Why censorship is always a very bad thing.

Why censorship is always a very bad thing.

COVID demonstrated the following principle perfectly:
If you have 1,000 people shouting SOMETHING REALLY STUPID!!! and a dozen people saying SOMETHING REALLY COMMONSENSICAL!!! the REALLY STUPID something will win every time.

If, moreover, the 1,000 use their numerical power to eliminate nearly entirely the really commonsensical from the bulk of all communications in the nation, then the really stupid can seem almost unanimous… almost as if it’s a… consensus.
Not only that, but people then will believe, with an almost religious fervor, the really stupid thing, and call the ones saying the really commonsensical thing: really stupid.

The implications are obvious: Any time anyone touts some belief because, he says, “it’s the consensus,” that belief should be immediately suspect.

People can be cantankerous sorts. It’s hard to get a significant majority to agree on anything — let alone unanimously, or in sufficient numbers to claim a “consensus.” On anything that’s not a hard and fast core belief or value, that is. So, if there’s a “consensus,” start looking around for censorship. And start doubting the conclusion being labeled: “consensus.”

During COVID, censorship stifled the really commonsensical, and gave the really stupid free rein to run amok across the land, tantalizing the Left, Democrats and the media — the owners of all the communications vehicles — with all manner of pretty little nitwitteries and intellectually lax jackasseries, causing prominent personages to intone codswallop ever so gravely into America’s microphones, on America’s televisions, in the halls of power and the powerful pages of Social Media, affixing purest bovine manure into the brains of normally more sensible people.

It cost lives. Lots and lots and lots and lots of lives. Censorship is the primary tool of the totalitarian, and the would-be totalitarian. It’s always a very bad thing.

— xPraetorius

July 7/2021

18 thoughts on “Why censorship is always a very bad thing.

  1. Good Lord… now you are somehow drawing some relationship from consensus having something to do with censorship? Methinks the bovine manure is just being slapped onto the wall to see what might stick. I dunno.. maybe the guy from Canada can make sense of this. Honestly.. it seems your being pissed at the world all the time is cluttering up the points you are trying to make. Unless all you want are echoes of affirming everything you post.

    1. Lol! I NEVER seek affirmation! I DO seek rational, informed opposition.

      The link between consensus and censorship ought to be obvious. I even used environmentalism as an example.

      The only reason there’s ANY consensus in environmentalism is because dissenting voices are aggressively squelched, so that the ones who have politicized environmentalism can claim they have a “consensus” of science.

      They ACTUALLY have a consensus ONLY of those scientists who are willing to sell their integrity to the highest bidder… in this case, the money-printing machine that is environmentalism.

      This has happened in far more than environmentalism, as anyone who’s been paying attention would know. 🙂


      — x

      1. I see. The relationship is all about assigning meaning to your grievance and discontent that the world isn’t going your way because of conspiracies involving human beings who have sold their souls to some “evil” personification of Left Wing idiology (whatever the hell that means these days) for money and or power. You think those people are paying taxes on all that ill-gotten gain? I hear one can get in trouble for that legally in accepting gratuities and not paying taxes on it. Maybe even some jail time. Who knows.

  2. And yet, you censor yourself and others when it comes to profanity and “repeated” statements even though you’re the king of repeating statements you think are worth repeating, as you like to say.

    Just wanted to point that out.

    1. Being your own blogmeister is about as far as any common person can get to having his/her own little domain from which to be ultimate authoritarian… hence that means.. “content monitor”.. and who judges appropriate content? You got the message.

      1. Hardly!

        I AM the editor of our little group, but I do allow a lot of latitude, and we all pretty much stay within certain well-understood boundaries anyway.

        I am, however, I guess, the ruler here, in that I have the last say about how and whether something is said or not. With THAT said, I can’t remember the last time I had to refuse one of my writers either a topic or a way of expressing something.

        We often talk about how might be the most effective or clear way to approach something. However, my status as some kind of supreme ruler around here is largely ceremonial.


        — x

        1. As a side note, I still doubt there’s more than one of you here, unless we’re talking about multiple personalities. Lol

          1. Ok.

            You know, if you were to spend more time actually trying to address what we say in a substantive manner, rather than questioning my/our character, you might get further along.

            Granted, when you don’t have an argument, you go straight to the personal attacks. That’s the PRINCIPAL strategy of the Left. Because they have no answers that will actually defeat Conservative points.


            — x

  3. Interesting to see Will and Doug arguing in favor of censorship.

    I wonder if I stated that the sky is blue, or that it’s dark in most places during the night, or that cancer’s bad… would they argue against those things too? I wonder…


    — x

    1. No. I wouldn’t argue with something that’s true, especially not to those with minds like children, and by that, I mean you.

        1. Just so you know, you calling me a racist does nothing to me, but it seems like calling you one sets you off as we’ve seen in your previous post.

          1. Obviously, nothing you could say would ever “set me off.” I’m not a racist, so your calling me one doesn’t bother me in the least.

            However, your defensiveness indicates you still haven’t come to terms with your racism.


            — x

    1. How would you, the King of Projection, know projection?

      Remember: you’re the self-admitted bigot accusing everyone else of racism. Projection much?


      — x

Please Leave a 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 )

Connecting to %s