É quase certo que, todo aquele que defende pela liberdade de expressão e ação irrestritas, gostaria de impor a censura sobre pensamentos, ideias ou grupos aos quais antagoniza. Só defende por isso em teoria...
O maior problema não é censurar ou a censura em si, se o termo pode facilmente ser considerado um sinônimo de controle. O maior problema é quem, histórica e habitualmente falando, tem tomado o poder e usado sua posição de dominância para censurar. E também de quais grupos, ideias, pensamentos ou verdades que têm sido censurados. Porque o ideal é que a censura seja praticada, mas com ponderação ou racionalidade, prática ausente ao longo da história humana e até hoje em dia.
Censura, novamente, não apenas em termos de liberdade de expressão, mas também de ação.
Um exemplo de como a censura pode ser importante, isso se a tratarmos mais no sentido de controle, especialmente de controle de danos, é se fosse adotada para coibir ou mesmo proibir o assentamento de pseudo ciências e pseudo filosofias na educação superior. Pois a perpetuação e a proliferação das mesmas usurpando o espaço das verdadeiras disciplinas, impondo suas sandices, até como políticas públicas, têm gerado consequências muito sérias à sociedade, tal como a hegemonia de pseudociências "do bem" (enviesadas ideologicamente à "esquerda') nas humanidades, artes e disciplinas adjacentes (como a biologia), que negam a existência de diferenças intrínsecas de comportamento e inteligência entre indivíduos e grupos humanos (ideologia do igualitarismo), resultando na adoção e na imposição de políticas injustas tratadas como "correção histórica", como o sistema de cotas raciais e sociais, como se apenas fatores circunstanciais e motivacionais que influenciassem no desempenho intelectual.
se circunstanciais e motivacionais que influenciassem no desempenho intelectual
Censorship is not necessarily a problem
It is almost certain that anyone who defends unrestricted freedom of expression and action would like to impose censorship on thoughts, ideas or groups they antagonize. They only defend this in theory...
The biggest problem is not censorship or censorship itself, if the term can easily be considered a synonym for control. The biggest problem is who, historically and habitually speaking, has taken power and used their position of dominance to censor. And also which groups, ideas, thoughts or truths have been censored. Because the ideal is for censorship to be practiced, but with consideration or rationality, a practice that has been absent throughout human history and even today.
Censorship, again, not only in terms of freedom of expression, but also of action.
An example of how censorship can be important, if we treat it more in the sense of control, especially damage control, is if it were adopted to curb or even prohibit the establishment of pseudosciences and pseudophilosophies in higher education. Because the perpetuation and proliferation of these same disciplines, usurping the space of true disciplines, imposing their nonsense, even as public policies, have generated very serious consequences for society, such as the hegemony of "good" pseudosciences (ideologically biased towards the "left") in the humanities, arts and adjacent disciplines (such as biology), which deny the existence of intrinsic differences in behavior and intelligence between individuals and human groups (ideology of egalitarianism), resulting in the adoption and imposition of unjust policies treated as "historical correction", such as the system of racial and social quotas,as if only circumstantial and motivational factors influenced intellectual performance.
It is almost certain that anyone who defends unrestricted freedom of expression and action would like to impose censorship on thoughts, ideas or groups they antagonize. They only defend this in theory...
The biggest problem is not censorship or censorship itself, if the term can easily be considered a synonym for control. The biggest problem is who, historically and habitually speaking, has taken power and used their position of dominance to censor. And also which groups, ideas, thoughts or truths have been censored. Because the ideal is for censorship to be practiced, but with consideration or rationality, a practice that has been absent throughout human history and even today.
Censorship, again, not only in terms of freedom of expression, but also of action.
An example of how censorship can be important, if we treat it more in the sense of control, especially damage control, is if it were adopted to curb or even prohibit the establishment of pseudosciences and pseudophilosophies in higher education. Because the perpetuation and proliferation of these same disciplines, usurping the space of true disciplines, imposing their nonsense, even as public policies, have generated very serious consequences for society, such as the hegemony of "good" pseudosciences (ideologically biased towards the "left") in the humanities, arts and adjacent disciplines (such as biology), which deny the existence of intrinsic differences in behavior and intelligence between individuals and human groups (ideology of egalitarianism), resulting in the adoption and imposition of unjust policies treated as "historical correction", such as the system of racial and social quotas,as if only circumstantial and motivational factors influenced intellectual performance.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário