Should a new Hays Code be instituted?

[Reddy_Mercury]

This time not to censor foul language or nudity, but to:

1. Examine if older films are diverse enough, or correct enough, for public consumption

2. To examine if new films being produced meet diversity quotas

If an older film is found to be not diverse enough, or too problematic, the film is banned and all negatives of the film are burned so that it may never be seen again by anyone. All existing copies are rounded up for destruction.

If a newer film does not meet quotas, it is deemed unfit for release.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Hey, nice attempt at irony, there.

[k9bfriender]

@Reddy_Mercury

This time not to censor foul language or nudity, but to:

1. Examine if older films are diverse enough, or correct enough, for public consumption

2. To examine if new films being produced meet diversity quotas

If an older film is found to be not diverse enough, or too problematic, the film is banned and all negatives of the film are burned so that it may never be seen again by anyone. All existing copies are rounded up for destruction.

If a newer film does not meet quotas, it is deemed unfit for release.

That sounds like a pretty terrible idea.

Why do you advocate this destruction of older media? Even if it offends you personally, it still has value in historical contexts. You are not forced to watch it.

Like Disney’s Song of the South, they voluntarily pulled it, and it is really hard to buy a copy of it, but it still exists, and if you wanted to see it, it would require little effort to do so.

What films are you considering putting on the chopping block? Can you give a few examples, and why and how they offended you?

If I get an idea of where you are coming from with this, and how exactly it is that these films are causing you harm, then we may be able to come to some sort of accommodation to prevent it, but you have not demonstrated how any of these are causing you harm, so your proposal, as it currently stands, lacks any merit whatsoever.

[John_Mace]

@Reddy_Mercury

This time not to censor foul language or nudity, but to:

1. Examine if older films are diverse enough, or correct enough, for public consumption

2. To examine if new films being produced meet diversity quotas

If an older film is found to be not diverse enough, or too problematic, the film is banned and all negatives of the film are burned so that it may never be seen again by anyone. All existing copies are rounded up for destruction.

If a newer film does not meet quotas, it is deemed unfit for release.

What do you think?

[Reddy_Mercury]

@k9bfriender

That sounds like a pretty terrible idea.

Why do you advocate this destruction of older media? Even if it offends you personally, it still has value in historical contexts. You are not forced to watch it.

Like Disney’s Song of the South, they voluntarily pulled it, and it is really hard to buy a copy of it, but it still exists, and if you wanted to see it, it would require little effort to do so.

What films are you considering putting on the chopping block? Can you give a few examples, and why and how they offended you?

If I get an idea of where you are coming from with this, and how exactly it is that these films are causing you harm, then we may be able to come to some sort of accommodation to prevent it, but you have not demonstrated how any of these are causing you harm, so your proposal, as it currently stands, lacks any merit whatsoever.

Any film which we decide is problematic. It is not up to you. It is up to us. The negatives will be burned.

We will burn every problematic film, book, and piece of art.

[DinoR]

No.

A more emphatic no to going way past the original code to create some kind of intrusive censorship program.

[EinsteinsHund]

@Reddy_Mercury

Any film which we decide is problematic. It is not up to you. It is up to us. The negatives will be burned.

We will burn every problematic film, book, and piece of art.

Yeah, book burning has always been a great act done by noble well-meaning people :rolleyes:.

[Reddy_Mercury]

@DinoR

No.

A more emphatic no to going way past the original code to create some kind of intrusive censorship program.

Censorship is the only way to achieve Justice. Free Speech is not favorable to Justice. Only good speech should be allowed.

[k9bfriender]

@Reddy_Mercury

Any film which we decide is problematic. It is not up to you. It is up to us. The negatives will be burned.

We will burn every problematic film, book, and piece of art.

That’s gonna be harder than you think. There are quite a number of copies of most things. And who is this “we”?

I’m starting to think I’m being whooshed, and you are doing some sort of fahrenheit 451 parody or something, well, except that that sort of thing would be entirely inappropriate as an OP in great debates, so I make the assumption for the moment that you wrote the OP and are debating in good faith.

[Reddy_Mercury]

@k9bfriender

That’s gonna be harder than you think. There are quite a number of copies of most things. And who is this “we”?

I’m starting to think I’m being whooshed, and you are doing some sort of fahrenheit 451 parody or something, well, except that that sort of thing would be entirely inappropriate as an OP in great debates, so I make the assumption for the moment that you wrote the OP and are debating in good faith.

It is the current wave of our politics, and I am simply attempting to get on top of that wave before it washes over me. This is the future. This is the inescapable reality of what will be.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Reddy_Mercury

It is the current wave of our politics

Then examples from nonfringe sources should be easy to find, wot?

[k9bfriender]

@Reddy_Mercury

It is the current wave of our politics, and I am simply attempting to get on top of that wave before it washes over me. This is the future. This is the inescapable reality of what will be.

I had not noticed.

You are the very first person I have ever seen advocate for this sort of thing, outside of dystopian literature.

I think it is a bit less likely than the inescapable reality that you see in front of you.

You were not able to give examples of movies that you wanted to see purged, and now that I realize that that was never your intention or goal, but rather than you were trying to warn that you feel that this sort of thing is happening, can you give any examples of movies or literature that have been destroyed in the fashion that you fear? Any at all?

[madmonk28]

No and it’s very clear this thread was not started in sincerity.

[Reddy_Mercury]

@k9bfriender

I had not noticed.

You are the very first person I have ever seen advocate for this sort of thing, outside of dystopian literature.

I think it is a bit less likely than the inescapable reality that you see in front of you.

You were not able to give examples of movies that you wanted to see purged, and now that I realize that that was never your intention or goal, but rather than you were trying to warn that you feel that this sort of thing is happening, can you give any examples of movies or literature that have been destroyed in the fashion that you fear? Any at all?

It is simply the next logical Social Justice step. Everything SJWs do not like is “problematic” and must be destroyed for the greater cause. So why stop at statues? Why not extend it to books, to films, to clothes or symbols even? And I’m not even talking about universally despised symbols like the Swastika, but why not go to things that simply might be taken the wrong way?

Why stop at statues or pieces of art on the NY Subway that slightly resemble the Confederate Flag from a distance?

Why stop at memorials to Washington and Jefferson?

Let’s go all the way. Take a film like the 1977 Star Wars. Not a single POC in that film. It is obviously bigoted. It must be targeted for destruction.

Or the early Trek films. A white cisgender scum Captain manslaining to everyone? No can do. Burn the negatives.

Robinson Crusoe? Friday is basically a slave. Burn every copy of it.

Warhammer 40k? Obvious quasi-Nazi propaganda. Outlaw it, burn all supplements, and send all players to re-education camps.

[Little_Nemo]

Walk me through the line of reasoning here.

There is an opinion. We’ll call it Opinion 1.

Opinion 1 is stupid.

So we’ll invent another Opinion. We’ll call that Opinion 2.

Opinion 2 is also stupid.

Having demonstrated that Opinion 2 is stupid, we now conclude that Opinion 1 is no longer stupid.

I feel like I must be missing a few steps. Because I’ve been seeing this argument a lot lately. So it must make sense to some people. But I’m not following it.

[Spice_Weasel]

Nothing undermines the credibility of an argument like disingenuous hyperbole.

[Bone]

@Reddy_Mercury

This time not to censor foul language or nudity, but to:

1. Examine if older films are diverse enough, or correct enough, for public consumption

2. To examine if new films being produced meet diversity quotas

If an older film is found to be not diverse enough, or too problematic, the film is banned and all negatives of the film are burned so that it may never be seen again by anyone. All existing copies are rounded up for destruction.

If a newer film does not meet quotas, it is deemed unfit for release.

This is a warning for trolling. I’m closing this thread.

Discussions of censorship, where the limits should be, if any are fine. This thread however, is not that. I grant there is room for interpretation and on reading the OP, I wanted to see where it may go. The subsequent posts to the thread have persuaded me otherwise.

[/moderating]