bob
a member named bob
I pray your life insurance is paid up first.
Immie
naa... just say somthing about bush, and then just watch the steem blow out their ears as they get lost in their rants
Excessive Censorship
- Thread starter AnyOldIron
- Start date
naa... just say somthing about bush, and then just watch the steem blow out their ears as they get lost in their rants
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
You're saying that I don't have a right to choose which shows are shown in MY theater? No way that shows going to sell in the US anyway. It even offends me. It's a bad business decision to show it, like any other bad business decision. It would be like me loading up theaters with copies of "Troy", or "Saw", all of which I know aren't going to sell.
This isn't "censorship". That's ridiculous. You don't even ahve free speech in Britian, so you couldn't talk about that anyway.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Ridiculous. HOW THE FUCK IS IT CENSORSHIP!
There are tons of movies in the US that aren't shown at these theater's! Are they being "censored" too? GOd you'er a fuckhead.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Yes, so they have to show all 500 or so movies that come out every year at every theater they own in the US, just so no one feels "censored".
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
OMG! Only five hundred theaters in the US showed the great epic "Alexander"! The filmakers were obviously censored, it had nothing to do with the fact that you'd fall asleep during the film, or that the filming style would give you headaches!
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
The movie wouldn't sell, regardless of content, and you know that Any.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Well, the souths a rather unique matter in that we have all these people spread very evenly about just so that nothing ever gets big enough to have a movie theater. I have to drive thirty minutes to get to a movie theater, and I live near the most prosperous area of the whole damn state (well, except for DeSoto county... famous for gambling).
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
The point is Any that business can dictate what it will sell.
Something I wrote in my original post.
Businesses are amoral and have one concern making money.
My point is that the decision made was a moral one, and had no reference to making money. This was a political move.
The point you libertarian capitalists are missing is an innate weakness with capitalism. The acquisition of wealth has allowed these cinema chain owners the power to dictate moral terms to others.
This is a fundamental weakness in capitalism that is ignored by its apologists, placed particularly in contrast by the same apologists berating of the abuse of power within government.
Something I wrote in my original post.
Businesses are amoral and have one concern making money.
My point is that the decision made was a moral one, and had no reference to making money. This was a political move.
The point you libertarian capitalists are missing is an innate weakness with capitalism. The acquisition of wealth has allowed these cinema chain owners the power to dictate moral terms to others.
This is a fundamental weakness in capitalism that is ignored by its apologists, placed particularly in contrast by the same apologists berating of the abuse of power within government.
LOL. It has allowed no such thing. Had they a monopoly then they could dictate such a thing. That they do not have that and they have competitors who consider playing the flick pretty much makes your point worthless. "Capitalism" is not the enemy here, it hasn't allowed anybody any "censorship". I know this is your baggage as a socialist, but you aren't convincing even the lefties that this is truly "censored".
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
You don't even ahve free speech in Britian, so you couldn't talk about that anyway.
WM what are you blathering on about. You don't think we have free speech in Britain?
We don't farm protestors into 'free speech zones' so that the President can't see them.
WM what are you blathering on about. You don't think we have free speech in Britain?
We don't farm protestors into 'free speech zones' so that the President can't see them.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Had they a monopoly then they could dictate such a thing. That they do not have that and they have competitors who consider playing the flick pretty much makes your point worthless.
When a government censors something, they don't have a monopoly, it can still be propogated. It is simply hampered by government action.
When the owners of the vast majority of a market share censors something, they don't have a complete monopoly, but they can still hamper it.
When the owners of majority share own great swaithes of the market, and censor on political grounds, they are still censoring.
"Capitalism" is not the enemy here, it hasn't allowed anybody any "censorship". I know this is your baggage as a socialist, but you aren't convincing even the lefties that this is truly "censored".
LOL Capitalist apologists have always denied the failings of capitalism and the power of wealth, ignoring them, whilst emphasizing the same failings in government.
And so the western world sleepwalks into a technocratic nightmare, simply because it doesn't hold judgemental criteria evenly for all.
It reminds me of the Israel / Pal problem. People criticise Pal terrorism, yet create excuses whenever Israel commits terrorism.
The atrocities of communism are rightly highlighted, yet the atrocities of capitalism (slavery, Dickensian Britain, the depression, Russia circa 1990) are all either hidden away or explained away by the 'no true Scotsman' defense, stating it 'isn't true capitalism.'
Seems Aldous Huxley was far more accurate of the future for western society than Orwell....
When a government censors something, they don't have a monopoly, it can still be propogated. It is simply hampered by government action.
When the owners of the vast majority of a market share censors something, they don't have a complete monopoly, but they can still hamper it.
When the owners of majority share own great swaithes of the market, and censor on political grounds, they are still censoring.
"Capitalism" is not the enemy here, it hasn't allowed anybody any "censorship". I know this is your baggage as a socialist, but you aren't convincing even the lefties that this is truly "censored".
LOL Capitalist apologists have always denied the failings of capitalism and the power of wealth, ignoring them, whilst emphasizing the same failings in government.
And so the western world sleepwalks into a technocratic nightmare, simply because it doesn't hold judgemental criteria evenly for all.
It reminds me of the Israel / Pal problem. People criticise Pal terrorism, yet create excuses whenever Israel commits terrorism.
The atrocities of communism are rightly highlighted, yet the atrocities of capitalism (slavery, Dickensian Britain, the depression, Russia circa 1990) are all either hidden away or explained away by the 'no true Scotsman' defense, stating it 'isn't true capitalism.'
Seems Aldous Huxley was far more accurate of the future for western society than Orwell....
When a government censors something it has the power of law behind it, people who are caught are punished for their intransigence. In this case they have no power to stop their competitors from carrying the movie. This is a paper tiger. A false prop. A silly sky-is-falling pretense. False panic over a pretend threat.
If they were able to actually stop people from being able to see this flick, I would be agreeing with you. They cannot, however, even get close to it.
It's not that I don't believe that companies, in the right circumstance, could actually do what you are saying. It is that in this case you are simply using false outrage to attempt to get a reaction. It is not helping your case to panic where none is necessary, to freak when no censorship is apparent. In other words, saving this type of "outrage" for when actual censorship is apparent may help your cause, but this pretense only hurts it.
If they were able to actually stop people from being able to see this flick, I would be agreeing with you. They cannot, however, even get close to it.
It's not that I don't believe that companies, in the right circumstance, could actually do what you are saying. It is that in this case you are simply using false outrage to attempt to get a reaction. It is not helping your case to panic where none is necessary, to freak when no censorship is apparent. In other words, saving this type of "outrage" for when actual censorship is apparent may help your cause, but this pretense only hurts it.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
When a government censors something it has the power of law behind it, people who are caught are punished for their intransigence.
And when business censors something, it has the power of wealth behind it.
Law is weak in comparison to the power of wealth. Wealth can create the ethos that it is a right to censor.
Those corruptable forces you see and emphasize in government are extant in wealth, though ignored. Wealth is far more seductive than government.
You state that it cannot be censorship because they cannot stop the film being shown in limited places. When government censors, it cannot entirely stop prolification. Neither can business.
It can, like government, use its power to restrict that that it forbids.
It seems like you are ignoring the wolf you are in bed with because you are too busy watching the other wolf at the door.
And when business censors something, it has the power of wealth behind it.
Law is weak in comparison to the power of wealth. Wealth can create the ethos that it is a right to censor.
Those corruptable forces you see and emphasize in government are extant in wealth, though ignored. Wealth is far more seductive than government.
You state that it cannot be censorship because they cannot stop the film being shown in limited places. When government censors, it cannot entirely stop prolification. Neither can business.
It can, like government, use its power to restrict that that it forbids.
It seems like you are ignoring the wolf you are in bed with because you are too busy watching the other wolf at the door.
uscitizen
Villified User
I believe capitalistic censorship is far more prevelant than most realize.
Does a news company run storys about it's own problems, or problems about its parent company ? The answer is only if someone else finds out and runs the story first, then it is a damage control effort.
Does a news company run storys about it's own problems, or problems about its parent company ? The answer is only if someone else finds out and runs the story first, then it is a damage control effort.
Law is weak in comparison to wealth? Rubbish.
This is such a total baggage excretion from a socialist viewpoint. Prison is not "weak" in comparison to having to drive three miles to see the movie!
I've already made it clear, these theaters have competitors that will show the movie if it is popular enough. It is not censored. This is panic for panics sake and it hurts your "cause".
This is such a total baggage excretion from a socialist viewpoint. Prison is not "weak" in comparison to having to drive three miles to see the movie!
I've already made it clear, these theaters have competitors that will show the movie if it is popular enough. It is not censored. This is panic for panics sake and it hurts your "cause".
However they use it to buy laws, not more wealth. Laws are not "weak" in comparison to wealth.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
I've already made it clear, these theaters have competitors that will show the movie if it is popular enough. It is not censored. This is panic for panics sake and it hurts your "cause".
You are ignoring the power of being a dominant market-share owner in controlling the market.
I know the capitalist fantasy states that competition drives 'choice', but in reality this doesn't occur. The big fish simply eat up, or bully with their size, the little fish.
There is no mature market that isn't heading towards, or fighting to ward off monopoly.
As to whether wealth is more powerful than the law, of course it is. Wealth can corrupt the law, or be used to change the law.
Wealth is power. People wouldn't pursue it if it weren't.
You are ignoring the power of being a dominant market-share owner in controlling the market.
I know the capitalist fantasy states that competition drives 'choice', but in reality this doesn't occur. The big fish simply eat up, or bully with their size, the little fish.
There is no mature market that isn't heading towards, or fighting to ward off monopoly.
As to whether wealth is more powerful than the law, of course it is. Wealth can corrupt the law, or be used to change the law.
Wealth is power. People wouldn't pursue it if it weren't.
Sure they would, people like to have stuff.
Look. I haven't said that wealth is not power, I have said that law is far stronger than wealth. If you were sitting in prison for reading a censored novel in China you would agree. It is inane to say that these two theater chains control what we are going to see when there are at least three major chains mentioned in this thread that compete with these two.
It is inane panic for panics sake in this particular case. Pretending otherwise to promote this ideation is hurting your cause at this time. Wait until there is an actual case of censorship. I'll stand beside you. But this? Not even close.
uscitizen
Villified User
It buys more wealth for the corps. 1 million of so of donations can get a law passed that will save the companies tens of millions. Happens all the time.