Topic: Little Britain has been take off of streaming services!
Green !StaYqkzUPc started this discussion 5 years ago #100,432
Ridiculous!
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 17 minutes later[^] [v] #1,132,630
was it because of the scene of a dude holding another dudes pencil-thin cock while shaving his pubes off in a locker room?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 7 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,631
Nooooo!!!
dw joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 47 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,636
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:19c973956c4cbdb4a0f748b8f602ddbc061a0286&dn=Little.Britain.S01.INTERNAL.DVDRip.x264-GHOULS%5Brartv%5D&tr=http%3A%2F%2Ftracker.trackerfix.com%3A80%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2F9.rarbg.me%3A2710&tr=udp%3A%2F%2F9.rarbg.to%3A2710&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fopen.demonii.com%3A1337%2Fannounce
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:d0ead98dfa723026592f1cb21aa4a169fdfb38bf&dn=Little.Britain.S02.INTERNAL.DVDRip.x264-GHOULS%5Brartv%5D&tr=http%3A%2F%2Ftracker.trackerfix.com%3A80%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2F9.rarbg.me%3A2710&tr=udp%3A%2F%2F9.rarbg.to%3A2710&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fopen.demonii.com%3A1337%2Fannounce
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:52245e3df127a267135c429936350b7c10866dcd&dn=Little.Britain.S03.INTERNAL.DVDRip.x264-GHOULS%5Brartv%5D&tr=http%3A%2F%2Ftracker.trackerfix.com%3A80%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2F9.rarbg.me%3A2710&tr=udp%3A%2F%2F9.rarbg.to%3A2710&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fopen.demonii.com%3A1337%2Fannounce
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:d0ead98dfa723026592f1cb21aa4a169fdfb38bf&dn=Little.Britain.S02.INTERNAL.DVDRip.x264-GHOULS%5Brartv%5D&tr=http%3A%2F%2Ftracker.trackerfix.com%3A80%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2F9.rarbg.me%3A2710&tr=udp%3A%2F%2F9.rarbg.to%3A2710&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fopen.demonii.com%3A1337%2Fannounce
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:52245e3df127a267135c429936350b7c10866dcd&dn=Little.Britain.S03.INTERNAL.DVDRip.x264-GHOULS%5Brartv%5D&tr=http%3A%2F%2Ftracker.trackerfix.com%3A80%2Fannounce&tr=udp%3A%2F%2F9.rarbg.me%3A2710&tr=udp%3A%2F%2F9.rarbg.to%3A2710&tr=udp%3A%2F%2Fopen.demonii.com%3A1337%2Fannounce
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 45 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,641
Parts of it haven't aged well, admittedly. Like the blackface or that character who was a hamfisted caricature or transvestites. Even the two creators have said as much, and that they wouldn't do that stuff today.
That said, it was one of the biggest sketch comedies of its day, and that feels worthy or preservation. As a compromise they could have, instead of wholesale removal, just cut out the objectionable stuff. As I recall, it was literally just one or two sketches that had that kind of stuff.
That said, it was one of the biggest sketch comedies of its day, and that feels worthy or preservation. As a compromise they could have, instead of wholesale removal, just cut out the objectionable stuff. As I recall, it was literally just one or two sketches that had that kind of stuff.
dw replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,643
@previous (Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE)
oh wow i thought it was like a licensing thing. also little britain didnt have transvestites did it??
oh wow i thought it was like a licensing thing. also little britain didnt have transvestites did it??
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 5 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,645
@previous (dw)Yeah, BBC and Netflix both removed it because of the potentially offensive sketches.
> also little britain didnt have transvestites did it??
Yeah, that was one of the main sketches. The "Oh, I'm a lady!" character. Pic related.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,648
Sounds pretty gay.
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 5 years ago, 23 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,654
that's kind of dumb. even taoday comedians make offensive stuff on purpose to make a point or just to for the effect of "OMG I can't believe they did that", and have been doing so for decades. unexpected inappropriateness is a whole category of comedy.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 5 years ago, 19 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,656
blom joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,658
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,659
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 5 years ago, 37 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,669
Meta !Sober//iZs joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 26 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,677
@1,132,645 (Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE)
Maybe they can reupload a bowdlerized version with the (now) offensive material removed. I would not allow it though if I held the rights to Little Britain because it's complete bullshit to hold an old work of art to modern moral standards. You have to judge it by early to mid 2000s standards by which it was, apparently, not that bad.
I fucking HATE this shit and I'm not even a fan of the show.
Maybe they can reupload a bowdlerized version with the (now) offensive material removed. I would not allow it though if I held the rights to Little Britain because it's complete bullshit to hold an old work of art to modern moral standards. You have to judge it by early to mid 2000s standards by which it was, apparently, not that bad.
I fucking HATE this shit and I'm not even a fan of the show.
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,694
@previous (Meta !Sober//iZs)
I can't really fault your reasoning on that. I think that you have to accept that it was a product of it's time. And even though I understand why those sketches could be quite offensive to ethnic minorities and trans people, it feels wrong to just bury something that used to be a minor cultural icon in the UK.
I'd also like to underline how easy an edited version would be to make. The stuff that they're objecting to is neatly confined to particular sketches in the show, it could be quite cleanly removed.
@1,132,656 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Yeah, I wouldn't be completely okay with that either, but it seems like a sensible compromise.
I can't really fault your reasoning on that. I think that you have to accept that it was a product of it's time. And even though I understand why those sketches could be quite offensive to ethnic minorities and trans people, it feels wrong to just bury something that used to be a minor cultural icon in the UK.
I'd also like to underline how easy an edited version would be to make. The stuff that they're objecting to is neatly confined to particular sketches in the show, it could be quite cleanly removed.
@1,132,656 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Yeah, I wouldn't be completely okay with that either, but it seems like a sensible compromise.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Green !StaYqkzUPc (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,709
@previous (Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE)
Or how about if you find it so offensive, don't watch it? Let's not take all joy and humour out if the world because someone's feelings might get hurt.
Or how about if you find it so offensive, don't watch it? Let's not take all joy and humour out if the world because someone's feelings might get hurt.
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 5 years ago, 13 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,714
@previous (Green !StaYqkzUPc)
Why are you reacting like that? I'm obviously not happy about the removal, and am only suggesting a hypocritical edit as a necessary compromise to keep the series easily accessible.
Why are you reacting like that? I'm obviously not happy about the removal, and am only suggesting a hypocritical edit as a necessary compromise to keep the series easily accessible.
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE double-posted this 5 years ago, 13 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,715
BRITAIN BRITAIN BRITAIN
if you can read that in the correct voice, you have passed the test
if you can read that in the correct voice, you have passed the test
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 8 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,800
And Gone With the Wind was pulled from HBO. Pathetic. I guess it completed passed them by that Hattie McDaniel was the first black person to win an Oscar. Oh well.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 34 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,802
ITT: People relying on private businesses for historical record. It not being at the tip of your fingers for just $15.99 a week isn't censorship, mora.
Anonymous I replied with this 5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,803
@previous (J)
censorship:
1. the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
Pulling TV shows and movies because they are considered racist or whatever literally is censorship, mora.
censorship:
1. the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
Pulling TV shows and movies because they are considered racist or whatever literally is censorship, mora.
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,804
@1,132,802 (J)
Obviously. But it is far easier and more convenient to use those platforms than to find it somewhere online.
Also, someone who isn't very tech-savvy might not be able to find it at all, nor will new people be able to find it as easily.
Obviously. But it is far easier and more convenient to use those platforms than to find it somewhere online.
Also, someone who isn't very tech-savvy might not be able to find it at all, nor will new people be able to find it as easily.
(Edited 19 minutes later.)
Anonymous J replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,805
@1,132,803 (I)
Streaming services are privately owned businesses, and are not subject to the same restrictions with regards to "censorship" and what they do and don't allow on their platform as the government, thanks.
Streaming services are privately owned businesses, and are not subject to the same restrictions with regards to "censorship" and what they do and don't allow on their platform as the government, thanks.
Anonymous I replied with this 5 years ago, 6 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,806
@previous (J)
So you think censorship is only censorship when it's done by governments? OK then, what is your term for it when it's done by privately owned businesses?
So you think censorship is only censorship when it's done by governments? OK then, what is your term for it when it's done by privately owned businesses?
Anonymous J replied with this 5 years ago, 11 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,807
@previous (I)
If you are kicked out of someone other than your own's house for being a jackass, are they censoring you? Is it not their legal right to get you off of their property?
If you are kicked out of someone other than your own's house for being a jackass, are they censoring you? Is it not their legal right to get you off of their property?
Anonymous I replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,809
@previous (J)
What the fuck are you talking about? What has that got to do with censorship?
You didn't answer my question - what term do you use for banning movies in order to be PC, when private companies do it as opposed to governments? I'm keen to learn some new vocab.
What the fuck are you talking about? What has that got to do with censorship?
You didn't answer my question - what term do you use for banning movies in order to be PC, when private companies do it as opposed to governments? I'm keen to learn some new vocab.
tteh !MemesToDNA joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 19 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,817
I don't object because Little Britain is shit, and you all know it.(Edited 42 seconds later.)
Anonymous J replied with this 5 years ago, 9 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,821
@1,132,809 (I)
If you're having trouble understanding how the point I am conveying - that businesses choosing not to provide their platforms for things they don't want to be associated with is not the same as censorship, and is more akin to kicking a rowdy drunk off your porch - you've got bigger problems than not knowing words, m8.
If you're having trouble understanding how the point I am conveying - that businesses choosing not to provide their platforms for things they don't want to be associated with is not the same as censorship, and is more akin to kicking a rowdy drunk off your porch - you've got bigger problems than not knowing words, m8.
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,825
@1,132,802 (J)
Did you already know about this from elsewhere, or did you learn about it from this thread?
@previous (J)
Did you make this, or did you find it?
Weird that Little Britain, of all things, became the latest battleground in the culture war...
Did you already know about this from elsewhere, or did you learn about it from this thread?
@previous (J)
Did you make this, or did you find it?
Weird that Little Britain, of all things, became the latest battleground in the culture war...
Green !StaYqkzUPc (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,845
@1,132,714 (Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE)
Because it won't end. First they find the balckface offensive, then the transvestite sketches, then the bitty sketches. You'll end up with a neutered show. South Park made an episode on this very point.
Because it won't end. First they find the balckface offensive, then the transvestite sketches, then the bitty sketches. You'll end up with a neutered show. South Park made an episode on this very point.
Green !StaYqkzUPc (OP) double-posted this 5 years ago, 52 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,846
Green !StaYqkzUPc (OP) triple-posted this 5 years ago, 52 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,847
Anonymous J replied with this 5 years ago, 23 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,856
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 5 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,892
@1,132,806 (I)
> So you think censorship is only censorship when it's done by governments? OK then, what is your term for it when it's done by privately owned businesses?
a business decision -- businesses are entities unto themselves that have autonomy in society up to the point that they are free to pick from the vast available things they could make or provide, since no business could possiblely ever make or provide everything. or would you like the governemnt to invoke a war act that says they must provide Little Britain for the cause of winning the war
> So you think censorship is only censorship when it's done by governments? OK then, what is your term for it when it's done by privately owned businesses?
a business decision -- businesses are entities unto themselves that have autonomy in society up to the point that they are free to pick from the vast available things they could make or provide, since no business could possiblely ever make or provide everything. or would you like the governemnt to invoke a war act that says they must provide Little Britain for the cause of winning the war
Sheila LaBoof double-posted this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,894
@1,132,846 (Green !StaYqkzUPc)
> BBC is a public broadcaster mate...
it is not the same thing as NHS -- there are rules about how the government is not in direct control of an entity like the BBC, because who the fuck would want that
> BBC is a public broadcaster mate...
it is not the same thing as NHS -- there are rules about how the government is not in direct control of an entity like the BBC, because who the fuck would want that
Sheila LaBoof triple-posted this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,896
fucking science fiction channel cancelled the show that I like! fucking censorship!
no don't be retarded
but it was a good show and the science fiction channel is an asshole
no don't be retarded
but it was a good show and the science fiction channel is an asshole
(Edited 46 seconds later.)
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 5 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,898
@1,132,894 (Sheila LaBoof)
Very insightful, Shiela. Yes, you're correct, the UK government doesn't directly control the BBC. Although the current one probably wishes it could.
Very insightful, Shiela. Yes, you're correct, the UK government doesn't directly control the BBC. Although the current one probably wishes it could.
Anonymous I replied with this 5 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,921
@1,132,821 (J)
You're just a walking Dunning Kruger effect, aren't you?
@1,132,892 (Sheila LaBoof)
> a business decision -- businesses are entities unto themselves that have autonomy in society up to the point that they are free to pick from the vast available things they could make or provide, since no business could possiblely ever make or provide everything.
Again, so what if it was a business decision? It's still called censorship, and it was still decided by a bunch of virtue signalling morons.
> or would you like the governemnt to invoke a war act that says they must provide Little Britain for the cause of winning the war
Another illogical, nonsequitous argument.
You're just a walking Dunning Kruger effect, aren't you?
@1,132,892 (Sheila LaBoof)
> a business decision -- businesses are entities unto themselves that have autonomy in society up to the point that they are free to pick from the vast available things they could make or provide, since no business could possiblely ever make or provide everything.
Again, so what if it was a business decision? It's still called censorship, and it was still decided by a bunch of virtue signalling morons.
> or would you like the governemnt to invoke a war act that says they must provide Little Britain for the cause of winning the war
Another illogical, nonsequitous argument.
Anonymous I double-posted this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,922
@1,132,845 (Green !StaYqkzUPc)
> Because it won't end. First they find the balckface offensive, then the transvestite sketches, then the bitty sketches. You'll end up with a neutered show. South Park made an episode on this very point.
South Park will be next to go.
> Because it won't end. First they find the balckface offensive, then the transvestite sketches, then the bitty sketches. You'll end up with a neutered show. South Park made an episode on this very point.
South Park will be next to go.
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,944
@1,132,921 (I)
> > a business decision -- businesses are entities unto themselves that have autonomy in society up to the point that they are free to pick from the vast available things they could make or provide, since no business could possiblely ever make or provide everything.
>
> Again, so what if it was a business decision? It's still called censorship, and it was still decided by a bunch of virtue signalling morons.
>
Don't act like a retard. You know better than that.
> > a business decision -- businesses are entities unto themselves that have autonomy in society up to the point that they are free to pick from the vast available things they could make or provide, since no business could possiblely ever make or provide everything.
>
> Again, so what if it was a business decision? It's still called censorship, and it was still decided by a bunch of virtue signalling morons.
>
Don't act like a retard. You know better than that.
Sheila LaBoof double-posted this 5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,948
> > or would you like the governemnt to invoke a war act that says they must provide Little Britain for the cause of winning the war
> Another illogical, nonsequitous argument.
Dipshit. The government can't specify what a factory produces or what comedy television show a channel program director decides to pick among the thousands available without extraordinary conditions. The channel was acting independent of any legislative imperative in its decision. You can say it sucks and and is stupid, but use the right fucking vocabulary fuckhead.
> Another illogical, nonsequitous argument.
Dipshit. The government can't specify what a factory produces or what comedy television show a channel program director decides to pick among the thousands available without extraordinary conditions. The channel was acting independent of any legislative imperative in its decision. You can say it sucks and and is stupid, but use the right fucking vocabulary fuckhead.
Green !StaYqkzUPc (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,951
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,954
@1,132,944 (Sheila LaBoof)
@1,132,948 (Sheila LaBoof)
It seems like you're agreeing with Anonymous I, no? Or maybe I've misread this entire exchange. ... Which is a distinct possibility.
@1,132,948 (Sheila LaBoof)
It seems like you're agreeing with Anonymous I, no? Or maybe I've misread this entire exchange. ... Which is a distinct possibility.
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 5 years ago, 23 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,955
@1,132,951 (Green !StaYqkzUPc)
no, I need the boring radio programs because I hate commercial radio and deutsche welle isn't as big a thing
also I like documentary shit
no, I need the boring radio programs because I hate commercial radio and deutsche welle isn't as big a thing
also I like documentary shit
(Edited 6 minutes later.)
Sheila LaBoof double-posted this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,959
@1,132,954 (tteh !MemesToDNA)
> It seems like you're agreeing with Anonymous I, no? Or maybe I've misread this entire exchange. ... Which is a distinct possibility.
it's a quibble over the misuse of a single word, rather than anything that actually happened in the world
> It seems like you're agreeing with Anonymous I, no? Or maybe I've misread this entire exchange. ... Which is a distinct possibility.
it's a quibble over the misuse of a single word, rather than anything that actually happened in the world
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 5 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,964
@previous (Sheila LaBoof)
Oh, okay. I agree with Anon I though; 'censorship' is censorship whether it's done by a government or a private institution of some description. I find the redefinition of censorship as "suppression by government" to be pretty odd/unfounded (it normally follows some sort of 'First Amendment' explanation, because Yanks are so very USAmerica-centric).
Oh, okay. I agree with Anon I though; 'censorship' is censorship whether it's done by a government or a private institution of some description. I find the redefinition of censorship as "suppression by government" to be pretty odd/unfounded (it normally follows some sort of 'First Amendment' explanation, because Yanks are so very USAmerica-centric).
(Edited 54 seconds later.)
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,966
@previous (tteh !MemesToDNA)
> Oh, okay. I agree with Anon I though; 'censorship' is censorship whether it's done by a government or a private institution of some description. I find the redefinition of censorship as "suppression by government" to be pretty odd/unfounded (it normally follows some sort of 'First Amendment' explanation, because Yanks are so very USAmerica-centric).
no that's stupid though. if you send a letter to the editor of a newspaper and they choose not to print it, they aren't censoring you either. it's up to them because they run the outfit.
> Oh, okay. I agree with Anon I though; 'censorship' is censorship whether it's done by a government or a private institution of some description. I find the redefinition of censorship as "suppression by government" to be pretty odd/unfounded (it normally follows some sort of 'First Amendment' explanation, because Yanks are so very USAmerica-centric).
no that's stupid though. if you send a letter to the editor of a newspaper and they choose not to print it, they aren't censoring you either. it's up to them because they run the outfit.
Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 5 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,967
blom replied with this 5 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,968
@1,132,966 (Sheila LaBoof)
They are censoring you, the argument is whether it is acceptable or not to do so
They are censoring you, the argument is whether it is acceptable or not to do so
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,970
@1,132,966 (Sheila LaBoof)
I think you ought to look up 'censorship'. The dictionary definition, if nothing else, disagrees with you there. Maybe there's a special USAmerican definition you chaps are relying on, but I'm not privy to it.
I think you ought to look up 'censorship'. The dictionary definition, if nothing else, disagrees with you there. Maybe there's a special USAmerican definition you chaps are relying on, but I'm not privy to it.
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,972
@1,132,968 (blom)
> They are censoring you, the argument is whether it is acceptable or not to do so
no they are not censoring you. they are choosing not to pick your letter out of the say, dozens or more that they get. they can't print them all, and they never print them all. you can't say that they routinely CENSOR here, they have to make a choice and if no outside agency made that choice for them, you can't say that someone at the newspaper is censoring what the paper prints.
> They are censoring you, the argument is whether it is acceptable or not to do so
no they are not censoring you. they are choosing not to pick your letter out of the say, dozens or more that they get. they can't print them all, and they never print them all. you can't say that they routinely CENSOR here, they have to make a choice and if no outside agency made that choice for them, you can't say that someone at the newspaper is censoring what the paper prints.
Sheila LaBoof double-posted this 5 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,975
@1,132,970 (tteh !MemesToDNA)
> I think you ought to look up 'censorship'. The dictionary definition, if nothing else, disagrees with you there. Maybe there's a special USAmerican definition you chaps are relying on, but I'm not privy to it.
use your head here -- if you interfere with how a paper or how an art gallery or how a channel chooses it's content, then the outside power is practicing the act of censhorship. if the paper or gallery or channel made its own decision, then it is choosing for itself what it does, as it is free to do so without being dictated to.
> I think you ought to look up 'censorship'. The dictionary definition, if nothing else, disagrees with you there. Maybe there's a special USAmerican definition you chaps are relying on, but I'm not privy to it.
use your head here -- if you interfere with how a paper or how an art gallery or how a channel chooses it's content, then the outside power is practicing the act of censhorship. if the paper or gallery or channel made its own decision, then it is choosing for itself what it does, as it is free to do so without being dictated to.
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 5 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,977
@1,132,970 (tteh !MemesToDNA)
It is an American concept, it comes from a rather legalistic view of the First Amendment. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" and it's often taken to mean that if the government isn't suppressing speech, it's not actually "censorship".
I disagree with this myself. A private platform (eg Reddit or Facebook or whatever) is not under any legal obligation to give anyone a platform, but they are engaging in censorship by suppressing views and information they disagree with.
It is an American concept, it comes from a rather legalistic view of the First Amendment. The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" and it's often taken to mean that if the government isn't suppressing speech, it's not actually "censorship".
I disagree with this myself. A private platform (eg Reddit or Facebook or whatever) is not under any legal obligation to give anyone a platform, but they are engaging in censorship by suppressing views and information they disagree with.
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 5 years ago, 10 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,978
now there is the tradition of a company hiring a person called a censor in their job title who has been given authority to bleep out words or edit out scenes according the the company's own rules that it made itself -- that is fine too as far as the company's own running of things as they see fit goes, however we are free to bitch to the company that we hate that.
Sheila LaBoof double-posted this 5 years ago, 14 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,987
and I'll add that if the company entirely stops running a show, it has simply removed the entire show and doesn't even have it anymore. it did not bleep or edit it for in-house censoring of its own choice, it entirely decided not to have the show anymore. if it ran they show and put a big fuckin' bleep through the whole thing, I could see the use of censor there where the in-house censor bleeps it, but that's not the deal here.
blom replied with this 5 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,990
@1,132,972 (Sheila LaBoof)
Your ecample doesn't really apply anyway, what if they printed your letter but edited it to fit the tone of the broadsheet
Your ecample doesn't really apply anyway, what if they printed your letter but edited it to fit the tone of the broadsheet
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 5 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,993
@previous (blom)
> Your ecample doesn't really apply anyway, what if they printed your letter but edited it to fit the tone of the broadsheet
by "fit the tone" do you mean actually changing what it means? because that is simply bad and misleading to the reader. I'm saying that papers don't print everything that comes to them, just as galleries don't show all available art that anyone might offer, or channels don't make available every program that is out there. we don't as a habit refer to those choices of content as censorship.
> Your ecample doesn't really apply anyway, what if they printed your letter but edited it to fit the tone of the broadsheet
by "fit the tone" do you mean actually changing what it means? because that is simply bad and misleading to the reader. I'm saying that papers don't print everything that comes to them, just as galleries don't show all available art that anyone might offer, or channels don't make available every program that is out there. we don't as a habit refer to those choices of content as censorship.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
blom replied with this 5 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,132,995
Green !StaYqkzUPc (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 46 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,133,012
@1,132,955 (Sheila LaBoof)
Lol, I've actually thought you were American the past several years so I was a bit confused when you started posting about the BBC lol
Lol, I've actually thought you were American the past several years so I was a bit confused when you started posting about the BBC lol
Green !StaYqkzUPc (OP) double-posted this 5 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,133,015
@1,132,967 (Killer Lettuce? !HonkUK.BIE)
They send threatening letters about needing a TV licence, even if you don't, to try and coerce you into getting one. They haven't been impartial, they send inspectors round and most of their shows are shit. If it's such a good service, surely people would want to pay for it via subscription?
They send threatening letters about needing a TV licence, even if you don't, to try and coerce you into getting one. They haven't been impartial, they send inspectors round and most of their shows are shit. If it's such a good service, surely people would want to pay for it via subscription?
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,133,018
@previous (Green !StaYqkzUPc)
> If it's such a good service, surely people would want to pay for it via subscription?
If it's such a good service, would people surely want to pay for it via subscription?
> If it's such a good service, surely people would want to pay for it via subscription?
If it's such a good service, would people surely want to pay for it via subscription?
Green !StaYqkzUPc (OP) replied with this 5 years ago, 8 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,133,138
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 5 years ago, 11 hours later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,133,298
@1,132,995 (blom)
> You mean you don't
no it is widely understood that a company that provides material picks and chooses the material itself routinely and we don't call that censorship at all.
> You mean you don't
no it is widely understood that a company that provides material picks and chooses the material itself routinely and we don't call that censorship at all.
Anonymous I replied with this 5 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,133,300
@1,132,948 (Sheila LaBoof)
> Dipshit... fuckhead.
Now now, just because you know you're losing the argument. Obscenity - the crutch of inarticulate motherfuckers.
@1,132,970 (tteh !MemesToDNA)
> I think you ought to look up 'censorship'. The dictionary definition, if nothing else, disagrees with you there.
This is the argument I opened with. Don't bother, it didn't go anywhere for me either.
> Dipshit... fuckhead.
Now now, just because you know you're losing the argument. Obscenity - the crutch of inarticulate motherfuckers.
@1,132,970 (tteh !MemesToDNA)
> I think you ought to look up 'censorship'. The dictionary definition, if nothing else, disagrees with you there.
This is the argument I opened with. Don't bother, it didn't go anywhere for me either.
Anonymous I double-posted this 5 years ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,133,301
@1,132,845 (Green !StaYqkzUPc)
> > Because it won't end. First they find the balckface offensive, then the transvestite sketches, then the bitty sketches. You'll end up with a neutered show. South Park made an episode on this very point.
> South Park will be next to go.
I was wrong, it was Fawlty Towers - The Germans episode.
> > Because it won't end. First they find the balckface offensive, then the transvestite sketches, then the bitty sketches. You'll end up with a neutered show. South Park made an episode on this very point.
> South Park will be next to go.
I was wrong, it was Fawlty Towers - The Germans episode.
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 5 years ago, 7 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,133,304
@1,133,300 (I)
> > Dipshit... fuckhead.
> Now now, just because you know you're losing the argument. Obscenity - the crutch of inarticulate motherfuckers.
>
>
> > I think you ought to look up 'censorship'. The dictionary definition, if nothing else, disagrees with you there.
> This is the argument I opened with. Don't bother, it didn't go anywhere for me either.
The dictionary does not mention the simple in-house decision to not keep including a program in perpetuity
you fuck
> > Dipshit... fuckhead.
> Now now, just because you know you're losing the argument. Obscenity - the crutch of inarticulate motherfuckers.
>
>
> > I think you ought to look up 'censorship'. The dictionary definition, if nothing else, disagrees with you there.
> This is the argument I opened with. Don't bother, it didn't go anywhere for me either.
The dictionary does not mention the simple in-house decision to not keep including a program in perpetuity
you fuck
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous I replied with this 5 years ago, 28 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,133,309
@previous (Sheila LaBoof)
> The dictionary does not mention the simple in-house decision to not keep including a program in perpetuity
Except that was not the very clearly stated reason the networks gave for censoring (yes censoring) the programs,
you twat.
> The dictionary does not mention the simple in-house decision to not keep including a program in perpetuity
Except that was not the very clearly stated reason the networks gave for censoring (yes censoring) the programs,
you twat.
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 5 years ago, 20 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,133,535
@previous (I)
> > The dictionary does not mention the simple in-house decision to not keep including a program in perpetuity
> Except that was not the very clearly stated reason the networks gave for censoring (yes censoring) the programs,
>
> you twat.
they didn't censor them. they simply stopped carrying them outright.
> > The dictionary does not mention the simple in-house decision to not keep including a program in perpetuity
> Except that was not the very clearly stated reason the networks gave for censoring (yes censoring) the programs,
>
> you twat.
they didn't censor them. they simply stopped carrying them outright.
jodie !foster2PAQ joined in and replied with this 5 years ago, 15 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,133,542
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 5 years ago, 46 minutes later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,133,545
@previous (jodie !foster2PAQ)
I think since its a left/right group effort, it probably counts as a centrist meme
I think since its a left/right group effort, it probably counts as a centrist meme