You wouldn't get away with that nowadays!

[Thundershot]

I don’t get offended by anything… nothing in this thread bothers me in the slightest. The stories are the stories. Now they wouldn’t fly these days, but I’d be pretty mad if they censored the old stories in Epic collections or Omnibuses.

[shooshoomanjoe]

Kitty Pryde using the n word two or three times and maggot (with the f not m).

Also Red Sonja wouldn't hook up with a man unless he beats her in a fight. WTF were they thinking with that one.

[Riv86672]

Or some things are simply more offensive than others. Again, the character is fundamentally the same except for the fact that he no longer has yellow skin or a name inexorably linked to yellow peril. Anyone upset about that is, quite ironically, seemingly looking for something to be offended by.

^^^Like I said. Deaf. Ears.

-shrug-

[Ultimate Captain America]

It's a shame that each generation used to be more liberal than the previous one, but this one prefers to turn to censorship instead.

[Agent Z]

It's a shame that each generation used to be more liberal than the previous one, but this one prefers to turn to censorship instead.

Censorship doesn't mean what you think it means.

[Ultimate Captain America]

Censorship doesn't mean what you think it means.

Censorship means that you "wouldn't get away with" saying something. Either if it is hard censorship (things banned by law) or soft censorship (self-censorship by fear of rejection), the result is the same.

[Holt]

^^^Like I said. Deaf. Ears.

-shrug-

And like I said. Pot. Kettle.

[Username taken]

I can only speak for myself but at an early age I’m already letting my kids know some words are mean and hurtful. It’s not about being politically correct or censorship as much as it is being a decent person. My parents actually did the same which is why I personally don’t use “slurs”, at all. I think society is ultimately better off when everyone treats everyone else with respect. The way some people use certain language makes me think that a lot of people have failed at parenting but I digress.

Now, when it comes to art and entertainment it’s a slightly different discussion because what’s represented in these is generally supposed to show different characters and viewpoints. People shouldn’t get offended by stuff like Red Skull being a nazi or Rorschach (from Watchmen) being a total racist, homophobic sociopath so far said viewpoints aren’t being glorified or being depicted as somehow being the ideal or right (it’s weird that Rorschach became some sort of cult hero when Alan Moore was quite clearly not enamored with the character at all). Heck, even a hero that’s right of center shouldn’t be a problem so far they don’t go full neo-nazi or something. Conversely, I don’t need to see Kitty Pride using racial slurs to prove a point, she’s supposed to a “hero” and that language shouldn’t be in her vocabulary at all.

That’s not to say that creators shouldn’t write what they want to write but I think it’s better to approach sensitive subjects with a careful hand and a manner of decency. An example of this is how Mark Gruenwald wanted to call Lamar Hoskins “Bucky” but was advised against this because a black man being called Bucky is all manner of problematic. Note, this was in the 1980s and even then people tried their level best to be decent people. The way I look at it, it’s not so much a matter of censorship as it is a matter of simply being reasonable.

[Force de Phenix]

Censorship means that you "wouldn't get away with" saying something. Either if it is hard censorship (things banned by law) or soft censorship (self-censorship by fear of rejection), the result is the same.

Censorship is basically things banned by the law or capitalist companies that want to please consumers to continue getting advertisers/shareholders/customers.

Like the government of Florida removing books from schools that include words they deem as inappropriate like "diversity" is censorship. Random people complaining on the internet doesn't have much power besides saying "we're going to vote with our dollars."

"Fear of rejection" means nothing because you can still do or say whatever and no one is going to put you in jail. Some of your friends or your job might not want to associate itself with hateful messages, but there are PLENTY of people who they can associate themselves with.

This generation is more liberal than the previous one because they aren't allowing social injustice to get its way, despite being demonized as SJW for anything.

[Riv86672]

And like I said. Pot. Kettle.

^^^If thou hast not conquer'd thy self in that which is thy own particular Weakness, thou hast no Title to Virtue, tho' thou art free of other Men's. For a Covetous Man to inveigh against Prodigality, an Atheist against Idolatry, a Tyrant against Rebellion, or a Lyer against Forgery, and a Drunkard against Intemperance, is for the Pot to call the Kettle black.

Done here.

[Holt]

^^^If thou hast not conquer'd thy self in that which is thy own particular Weakness, thou hast no Title to Virtue, tho' thou art free of other Men's. For a Covetous Man to inveigh against Prodigality, an Atheist against Idolatry, a Tyrant against Rebellion, or a Lyer against Forgery, and a Drunkard against Intemperance, is for the Pot to call the Kettle black.

Done here.

Have a lovely day.

[Ultimate Captain America]

This generation is more liberal than the previous one because they aren't allowing social injustice to get its way, despite being demonized as SJW for anything.

Fine for them, but that's not liberalism. That's, in fact, the opposite of liberalism. Censorship in the name of a "noble cause" is still censorship. And speaking of noble causes, how do you define "social injustice"? Because Maduro, Ortega, Diaz-Canel, Morales, Correa, and other dictators also justify their dictatorships in the fight against that nebulous concept.

If you want to test the level of liberalism in society, check how much you can say something and "get away with it", both legally and socially. Even if it's offensive to someone. Especially if it's offensive to someone. For example, what happened in communist Cuba when some people singed "Patria y vida"? And what happened in capitalist United Kingdom when a band used the name "Sex Pistols"?

[Force de Phenix]

Fine for them, but that's not liberalism. That's, in fact, the opposite of liberalism. Censorship in the name of a "noble cause" is still censorship. And speaking of noble causes, how do you define "social injustice"? Because Maduro, Ortega, Diaz-Canel, Morales, Correa, and other dictators also justify their dictatorships in the fight against that nebulous concept.

If you want to test the level of liberalism in society, check how much you can say something and "get away with it", both legally and socially. Even if it's offensive to someone. Especially if it's offensive to someone. For example, what happened in communist Cuba when some people singed "Patria y vida"? And what happened in capitalist United Kingdom when a band used the name "Sex Pistols"?

You're basically allowing DeSantis to use the government to censor books, but you didn't include it in my quote, because republicans are "in the fight against that nebulous concept of minority groups." You describes the right wing perfectly using the dictator example and right wing politicians.

They're using their right-wing government power to silence people from expressing themselves. Literally taking books off shelves.

Like I said, no one in the US is going to prison for being a bigot. They just get flack from people on social media that they can ignore and sleep like babies, but they are exaggerating because they want to make money off their bigotry. There are plenty of people who make good money just fine being bigots. The only difference is people calling out their bigotry and voting with their dollars.

[Ultimate Captain America]

I didn't include your first paragraph just out of pity. Blaming the "capitalist companies" makes your socialist bias way too evident. By the way, all the dictators I mentioned are left-wing, not right-wing.

And I'm fine if controversial books are removed from schools, whatever their political position may be. The school must be politically neutral.

[Force de Phenix]

I didn't include your first paragraph just out of pity. Blaming the "capitalist companies" makes your socialist bias way too evident. By the way, all the dictators I mentioned are left-wing, not right-wing.

And I'm fine if controversial books are removed from schools, whatever their political position may be. The school must be politically neutral.

You're fine with censoring and using the government to take aways people's freedom of thought and expression when you deem it to be okay with your agenda. Ok. Got it. It's a dangerous precedent, but par for the course with socially right-wing governments. Florida's the canary in the coal mine.

A company is free to not associate itself with someone for bigoted remarks because it shows their bias against their consumers. And people vote with their dollars in a capitalist society, something you have a problem with because you're accusing people who are liberal, i.e. pro-equality, of being the bad guys for not wanting to spend their money on ideology they don't agree with.

No one has gone to jail for being a bigot, but the right wing government will punish people legally who dissent.