Censorship Boycotts are for Cowards

cropped from source: boycottmozilla.org
cropped from source: boycottmozilla.org

Fighting injustice is necessary.

You voice the facts, you voice your opinion; you may attempt to correct the record, you fight.  But you don’t censor others in the process.

Free Speech means addition, not subtraction. …But tell that to people who don’t listen to logic, and worse, let hatred get the best of themselves.

There is that point where “speaking up” doesn’t work.  That is, when it’s not honest, not a reflection of Free speech.

Disrespect is a Political Virtue

To come to my surprise, in one way, but not another, political activists amounted to forcing out the CEO of Mozilla.  Why?  Because he donated a measly $1K to a pro-Proposition 8 campaign in California.

No, it didn’t matter that Prop-8, the “traditional marriage” law promoter (preventing gay marriage), was overturned by judge(s) there, every time, basically overturning the voters in the state.

Statute of limitations alone would make such judicial decisions to overturn recently enacted laws unconstitutional.  And it was done repeatedly.

No, the activists, who do not represent gays as a whole, who boycott their way into power to such that they have the judges on their side, boycotted Mozilla anyway. And then OKCupid and other sites, for using FireFox.

FireFox — a web browser that I will continue using because of its actual purpose — has no anti-gay messages, or anything.  (I’m a programmer, I can tell; ‘gay’ only appears in the dictionary, among ‘0th’ and ‘zymurgy’).

I mean, to go after users of the browser — that’s insane.  And insane enough to get Bill Maher say, “is there a gay mafia?”

Well, I know the why: it’s a political power that holds a distorted take on how money plays into things.  A power that feels it owns the company, and therefore owns the people. Beyond the kind of dishonest activism that advocates tolerance, but tolerates nothing out of step with ‘the culture.’

Beyond, that it eventually put money over people.

That could be considered anti-democratic.  Not only such that voicing a differing position “should not be allowed,” but the view that money and stupid lawn signs put the law into effect, not the actual people voting…And people that were overturned anyway.

And then come the apologies in the attempt to get the trolls to stop, the fear of financial bleeding, an intimidation of “one thousand papercuts”…

Boycotts in Recent History… you’ve already heard of

2007: Don Imus was fired for a throw-away joke taken out of context.
Like Colbert, Imus does, and did a caricature. But that didn’t matter; nothing matters.  All over the garbage media, the denial of even the fact that it’s dumb comedy. “Those are some nappy-headed hos,” nothing else. Everyone was nervous, and they should be; it’s censorship; it’s evil.

2011: Hank Williams, Jr.: fired, twenty years in.
‘Obama v. Boehner in golf, like Hitler v. Netanyahu.’ That’s it? Yep, that’s it.

2013: Paula Deen, having testified in court, admitted to using the N-word in the past.
Trolling amounted to: dropped by network, dropped by publishers, despite of the fact that her book was a pre-order best-seller.

(Now, the President can go from anti- to pro- gay marriage in 18 months… but Paula Deen, in the court of opinion, can’t “evolve” in 18 years?)

The list goes on.
Dr. Laura, Juan Williams, Michael Richards — well, the response to Richards was somewhat appropriate. He is kind of a hack. But that’s my opinion, not a fact.

And then, in all this one-sided democracy, come new terms from academia, like ‘micro-agression,’ pretty much a “thought police” term.

Now, it’s one thing to teach about oppression in history, how beyond wrong slavery is in a supposedly “free country,” it’s another to teach about oppression by engaging in it, by bullying people. (And then have the nerve to say you’re against bullying!)

Politics: Getting Away with Lying to People

It ultimately takes ignorance for a false narrative to survive. Ignorance also means the majority of the people advancing it aren’t even aware of it.

And willfully.  If you choose to shut out people giving answers you don’t want to hear, you eliminate opportunities to advance a perspective— that in separating the voices, sticking to sense and logic, putting everything into the right place, the truth eventually sinks in.  And deeper than that, sources closer to the intended origin.  Like I said before, facts depend on quality, not quantity.

But it becomes more complicated, that sticking to quality, as you need to hear more, be educated more to know what quality is, even change perspective on a daily basis.

To Be Real… …and Unreal and Problematic

It’s 2014.  Yet another boycott, this time over Stephen Colbert’s “Ching-chong Ding-dong” character, something that’s so over-the-top that you can’t help but laugh.  And that’s the frickin’ point: to laugh!  But tell that to tweeters who… tweet for the point of getting attention, and what is known as a sense of humor is overturned by the judge in their head.

But what happened over there isn’t what injured my hope.  It was the coverage, including the Freshly Pressed “#CancelColbert and the White Conservative Cariacature Dilemma.” (And excuse the ping-back.)

For any who don’t know, “redskins” is a slur for Native Americans.

Yes, the same “obvious” conclusion that Bob Costas came to. And no, it’s not a slur. I know I’m outnumbered, and this will not come across, but…

“Red Skins” came from a tradition of painting one’s face red, as a declaration. Of pride, of courage— warriors, upon going into battle, they paint their face. The term came from a Sioux, suggesting the name.

Update: it looks like I’m also outnumbered by myself; Redskins was a “convenient” change by a white owner.  Oh, how bastardized culture blends itself into old culture…

It Never Ends

With all the ownership of things, of people, in this era of reconstruction… that asking the natives doesn’t matter in Political Correctness, something that gradually erases Native American history, as actual history cannot fit into the polished political narrative, the box, where ignorance lives and corruption thrives.
——————————
Should I ever see a day that I’m not outnumbered.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Censorship Boycotts are for Cowards

  1. Thanks for the pingback. For the record, Freshly Pressed just promoted a post I wrote for my blog. I don’t think they endorse my conclusion, they just thought I had an interesting take on the issue. If you read the full thing you’ll find I never said I wanted to censor or cancel Colbert, I’m a fan of his show.

    That being said, Redskins is a slur and the people against the name change are Native American groups. So if anyone is going to say what is a slur against there community, shouldn’t it be them? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_%28slang%29 (just a quick reference)

    Also, the name change from Boston Braves to Redskins was not made by Dietz (who by the way was faking his Native identity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_Dietz) but by the White owner at the time.

    Like

    1. Thanks for the comment, your take, and the clarification.  Of course, I got that you never would’ve wanted Colbert Report canceled; you reported on #CancelColbert.

      Like

Thoughts? Reply:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s