolerance, government overreach, and other such things. My books touch on those subjects. Could I write a book about child pornography? Yes I could, but I would want to tell the story truthfully (probably from the child's POV) and explore the consequences. Could I get something like that published? I don't know.


----------



## Bayview (Apr 17, 2020)

Biro said:


> Should you give up?  Your PC is a modern day fad.  It is trendy now and of course because people are nothing but two legged sheep, it is celebrity led.



I'm not sure when it became _my_ PC... I don't identify as someone who is "PC" - it's not a term I'd ever use unironically. I certainly consider myself liberal (I'm liberal by Canadian standards, so I'm a raving lefty by American standards!) but I don't think there's anything fad-based about being liberal. People have been acknowledging and fighting against racism and sexism and classism for hundreds of years. They've been fighting against homophobia for decades. There have always been people trying to make society more fair and just.

Is the struggle over? Hell, no. But neither is it a "modern-day fad".


----------



## Cephus (Apr 17, 2020)

Bayview said:


> Can't this be turned around? If the people you think are being attacked are silenced by someone calling them a racist or a sexist or a misogynist, then aren't THEY being the infants whose precious fee-fees need to be protected? Or are you suggesting that the words used against them have power, somehow? Almost as if words in general have power and we should be careful how we use them?



The only way to fight speech is more speech. You are more than welcome to respond to anyone. What you are not welcome to do is stop others from speaking in the first place.


----------



## Cephus (Apr 17, 2020)

Bayview said:


> Are you also okay with child pornography? Should we be showing live, sexualized murders on broadcast TV? Or are there _some_ limitations on freedom that seem okay to you?



Written? Yes. There is no demonstrable harm there. Actual children being harmed? Of course not. The right to swing your fist and all that. You cannot hurt other people. Writing imaginary depictions of something distasteful doesn't actually harm anyone. I wouldn't read it, but I wouldn't deny others who wish to the chance if they so desire.


----------



## Amnesiac (Apr 17, 2020)

I've often thought that there should be a game show where the contestants are allowed to go into negative integers, if they get the wrong answers. By the end of the game, if they haven't at least broken even, then a couple of big guys in Ray Ban Wayfarers and sharkskin suits haul the individual backstage, and beat them with plastic baseball bats. I know _I _would certainly tune in! Violent? Yes. Probably the highest ranking viewership of all time? Potentially. No matter what, human beings are voyeurs, whether they're reading a novel, peeping through the neighbor's windows, watching porn, or tuned into reality television.


----------



## Amnesiac (Apr 17, 2020)

One more thing, falling into the "homo sapiens as voyeur" theme: The most popular shows are the ones about serial killers. The more barbaric, graphic, heinous, and horrible, the better people seem to like it.


----------



## indianroads (Apr 17, 2020)

Amnesiac said:


> I've often thought that there should be a game show where the contestants are allowed to go into negative integers, if they get the wrong answers. By the end of the game, if they haven't at least broken even, then a couple of big guys in Ray Ban Wayfarers and sharkskin suits haul the individual backstage, and beat them with plastic baseball bats. I know _I _would certainly tune in! Violent? Yes. Probably the highest ranking viewership of all time? Potentially. No matter what, human beings are voyeurs, whether they're reading a novel, peeping through the neighbor's windows, watching porn, or tuned into reality television.



There have been books written about violent game shows of the future similar to what you suggest.

Boxing, MMA, Football: all violent and wildly popular on television.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Apr 17, 2020)

I just self-censored, if that is not an oxymoron. I had him shaking her shoulders violently, and changed it to him shaking her shoulders. I was afraid of reactions. It wasn't _that _important.

WF has to censor for legal purposes, right? No pedophilia. I don't know if that rules out Romeo & Juliet or Lolita. My impression is that we censor fan fiction, too.

One of my short story entries here was criticized for portraying "deception rape." I got 0 out of 10 for content. (I didn't even know that was a thing.)


----------



## Amnesiac (Apr 17, 2020)

indianroads said:


> There have been books written about violent game shows of the future similar to what you suggest.
> 
> Boxing, MMA, Football: all violent and wildly popular on television.



I boxed while I as in the Army. I deployed to combat, twice. My sons grew up playing football and wrestling, and my youngest son is training at an MMA gym. I don't think any of us ever thought any of those pursuits as particularly violent. (Combat, aside...) Your mileage may vary.


----------



## indianroads (Apr 17, 2020)

Amnesiac said:


> I boxed while I as in the Army. I deployed to combat, twice. My sons grew up playing football and wrestling, and my youngest son is training at an MMA gym. I don't think any of us ever thought any of those pursuits as particularly violent. (Combat, aside...) Your mileage may vary.



I've trained in marital arts for close to 60 years - 7th Dan Taekwondo, 3rd Dan Shotokan, 2nd Dans in both Kenpo and Hapkido. I've also trained in Savate (no belt system there), and Judo when I was in college. I've competed in PKA events (kickboxing in a ring - full contact of course), as well as point fighting (old school, no gloves, no pads). I agree with you, in that for me these contests are not violent... well except my last PKA fight, that was rough. However, I believe the general population see it differently.


----------



## Amnesiac (Apr 17, 2020)

Awesome. I earned a black belt some years ago in Issin-ryu and trained without any particular belt level in Judo.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Apr 17, 2020)

Biro said:


> I am not getting into this as being a bloke I would always be wrong but if you were to ban your Lolita book/film or whatever and all other things.  You have to ask yourself.............Would it solve the problem and stop what you are intending to stop?
> 
> If it doesnt then you are just wasting your time and the only thing you can achieve is make 'yourself' feel better.  This is the same with all 'banning and censorship'.



Clarification: I'm not arguing for wholesale censorship. I'm distinguishing between talking about evil and glorifying it. I recognize that government has a poor track record in telling the difference, so I remain hesitant about arguing for censorship. 

That said, I'm with Bayview that sexualization of children is _always wrong_. And, like I said earlier, erotic works are an infringement in a way ideas are not, because they by their nature engage with physical stimuli. When this is paired with child molestation or torture, their is a potential for such works to be highly destructive, psychologically and morally.

And my comment about burning Lolita is only half a joke. Full disclosure: I don't believe in governments burning or throwing out books, but I do believe in individuals burning or throwing out books. I don't believe in "see no evil, hear no evil." I believe in fighting evil, in looking it in the face and ripping it out of your life.


----------



## undead_av (Apr 17, 2020)

> Clarification: I'm not arguing for wholesale censorship. I'm distinguishing between talking about evil and glorifying it. I recognize that government has a poor track record in telling the difference, so I remain hesitant about arguing for censorship.
> 
> That said, I'm with Bayview that sexualization of children is _always wrong. And, like I said earlier, erotic works are an infringement in a way ideas are not, because they by their nature engage with physical stimuli. When this is paired with child molestation or torture, their is a potential for such works to be highly destructive, psychologically and morally.
> 
> And my comment about burning Lolita is only half a joke. Full disclosure: I don't believe in governments burning or throwing out books, but I do believe in individuals burning or throwing out books. I don't believe in "see no evil, hear no evil." I believe in fighting evil, in looking it in the face and ripping it out of your life._



Pretty much what Arrow said. My original post about Lolita was pretty angry because I think as I was writing it I was just then realizing the influence this type of literature/film has had on my and others' lives. 



> I am not getting into this as being a bloke I would always be wrong but if you were to ban your Lolita book/film or whatever and all other things. You have to ask yourself.............Would it solve the problem and stop what you are intending to stop?



No, banning it wouldn't solve the problem, of course. And banning it probably wouldn't change society's view on it, either. I wish people could think more critically about what constitutes great literature, though, and what makes something valuable.


----------



## Amnesiac (Apr 17, 2020)

So.... my antihero who goes around and punches people in the face because they deserve it, would probably be headed straight to the guillotine. Of course, so would Frankenstein, Dracula, a crapload of Shakespeare's characters, most of the population of children's fairy tales, and don't even get me started on the likes of Poe, Hawthorne, or Stevenson!


----------



## Theglasshouse (Apr 17, 2020)

undead_av said:


> Pretty much what Arrow said. My original post about Lolita was pretty angry because I think as I was writing it I was just then realizing the influence this type of literature/film has had on my and others' lives.
> 
> 
> 
> No, banning it wouldn't solve the problem, of course. And banning it probably wouldn't change society's view on it, either. I wish people could think more critically about what constitutes great literature, though, and what makes something valuable.


I agree here and your point is sharp. It reminds me that entertainment for entertainment's sake leads to a state of losing equilibrium over a losing war over morality. It's a losing war over money (capitalism sells everything with that people could decry, and even weapons in times of war). Some critics rarely have spoken saying everything should be morally written with the audience in mind (pun not intended).  I can name one. Who tried this stunt and all writers felt insulted. Genre fiction was insulted, so where other genres. That was John Gardner for those who may have read on moral fiction or heard of it.


----------



## BornForBurning (Apr 17, 2020)

> So.... my antihero who goes around and punches people in the face because they deserve it, would probably be headed straight to the guillotine.


Wait I'm curious, what do you mean by this? The 'they deserve it' part of your sentence implies that at least _you _believe he's doing a good thing. Conflict is reality this side of heaven. Jesus died a violent death on the cross because evil was a force that had to be actively confronted and defeated. So I'm curious why you think some 'moral majority' type person might see your antihero as evil?


----------



## bdcharles (Apr 17, 2020)

I don't support censorship; however I do support the notion of public pressure in all its forms; after all, public popularity is, from what I can tell, far more effective than laws. The trick is knowing how to deal with such pressure, both when you're applying it and when it comes at you.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Apr 17, 2020)

I don't know if I am too morally inclined. This isn't directed at anyone's post. But one must develop a politics of morality if that makes sense. This could go into all the art that is produced.  I don't know the particulars of the law. For practical reasons this is more something I wished happened. 

Some argue the more moral your character the more the audience will like it. (John Gardner again). I own his notes on craft. It's also on criticism, so when I read it you can say I thought years later what it could mean.

Determinism rears its "head" here. What are we to believe is a good question? Should we be taught values? Or should people acquire their beliefs indirectly? Moral education was leaning in this direction. I even took a class in moral education called morals and civics if I could translate it.


----------



## Amnesiac (Apr 17, 2020)

BornForBurning said:


> Wait I'm curious, what do you mean by this? The 'they deserve it' part of your sentence implies that at least _you _believe he's doing a good thing. Conflict is reality this side of heaven. Jesus died a violent death on the cross because evil was a force that had to be actively confronted and defeated. So I'm curious why you think some 'moral majority' type person might see your antihero as evil?



My character believes he's doing a good thing. He's also losing his shit, and will eventually reap the karmic whirlwind for what he's done. He's the narrator, obviously, though not a very reliable one.

Similarly with "Lolita," and the questions raised about that book, along comes, "50 Shades of Grey." Child psychologists have put the woman/girl around 12-14 years of age. And if the story had taken place in a trailer park instead of the massively moneyed environs, it'd be a story featuring banjos, bail, and "Bubba" in federal prison.


----------



## Xander416 (Apr 17, 2020)

Amnesiac said:


> I'm going to fight for peace and screw for chastity!! Down with this sort of thing!


"Fight" doesn't necessarily entail violent means, though.


----------



## Cephus (Apr 17, 2020)

ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord said:


> Clarification: I'm not arguing for wholesale censorship. I'm distinguishing between talking about evil and glorifying it. I recognize that government has a poor track record in telling the difference, so I remain hesitant about arguing for censorship.



That's really the problem though, isn't it? What you think of as "glorifying" evil, or even what you consider evil, someone else might disagree. So why do you get to make the standards and not them? Yes, there is a certain point at which society will collectively agree on some loose set of standards, but that's not what tends to be pushed by censorship advocates. They just want their own way. My response to that is a hearty "screw you".



> That said, I'm with Bayview that sexualization of children is _always wrong_. And, like I said earlier, erotic works are an infringement in a way ideas are not, because they by their nature engage with physical stimuli. When this is paired with child molestation or torture, their is a potential for such works to be highly destructive, psychologically and morally.



For the sake of argument here, why is that your decision to make? Certainly you can make it for yourself and if you don't like those stories, by all means don't read them. But why do you get to make the decision for others, simply because it makes you uncomfortable? Keep in mind, I am only talking about  fiction, of "abuse" of imaginary children in imaginary stories where nobody is ever actually harmed. So why do you get to choose for anyone but you?



> And my comment about burning Lolita is only half a joke. Full disclosure: I don't believe in governments burning or throwing out books, but I do believe in individuals burning or throwing out books. I don't believe in "see no evil, hear no evil." I believe in fighting evil, in looking it in the face and ripping it out of your life.



So long as it's your own personal property that you paid for, have fun. You have a right to do anything you want with things that you personally own. I'm sure the person whose work you're burning will be laughing all the way to the bank.


----------



## clark (Apr 17, 2020)

Sorry> had to leave the discussion> You"ve probably covered this kind of issue by now--

i'd like to clarify my post #28, which caused a couple of folks to froth gently at the mouth about . . . this and that. I have no interest, nor do I think (from the responses) any of you do either, to morph our conversation into legalistic arguments or iteration of hate legislation from our various countries. I neglected to include an important rider in mentioning Canada's law against hate 'literature'--it had to incite direct violent action against a particular targeted group, and there had to be the likelihood of "imminent danger" to that group because of the speech or written material, before action might be taken against the alleged offenders. So the law is not censorship or state control over ideas or the public expression, spoken or written,  of ideas, but of a  alleged inciting to action based on hate, action that would appear to put the target of the hate in imminent danger.

i believe the USA is the only country in the world among “free and democratic societies” that have written documents guaranteeing rights and freedoms, where there can be no exceptions to the right of the individual to absolutely free speech, including hate and the advocacy of violence against identified groups that are the targets for hatred.


----------



## BornForBurning (Apr 17, 2020)

> That's really the problem though, isn't it? What you think of as "glorifying" evil, or even what you consider evil, someone else might disagree.


I see no reason why 'humans disagree on things' should necessarily translate to 'humans can't tell each other what to do, ever.' What do you mean by collective agreement? In practice, all collective agreement means is that because 100 humans who agree with each other are more powerful than 10 humans who agree with each other, those 100 humans get to decide what happens in society. From a Liberal perspective, this is the fundamental flaw in democracy. Of course, I'm not a liberal in any sense of the word. But neither do I think morality is determined by collective belief. 



> For the sake of argument here, why is that your decision to make?


The implicit assumption within this question is that no one should be allowed to make the decision. The problem with this, of course, is that humans don't exist as atomized individuals, and some decisions hurt other humans. Because we are creatures with agency, decision is inevitable. Even total withdrawal is a decision. Because we aren't atomized, even total withdrawal is harmful. That is the core flaw in Liberalism. Either we violate the individual rights of those who use their agency to violate our individual rights, or we allow the violators to continue. Neither choice is moral within the Liberal framework. 



> But why do you get to make the decision for others, simply because it makes you uncomfortable?


This is a strawman. EDM makes me uncomfortable. _Lord Horror _is evil. _Tank Girl _is evil. The fact that evil often correlates with uncomfortableness in no way equates them. Evil may also correlate with pleasure. The core issue you don't grasp--some people genuinely believe in an objective morality that exists independent of all of us, but that all of us, to varying degrees, are able to occasionally perceive. Their disgust at _Lolita _may stem from the fact that it makes them uncomfortable. Their conviction that it should be destroyed does not. People who are merely 'uncomfortable' ignore. People with conviction attack.


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 17, 2020)

As far as the printed word goes, I'm in favor of "content warnings", as I feel they inform potential readers the most about what kind of subject matter they might be exposed to.

In the reading community, such warnings are usually given by other readers and reviewers. So the method of censorship is community-based.

Free speech is such a tricky subject to talk about because, on the one hand, it's entirely reasonable to allow any form of thought-based communication, protected from any sort of censorship.

On the other hand, if those words are being wielded with deliberate, malicious intent? I don't know if I, personally, agree that such words should receive the same protections. Especially if said words might lead to physical harm against specific individuals.

And even more so: if said words are _intended_ to lead to physical harm against specific individuals.

That's where things gets really muddy and complex, though.

I'm still contemplating the issue. :-k


----------



## Theglasshouse (Apr 17, 2020)

Personal identity is a tricky subject that is vast and complex in scope (moral identity is what they strive for). It was by Erikson who defined identity as being considered the concept of ourselves or personality (which if I recalled is mostly environmental). Moral development programs were created to form a moral identity. The primary school I went to focused on values and the report card was value based. I don't think it was counted on an average to the gpa.

I agree with not imposing values which I think a poster here is hinting at. It can be considered wrong and that instead morality should make people into moral critics. Unfortunately everyone has a different philosophy or point of view. I do think that is positive to include a content warning and it may even lead to greater and more positive reviews if a writer included it.

Indoctrination is something that isn't talked about as being a good way to morally develop someone. Community development is the best approach used in schools. That is through use of social programs as community service.

Some countries use stories to teach a moral, a set of moral stories that can with regular reading make a child more aware of what he has not thought. Those set of values are taught indirectly as songs, stories where they self-reflect. 

I consider books no different, and I had to write a paper on this when in college as a teacher. Parents guide children into adulthood, and they should believe in something positive. Being exposed to good things and experiences is something everyone should want. From a writer's perspective, moral quandaries can make for good stories imo.


----------



## ironpony (Apr 18, 2020)

Well I guess when it comes to censorship, is how controversial should you make your story in execution?

My current story has a dark controversial premise, and I made quite a few changed based on recommendations of the readers.  But I feel that with the changes made it is now very safe for such a controversial premise, perhaps maybe too safe, to the point where people might see it as a cop out, like you had a dark premise, but didn't have the guts to see it through beyone a very PG-13-ish execution, but maybe that type of execution is good, and in good taste?  Or can it be a cop out, if presented too safely?


----------



## clark (Apr 18, 2020)

I'm not surprised that a post  asking when or if writers should censor their own work has gone to over 100 posts, and may rack up another 100. If I decide that a character or a particular extended scene is too disgusting, vicious, hateful, incendiary, or hurtful to remain in the work, I have deleted it or toned it down by SOME kind of measure. Nervous about community standards? Permitting a character to espouse values destructive to my church? Worried that violence is so graphic it could twist the behavior of young people? Toning down disgusting content to increase sales?

For me, not one of the above, nor any of the other myriad 'reasons' for self-censorship, justifies putting the brakes on what I _want _to write out of deference to what I think I  _should _write vis a vis an imposed standard. I demand the right to create the way I wish to create. I accept one 'restriction' on this demand for untrammelled freedom to express myself in whatever way I wish. I accept that I do NOT have the write to spew hatred about an identifiable group or person and incite my readers to go directly and harm or kill him. If I went to this person's home or to this group's meeting place and screamed at him/them from the streets, I would be arrested for Threatening, a criminal offence. When I _write _the same incendiary hatred, I'm just using my writing to protect myself from being charged. An act of cowardice.  

I like Kyle's idea of 'content warning'. If I am some truly sick fuck who loves rape, violent murder, baby torture and skinning cats alive in kindergarten classes, my 'work' should have content WARNINGS an inch high right inside the cover. Maybe on the back cover as well. Just so readers other than my 6 followers know what they're getting into.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Apr 18, 2020)

> I accept that I do NOT have the write to spew hatred about an identifiable group or person and incite my readers to go directly and harm or kill him.



Depends on the circumstance and the person, how about the copywriter who came up with "Your country needs you"? Might a neo-fascist uprising and takeover justify it? Were the underground newspapers circulated in Belgium and France during the war not justifiable?

On the whole though it is a bit like freedom of speech, you are not free to shout 'Fire' in a crowded theatre, agreed.


----------



## Amnesiac (Apr 18, 2020)

I do like the idea of content warnings. I know, for instance, if I pick up a Chuck Palahniuk novel that I'm not in for an idyllic breezy little read.

If I pick up a Nora Roberts novel and it reads like, "Reservoir Dogs," I'm going to be pretty upset. Or not..... LOL


----------



## indianroads (Apr 18, 2020)

On Amazon, I first read the blurb, then if it intrigues me I'll download the free sample (which is roughly the first 10%).

For me, the blurb is key - *a content warning is crucial*, if there is explicit sex or extreme violence or some sort of political slant, I'd appreciate to hear about it there. If that sort of stuff crops up after the 10% download and I feel like I was duped - the result will be a 1 star review.


----------



## Ma'am (Apr 18, 2020)

I wish there was more censoring for TV commercials. 

It's gross when you're watching TV while eating dinner and that commercial comes on about pet adoption, showing abused animals with open wounds and missing eyes.

Then there's watching TV with my son when commercials come on for condoms, personal vibrators and lube, douche and erectile dysfunction medicine. 

A new commercial is out for Biore pore strips (a tape that you put on your nose, then pull off and it removes blackheads). They do a close-up shot showing the little pus sticks that the girl pulled off her nose. It's disgusting.

A content warning would be nice at least. As-is, they have a choice but I don't, for at least the first part of it.


----------



## Amnesiac (Apr 18, 2020)

Hear! Hear! Years ago, there was an "Herbal Essences" commercial that ran. While the woman was shampooing her hair, she was screaming, "YES! YES!! YES!!! like she was in the throes of orgasm. The commercial ran for about two or three months, and then it vanished. I think the commercials are still available on YouTube. They were stupid and unnecessarily sexual.


----------



## indianroads (Apr 18, 2020)

I have contacted the companies that use this sort of advertising and complained. Apparently others did the same, because soon after the ad was off the airwaves.


----------



## clark (Apr 18, 2020)

This conversation is about when or if ANY kind of censorship is an acceptable 'brake pedal' on freedom of expression. The warp and woof of this grand dialectic is respect for and defence of the rights of the individual bounced against the rights of the community to establish behavioral standards towards the furtherance of its goals. Along the way, some individuals with values anathema to community standards are going to get stomped on. And along _our _way, we're trying to get a handle on how to both create and protect a social atmosphere where writers feel genuinely free to write as they wish. Put another way, a social atmosphere such that its members, speaking thru literary critics, legislators, and maybe Courts, say "the twisted values that thread thru the disgusting scenes within which your  morally bereft characters slash and rip their way towards their hedonistic goals, fly in the teeth of everything we hold dear. But if we say "you cannot write like that," and move to prevent you from writing "like that," then we have shot our* own *freedom of expression in the head. If we could sustain that kind of largesse in society at large, writers would feel no need 'to put on the brakes'. The 'brakes' would be applied by a reading public that would not buy your book.


----------



## indianroads (Apr 19, 2020)

clark said:


> This conversation is about when or if ANY kind of censorship is an acceptable 'brake pedal' on freedom of expression. The warp and woof of this grand dialectic is respect for and defence of the rights of the individual bounced against the rights of the community to establish behavioral standards towards the furtherance of its goals. Along the way, some individuals with values anathema to community standards are going to get stomped on. And along _our _way, we're trying to get a handle on how to both create and protect a social atmosphere where writers feel genuinely free to write as they wish. Put another way, a social atmosphere such that its members, speaking thru literary critics, legislators, and maybe Courts, say "the twisted values that thread thru the disgusting scenes within which your  morally bereft characters slash and rip their way towards their hedonistic goals, fly in the teeth of everything we hold dear. But if we say "you cannot write like that," and move to prevent you from writing "like that," then we have shot our* own *freedom of expression in the head. If we could sustain that kind of largesse in society at large, writers would feel no need 'to put on the brakes'. The 'brakes' would be applied by a reading public that would not buy your book.



Well said.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Apr 19, 2020)

> The 'brakes' would be applied by a reading public that would not buy your book.



I notice that one of the books people in this thread have felt should be banned was Lolita. It was first published in this country in 1959 (1958 in US) when I was fourteen coming up fifteen, and I remember there was a huge demand, people queueing at bookshops and such. for teen age boys at least it was an important subject of conversation. It would seem that the arbiters of public taste and public taste are often at extreme ends of the scale. That, in itself, should surely make us cautious, the things people do to others 'for their own good' and which do not coincide with their wishes can be pretty horrific.


----------



## hvysmker (Apr 19, 2020)

In jr. high, I tried to find copies of Mein Kampf and Mao Tse-tung's Little Red Book.  The public library ignored my request.

Also "Tom Sawyer", "Uncle Remus", and anything by Karl or Groucho Marx. Wait a minute ... no ... not Groucho.


----------



## Bayview (Apr 19, 2020)

hvysmker said:


> In jr. high, I tried to find copies of Mein Kampf and Mao Tse-tung's Little Red Book.  The public library ignored my request.



I was working in a school library in Canada and a German exchange student was scandalized and intrigued when he learned we had a copy of Mein Kampf in the library. Apparently totally banned in Germany, but not in Canada.


----------



## Phil Istine (Apr 19, 2020)

Ma'am said:


> I wish there was more censoring for TV commercials.
> 
> It's gross when you're watching TV while eating dinner and that commercial comes on about pet adoption, showing abused animals with open wounds and missing eyes.
> 
> ...



Some sort of TIVO box usually helps - if you have one; I tend to skip past ads as I record most programs.  Alternatively, pause the program when the ads start, make a cup of tea or whatever, then resume watching when you guess the ads have finished.  I don't think I've seen a TV ad in quite a while.  Effectively, it's like putting the ads on ignore.


----------



## indianroads (Apr 19, 2020)

Olly Buckle said:


> I notice that one of the books people in this thread have felt should be banned was Lolita. It was first published in this country in 1959 (1958 in US) when I was fourteen coming up fifteen, and I remember there was a huge demand, people queueing at bookshops and such. for teen age boys at least it was an important subject of conversation. It would seem that the arbiters of public taste and public taste are often at extreme ends of the scale. That, in itself, should surely make us cautious, the things people do to others 'for their own good' and which do not coincide with their wishes can be pretty horrific.



LOL - What happens when you tell anyone (especially a teenager) "Don't open that door, there's something in there that you shouldn't see"?

Most of us would wait a bit, then sneak a peek.


----------



## indianroads (Apr 19, 2020)

Phil Istine said:


> Some sort of TIVO box usually helps - if you have one; I tend to skip past ads as I record most programs.  Alternatively, pause the program when the ads start, make a cup of tea or whatever, then resume watching when you guess the ads have finished.  I don't think I've seen a TV ad in quite a while.  Effectively, it's like putting the ads on ignore.



We have Xfinity (a local cable provider), and if we record something and give it a day or so before viewing it, the playback comes with a 'smart' fast forward - with one click we silence and quickly move through all the commercials.

I love that feature.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Apr 19, 2020)

hvysmker said:


> In jr. high, I tried to find copies of Mein Kampf and Mao Tse-tung's Little Red Book.  The public library ignored my request.
> 
> Also "Tom Sawyer", "Uncle Remus", and anything by Karl or Groucho Marx. Wait a minute ... no ... not Groucho.



When I was about seventeen I got a copy of the little red book, nothing terrible, a lot of smart two line sayings as I remember, but it was a long time ago. My next door neighbour lent me his copy of 'Mein Kampf', I didn't get far, it was all pretty tedious. A little while ago I was sorting through some books from my parents because we were going to move house and I found a 1930 copy of the Communist party manifesto as authorised by the Marxist Leninist institute in Moscow, that was reasonably readable, but only a pamphlet.

Groucho was allowed, it was Chico who was silenced.


----------



## BornForBurning (Apr 19, 2020)

> My next door neighbour lent me his copy of 'Mein Kampf', I didn't get far, it was all pretty tedious.


Which version? I have the James Murphy translation, it's often awkward reading but probably truest to the original spirit of the text. I have an ancient paperback Communist Manifesto from my grandpa, and I've been planning to get into Lenin ever since I read Hobsbawm.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Apr 19, 2020)

Sorry, no idea which translation, this must have been about 40 years ago.


----------



## clark (Apr 19, 2020)

Amnesiac -- how about "ass fisting"? Plenty graphic fer me--my sphincter muscle seized up tight enuff to repel a battering ram as soon as I read it!


----------



## danielvaldez90323 (Apr 19, 2020)

I've never taken to taste much myself, feeling that the restriction leads to worse off things. Even if it's intention is malicious, I'd much rather that be the case with words spoke and written than actions.


----------



## Xander416 (Apr 19, 2020)

indianroads said:


> We have Xfinity (a local cable provider), and if we record something and give it a day or so before viewing it, the playback comes with a 'smart' fast forward - with one click we silence and quickly move through all the commercials.
> 
> I love that feature.


And miss the Herbal Essences commercials? Screw that.


----------



## CyberWar (Apr 20, 2020)

As much as I might loathe the idea of censorship, I believe some form of it is necessary, at least where matters of national security or public safety are concerned. One should never underestimate human capacity for stupidity, and in times of crisis this stupidity more often than not costs lives.

Take, for example, this recent conspiracy theory that Covid-19 doesn't actually exist and is instead caused by 5G networks. Under different circumstances, it could just be laughed off as another crackpot theory of some harmless loonies in tinfoil hats. Yet there is a surprising number of idiots who buy into it (even a mere handful being a handful too many in my opinion), ignoring public safety measures and exposing their fellow citizens to the risk of deadly infection, some even resorting to sabotage of 5G towers and in doing so hampering effective communication between emergency services, putting even more lives at risk. People are put at risk of contracting a deadly disease all because one deranged individual was allowed to publicize his unscientific nonsense to the gullible masses of scientifically-illiterate rabble. And that's merely the latest in a long list of the dangerous idiocies that free media has enabled and allowed to spread these days. More aggressive and pro-active suppression of such harmful misinformation isn't just in the interests of the authorities, but also of the citizens.

Another example is the general proliferation of fake news and misinformation unrelated to any particular event or crisis. Very often, such misinformation is spread intentionally by foreign powers to undermine credibility of local information outlets, foster confusion and distrust of the media in general. This in turn opens the people up for apathy and indifference, being potentially very dangerous in a time of crisis when having a reliable and trusted nationwide information source matters. Ukraine already learned the importance of that the hard way. Hence it is in every prudent nation's vested interest to ensure that citizens receive truthful and reliable information from a vetted and trustworthy source on-board with the government ideas. Given the average citizen's capacity (or rather the lack of it) of telling a reliable source from a false one, this is another field where a prudent government ought to apply censorship if necessary.


----------



## Bayview (Apr 20, 2020)

Biro said:


> But the man who suggested the 5G stuff hasn't broken any laws and is already being censored.



I'm not aware of this story. Can you link?


----------



## bdcharles (Apr 20, 2020)

CyberWar said:


> As much as I might loathe the idea of censorship, I believe some form of it is necessary, at least where matters of national security or public safety are concerned. One should never underestimate human capacity for stupidity, and in times of crisis this stupidity more often than not costs lives.
> 
> Take, for example, this recent conspiracy theory that Covid-19 doesn't actually exist and is instead caused by 5G networks. Under different circumstances, it could just be laughed off as another crackpot theory of some harmless loonies in tinfoil hats. Yet there is a surprising number of idiots who buy into it (even a mere handful being a handful too many in my opinion), ignoring public safety measures and exposing their fellow citizens to the risk of deadly infection, some even resorting to sabotage of 5G towers and in doing so hampering effective communication between emergency services, putting even more lives at risk. People are put at risk of contracting a deadly disease all because one deranged individual was allowed to publicize his unscientific nonsense to the gullible masses of scientifically-illiterate rabble. And that's merely the latest in a long list of the dangerous idiocies that free media has enabled and allowed to spread these days. More aggressive and pro-active suppression of such harmful misinformation isn't just in the interests of the authorities, but also of the citizens.
> 
> Another example is the general proliferation of fake news and misinformation unrelated to any particular event or crisis. Very often, such misinformation is spread intentionally by foreign powers to undermine credibility of local information outlets, foster confusion and distrust of the media in general. This in turn opens the people up for apathy and indifference, being potentially very dangerous in a time of crisis when having a reliable and trusted nationwide information source matters. Ukraine already learned the importance of that the hard way. Hence it is in every prudent nation's vested interest to ensure that citizens receive truthful and reliable information from a vetted and trustworthy source on-board with the government ideas. Given the average citizen's capacity (or rather the lack of it) of telling a reliable source from a false one, this is another field where a prudent government ought to apply censorship if necessary.



To a point I agree. I am under few illusions as to how the world works and on a bad day might easily argue for a sort of licensing of free speech based on stuff like education level or passing a test. I believe that far too few humans have the sense of responsibility and awareness and frankly intellect required to make good use of free speech. But problems rise when you give that curbing power to someone. Who can guarantee that they won't abuse their power for their own ends? As it is, I think the best defence against wacko theories is a sound understanding of the tools to counter them.


----------



## CyberWar (Apr 20, 2020)

Then you have to ask whether it's the truth or national security/public safety that is more important.

In my experience, people are generally ill-equipped to handle the truth and the majority would indeed prefer a white lie if it helped them sleep sounder at night, even if they might say otherwise. Where it concerns state security and public safety, I definitely believe a firm government control over the information flow is preferable to the truth in emergency situations. The masses knowing the truth won't help resolve the problem, and only generate more problems as panic begins to spread (which it always does to some extent). Tight control over what the public knows at least helps keep things in good order until the authorities can come up with a solution.

As for whether the information given by the authorities is truthful is irrelevant in these kinds of emergencies. The point is to ensure that the masses remain calm, organized and cooperative with the authorities, something that is notoriously difficult to do if they are scared senseless and/or don't trust the government has the situation under control. A crisis is not the time for questioning, doubt or second guesses that people in the civil societies of the free world are so accustomed to. Censorship of the media for the duration of an emergency is, I think, an entirely adequate measure to contain panic, fearmongering and attempts of subversion.

Outside of such emergencies, I'm otherwise inclined to agree with proponents of free speech - let the enemies of the people speak out, so that everybody knows who they are.


----------



## Bayview (Apr 20, 2020)

Biro said:


> Youtube and David Icke



Oh. Yuck. That's -- yeah, that's tricky. I mean, there are lots of crackpots out there, and YouTube allows many of them to voice their ignorant opinions, so I guess it is a bit strange that they'd stop this ONE ignorant crackpot.

Still. I can't say I'm that worried about him as an individual voice.

For me, censorship is more concerning when it has the power of the state behind it, and when it's absolute. In this case, a private company deciding they don't want to allow someone to use their platform? It doesn't worry me much. Icke could always start his own website and publish his nonsense there, for those who want to listen. He's done self-publishing before, apparently - he could do more of that.

I mean, yes, there's a troubling overlap between governments and mega-corporations and I do worry that these can easily become forces of oppression. But...?


----------



## indianroads (Apr 20, 2020)

Conspiracy theories are akin to tales of flying-saucer people secretly running all of our world governments. I chuckle a bit, shake my head, and walk away. Honestly though, I don't trust ANY news or political party or any such groups. Instilling fear in the public give them power. It's more common that a seed of news is overstated and sensationalized rather than something make from whole-cloth, so when I hear such claims my first thought is, "What do they have to gain if I believe them?" Money, adulation, prestige... there's always a motive.


----------



## Bayview (Apr 20, 2020)

Biro said:


> There you go Bayview.  You probably think no more or less than most.  So what harm did the man really do if any?  Sometimes governments want people like him to stir up controversy to distract from the heat they may be getting elsewhere.  What is he really at the end of the day?  A story teller.  A fiction writer.  No more than anyone on here, as any person reading any of your books could believe it is the truth.



Except people are apparently vandalizing 5G towers?


----------



## CyberWar (Apr 20, 2020)

Biro said:


> I don't.  I honestly can't think of any government I could trust with even my name and address.
> 
> You must live in Perfectville.  In fact being as you are so trusting of those you elected.  Where exactly do you live?



I live in Latvia. Located pretty far from Perfectville, I might add.

A government is but a mirror of the society it governs. If a democratic nation consistently ends up with a corrupt and incompetent government, I think that's saying more about the intelligence, moral fibre and politicial savvy of the electorate rather than any flaw on part of the government. All those dishonest and inept politicians don't just magically come here from off-world - they are born and raised amongst ourselves, they _are _ones of us, and _we _are the ones who elect them and legitimize their rule.

Because of that, I think all nations of the world have exactly the kind of government they deserve, even totalitarian dictatorships - tyranny can only take root where there's plenty of spineless and servile individuals unwilling to think and stand up for themselves. Where it concerns Western democracies, I think it's just hypocritical to complain about bad politicians when your average voter is a politically-illiterate prole easily bought with bread and circuses.

Another thing to consider before dismissing the governments as a bunch of corrupt and useless puppets of the rich is your own place in the scheme of things. Everyone's a critic on the couch by the TV, but consider what have you personally done to make things better? Do you think you can do a better job, and if so, why aren't you out there, running for office in the next election or in the very least helping someone who is? In order to work, democracy by its very definition requires active participation of all eligible citizens, so is it really a surprise that contemporary democracies are failing when your average voter is more concerned with reality TV, celebrity gossip and latest trending memes on social media than educating himself about the current political ongoings and taking 30 minutes of his time to write a letter to the representative he voted for about issues that concern him? With contemporary voters being as they are, it's only natural that dishonest individuals take advantage of the system, as the average citizen is far too distracted, too disinterested and frankly too stupid to hold the officials up to proper standards.

With all of the above considered, I don't think a citizen of any Western nation has an excuse to complain about his government. If one cannot be bothered to exercise his most generous political rights to the fullest, the least one can do is stay out of the way of those who can and will, and assist the established lawfully-elected authorities to the best of his ability.


----------



## CyberWar (Apr 20, 2020)

Agreed. Few things lead to unnecessary quarrels faster than talking religion and politics.


----------



## indianroads (Apr 20, 2020)

Biro said:


> I disagree.  Unfortunately in some countries there is a system where it ensures the same 'kind of bunch' always get in promising all things, but never rock the status quo.  Some people in the UK think that proportional representation will solve their problems with this.  But they only have to look across the water to Ireland to see that this leads to a system where you can't get rid of anybody. A job for life it seems now.
> 
> Anyway politics not my thing ............so goodbye to this.



This is a problem in the US as well. We have members of the legislature that have been in office for over 40, yet campaign as an agent of change. Personally, I'm in favor of term limits.

And I agree - I dislike politics and prefer not to talk about it.


----------



## Cephus (Apr 20, 2020)

Biro said:


> Youtube and David Icke  I think that's who he refers too anyway.



YouTube has a policy of not supporting conspiracy theorists and David Icke absolutely is one. Now granted, YouTube does not enforce any of their rules evenly, they are very obviously biased, but Icke is not a good example to use. He's a loon.


----------



## indianroads (Apr 20, 2020)

Unbiased news is an oxymoron these days. Outlets parrot the views of their owners - Fox / MSNBC, NY Times / Epoch Times - the days of Huntley & Brinkley and Walter Cronkite have long passed, and our nation is the worst for it. I remember the years of protest over the Vietnam war - even then, I don't think the divide was a contentious as it is these days. It's sad.

Anyway - I've just finished the first two chapters of my WIP. My next (6th) is coming out next month, and this one should be complete in Jan 2021. It's fun, but am looking forward to a brief break after this series is complete. 

All my books have something of controversy in them, but I work at being objective in my character's POV and just tell the truth of his experience. People can form whatever opinion they want on their own.

SciFi (my favorite genre) is great for exploring social structures and relationships - that's why I like it.


----------



## BornForBurning (Apr 20, 2020)

> YouTube has a policy of not supporting conspiracy theorists and David Icke absolutely is one. Now granted, YouTube does not enforce any of their rules evenly, they are very obviously biased, but Icke is not a good example to use. He's a loon.


yeah that's exactly what I'd expect a lizardman from the fifth dimension to say. Why don't you show us your _true _​form, Cephus?


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 20, 2020)

Off Topic:

Regarding the "lizard people" conspiracy theory, I have to ask: why lizards, of all things?

Why not cephalopods? They're creepier to look at, demonstrably more intelligent, and far better at shape-shifting.

I think someone should start a "Cephalopod People" conspiracy theory and slowly spread it around the internet, just to dethrone the "Reptilian Humanoid" theory.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Apr 20, 2020)

Just wait 'til they get out of the water, they are working on it!


----------



## BornForBurning (Apr 20, 2020)

> Regarding the "lizard people" conspiracy theory, I have to ask: why lizards, of all things?


My evopsych professor explains this by the fact that reptilians would have historically preyed upon proto-humans. Bit of a just-so story, I know. But even as someone who has owned snakes and lizards, I feel the bite of terror whenever I look one in the eyes. Seems like it's a fear that kind of implicit to humanity. Children demonstrate a fear of snakes with no prior exposure. That's a fairly unique phenomena, there is no such fear of large dogs, cats, etc. Not a big fan of Jordan Peterson, but one really interesting datapoint he brought up is that we use the same part of our brain to detect poisonous snakes in camouflage that we do to detect 'dangerous' people. Might help explain the lizardman theory, though I never verified the study myself.


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 20, 2020)

Fascinating, actually!

I mean, I find the whole reptilian humanoid theory to be rather silly ... but the human-reptile fear dynamic _is_ quite interesting.

(Don't forget spiders, too!)


----------



## Sir-KP (Apr 20, 2020)

The discovery of mammal reptiles surely will bring our science to a whole new level.


----------



## seigfried007 (Apr 21, 2020)

Kyle R said:


> Off Topic:
> 
> Regarding the "lizard people" conspiracy theory, I have to ask: why lizards, of all things?
> 
> ...


_hee hee hee._ 

I'm totally writing about a dude that's part-cephalopod.


----------



## Cephus (Apr 21, 2020)

Biro said:


> Youtube censors anything it likes and that usually fits in with their politics.  They have banned/deleted lots of content for no sensible reason and then demonetarised lots more.  Hundred possibly thousands of creators of harmless content have just left youtube.  But then it is owned by google and of course they arent political are they?  :roll:



Of course they do, but they also have a stated policy of not permitting conspiracy theorists. I'm not  saying that Google isn't a terrible company that has a long history of  censorship, but when the ones that are getting kicked are... well... crazy... I'm not all that sympathetic.


----------



## BornForBurning (Apr 21, 2020)

> Throughout history from near history to things which are thousands of years old you will find drawings, statues, carvings and gargoyles of humans with reptile/snake heads. So if they have never existed why have people drawn or carved them throughout life on this planet.


probably demons anon


----------



## Amnesiac (Apr 21, 2020)

New WIP: "Ass-Fisting Lizard People From Planet X."


----------



## hvysmker (Apr 21, 2020)

Don't like Google Search? Google for "search engine". There are many alternates.
I use Duckduckgo.

Of course there were intelligent snake people. At sight of the first naked hairless apes, seeing their neighborhood values changing, they moved to the moon.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Apr 21, 2020)

hvysmker said:


> Of course there were intelligent snake people. At sight of the first naked hairless apes, seeing their neighborhood values changing, they moved to the moon.



They obviously had taste, did they practice censorship? At least this proves the moon landings were a hoax, there was no sign of them.


----------



## BornForBurning (Apr 21, 2020)

In all seriousness, the Reptiod theory makes more sense to me than most other conspiracy theories. Same with similar ideas like antisemitism, whitie done did it, etc. They are all patently false. But the creeping sense that 'all is not well' in human society is very real. That's what makes Lovecraft so scary. The horrible feeling that there's _something _lurking at 'the slimy edges of my subconscious' (one of my favorite lyrics). Something inside us, inside our neighbors. An undeniable sense of greater evil underlying all the dark we see on the surface.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Apr 22, 2020)

BornForBurning said:


> In all seriousness, the Reptiod theory makes more sense to me than most other conspiracy theories. Same with similar ideas like antisemitism, whitie done did it, etc. They are all patently false. But the creeping sense that 'all is not well' in human society is very real. That's what makes Lovecraft so scary. The horrible feeling that there's _something _lurking at 'the slimy edges of my subconscious' (one of my favorite lyrics). Something inside us, inside our neighbors. An undeniable sense of greater evil underlying all the dark we see on the surface.



Ever read Colin Wilson 'The Mind Parasites? An amusing take on Lovecraft.


----------



## apocalypsegal (May 15, 2020)

There's two things here, whether a site can censor our work (which it can), or whether we should self-censor. There's no good answer to the second. It's up to us how we write. Of course, a publisher can refuse to publish anything, for any reason, and it's their right to do so. It's typically only a business decision, nothing personal (unless the author is an a**hole and not worth dealing with).

I don't get why so many people moan about "political correctness". People can think what they want, but do they really influence our writing? Maybe for some. Others write to upset the "PC crowd", some write to express their truth, which may or may not be accepted.

My feeling is, if I'm writing something to hurt someone, then I should rethink why I'm doing it. I could write awful things about someone, say, a conservative Christian. Is it necessary for the character? Or am I inserting personal beliefs? Am I writing the story the way that is best for the story? Am I cheating the reader in some way? The last two are basically my only rules for writing. A potential third is to be honest with myself.


----------



## Irwin (May 15, 2020)

I think you should write to satisfy your target audience. If it's offensive to other people, tough; you can't make everyone happy. If you try, you'll wind up with some homogenized, boring, trite, garbage that no one will like.

Personally, I don't care for dialogue that has a lot of swearing. But I'm old. In my younger days, I might have liked it, since I swore a lot, and it would have been relatable. That's the thing: you need to make your characters in some way relatable to the reader.


----------



## indianroads (May 15, 2020)

I rebel against any and every constraint. If I'm told not to do something, even if I've never considered it before, that's _exactly_ what I want to do. 

In thought and in writing we all grow by working though discomfort. Some subjects should be discussed. I can only speak for myself, but when I write about something controversial I do my best to just tell the story without being overbearing about my opinion, my goal is that the reader should make up their own mind. IMO a lot of contentious subjects don't have a clear solution - and those that offer one-liner remedies really haven't thought it through.

In my novels, I do my best to let a potential reader know what the book is about via the product description. Also, I sell my work on Amazon, so customers can download the first 10% for free, so I do my best to give the POV character's viewpoint with that free sample. Beyond that, I do my best to not be overbearing.

As was said, some issues are important and I refuse to be pushed away out of fear of the public reaction.


----------



## VRanger (May 15, 2020)

Back in the 70s there was a commercial with a family facing the camera. The father says:

"In our family, we like to look our problems right in the eye. So when it comes to constipation ..."



Ma'am said:


> I wish there was more censoring for TV commercials.
> 
> It's gross when you're watching TV while eating dinner and that commercial comes on about pet adoption, showing abused animals with open wounds and missing eyes.
> 
> ...


----------



## VRanger (May 15, 2020)

Here is what makes the difference to me. Is the language organic, or is it gratuitous. Some authors like to drop F-bombs not because it is in any way essential to crafting a scene or a character, but because they think it is expected in "adult" fiction. I'm a sci-fi fan, and a few years ago I saw good recommendations for a series. As someone else reported they do, I went to the sample. Four F-bombs on the short first page (chapter title). They did NOTHING to establish the story, but they did make me think "This guy isn't creative enough to be really interesting, so he thinks this stuff is going to sell his story to me." Obviously, I closed the sample and promptly forgot his name. I'm a good 50 years past having "shock value" work on me.

Another example came from a somewhat popular mystery author. She at least has a middling following. I read her first book -- cozy small town mystery. Easily suitable for any age. Middle of the second book. For no reason whatsoever, she drops an F-bomb in the middle of the book -- from the main character. It neither advanced understanding of the character, nor contributed to the story, but I'd no longer give it to an 11 year old to read. It was an ambush. I dropped a couple of stars in my review just for that reason, and expected to get lambasted by her fans. Instead it wound up getting quite a few up votes and virtually no down votes.

I read most of another sci-fi series this past week. Good clean stuff -- until you get near the end of book two. Then the author suddenly gets fixated on the MC's ass, ALL the women want to do him, one does, and again, we moved with no warning from a series I'd be happy for an 11 y.o. to read to something I would not. Outside of the fact the author was ham-handed and ridiculous after he picked up the subject, I certainly can read sex. But I don't really want to be ambushed by it at that late date. I picked the book up for sci-fi, not for amateurish sex scenes and dialogue.

Creative freedom is essential. Writing our vision is essential. Keeping our reader in mind and our story level is also essential.



Irwin said:


> Personally, I don't care for dialogue that has a lot of swearing. But I'm old. In my younger days, I might have liked it, since I swore a lot, and it would have been relatable. That's the thing: you need to make your characters in some way relatable to the reader.


----------



## apocalypsegal (May 16, 2020)

I call that sort of thing "cheating the reader". It's not how I'd want my readers to see my writing, doing things like you described in books. I've seen that as well, and the author is a "no" for me after that. I see it as making a contract with my readers, to deliver the book I promise them in the description. It's also about being honest with myself, in my writing. If the plot needs it, if the character just is that way, then it's not something dropped on the reader out of nowhere. I need to understand the purpose of what happens in my story, and if I were to just throw something in, for shock value, or to conform to some odd idea, then I'm being dishonest.

But, I have weird ideas about how this storytelling thing works.


----------



## indianroads (May 16, 2020)

F-bombs over used lose their potency, so I use them sparingly. In the world of my sci-fi series they don't use the word 'damned' (or any of its derivatives) and instead say 'cursed', and 'crap' is more often used than 'shit'.

Again though - I hung with an outlaw biker club for quite a few years, and with some of those guys f-bombs were their adjective of choice associated with just about everything. If I were to write characters exactly like them, I think the repetition would annoy readers - while in real life you don't even hear it after awhile.


----------



## hvysmker (May 16, 2020)

Potency? How does potency apply to cursing? If I were to write “man” or “Good, goody” rather than the f-word, would that be more potent?

I’ve spent much of my time among low-level criminals of both sexes,and they DO, actually DO swear during a normal conversation. If you notice a table containing any four military men or policemen drinking a beer, their language would stun a priest – unless he’s at the same table.

When I write a story containing ANY of those characters, they will very likely to be swearing. Not to shock a reader, simply for realism. Enough of that old potency bullc**p.

When I peruse adventure or action novels in a store or library, one of the things I look for are swear words. If not found, no sale.


----------



## indianroads (May 16, 2020)

hvysmker said:


> Potency? How does potency apply to cursing? If I were to write “man” or “Good, goody” rather than the f-word, would that be more potent?
> 
> I’ve spent much of my time among low-level criminals of both sexes,and they DO, actually DO swear during a normal conversation. If you notice a table containing any four military men or policemen drinking a beer, their language would stun a priest – unless he’s at the same table.
> 
> ...



There's a reason why children learn these sorts of words so easily - they have potency. They are often emphasized in speech as a statement of emotion about one thing or another, but if overused they lose their shock-value. The potency of the words depend on context, and the speaker.

Like you, I've spent quite some time around outlaws, and yes, among that segment of society the words are just normal conversation. "Where's the fuckin' wrench." "Hey, pass the fuckin' beer."


----------



## Ma'am (May 16, 2020)

I just use whatever words I see any given character using. "Self censorship" would only come into it for me if I thought it would affect publishability in its intended market.

My two cents is sometimes swearing has potency and sometimes it doesn't. If your five-year-old, your sweet old religious grandmother or your biker brother said the f-word, one might be seen to contain humor, one potency and one nothing special because they it's just how they talk. 

It's also relational, or whatever the right term is there. People are probably much more likely to swear with their peers than with those "above them" (boss or parents) or "below them" (children, paid help) on the social scale, I think.

So context counts. Personally, I talked like a sailor when I was young but then felt like trash mouth wasn't nearly as cute on me as a real grown-up lady lol. Just like how you dress, how you speak communicates who you are to the world.

About what's "offensive," it is, of course, subject. But "subjective" doesn't mean someone can increase pollution every time they open their snout and get a free pass on it, as if offense is just something people dream up, with its creator having no responsibility for what they say, either. We all get whatever results our words bring on from our audience.

So now I'm thinking swearing or lack thereof might be fun to play with. A little girl with a filthy mouth or an outlaw who says things like "Heavens to Betsy."


----------



## indianroads (May 16, 2020)

Ma'am said:


> I just use whatever words I see any given character using. "Self censorship" would only come into it for me if I thought it would affect publishability in its intended market.
> 
> My two cents is sometimes swearing has potency and sometimes it doesn't. If your five-year-old, your sweet old religious grandmother or your biker brother said the f-word, one might be seen to contain humor, one potency and one nothing special because they it's just how they talk.
> 
> ...



:lol: In the company of outlaws - saying 'Heavens to Betsy" would silence the room. 

I think the key to word usage depends on your character. I usually make a list of phrases for each of my main characters. In my last novel the MMC commonly said things like, 'maybe so', and 'sure-sure, yeah'. Doing this I try (and may or may not succeed) in making my characters unique. Some of those common phrases could be profanity, or the lack of it.

Maybe Amazon scans for words like 'fuck' etc. when you post a novel via KDP - I don't know. They do as if the work contains graphic violence or sex - profanity? I don't know. Profanity itself - especially in context with the character and the situation - I don't find offensive, others may have a different opinion.


----------



## indianroads (May 16, 2020)

Biro said:


> You never worked in a factory or on a building site then?



I worked my way through college jack-hammering driveways and pouring concrete, I was also hanging out with the local 1% biker club. And yeah, back then I could put sailors to shame. Then I graduated and got work as a design engineer, and learned to temper by verbiage.


----------



## indianroads (May 16, 2020)

Biro said:


> So how is what you call swearing or bad language only used by crims?  Or do I misunderstand your post earlier?



Probably a misunderstanding. I was intending to say that context matters. If a member of the military, or a construction worker, or an outlaw swears, it has a lower impact than when a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, or a mother pushing a baby carriage does.


----------



## hvysmker (May 16, 2020)

indianroads said:


> I worked my way through college jack-hammering driveways and pouring concrete, I was also hanging out with the local 1% biker club. And yeah, back then I could put sailors to shame. Then I graduated and got work as a design engineer, and learned to temper by verbiage.


Same here. On leaving the army in 1974 and taking up computer work, I had to consciously cut back on my swearing.  It wasn't easy.


----------



## VRanger (May 17, 2020)

A lot of this depends on your expected audience, more than being honest with a character. If certain vocabulary is appropriate to a character, and the situation is appropriate, and you're aiming for an adult audience, write it if you wish. There is certainly an audience for it.

My personal take as a reader is that I hear it frequently. Most films with R ratings are going to be full of off-color language. Friends use it, family uses it. I use it, but not as a habit -- more as a "something just went wrong and I'm momentarily surprised and not happy about it". If my wife uses it, I RUN to assist, because something just went VERY wrong. LOL However, because I hear it every day doesn't mean I want to continually read it. My choice, and that choice is binding on no one but me. But I do operate on two levels there. If I come across blue language in something I expect to be adult content and it's appropriate, no problem. If it seems to be gratuitous (as I mentioned earlier), I discount the skill of the author and move on to something else. You can't sell a story to me just with blue language, and some writers try to do that.

As a writer, my objective is to write for all ages, so you won't find anything more harsh than a rare "damn" or "hell" in my stuff. It doesn't have to be there to tell a story, and frankly, most readers are not going to be reading dialogue and thinking, "That character should have just said "Fuck!", why didn't they?" A lot of the most popular books in history had little to no profanity in them, so an author shouldn't feel compelled to include it to meet some imagined criteria.

I think my point here is that when I see it where it is just integrated into the dialogue because that's the character -- no big deal. When I see it forced in as a "feature", not for me. If an author thinks, "Oh, I need more profanity because adults expect it", and includes it only for that reason, they've just made a mistake.


----------

