Physical & Digital EST: The Future of Home Video Discussion Thread

[sapiendut]

Originally Posted by octagon

No, self-censorship is an oxymoron.

This isn't censorship. These are editorial decisions.

It’s not an oxymoron. English is my third language and even I know that.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I posted countless definitions for censorship previously in another thread and self-censorship is a recognized and established type of it. Citations to follow.

Figuratively is now a recognized and established use of the word literally. Literally literally no longer means literally.

So much for recognized and established.

If somebody wants to alter their own stuff that their call.

I don't have to like it but calling it censorship is just silly.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by octagon

But whose call is that? What if the artist wants to 'bastardize' their own work?

This isn't as black and white as people like to make it out to be.

It’s still censorship as they are preventing others from experiencing the original vision. Paint it however you like, censorship is censorship and it stinks. Like I said, often times profit has been made by said art.

[sapiendut]

Originally Posted by octagon

Figuratively is now a recognized and established use of the word literally. Literally literally no longer means literally.

So much for recognized and established.

If somebody wants to alter their own stuff that their call.

I don't have to like it but calling it censorship is just silly.

Well, tell that to Webster and ALL English teachers and linguists in the world. Tell them that all of them are wrong and you alone are correct.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by octagon

Figuratively is now a recognized and established use of the word literally. Literally literally no longer means literally.

So much for recognized and established.

If somebody wants to alter their own stuff that their call.

I don't have to like it but calling it censorship is just silly.

You are conflating the right to censor with the act of censoring. The definition for censorship includes self-censorship. The definitions are real, whether you deem them to be silly or not.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by sapiendut

Well, tell that to Webster and ALL English teachers and linguists in the world. Tell them that all of them are wrong and you alone are correct.

Appeal to authority and ad populum all in one.

Nice

[sapiendut]

Originally Posted by Vilya

You are conflating the right to censor with the act of censoring. The definition for censorship includes self-censorship. The definitions are real, whether you deem them to be silly or not.

Well, apparently he knows better than all the linguists in the world. Yet he can’t differentiate between the right to censor and act of censoring

Like I previously stated. English is my 3rd language, even I know the difference.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Vilya

You are conflating the right to censor with the act of censoring.

No, I'm saying that artists who decide of their own free will they no long want to be associated with their Michael Jackson episode aren't being censored if they decide of their own free will to bury that episode.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

It’s still censorship as they are preventing others from experiencing the original vision.

And this is where the rubber often really meets the road.

For all the talk of art and artists it's funny how often these things really boil down to 'how does this affect me'.

George Lucas' refusal to make the original cuts of his movies available on BD prevented me from having something I wanted.

That doesn't make it censorship.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by octagon

No, I'm saying that artists who decide of their own free will they no long want to be associated with their Michael Jackson episode aren't being censored if they decide of their own free will to bury that episode.

That would be self-censorship and it was done possibly in response to pressure, both perceived and real, after that supposed "documentary" about two of Michael Jackson's discredited accusers.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Vilya

That would be self-censorship and it was done in response to pressure,...

That's not how they tell it.

But maybe they were being censored then too

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by octagon

Figuratively is now a recognized and established use of the word literally. Literally literally no longer means literally.

So much for recognized and established.

If somebody wants to alter their own stuff that their call.

I don't have to like it but calling it censorship is just silly.

Your argument is both a strawman and an undocumented one that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. We are discussing the actual definitions of the word "censorship" as defined by numerous established and well respected publications and dictionaries and not the allegedly common usage of the word "literally."

Words have definitions and popular usage is another creature altogether. The words "lose" and "loose" get used interchangeably quite frequently, but that incorrect usage in no way changes the definition of either word.

Humpty Dumpty famously said:

“When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.' "

People define words incorrectly all the time, but that does not change their actual definition.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by octagon

That's not how they tell it.

But maybe they were being censored then too

Actually, they said their decision was in response to their viewing of that supposed documentary and their concerns that continuing to offer that episode of The Simpsons might make it appear that they were making light of the accusations leveled against Michael Jackson. I'll see if I can dig up that article for you, too.

"Executive producer James L. Brooks said he came to the decision with creator Matt Groening and writer and animator Al Jean after watching the HBO documentary "Leaving Neverland."

"Brooks said he found "Leaving Neverland" convincing and heartbreaking. After watching the explosive documentary, removing the Jackson episode from circulation "feels clearly the only choice to make," he said to the Wall Street Journal."

""The guys I work with — where we spend our lives arguing over jokes — were of one mind on this," Brooks said, referring to his "Simpsons" colleagues. Although the classic episode was "treasured" by Brooks, he said he wants to show compassion for Jackson's alleged victims. "There are a lot of great memories we have wrapped up in that one," Brooks said of the episode, "and this certainly doesn't allow them to remain."

"Despite potential criticism from Michael Jackson fans, the process of removing the episode from streaming services, television and other platforms is already underway, Brooks said. "I'm against book burning of any kind. But this is our book, and we're allowed to take out a chapter," he told the WSJ."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael...d-documentary/

So, it was an act of self censorship, perfectly legal to do, and it was done to express "compassion" for the "alleged" victims. "Alleged" because Michael Jackson was never convicted of any such charges regardless of whatever one personally feels to be the case. We lose an entire episode of The Simpsons to express support for victims that may not even exist!

[Vilya]

Have you ever had a "significant other" ask you "does this outfit make me look fat?"

I guarantee you that plenty of the replies were self-censored.

Replying with it "makes your ass look as big as a boxcar" might be more accurate, to use railroad parlance, but the consequences of saying that would be not just unkind, but possibly dangerous to one's health.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Vilya

...and not the allegedly common usage of the word "figuratively."

I wasn't talking about the use of the word figuratively. I was talking about the use (and now definition) of the word literally.

I'm not normally one of these people who rails about the dumbing down of the culture or the bastardization of the language. If dictionaries want to add ain't or LOL what do I really care. But every once and again I do think certain changes and additions are objectionable.

And redefining literally to mean both literally and the exact opposite of literally was one of those times.

So is the knee-jerk use of the word censorship. I think it devalues the word.

Originally Posted by Vilya

"Executive producer James L. Brooks said he came to the decision with creator Matt Groening and writer and animator Al Jean after watching the HBO documentary "Leaving Neverland."

"Brooks said he found "Leaving Neverland" convincing and heartbreaking. After watching the explosive documentary, removing the Jackson episode from circulation "feels clearly the only choice to make," he said to the Wall Street Journal."

""The guys I work with — where we spend our lives arguing over jokes — were of one mind on this," Brooks said, referring to his "Simpsons" colleagues. Although the classic episode was "treasured" by Brooks, he said he wants to show compassion for Jackson's alleged victims. "There are a lot of great memories we have wrapped up in that one," Brooks said of the episode, "and this certainly doesn't allow them to remain."

"Despite potential criticism from Michael Jackson fans, the process of removing the episode from streaming services, television and other platforms is already underway, Brooks said. "I'm against book burning of any kind. But this is our book, and we're allowed to take out a chapter," he told the WSJ."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael...d-documentary/

So, it was an act of self censorship, perfectly legal to do, and it was done to express "compassion" for the "alleged" victims. "Alleged" because Michael Jackson was never convicted of any such charges regardless of whatever one personally feels to be the case. We lose an entire episode of The Simpsons to express support for victims that may not even exist!

I'm sorry, where's the pressure? Who pressured them? How was this pressure applied?

Let's say I'm the kind of person who doesn't like to offend others. Clearly this could not be more hypothetical but for the sake of discussion let's say that's the case.

And let's say I come to learn that using a certain word in a certain context is offensive to people from a certain part of the country or a certain part of the world and I decide I will no longer use that word in that context.

Am i succumbing to pressure or am I making a choice based on my own values and my own priorities?

A couple billionaires made a choice. They weren't pressured. They weren't brow-beaten. They made a choice.

That's all.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by octagon

So is the knee-jerk use of the word censorship. I think it devalues the word.

A couple billionaires made a choice.

That's all.

No, it actually defines the word. Dictionary definitions are not "knee jerk" uses of a word. Dictionaries define words. It is their central and essential purpose and their very reason to exist. Need I supply you with their definition, too?

A couple of rich people did make a choice; their choice was to self-censor. Whether or not I accurately described their motivation for doing so is actually irrelevant- being pressured is not even a requirement of the actual definition; it is just one possible motivation for self-censorship. The content was excised and removed.

Again:

""Self-censorship is the act of censoring or classifying one's own discourse. This is done out of fear of, or deference to, the sensibilities or preferences (actual or perceived) of others and without overt pressure from any specific party or institution of authority. Self-censorship is often practiced by film producers, film directors, publishers, news anchors, journalists, musicians, and other kinds of authors including individuals who use social media."

Source:

CLARK, Marilyn; GRECH, Anna (2017). Journalism under pressure. Unwarranted interference, fear and self-censorship in Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe publishing.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Vilya

No, it actually defines the word. Dictionary definitions are not "knee jerk" uses of a word. Dictionaries define words. It is their central and essential purpose and their very reason to exist. Need I supply you with their definition, too?

A couple of rich people did make a choice; their choice was to self-censor. Whether or not I accurately described their motivation for doing so is actually irrelevant- being pressured is not even a part of the actual definition; it is just one possible motivation for self-censorship. The content was excised and removed.

So if I decide to go watch TV (which I'm about to) instead of continuing to post I'm censoring myself?

Okay, yeah, doesn't devalue the word at all.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by octagon

So if I decide to go watch TV (which I'm about to) instead of continuing to post I'm censoring myself?

Okay, yeah, doesn't devalue the word at all.

Dictionaries do not devalue a word simply because you have created your own alternative definition for that word. The devaluation comes from you because you neither understand what the term really means and thus you use it incorrectly in many instances.

Your question is both rhetorical and ridiculous; changing one's leisure pursuits from one type to another is not censorship. No existing, or even proposed, content was lost by this decision.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Your question is both rhetorical and ridiculous; changing one's leisure pursuits from one type to another is not censorship.

And what about my hypothetical?

What if I decide of my own free will and in accordance with my own values and priorities that I will not use a specific word in a specific context because I don't want to inadvertently give offense.

Is that censorship?

Originally Posted by Vilya

No existing content was lost by this decision.

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that the loss of existing content is a necessary element of censorship?

Doesn't the entire concept of self-censorship run counter to that idea? Isn't the whole idea that people proactively edit themselves in fear of or in response to what might happen if they don't?

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by octagon

And what about my hypothetical?

What if I decide of my own free will and in accordance with my own values and priorities that I will not use a specific word in a specific context because I don't want to inadvertently give offense.

Is that censorship?

I'm sorry, are you suggesting that the loss of existing content is a necessary element of censorship?

Doesn't the entire concept of self-censorship run counter to that idea? Isn't the whole idea that people proactively edit themselves in fear of or in response to what might happen if they don't?

Self censorship, again by definition, is an act of free will. I provided you with 7 actual definitions for censorship and you are just arguing for the sake of doing so.

Restraining one's self from speaking a potentially offensive witticism is an act of self-censoring. People do so frequently for many reasons ranging from the desire to be kind to fearing the consequences.

I gave just such a hypothetical example of self-censorship just moments ago here:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...ostcount=16227

Yet again the definition :

Self-censorship:

"This is done out of fear of, or deference to, the sensibilities or preferences (actual or perceived) of others."

Source:

CLARK, Marilyn; GRECH, Anna (2017). Journalism under pressure. Unwarranted interference, fear and self-censorship in Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe publishing.


I also said proposed content.