04 April 2008

I don't care what you THINK you read....

At a friend's blog, a commenter hijacked the comments from out of the blue with this one:

"I would like to ask whether you might want to consider removing Pitchbull (sic) from your blogroll. Having been pointed to this post has not been a pleasure.

I have followed much of the discussion about the video his post points to and I do not want to repeat all the background information available on it. In short, though, this video will not help solve any problem -- and I think it is safe to say that it is a work of fundamentalism; western fundamentalism in this case, but in such not any better that what it claims to criticise.

The only, and really the only good thing about the video is that it shows that we live in countries sticking to the principle of freedom of speech. This, however does not mean that we should agree to all the opinons stated within our culture of freedom of speech or even point to them.

If this was the pig war, I might just have a good laugh and go along, but in this case, the level of escalation is far beyond a point where occasional insults are the only things happening. Further insults will not help.

Pitchbull/Greybeard writes in his post "Bloggers- If you agree with Wilders views, show your support by posting the film. Numbers may help save his life." May I add: Films like this one will put fuel on the fire and take more lives. If the aim really is to bring democracy to other parts of the world, this film is a very drastic and anti-democratic example about how not to "get the job done", to quote somebody else."

I don't know this person, so I have no idea what his/her thought processes are like. But even at a blog frequented by some fairly Liberal folks I think he/she was surprised how readers there defended this crusty old freedom lover.
In response to receiving a cool reception, he/she comes here with this comment:

"Nec, when you say you "do support Greybeard in that [you] believe freedom of speech is more important than weather (sic!) [you] agree with what is said," you also seem to support my opinion stated in my comment above. I do not find an indication that I called for censorship of the video; I stated pretty much the contrary of a call for censorship. Please also note that I did not ask for the censorship of Greybeard's blog. What I did in the comment section of the blog you are referring to was, simply, ask a question. Where are we when questions may not be asked?"

I'm really REALLY confused...
He/She didn't call for censorship of "PitchPull"?
Suggesting others not watch Geert Wilder's movie "Fitna" to determine it's value or lack thereof... that's not an act of censorship?
As one of our Presidential candidates has repeatedly told us, "words have meaning".
Now help me to understand...
What am I missing about the meaning of the word "censorship"?

10 comments:

cary said...

This person is obviously missing the meaning of the word "censorship" - along with the left's proclivity towards forgetting what really happened just a moment or two ago, the call for your blog to be removed from a blogroll was "misconstrued", "taken out of context", and the person simply "misspoke".

It is because of your stance on the issues and you view of life in general that you are on my blogroll, and you will continue to be there as long as you continue blogging. At this point, having met you in person and shared a table with you, to do any less would be a shame on me.

Keep up the good work, Greybeard.

Rodolfo said...

Greybeard asked: Suggesting others not watch Geert Wilder's movie "Fitna" to determine it's value or lack thereof... that's not an act of censorship?

It doesn't appear to be. Perhaps censorship is too strong a word.

Andrea Shea King said...

In total agreement...

Andrea

zb said...

This person (me) did not forget what he said. It all sounds now like I made a call to "kick him out!", with an exclamation mark, which I didn't. I did say that I found the video disturbing and I did ask whether it is necessary to point readers to something like it. When hosting a blog, one is responisble for everything in it, and should think about not only the posts but also about the links in the blogroll. Thus my question in the other blog.

Let's use an example connected to terrorism: Let's say you are in a subway car and you see a bag somewhere that is obviously unattended. Let's say there is also a group of people in the same car. They all look like they are having a good time and they are in a good and fun conversation. Do you, for the sake of not keeping them from having a good time, go ahead and remain silent, or do you, for the sake of finding out whether the bag might be dangerous, tell them (and others like the subway driver) about it.

If you see something, say something, right?

I would not go so far as to say that interrupting the conversation of the other group should be called hijacking. Hijacking involves violence, and I absolutely don't think that me asking a question was violent.

My misspelling of PitchPull was not intended, it was a mistake. Mistakes like these happen and I am sorry.

By the way, we all seem to have misspelled the name of the movie's author as well: It is Wilders, not Wilder.

After having read some of the responses to my question, I do now understand why the blogroll in the other blog should remain just like it is.

Greybeard, censorship comes with an exclamation mark, questions don't.

This difference -- and not my allegedly claimed "proclivity towards forgetting what really happened just a moment or two ago" seems to have caused all the shouting round here.

Cary, I have not said any of the above words that you put in quotes. My words don't seem to have been "out of context" at all.

I don't see how I, personally, can bring any further clarity into the discussion over here so I guess it is now best if you share your streetwise hausverstand amongst yourselves again.

Greybeard said...

Okay, now I'm even MORE confused...
Let me get this straight, ZB, using your scenario...

You see the unattended bag in the subway. You know it may be dangerous, yet others are merrily ignorant of the possible danger. Under these circumstances, you and I are in agreement... you should warn others of the danger. You'll certainly use whatever means necessary to protect yourself and others from that danger, to include the use of experts with "exploding "bag" experience, right? If you know you may encounter dangerous unattended bags with some frequency, you might even want to read whatever information is available or watch a movie about them, produced by someone with intimate knowledge of exploding unattended bags, correct?

ZB, you and I are in COMPLETE agreement on this!
Who'da thunk it?

nec Timide said...

ZB I would not go so far as to say that interrupting the conversation of the other group should be called hijacking. Hijacking involves violence, and I absolutely don't think that me asking a question was violent. See this Wikipedia article the section on Internet Forums for common usage in this context.

My misspelling of PitchPull was not intended, it was a mistake. Mistakes like these happen and I am sorry. I thought that at first, but then you pointed out my malapropism with such editorial precision ...important than weather (sic!) [you] agree... that I wonder how such an unlikely mistake with such an inflammatory result wouldn't be caught.

Rodolfo said...

This is so silly. I don't even see a debate on the actual content of whatever it was that was deemed offensive. Questions of free speech have already been answered. Let's move on.

People get offended too easily.

Greybeard said...

Again, your opinion Rodolfo.
You have no right whatsoever to determine whether or not I should be offended.
When countrymen's heads are being removed by Islamic radicals, and women are being relegated to second-class citizenship because that's what their Spiritual Leaders call for, I'll be offended if you don't mind.
And those that are trying to keep the general populace from being educated about such behavior are censors...
That's MY opinion, of course.

Rodolfo said...

I simply made an observation. I'm not determining anything for you. You're a grown man and you can make your own decisions for yourself. You can also get offended over whatever you want for all I care. I'm just pointing out that you and ZB get offended too easily. Where in that statement did I ever "determine" you SHOULDN'T?

But let's not turn this important issue into political silly season. Not this time.

Am I offended that my countrymen are being beheaded? Sure. Am I offended that women are relegated to second-class citizenship? Of course. But do I think Islam the religion is the problem? NO. That's probably where you and I part ways. I don't think Islam is the problem. To me that's like blaming slavery in our country on the Old Testament. One can certainly make that argument. But why is it that we can still find the Bible in almost every hotel in America when some of scripture can be deemed equally offensive as whatever you can find in the Koran?

Part of the answer is our country's secularism. Our 1st Amendment guarantees no interference from religions doctrine and vice versa. The fascists in the Muslim world don't have that. If they adhered to strict separation of church and state like we do then their religious texts won't be an issue.

A country without a 1st Amendment is more of a problem than religious text.

The Old Man said...

Seems to me that free flow of information dictates that it should be open to all and not required of any. Posting the URL of any site (including those you personally disagree with) is discretionary - but pissing-and-moaning if you don't like the content after y'all click on it is childish.

But that's just my opinion...