Political correctness – Page 2 – Harmonia Philosophica

Reverse censorship – The worst kind!

Most people are very active on fighting censorship. We do not like others to tell us what to say. And this is correct! Censorship is a medieval way of handling things. But most of the times we are so keen on banning censorship that we go to the other extreme: imposing our views even on people who do not agree with them. Imposing “non-censorship” can be a censorship on its own, if the person upon which the “non-censorship” is imposed actually WANTS to NOT talk about something or against it!

Two characteristic examples:

After seeing the graphic image of a homosexual act, Apple comic book app Comixology chose to ban the sale of this issue of the comic book Saga from iPhones and iPads. The controversial panel features a robot guy whose head is a TV screen and on that TV screen there is a drawing of gay sex. But since Apple isn’t usually in the habit of banning graphic violence or sexual material in its media, this definitely has raised more than a few eyebrows- and questions of homophobia! [1]
A New York state teacher is facing disciplinary action for assigning students to argue Jews were to blame for the problems of Nazi Germany. The Albany High School teacher asked students to assume they were convincing a Nazi official of their loyalty. A third of the students refused to complete the English class assignment. The school system’s superintendent says she believed that the teacher bore no ill intent but that the assignment should have been worded differently. [2]

In the era of “non censorship” you cannot hold any views against homosexuals or against Jews… You are “free” to think and write anything we want!

I dream of a world free. A world free of “freedom”…

Nobel prizes, literature, ideology, prejudice

Declassified documents of the Swedish Academy for Nobel nominations, show that the quality of ones work is not the sole criterion on which its members decide. During the analysis of the candidates for the year 1962, it is revealed that Graves was rejected (as Schueler revealed) because even though he had written several historical novels, he was still primarily seen as a poet. Blixen, author of Out of Africa, rendered herself ineligible by dying that September, and it was decided that “Durrell was not to be given preference this year” – probably because “they did not think that The Alexandria Quartet was enough, so they decided to keep him under observation for the future”. Also a candidate in 1961, Durrell had in the previous year been ruled out because he “gives a dubious aftertaste . because of [his] monomaniacal preoccupation with erotic complications”. Committee member Henry Olsson was also reluctant to award any Anglo-Saxon poet the prize before the death of Ezra Pound, believing that other writers did not match up to his mastery; but without wanting to give the prize to Pound since he dismissed him in response to his political stance (something which is just funny for Sweden, which cooperated excellently with Hitler for so many years…). It is not clear why Anouilh was passed over, but the French poet Saint-John Perse had taken the Nobel in 1960, meaning that France was well represented on the roster of winners.

Looks more like an episode from Dynasty huh?

Art is and should be a window to the soul (ars gratia animae). Not a place for political or personal disputes. And if an artist is better than the other, he should be awarded the first prize. His political thoughts have nothing to do with that. Artists were and still are people in the margin of society. Political correctness has no place in their world. And maybe that is why perhaps the best artists are those who deny any prizes at all (or those who do not hunt those prizes).

Not because they do “art for art”. But just because they do NOT CARE at all for what they do. They just do it.

And whetever comes directly from the soul is more likely to be true.

Against porn ban. Against political correctness.

UK ministers have rejected plans to automatically block internet access to pornography on all computers, saying the move is not widely supported. [1]

The legislation not passing now is purely coincidental. When they feel that enough voters support it, they will vote for it.

Our society accepts lousy aesthetic, movies with violence and drugs, the existence of sites where one can find out how to make bombs, scientists creating hybrids of humans and animals, research centers killing human embryos for research, people being left homeless, people starving next to people with billions, parents not caring for their children, people getting married for money et cetera…

But we cannot accept porn sites.

No. This is “too much” for our hypocritic “agenda”…