Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Underdog
And I'm not accusing the mods (any of you) of supporting racism, but I certainly do see it "slide" a lot more than f-bombs... I'm just wondering aloud which should be a higher priority for censorship - dangerous ideas or harmless words (because they certainly ain't droppin' "f-bombs" out in Israel/Palestine!)
 |
The problem is that 'Dangerous Ideas' become subject to personal interpretations.
An F-bomb is pretty clear.
What you believe is a Dangerous Idea may be vastly different than what someone else sees as a Dangerous Idea...where does it end and when does it begin.
At least with F-Bombs, we can all agree on what that actually is.
Somewhere there must be a standard to keep things civilized, the use of certain words is a clear boundary.
As for Dangerous Ideas...Some people believe that the comments that Rush Limbaugh made regarding Donovan McNabb is dangerous. While others believe it was simply a person pointing out the problem with some in society and other media members.
What's Dangers? The thought that society and some media is racist or the thought that Rush is racist? Which one do you believe?
Is Obama racist? how's that for dangerous...or are those against Obama racist?
Who's going to be the judge?
When someone speaks in favor of Obama are they independant thinkers, or sheep following the chosen one?
When someone speaks out in favor of McCain are they independant thinkers, or sheep following more of the same?
Go ahead, disagree...just what are you disagreeing with?