in reply to Re: Re: Re: Boycott O'Reilly
in thread Boycott O'Reilly
I'm very confused as to the labels that you place on certain ideologies.
First you say "Many Perlmonks ... tend to be very liberal.... The concept of personal accountability runs through the whole OpenSource movement...." Usually personal accountability / responsibilty are tenants of a more conservative viewpoint: the NRA, as you somewhat pointed out, would be in favor of "blaming the gun-owner, not the gun". It is also the primary reason why conservatives unjustifiably get a black mark for supporting principles such as welfare reform; though it may be nice to give a hungry person a piece of fish, it is much better to teach that person how to fish, so they'll never go hungry again. In other words, the hungry person should be made somewhat accountable for their needs to prevent them from becoming dependant on getting handouts from the system.
You further go on to state "The paradigm you appear to be espousing is one where a group of (usually) wiser members of the community choose what the community is (and is not) exposed to. This is a very conservative view, one that many Perlmonks may find very patronizing and paternalistic." (sorry if there is a "Quote" tag that I'm not using, I'm just a NewB). It actually seems as though "Liberals" have introduced some of the more limiting, "paternalistic" policies: anti-tobacco, anit-gun-ownership, even pro-environmental concerns could be construed as such. In fact the latest group that I've heard mentioning content control of the media stemmed from Tipper Gore and Sen. Lieberman.
However, I do not think my confusion is solely your fault, rather it is the fault in the labels themselves. The ideals that you have defined are neither "liberal nor "conservative", but rather they are "anarcistic" and "restrictive" or "open" vs. "closed", respectively. A truly open society would allow the people to do WHATEVER (s)he wanted to do without imposing any laws on the society, nodding to the people's own judgement and their sense of personal responsibility to act in an ethical manner. Whereas in a closed society there is a belief that people will tend to do the wrong thing and so society should be regulated as much as possible to prevent any harm on our society. "Liberals" can be just as open or closed in terms of societal control as "conservatives"; compare my previous points with how these groups view abortion, gay rights, etc.
So now that I'm completely off track about the O'Reilly boycott... I agree with most all of the comments why the banning should be, well, banned. A couple of movies that might be interesting to watch: (1) Demolition Man (Huh?! Yep... Demo. Man, IMMHO, is a great take on Huxley's "A Brave New World" (coincidence on author's and character's name? I think not...), a book about a very closed society where: "
Lenina Huxley: Anything not good for you is bad, hence, illegal. Alcohol, caffeine, contact sports, meat . . .
John Spartan: Are you sh**ing me?
A computer: John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute.
John Spartan: What the Hell is that?
A computer: John Spartan, you are fined one credit . . .
Lenina Huxley: Bad language, child play, gasoline, uneducational toys, and anything spicy. Abortion is also illegal. But, then again so is pregnancy, if you don't have a license.
") (2) "Catch Me if You Can" (a movie showing how "knowing" how something bad is done can be used in preventing / exposing these problems in the future)