Could I just say I admire the way you're continuing the debate even though I am making comments that, for all the fancy wording, do refer to your character directly? For what it's worth, I think that your argument is understandable and well intended and largely "correct". But the hardline interpretation has negative consequences. I think there is a threshold to be passed before editorial decisions become censorship; it is only on this basis that we can go beyond disagreeing with it but actually build a case for taking steps to prevent it. Censorship that really fits the meaning of censorship should be prevented, I believe.
Now, back to being an asshat...
Alright, but as I said, that in itself does not answer my original argument.
Your original argument was that I was making assumptions about your feelings. I have in fact answered that several times, and will again:
However, because you do not know my true feelings, it remains an assumption, does it not?
No, it remains a conclusion, based on a premise, grounded in fact. As well as confusing "conclusion" with "assumption", you seem to be assuming that conclusions must be irrefutable to be considered valid.
I do, because as you said, it fits one of the definitions.
True, but using other definitions it is not. Effectively asserting that yours is both relevant and to be considered in isolation is similar to fundamentalist logic. I believe it should be challenged, not simply accepted. Assuming that dictionary definitions can be applied with the precision of a mathematical proof is not, in my subjective experience, reality-based.
"Censorship" is bad in my view, something to be resisted on principle. You could, however, apply a strict definition such as "withholding information from the public by a body" to any and all acts of scheduling, filtering, editing, selecting or prioritizing. Those are all essential activities for a TV network, so in practice the word loses any substantive meaning. However, I believe that words should count for something, because free speech is worth fighting for.
Let's just say that I disagree with the removal of the episodes if they were removed merely because some people were offended.
So would I. But why make that assumption? I don't think it follows from the article.
Yes. What does this have to do with a piece of fictional entertainment? If no one is offended by it, then why is there a need for "empathy"?
Again with the "quotation marks", I see. Again, without any demonstration of understanding what empathy is, I can't really answer that question for you. For my part, empathy is not only a valid consideration in any decision involving other people, but usually desirable and sometimes essential. Read around; it's not unusual to find empathy given as an essential part of living a happy, fulfilling life. I don't get the consistent references to the whole "offended" thing. Is "either offended or not offended" the extent of your worldview?
I've read your posts, but I don't agree with them, just as you don't agree with me.
Absolutely. I just pointing out the difference between disagreeing with a point of view, and acting like it doesn't even exist.
I would disagree more if they were making the assumption that no one else thought that they were funny as well. But that probably didn't happen, did it?
I wouldn't make that assumption. Many people might not find jokes about nuclear disasters during a nuclear disaster particularly funny. They've been getting the news about earthquakes, deaths and meltdowns, see a meltdown on a TV show, and start talking about Japan instead of just chuckling at Homer and Bart. That seems a realistic scenario to me. It's that empathy thing, you see. You keep suggesting empathy isn't relevant, but doesn't that suggest a lack of empathy in the first place?
Also, you say, "no one else". Well, I doubt they'd assume that no one would find them funny, but weren't you just saying to be careful with the absolutes?
I fixated on the one that the article suggested. The one that I do not agree with.
No, that is a scenario that the article suggests. Fixating on one, the one you introduced, is indicative of fundamentalist thinking.
What? We're speaking about a possible scenario.
Yes, but we'd be speaking about at least two if you're weren't so fixated, ones that include context and perspective.
The Medal of Honour thing I'd agree with you. Producers of original art and entertainment shouldn't be put under pressure like that, and also EA is notorious for putting money before art. Fortunately, that hasn't happened in this case. As has been mentioned repeatedly, these cartoons remain widely available; nobody's talking about boycotts or "rising criticism".
This is what happens when you fixate on a particular scenario. It suggests that you have chosen it not because of the article's content, but because you are bringing in a pre-formed scenario in order to (metaphorically) copy-and-paste existing opinions. That's what makes context-based arguments so useful. They make it clear you are actually responding to the article, and not just being triggered by it.
No, you said you saw no reasons, which quite explicitly doesn't allow for them. There's such a thing as an honest debate, you know.
I am focusing on the one that the article partly suggests (that people might be offended).
I'm focusing on one that the article partly suggests, too. It talks about "unsuitable" and "sensitive" material, not "offensive". This is what I mean by the fundamentalist logic, the apparent assumption that your scenario somehow means others aren't really worth contemplating.
However, criticizing minor details about me will likely go nowhere if they do not pertain to the argument at hand.
I think the basis on which we disagree with other people's choices not only pertains to, but lies at the heart of, the argument. Freedom could be said to start from recognising the validity of other people's decisions. Disagreeing repeatedly with another's independent decision based on strict interpretations and pre-formed scenarios is the starting point to restrict individual freedom.
The behaviour of complex systems emerges from individual interactions, which in the case of people is highly dependent on personal philosophy. We cannot and should not pretend to know what another's true feelings are, but that does not mean we should not challenge their written opinions.
Fundamentalism, ideology and literalism share common traits. I think they should be pointed out, especially to people falling into the trap without realising it.
It's difficult to type everything out by adding "I believe" or "in my opinion" in front of it.
Absolutely. That's why it's difficult when people start saying things like "well, that's subjective". You start having to put "in my opinion" in front of everything, and you just can't catch everything.
Your logic seems to need some work
I'm sure it does.
I suspect you're missing the point that although everybody makes mistakes, smart people capable of a rational debate (which you clearly are) know the difference between assumptions and conclusions. When you insist on mixing them up, it's difficult to have an honest debate. The "aw shucks, I ain't perfect" philosophy is another of those catch-all approaches favoured by the fundamentalist.
It is not the assumption that I am questioning.
Oh? How about this: "I don't understand where you're getting this. It's just assumption after assumption." Or perhaps, "Actually, now you're just making assumptions. There could be a number of reasons that I wish for my desires to be fulfilled or that I post here." You're questioning my "assumptions", and even implying I shouldn't be making them at all. There's such a thing as an honest debate, you know.
Stating them as a fact is what I believe is the problem, because that is an unknown as of yet. I would state them as a question, instead.
That's problematic for three reasons. First, as stated in various forms, your feelings aren't the basis of my argument. Some people feel offended, but control it; some don't feel offended, but pretend to for their own purposes; some people react in a way that is to all intents and purposes the same as being offended, but don't recognise it as such. So what really matters is what people choose to say; that is something concrete around which a substantive debate is possible.
(A example of this is that an instinctive negative reaction to "insensitive" jokes on a family show is involuntary. This relates to empathy. If the schedulers believe that many not-easily-offended viewers will nonetheless be reminded of Fukushima, they may choose to avoid such reactions because their goal is to provide light entertainment. This would mean making a decision where no complaints are made or even expected.)
Second, my point was that you seem to be closer to the easily offended that you might care to think. If that conjecture is false, then you'd say you're not like them at all. If it is true, then you'd say you're not like them at all. Therefore, stating it as a question is more or less pointless.
I'd also be making the assumption that you would provide an accurate, honest answer about your feelings, and that you are sufficiently self-aware to do so. Therefore, I simply make the comparisons and you can draw your own conclusions. It would be nice if you did actually offer an description of your feelings, but I don't think it's realistic to expect it.
You may not like the technique. But in my experience, people tend to only change their opinions when they respond emotionally to a debate. If you keep to your suggested format, where most people would tend to claim whatever makes them feel best about themselves, there's little chance it will make any difference.
Third, conjecture really is different to statements of fact, and I've been highlighting what facts I'm basing my conjecture on. For instance,"I made it clear I was referring to the fact that you were quick to disapprove, as per your actual statements." A thin layer of conjecture on top on actual facts is simply easier than, how did you put it, "adding "I believe" or "in my opinion" in front of it".
Basically, if people are offended, and if the episodes are being removed because of that, then that is what I disagree with. If it is for some other reason, such as them not believing it's funny, or something else, then I probably won't even have a problem with it.
Fair enough. I personally wouldn't tend to repeatedly post such declarative statements as you did if my viewpoint relied on a series of ifs, but I appreciate what you're saying there.
I genuinely think the motive here is not fear of causing offence, but schedulers doing their job. I think they know the difference between something that generates complaints (from "the usual suspects", as it were), and something that just doesn't suit the purposes of a particular time slot. It's a small, humanistic gesture in the context of an highly unusual and tragic situation.
Even fans of close-to-the-bone comedy are quite happy with the whole idea of "too soon", and how "suitable" timing is different for, say, family viewing vs. HBO special. I think that's a healthy culture.