General > General Technical Chat

UK internet censoring

<< < (23/28) > >>

coppice:

--- Quote from: Zero999 on July 13, 2023, 05:52:46 pm ---I've noticed a recent trend of people reading too much in to one's choice of words, rather than their context. I find it infuriating, that just because a word can be used as a slur, it's seen as bad, even when it's not used in the pejorative.  :palm:

Anyway, back on topic. Wikipedia does have a bias, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. Other sources have biases i.e. GBNews and the Guardian, but that doesn't mean they should be banned.

This law is nothing to do with child protection. It's supposed to help to shield everyone from hate and misinformation, which is just an excuse to gain consent. People will agree to all sorts of evil things, if they've been persuaded it's for the common good: i.e. saving lives and protecting children. Ronald Reagan was right: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."

--- End quote ---
It doesn't gain consent. It attempts to make consent irrelevant. Talk to people who have lived through regimes which turned their propaganda up to 11, and they all say roughly the same thing. They were not sure what the truth was, but they knew full well it wasn't what they were being told.

SiliconWizard:

--- Quote from: coppice on July 13, 2023, 07:00:02 pm ---
--- Quote from: Zero999 on July 13, 2023, 05:52:46 pm ---I've noticed a recent trend of people reading too much in to one's choice of words, rather than their context. I find it infuriating, that just because a word can be used as a slur, it's seen as bad, even when it's not used in the pejorative.  :palm:

Anyway, back on topic. Wikipedia does have a bias, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. Other sources have biases i.e. GBNews and the Guardian, but that doesn't mean they should be banned.

This law is nothing to do with child protection. It's supposed to help to shield everyone from hate and misinformation, which is just an excuse to gain consent. People will agree to all sorts of evil things, if they've been persuaded it's for the common good: i.e. saving lives and protecting children. Ronald Reagan was right: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."

--- End quote ---
It doesn't gain consent. It attempts to make consent irrelevant. Talk to people who have lived through regimes which turned their propaganda up to 11, and they all say roughly the same thing. They were not sure what the truth was, but they knew full well it wasn't what they were being told.

--- End quote ---

For those that haven't lived in such regimes and can't fathom what that means, read 1984. The whole thing is very well explained.

vk6zgo:

--- Quote from: Zero999 on July 13, 2023, 05:52:46 pm ---I've noticed a recent trend of people reading too much in to one's choice of words, rather than their context. I find it infuriating, that just because a word can be used as a slur, it's seen as bad, even when it's not used in the pejorative.  :palm:

Anyway, back on topic. Wikipedia does have a bias, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. Other sources have biases i.e. GBNews and the Guardian, but that doesn't mean they should be banned.

This law is nothing to do with child protection. It's supposed to help to shield everyone from hate and misinformation, which is just an excuse to gain consent. People will agree to all sorts of evil things, if they've been persuaded it's for the common good: i.e. saving lives and protecting children. Ronald Reagan was right: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."

--- End quote ---

I dunno, I get pretty terrified when a Boss describes the latest hare-brained scheme as a "win-win situation".

AVGresponding:

--- Quote from: james_s on July 13, 2023, 05:15:51 pm ---
--- Quote from: AVGresponding on July 13, 2023, 08:43:02 am ---Calling genitals "naughty bits" is one of the tools by which people are taught to be ashamed of nudity, it has nothing to do with being polite, and the only humour attached to it is that of a sniggering schoolboy talking about something he isn't supposed to. I need not jump to any conclusions; you already admitted in the same post that you "prefer not to be nude around anyone that is not a romantic partner", clear evidence of the societal conditioning I was alluding to. I am not blaming or criticising you personally, but making an observation regarding the social norms programmed into you.

Using the correct terminology is not impolite, in any company; it provides clarity.

--- End quote ---

Maybe English is not your first language? The term "naughty bits" is common slang, don't read too much into it, people use slang all the time, you knew exactly what I was referring to didn't you? So what more clarity is needed? I don't think it's unusual to prefer not to be nude around random people, it doesn't mean shame, many people simply prefer a bit of modesty, there are just some things I prefer to save for certain people rather than just any old person that comes along. As far as social norms, sure, everyone has social norms, that's part of what defines culture, which is part of what defines society.

--- End quote ---

I am English, and English is my first language. I am aware of the usage of the phrase, and I am pointing out why it exists as a slang term. It's not unusual to prefer to not be nude around random people in cultures dominated by Abrahamic religions, mostly. Other cultures are often less prudish. There is a direct link between language and culture, and furthermore, both are in constant evolution, hence this thread, amongst other things.

I don't mind the use of slang at all; learning about the way other cultures approach things is interesting to me. The divide between the UK and US is a curious one. We have a great deal of common history and culture, but the branching in the 17th century has sent the US down a path that is at times utterly perplexing to those of us in the UK that take an interest in these things. Most people of course notice no difference at all, and live their lives in happy ignorance; I often wonder if I would be happier if I was as disengaged.
Though I don't mind the use of slang, I do like for people to understand the cultural roots of the slang they use, as it almost always has subtle undertones that can be misunderstood by people from different cultures, and indeed can be missed even by denizens of the culture of origin.

TimFox:
I believe the term "naughty bits" was invented by Monty Python for a comedy sketch "How to Recognise Different Parts of the Body" where naughty bits were covered up by polka-dot underwear.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod