What pro-censorship people should explain themselves better, but that burden isn't on them. More than half the time they don't know why they support the argument on an intellectual level.
So why do I say the burden is not on them? Because that's how conservatism works. Back in the day people did think about things, argue things and decided this is what worked best, and if it did work out best such as how western civilization pulled the world into greatness advancing humanity by leaps and bounds then you MUST respect those people who built that civilization.
If you "think" or "feel" like something "should" be changed the burden is on the person who wants to change things to FIRST understand why those "people way back when" decided to implement the policies they did. Then discuss WHY you believe this change would benefit society. Then decide the exact parameters and how to implement said change.
People have failed to do this countless times often proposing radical changes which has crippled human progress in many ways, and has severely crippled civility.
I don't know where you're making the connection to conservatism (or other political stuff) out of nowhere, so I wont get into that.
You mention western civilization, I assume you're talking about the USA? If I'm mistaken please correct me. You say that I must respect the people who built that. I never said I didn't respect anyone, especially not mentioning the USA in regards to respect in any way. I said my respect would
grow more if the pro-censorship crowd basically just lived in peace, and let others live in peace, so everyone can win and get what they want. If we are talking about the USA, without getting into politics in any way, I would argue that USA was founded on the principles of freedom. Correct? Censorship seems to be the opposite of that and has constantly been used throughout pretty much all of known human history to silence and chain people and prevent freedom, regardless of any politics or any sides, censorship has been prevalent for a long time.
You say:
"What pro-censorship people should explain themselves better, but that burden isn't on them. More than half the time they don't know why they support the argument on an intellectual level."
If the burden isn't on them,
then who may I ask, is the burden upon?
If censorship is something that the the pro-censorship people want, then I would argue the burden is actually on them to convince everyone to willingly adopt that way of doing things, but as you say, more than half the time they don't know why they support it. I have also noticed that in many cases, because there really isn't much of a good argument towards it.
So then why should anyone accept it, especially since it diminishes artwork, movies, video games, books, and essentially all forms of art and expression?
I also say that the burden is on them because since they can not convince people to willingly give up their freedoms, they seem to often take it upon themselves to intentionally carry that burden and resort to simply forcing people to just take the censorship, like when you watch a movie or a game, and it's already been censored and there is no option to change a setting and experience it without censorship.
You go on to say:
"If you "think" or "feel" like something "should" be changed the burden is on the person who wants to change things to FIRST understand why those "people way back when" decided to implement the policies they did. Then discuss WHY you believe this change would benefit society. Then decide the exact parameters and how to implement said change.
People have failed to do this countless times often proposing radical changes which has crippled human progress in many ways, and has severely crippled civility."
I feel like this proves my point here. If people
Must understand something, then others
Must be willing to explain their reasoning, but no explanation is being presented, so how can anyone understand? Can silence, the thing being promoted even be understood? At which point I wonder, will we accept artists submitting blank and empty canvasses to art galleries full of other equally blank canvasses? If the pro-censorship people feel like things should be censored, the burden is on them, for wanting to change the world to be censored to their tastes. Unfortunately they do not seem to want to have any kind of discussion, they simply want the censorship, and they want the censorship right now, and they want it for everyone, whether anyone wants it or not. They do not care about the people, and they do not care about the art, which they are clearly more than willing to tarnish and dilute and diminish for the sake of their rather selfish goals.
Censorship in this case, is the very thing being- not proposed, but rather forced upon, and crippling everyone.
Nobody ever asked me if I would like to be censored or not. Nobody ever gave me a choice. One day I woke up, and there were people already there, who had already taken the choice away from me and everyone else without our consent. Is art even art if it is censored?