Slashdot Mirror
Arthur C. Clarke on Information Pollution
Castolari writes "Here is an interesting interview of Arthur C. Clarke and his views on regulating communications, as well as what he sees as the past, present, and future of information management."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
To quote,
"No, banning is not the answer. Because we frequently suffer from the scourge of information pollution, we find it hard to imagine its even deadlier opposite information starvation. I get very annoyed when I hear arguments usually from those who have been educated beyond their intelligence about the virtues of keeping happy, backwards people in ignorance."
I would suggest that he should use the term 'information dillution' rather than 'information pollution' in this case (it seems he's referring to the signal-to-noise issue, which is dillution-based- unless too much information itself is a form of polluting our information reservoirs? Regardless, I'd say let's save that term for real information pollution, i.e. FUD)
As for "I get very annoyed when I hear arguments usually from those who have been educated beyond their intelligence about the virtues of keeping happy, backwards people in ignorance,"
Clarke is clearly a thinker and a powerful rhetoritician. I don't disagree with his conclusion, but I wonder if his powerful rhetoric (i.e. such a broadly applicable, powerful, yet vague criticism) hinders his readers' ability for clear thinking in this example.
RD
He shouldn't call it "information dillution" because then he'd be INVENTING WORDS THAT DON'T EXIST.
I thought "information pollution" was what he did to us when he published that dreadful 3001 book.
I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
http://www.sco.com
My God, it's full of spam!!
Humanity will survive information deluge - Sir Arthur C Clarke
05 December 2003
Sir Arthur C Clarke is acknowledged as the greatest living science fiction writer and an outstanding visionary of our times. His writing over the past six decades - more than 100 books, 1,000 articles and short stories - have not only helped humanity find its way in times of rapid change, but also discussed the social and cultural implications of key technologies.
In 1945, while still in his late 20s, he was the first to propose the concept of using a network of satellites in the geo-synchronous orbit for television and telecommunications. His vision became a reality in the mid 1960s, and within a generation, humankind has come to rely critically on the network of comsats placed, in what is now called the Clarke Orbit, some 22,300 miles above the earth.
His science fiction books and science facts have inspired generations of astronauts, scientists and technological innovators. Among them is Tim Berners-Lee, the British computer engineer who invented the World Wide Web, inspired by a Clarke science fiction story ('Dial F for Frankenstein') in his adolescent years.
On the eve of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and days before his 86th birthday, Sir Arthur Clarke spoke with science writer Nalaka Gunawardene at his home in Colombo, Sri Lanka.
You invented satellite communications and inspired the WWW through one of your short stories. Do you wonder about the forces and processes you helped unleash?
As I have pointed out, if I had not proposed the idea of geo-synchronous communications satellites in 1945, some one else would have done so very soon. It was such an obvious concept. I didn't expect to see comsats to become a reality in just two decades. But we as a species have a deep urge to communicate - so if something is technologically feasible, we will accomplish it sooner rather than later. If you doubt this, just think of how fast the Internet has spread.
I sometimes wonder how we spent leisure time before satellite television and Internet came along....and then I realise that I have spent more than half of my life in the 'dark ages'! Satellite television, Internet, mobile phones, email - all these are technological responses to a deep-rooted human desire to communicate and access information. Having achieved unprecedented progress in the field of communications during the past half century, we now have to pause to think of social, cultural and intellectual implications of what we have created.
You have been an ardent supporter of using satellite television for education and information. Do you see today's satellite channels fulfilling these expectations?
I have no doubt at all that television is the most marvellous medium of communication ever invented - it can be used to educate, inform, entertain and even inspire. But it's a mixed blessing and much of television content rightfully earns the medium its dubious label, the 'Great Wasteland'.
But I'm not impressed by the attacks on television because of some truly dreadful programmes. I believe that every TV programme has some educational content. The cathode ray tube - and now the plasma screen - is a window to the world. Often it may be a very murky window, but I've slowly come to the conclusion that, on balance, even bad TV is preferable to no TV at all.
Obviously, we need to work very hard to improve the content of television programmes. Not too long ago, I had the enjoyable task of using satellite links to address both Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner (though not at the same time!). I gave them some advice on the use and misuse of satellite TV.
Recalling that many years ago, a British Prime Minister had accused newspaper magnates of enjoying 'the privilege of the harlot throughout the ages - power without responsibility', I said today, the TV screen is more powerful than newsprint, and whatever the bean-counters may say, responsibility should always be the
But anyway, I can add my sentiments to the debate. Information pollution ? About time we bring this up.
Does the world really need that every peon around the world has his or her own web page with rants raves, and pictures of cats/gerbils/whatever ?
Do WE need it ? Sure, freedom of speech, expression and open communications, but...
I wonder how Google will tackle it when every human being on this planet is online with its own web page. Ouch.
"Q: Do you advocate stricter regulation of satellite television and the Internet?"
"A: I think it is technologically impossible for any one government to (directly) control, let alone ban, transmissions coming from earth orbit."
So, even though Sir Arthur C Clarke came from a time far before ours, when strict regulations were required to "keep everyone from going mad with Communism", he still has the enlightenment he did then.
If I was in control, I would try and find ways to get more Sir Arthur C Clarkes running around planet earth, not how to tie the world in knots with controls, regulations and dubious money-making schemes.
It's wonderful that he suggests humanity will survive the information age, but unclear to me if this is the case, because I'm mostly a cynic.
even bad TV is preferable to no TV at all I don't know... has he seen what the networks are showing these days???
Well, not most of the time, anyway. I see the point he's trying to make, but the most important thing to do, in my opinion, is to provide means for people to escape this dredge of unwanted information (particularly advertising) if they so choose. This is why I strongly support the use and people's right to use ad-blockers and the like on the internet. Now, there is *one* thing I think needs to be heavily regulated, maybe even banned -- billboards. They make the road ugly, you can't escape them, and they might even contribute to increasing the rate of car accidents. (ie, plowing into a tree while gazing at a hooters ad...)
Its called a filter use it and stop yer crying.
Its like players in multiplayer games crying "DONT FUCKING SWEAR"" yet they have a language filter. Go use it.
From the article:
"But it is vital to remember that information - in the sense of raw data - is not knowledge; that knowledge is not wisdom; and that wisdom is not foresight."
Arthur C. Clarke
~8^]
I thought that was Al... Oh, never mind!
i would define information pollution as all that info you dont really need to know! sometimes it is fun (http://theonion.com) and sometimes is just straight boring (too many sites to list!)
whats your definition?
*resistance is futile, or fuzzy, i dunno*
Information kills people
This needs to be visible as an example of information pollution.
Thanks!
The site got /.d. Can someone please either paste the text or a mirror?
Indeed, there is material which virtually everyone would agree should be kept out. Sadistic pornography, incitement to violence against racial or ethnic minorities are just two examples.
There really is a shortage of good soft porn nowadays.
Ask yourself this: If communications were never regulated how much sooner would we have seen digital and/or encoded and/or encrypted forms of radio?
Now, while you're thinking about that, think about how much we pay to have the beloved FCC, which does what, exactly?
Libertarian Wacko
We have the slashdot effect to reduce this pollution.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The cheesiest thing about the ending to 3001 was he destroyed the Monolith -- wait for it -- a VIRUS!
A Cantor connundrum I think!
He wrote such a great story only to have it fall completely apart at the end.
I think the problem we face is that it's not that we have "bad" information out there taking up "valuable space" simply because what is valuable and bad is totally subjected to the individual.
I think what we need to realize is that there is too much information past the point of comprehension. I wouldn't say this is a problem, but rather calls for a solution of better orginization. And in the case of the Internet, I see that it's currently being addressed with search engines such as Google.
Life is not for the lazy.
Case defeated:s ia/74938.st m
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/s/w_a
I'm so glad that we didn't put the cart before the horse. :-/
An article about information pollution, linked from Slashdot! Who would've thunk it?
-Rob
There's alot more information being generated these days, and we need to make sure we can keep on top of ways to filter, sort, and absorb it. When the web was 100 sites, it was pretty easy to find what you were looking for. Then when it exploded we needed search engines. Then blogs became popular and Google is still working out how to cope.
I think Advertising is getting to be a problem. Adware and Spyware are running rampant, and making computers less useful by confusing users. Spam is crippling email worldwide. And it's not just limited to online effects, commercials are longer, shows are shorter. Movies have almost an hour of advertising sometimes: slides, then commercials, then trailers.
I don't know how it affects most other people, but to me advertising sticks in my brain and keeps gnawing away at the back, making me less likely to buy a product. The more annoying, condescending, or pointless an ad is, the stronger the hate towards the company for wasting my time. For example, I'll NEVER buy a GAP product. Why? Well if GAP had just been a regular clothes store, I might have gone in, wandered around, maybe bought a shirt. But their commercials are so irritating I despise them. I've gone as far as to cross the street to avoid one of their larger stores. Here's another: Capital One talks about their "no hassle" credit cards. I thought this was a good idea and I was thinking of applying for one. Then they ran massive popup spams all over the web, and I changed my mind, permanently. Then there's the modern print advertising in computer industry magazines. You know, the ones that look and read like a 2-4 page product review with a very tiny light gray on white "Advertisement" printed somewhere you're not likely to notice it? That kind of thing pisses me off enough to go and look up the competitors to that company so I can reccomend them instead next time I need that type of product. I really do stuff like this. Am I the only one who's this insane? You tell me. Then there's the outright decietful crap. About 2-3 times a month I get envelopes with my bank's logo on it. Inside is a check for $2.50, and in really light fine print somewhere it'll say "Depositing this indicates you agree to let us take $8/month for 'services' directly from your account." Elsewhere in fine print is a disclaimer saying "We're not really affiliated with your bank even though we're reprinting their logo on your mail." Now I don't fall for this, but I'm betting my grandmother would. And the "valuable services" are basicly more advertising, they send you piles of coupons and ads for stuff. Great, just what I wanted.
I wish companies would focus more on making a better product and highlighting its advantages and features instead of randomly spewing statisticly generated images of unrelated crap, assuming people will digest this and buy it.
Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!
Someone must've sent him goatse.cx.
Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
We pollute, you comply.
Something about a global computer network, called the Intersomething and then there was his crazy idea about putting objects in space to bounce communication signals off of, called them saddlelights or some such.
What hokey ideas.
The simple truth is that copyrights create a system of rewards for people who push hype over substance. It is no longer about what has the most social value or service value, but rather which gets the most heads to turn. You can also see this effect in things like text books. The information in some books has changed little in over 100 years, but you wouldn't know from the racket they run at the college book stores - there's a new revised version every semester.
I think all to often, people think this media mob like behavior is just what happens in a free society, but IMHO it is not. It happens only when you start to restrict what people can copy.
Beck's song gets the "New Pollution" about right. What about fake-named MP3s of Reproachful Madonna? Transgenic mutations slipping that flounder antifreeze gene from tomatoes to icecream barns? Virus in your kernel? WiFi in your Bluetooth? What kind of Superfund sites are we looking for when we dwell mostly in an infosphere dumping ground?
--
make install -not war
The advertisements that are fake stories irritate me too; you see them in certain newspapers too.
You might be a little nuts if you cross the street to avoid walking past a store though. =]
Capital One is No-Hassle in the sense that they'll send you less junk mail once you join. You don't get to stop the pop ups though.
What?
Thats my favorite kind and its not so easy to find out there.
This IS the man that refuses to believe that we humans will ever use anything other than rockets to travel through space. (He's actually quoted as saying this) A lot of people credit him with creating the Satellite when all he did was slightly alter the concept of bouncing signals off the ionosphere, something which people had been doing since the birth of radio, pheh. He had like one or two good books, nothing to see here folks.
I think this really only applies when money is very important. With rich people (and maybe in less money-centric societies) wouldn't it be more accurate to say something like "Just follow the power trail..."?
True story.
Voice-recognition and text-to-speech converters should be for the sole use of blind or partially-sighted people who absolutely cannot see text at all, ever.
I can see this developing into another govt.-sponsored program of 'enablement' when these people would best be served by teaching them to read.
Literacy is too important to be made optional.
I noticed you didin't mention McDonalds in your list of annoying advertisements. Surely that was a mistake. Same goes for Coke, too...
Just for clarification, by "Coke" I'm referring to the "Coca-Cola" soft drink. Although I am getting rather annoyed by the constant endorsements by celebrities of the llello as well.
True story.
What does that have to do with anything? In fact, what does it mean?
Uma Thurman is not a science fiction writer!
Yeah the parent wasn't very funny but c'mon.
I think this total lack of a sense of humor thing is killing those of a leftist persuasion culturally as well as politically.
Are you suggesting that he invite Michael Jackson to live there?
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Its a lightbulb joke one of the best.
"How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?"
answer in a strident scolding offended tone
"Thats NOT funny!"
get it?
Oh, that's good. I like most of the rest of what he has to say too, but let's exercise some foresight about this:
There are instances when, in the interests of the majority, some censorship may be used for a period of time. Indeed, there is material which virtually everyone would agree should be kept out. Sadistic pornography, incitement to violence against racial or ethnic minorities are just two examples.
Everyone would not agree about that, Mr. Clark. Such reasoning and mechanisms can be used against anything. What exactly constitutes non-sadistic pornogrpahy? Why stop at incitement against minority populations? It's just as wrong for me to shoot a white boy in Kansas as it is for me to shoot a black girl in Mississippi isn't it? Porn by it's very nature invites us to violate those it portrays as objects. The mechanisms you might use to filter information for me will obviously be used more than eliminate more than violent porn. Electronic media can offer the censor far greater power then any previous media and great caution must be used in any kind of censorship of it. If the poster of violent porn can be tracked down and punished, so can the publisher of unpopular political opinions and media that has no anonymous publishing will never be free. This is far more harmful than burning libraries and smashing printing presses because it can happen transparently.
I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say it. The only way to disprove bad ideas is for them to be as freely available as others. It is up to each of us to chose what we will or will not listen too. The crime is not in the saying or the hearing, the crime is in the doing. Words, while they may sting, never broke a bone. The only kind of censorship that's ever justified is the traditional kind, simply saying "that is wrong."
Behaviors not words should be forbiden. It is wrong to asault someone, especially in a sadistic sexual way - that's called rape and it's a crime. A film that gloifies rape is stupid and wrongheaded, but it's not a crime.
As another poster pointed out, the problems we face in media are not the fault of too much freedom, they are the result of too many restrictions. Gargage TV exists not because there are too many networks, but because there are too few that feel no need to compete. Cable TV, though pricy, has brough competition and improved programming and the reagular broadcaseters are falling behind in the ratings sytems. People are attracted to "nitch" programs such as TechTV, the History Channel, the Learning Channel and all that other good stuff that leaves daytime trash talk without an audience. The more repulsive the regular broadcasters cynically make their content, the faster they push away their audience. Further competition among cable and internet providers would only make things better. Censorship is the friend and tool of those who would not compete.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
this is one of the greatest articles i have seen on slashdot. Thanks to Castolari and the slashdot person repsonsible for seletcing it!
regarding past, present and future... what's most remarkable is my surprise to realize that the guy is still alive... some people i guess seem to have been there forever.... henry kissinger is an example..
Movies: RottenTomatoes, imdb, and MetaCritic have saved me dozens of hours of time I might have wasted on crap (like Matrix Revolutions, or TimeLine).
Books: Amazon, despite its evils (patents/privacy), is a very nice filter (with a few shills and idiot-reviewers). I [ab]use amazon as a filter, and then buy them cheaper new or used.
News: Popular Daily News Tidbits, Blogdex, Daypop, and slashdot.
Music: iRATE radio, and word of mouth. Need more Collaborative Filtering in this area to root out the Clearchannels/RIAAs function as a giant pusher of "cool"
Ads (aka: mental engineering): I use PopFile to filter SPAM, and Privoxy to filter out slow-loading, privacy-invading, all-around-annoying ADS. I'm still missing a proxy for my eyeballs in the real world. Soooon. :)
Cheap Products: Not a quality filter exactly, but a quantity filter: PriceWatch, PriceGrabber, Froogle, Anand's Hot Deals ...
Phew, that's a lot of linkage. Anyway, I couldn't function without these and other filters; I'd really be info overloaded.
Collaborative filtering in general has a very bright future IMO.
--
Power to the Peaceful
I spam at thee
n k@hyperlogos.orge rlogos.org
drink@hyperlogos.org
drink@hyperlogos.org
dri
drink@hyperlogos.org
drink@hyp
Muahahahahahahah!!!! Yes, my spambots, attack, DESTROY
Speech was not free in either Rwanda nor Hitler's Germany. It can be argued that fewer genocides will happen when speech is free.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Clarke mentions that the term 'boot' came from 'kicking recalcitrant computers'. I'm pretty sure that it was more related to 'pulling yourself up by your bootstraps', because in a sense starting a computer has to overcome some chicken-and-egg problems to get itself going.
Regardless, it was an interesting article. As a (slightly recovered) sci-fi fan, I've found that Clarke's books are still deeply engaging for me, when quite a few of the other authors I used to read have grown a bit tired. _Imperial Earth_ and _Rendezvous with Rama_ are probably my favorite hard sci-fi novels of all time, and his work on the movie version of _2001_ shouldn't be discounted.
He has such a great style to his writing; he makes predictions seem very natural. I think he's mastered the art, more than any other writer, of dropping slight predictions into science fiction. In one book, he mentions that a character watched "Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times, much of the Disnet canon, Oliver's Hamlet, Ray's Pather Panchali, Kubrick's Napoleon Bonaparte, Zymanowski's Moby Dick, and many other old masterpieces..."
I love the progression of the sequence... (Kubrick never actually made Napoleon Bonaparte, but had planned on doing so.)
"Porn fuels my rape fantasies. Since I am the most morally and intellectually perfect being the planet has ever known, the refusal of most people to acknowledge that porn fuels their own rape fantasies is merely evidence of my moral and intellectual superiority to them."
Your mouth is like Columbus Day.
he was the first to propose the concept of using a network of satellites in the geo-synchronous orbit for television and telecommunications. His vision became a reality in the mid 1960s, and within a generation, humankind has come to rely critically on the network of comsats
Satellites? While they are certainly handy, lots of communications work well without them. Satellites are terrible for phone calls and internet access - the latency is enormous. Fiber optic cables have so much more bandwidth and so much less latency that they are the prefered medium.
Of course, I love my direcTV, but that's because the local cableco is crap, not because of any inherent benefit to satellites.
Booting does mean "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps". You had to enter a short (perhaps 10-line) program by entering binary codes (grouped by 3's into octal) into the switches on the front panel. That program was able to load a program from a Teletype paper tape reader, which itself was a more capable loader that read something in from more paper tape or perhaps a magnetic tape unit if you were fancy.
Clarke, in everything I've ever read by him, leans strongly towards trusting the intelligence and character of his readers and other people. This is especially true when he's commenting on legal issues. He does not like "big brotherism" -- laws passed to protect people from themselves. I think he feels that adults should be free to make their own choices and live with the consequences of those choices.
So I suspect his reaction to your question would be that anyone who is in the habit of thinking for himself in the first place isn't going to be unduly influenced by Clark's obviously partisan views on governmental information control. I think he'd probably also say that someone who isn't in the habit of thinking for himself needs to learn.
I hear that he's also allergic to fans who worship him instead of thinking about what he said and responding intelligently to it. So if I ever met him, I'll have to be careful not to tell him how much I loved, "Rendevous with Rama." ;>
Catherine
I don't know how it affects most other people, but to me advertising sticks in my brain and keeps gnawing away at the back, making me less likely to buy a product. The more annoying, condescending, or pointless an ad is, the stronger the hate towards the company for wasting my time.
..."
Absolutely!
I create my own anti-advertising slogans. Volkswagen ran some truly obnoxious TV ads a few years ago. I don't remember the specific ads, but the tagline created in my head still pops up when I see any Volkswagen ad:
"Volkswagen, car of idiots and assholes
Don't think I'll be shopping for one of those!
That kind of thing pisses me off enough to go and look up the competitors to that company so I can reccomend them instead next time I need that type of product. I really do stuff like this. Am I the only one who's this insane?
LOL! There are a few of us! But crazy is relative anyway.
pffftt... Arthur C. Clarke... what did he ever do in his lifetime?!
here, I'd suggest a fist-sized grain of salt.
Hey! Leave the Sri Lankans alone! They have enough problems as it is...
But only governement do have the power to destroye satellite, with all the tech that it supposes (balistic missiles). One call that space warfare. As far as I can tell when the satellitte is in splitter or going down burning toward the ground i would call that pretty much a strong ban/control. Furthermore as far as I know most governement ban citizen to send their own satellite. You have to ask permission to governement agency (NASA, EU etc...).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Just remember, we only have a millennium! (see ending of "2061:Odyssey 3")
"Give a man a fire, he's warm for a day, set a man on fire, he's warm for life."
Actually, I don't find the parent's post funny either. What I really don't find funny is the fact that this man has had a history of lying/exaggerating. Of course, lying politicians are as old as well -- politics. The big problem is that Al Gore was just so bad at it. In fact, even as Al Gore ran for office in Tennessee, he began to exaggerate for effect. During one campaign stop, Al Gore made a point to a largely farming community that he himself was a farmer and he had been involved in every part of the tobacco farming process. This was significant, because even senior members of his campaign began to warn him about his tendency to exaggerate in his public speeches.
Sure, Clinton didn't exaggerate. He outright lied. He lied very well. So much so, that we elected him twice. Of course, when Bill lied, it was for a reason. Perhaps that's the big difference. Bill Clinton got away with it because he always lied in a calculating fashion. He lied about things he hid anyway, and if the bigger scandal were to come out, no one would remember the lie.
I also think the jokes are legitimate. Bill Clinton is the Nixon of my generation. Al Gore is Clinton's Agnew. I've become cynical about the political process under his watch. Maybe that's just me coming of age or maybe it was his fault. I don't know.
This Tennessee farmer lie was featured on a PBS special that covered both the 2000 candidates. Frankly, I think it was some of the best journalism on the 2000 election. It was brutally fair in a truly bi-partisan way. It was a great piece of video journalism. IIRC, I believe the PBS program was Frontline: the choice2000.
Incidentally. I've included links to some articles about Mr. Gore's questionable quotes. The "Free-Republic" article contains other quotes relating to Gore's lies. To each site's credit, they refer to the Internet quote in the proper contextual manner.
A story about Gore's lies in general
A defense of Gore's Internet comment
What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean....
Advertiser's use these tactics because they work. Frankly, the Slashdot crowd probably isn't the GAP's target demographic anyway.
:)
You remember the Simpson's episode where everyone has to ignore the ads so they go away...
Oh wait, my best argument about ad branding comes by refering to a highly popular TV show. Nevermind
What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean....
Have you looked into Scientology?
Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.
I guess wrapping aluminum foil around your head isn't working out as well as you planned.
All you have to do is commit suicide so that you can be reincarnated as an Indian.
If it weren't for that "useless third", all civilization would have long ago been wiped out by infections caused by particularly dirty telephones!
Mal-2
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
Gore was actually quite a ruthless polititician in his day. As most/all politicians do, he wildly exaggerated his accomplishments, if not outright lied about them.
:-(
But while we're talking about lies and politicians, the current resident of the White House reigns unchallenged. He didn't lie about his days on the farm, or about getting blowjobs in the Oval Office. No, his lies have gotten us into a unecessary war and bankrupted the country.
His lies are killing hundreds of people (thousands if you consider Iraqui and Afghan civilians to be people, ha ha
His administration has been one long lie from the "election" on. Lies with very real consequences to our (US) national security as well as global stability.
Gore's (and even Clinton's) lies were utterly inconsequential by comparison. Bush goes straight for the Big Lie.
Oh my god - it is full of spam! hehe...
500 + mails about vicodin, hot girls, tight pants and all the other sh** people try to sell you...
Arthur speaks for me:
I cannot imagine life before communcations - even 20 years ago we swapped the C64-disks via snail-mail and were sort of info-nerds
cheers, christoph
I think it had something to do with the TVs they had lined up outside at the time showing their latest set of steaming turds on constant repeat and the gaggle of morons staring at them slackjawed and drooling all over the sidewalk at the time. I just felt I couldn't walk through that mess and keep my sanity intact.
Introducing the new Occam Fusion! Now with sqrt(-1) fewer blades!
He said "sadistic porn" not "porn". Sadistic porn is where people get a rise out of seeing others in pain. It doesn't even neccessariliy have anything to do with the sex, although a good bit of sadistic porn mixes the two very heavily. It is a lot like mixing orgasm caused by pleasure with orgasm caused by pain.
In any case I agree that porn by itself for pleasure or art is not something that should be censored. But "sadistic porn"? Come on man, you gott'a be kidding! You might as well be saying that there should be television shows where we can watch people kill people live for the point of entertainment. We lock people who kill people up because they aren't being beneficial to society. It isn't being very constructive to go around and cause people pain and suffering!
You are free to dream and fantasize all you want about killing and causing pain, but as soon as you start doing it, your ass should be locked up!
Get your mind out of the gutter!
The average porn flick as a woman violated by a number of men in humiliating ways. Anal penetration and ejaculation into someone's face provide very few women pleasure. These films pander to rude urges to dominate and humiliate and are mostly enjoyed by losers enbittered by the trouble they have getting along with anyone. They are anything but a portrayal of healthy relationships.
Even more benign porn, such as Playboy, plays on the same themes. The editorial staff will hapily tell you that their business plan it to sell advertising by stoking mastabtorial fantasies of young men. The staff at playboy knows exactly what those young men want and it has nothing to do with anything like what women want. It objectifies women and creates the false impression that casual sex is easy to come by because women and me have few differences in their goals and outlooks. The average young man is willing to be used and disposed of like a wipe in a gas station bathroom, the average woman is not and the average young man probably should not be so willing. In any case, porn in large part is based on taking from others without care or obligation.
As nasty as these things are, they are much less demanded than they are provided. Free media avoids those things as naturally as personal conversation. Porn is mostly provided in places where there is poor competition for media and where people are most repressed and have the fewest freedoms.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
You seem to be confused. He gave that as an example, not as something to "stop at".
That's my point. He gave that as an example everyone would agree on, but he was wrong. I fear the rest of his list of obvious censorship as much as I dispise the things he would censor. Censorship breeds more of the same.
It's amazing how so few people can read and understand something without inserting their own prejudices and fixed ideas...
Once again, I agree. Now, piss off.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I'm not sure if continuing with a thread is considered offtopic but since I've got a little karma to burn...
Actually, I would agree that Gore was a quite skillful and ruthless politician. He's the kind of guy you'd want running everything in the background. He should have stayed a senator.
However, I don't think President Bush lied. He was dead wrong. Perhaps quite literally. I think the White House really believed weapons of mass destruction (i.e. nuclear) existed in Iraq. We know that Saddam had chemical weapons. We knew that long ago. He used them in Iran and against his own people. He's also had loose connections to terrorism. Abu Nidal (formerly the most wanted international terrorist before 9/11) resided in Iraq. The Iraqi government provided him safe harbor. Interestingly enough, he quickly ended up dead after 9/11.
I believe the White House had the best of intentions. I'm sure after going into Afghanistan, they figured toppling the Iraqi regime was no big deal. They were half-right. Perhaps they thought bringing democracy in the Middle East would bring peace to the Israelis and Palestinians. Maybe they felt justified in getting rid of such a horrible despot. I don't think it was about oil. I think it was about cold, hard foreign policy. I think it was an attempt to correct what was another mistake of the opposite nature. That was the lack of foreign policy during the Clinton administration. You know 9/11 wasn't the first time Osama bin Laden attacked the World Trade Center. The question the Bush administration forgot to ask was, "Is this worth the loss of American life?"
I only say this because I hate to see the pure ideological hatred or respect that President Bush gets. I don't agree with everything the man has done, but I don't think he's this great looming evil liberals make him out to be. Like everything else in bipolar political system, President Bush is most certainly a divider. I suppose you're either "with him or against him".
What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean....
"First Post"
Author: Frank McGurkTime: 07.12.2003 01:33
Comment: First Post Fellas.
Nevermind...
Is he the same guy that has young scantily clad boys
as servants.
In the article he talks about Sadistic pornography as needing sensoorship, when most would say child porn.
boyhood has great attraction for Arthur. It is very strange to see him glorified for his writing while his actions go uncommented.
Hominis in errore.
Cuiusvis hominis est errare; nullius nisi insipientis in errore perseverare.