NationStates Jolt Archive

The government started banning books (I.E. 1984), movies (I.E. V for Vendetta), and bands (I.E. System of a Down) because they "Promoted terrorist actions and disunity amongst the American people."? What would you do? What do you think the population would do?

I think you're getting paranoid.

Those sorts of bans are worse than useless because they bring prominence to the very thing you're trying to ban. It would be the worst thing the government could do. They're much more effective at controlling us the way they do now--keeping us so occupied with mindless entertainment that we don't notice them robbing us blind and wrecking the nation.

The popularity of such media would go through the roof

I agree with Ruffy. I don't think even the current Supreme Court would stand for something like that.

Regardless of the paranoid calls for revolution I've seen on this forum I reckon they'd accept it. They'd do nothing.

Bans should be able to be purchased by bands/movie producers/anyone else from the appropriate authority so they can wank over getting banned.

I think you're getting paranoid.

http://209.85.48.12/3578/154/emo/iamwithstupid.gif

To actually ban anything these days you'd have to censor the internet (no more NS!) and I'm sure loads of people would protest that.

The government started banning books (I.E. 1984), movies (I.E. V for Vendetta), and bands (I.E. System of a Down) because they "Promoted terrorist actions and disunity amongst the American people."? What would you do? What do you think the population would do?

It'll never happen. Why not? Because everything you listed is part of the way the PTB control you. Perhaps they might, just to increase the popularity, thus spreading the mind-control program even farther.

I would be the full support of the banning of SOAD 2 new albums *misses old days when they weren’t some teen pop group*

And too be honest I probably wouldn’t do anything I really can’t be arsed these days:(

The government started banning books (I.E. 1984), movies (I.E. V for Vendetta), and bands (I.E. System of a Down) because they "Promoted terrorist actions and disunity amongst the American people."? What would you do? What do you think the population would do?

I would protest most vociferously! And the "population" would too, with higher praticipation among the better educated and veterans.

I might be making a run at getting back to my roots if this is the case; going to Switzerland!

The government started banning books (I.E. 1984), movies (I.E. V for Vendetta), and bands (I.E. System of a Down) because they "Promoted terrorist actions and disunity amongst the American people."? What would you do? What do you think the population would do?

Become criminals, because they'd all start downloading bootlegs off the internet. You know, just like they did during Prohibition (which gave us the term "bootleg" ;)).

Bans should be able to be purchased by bands/movie producers/anyone else from the appropriate authority so they can wank over getting banned.

yes, it would be a multi million dollar industry of getting people to ba your work.

*starts marketing*

I would protest most vociferously! And the "population" would too, with higher praticipation among the better educated and veterans.
Hehehe :D

I know, just a typo, but it's still amusing ;)

If it happened over here I'd get quite upset, although I don't know what I'd actually do. If it happened over there I'd giggle about it until Princess Tony followed suit.

For most of the population, a ban would simply fail. The proliferation of media production technology dooms any attempt to stem the tide of digital information from the start. Such a ban would see violent opposition from the extremes of the right and left(Michigan Militia types having standoffs in the woods, Universities with marchers in the streets) but the vast majority of society would simply ignore the bans.

Beyond the simple enforcement problem, there would be a problem of logistics. System of a Down is a highly political band, but they're pretty tame next to a group like Enslaved. Actually enunciating a ban would be close to impossible because there is so much media produced. Governments already encounter this problem with drug prohibitions and chemists who are creating new compounds(many of which differ almost imperceptably from illegal compounds) faster than the FDA can keep up; and there are far more artists in the world than there are chemists.

In order for such a ban to actually work(and not just raise the general level of discontent) there would have to be a massive campaign to restrict computer access, data flow, and digital copying technology. A successful campaign would require severe restrictions on the internet, confiscation of property, and a general reduction of goods and services available on the open market. It is that kind of campaign that would likely see widespread resistance.

I would be the full support of the banning of SOAD 2 new albums *misses old days when they weren’t some teen pop group*

*Tries to remember when they weren't highly produced, highly compressed, highly polished pop-metal*

C'mon man, dump the elitist "I listened to them way back when" schtick. Its a shitty fan that begrudges a group's ability to make a living. Especially when the only major changes to the music are an increased sophistication in the writing process, stronger traditional influences, and decent studio engineering.

The government started banning books (I.E. 1984), movies (I.E. V for Vendetta), and bands (I.E. System of a Down) because they "Promoted terrorist actions and disunity amongst the American people."? What would you do? What do you think the population would do?

Me? Revolt. The population? Lick their masters hand like a good little doggy.

The government started banning books (I.E. 1984), movies (I.E. V for Vendetta), and bands (I.E. System of a Down) because they "Promoted terrorist actions and disunity amongst the American people."? What would you do? What do you think the population would do?

you would see an increase in black market and bootlegged products.

I'd move to Israel, renounce American citizenship, and use the Internet to pour subversive propaganda into the US.

The population? Restricting the Internet would be extraordinarily difficult, as everything subversive would simply be hosted abroad. A lot of Americans would move to Canada, while hardcore leftists would begin launching guerilla attacks. Some of these would be justifiable moves against specific elements of the government. Others would be terrorist attacks against the American populace. The government would then exploit these to justify further limits on our civil liberties, until the final move was made to form a dictatorship...

And that would be the signal for the Second Civil War. I would be very thankful that I left early, because it would not be pretty.

Thats not going to happen, but if it did I'd expect banned books/movies/music to become enormously popular...

The government started banning books (I.E. 1984), movies (I.E. V for Vendetta), and bands (I.E. System of a Down) because they "Promoted terrorist actions and disunity amongst the American people."? What would you do? What do you think the population would do?
The Government would be so kind as to ban System of a Down? God bless America! :p

Oh, and, "ie" means "in other words". You should use "eg" ("for example") instead.

The government started banning books (I.E. 1984), movies (I.E. V for Vendetta), and bands (I.E. System of a Down) because they "Promoted terrorist actions and disunity amongst the American people."? What would you do? What do you think the population would do?

I would either start a revolution (a non-violent one hopefully), or flee to Canada.

The population? Restricting the Internet would be extraordinarily difficult, as everything subversive would simply be hosted abroad. A lot of Americans would move to Canada, while hardcore leftists would begin launching guerilla attacks. Some of these would be justifiable moves against specific elements of the government. Others would be terrorist attacks against the American populace. The government would then exploit these to justify further limits on our civil liberties, until the final move was made to form a dictatorship...


I'm not sure you have as strong a grasp on American politics as you believe you do. Censorship is not a "conservative" issue, it is a populist issue. There are large groups of people, both liberal and conservative, who would welcome censorship. Resistance wouldn't be an issue of party politics so much as an issue of individual/social orientation. Those who would resist the kinds of programs we are talking about would be liberals and conservatives who were more interested in the idea of individual freedom than in social good(which is always the argument behind censorship).

I would either start a revolution (a non-violent one hopefully), or flee to Canada.

......?

Nonviolence is only a useful tool if you have plenty of time and very little power.

......?

Nonviolence is only a useful tool if you have plenty of time and very little power.

Have you heard of Mohandas K. Gandhi?

Have you heard of Mohandas K. Gandhi?

Well, it did take him decades...

Well, it did take him decades...

Indeed, but he didn't have to intentionally hurt someone to do it.

Indeed, but he didn't have to intentionally hurt someone to do it.

I know, but what you're saying doesn't disprove JesusChristLooksLikeMe's argument:

......?

Nonviolence is only a useful tool if you have plenty of time and very little power.

Indeed, but he didn't have to intentionally hurt someone to do it.

And the upside of that is what, exactly? Tens of millions of his people are oppressed and abused for decades just so the oppressors don't get hurt? Sorry, I've never seen a tyrant I wouldn't rather see dead than alive.

I know, but what you're saying doesn't disprove JesusChristLooksLikeMe's argument:

Ohh... I kinda thought he was implying that it is not a very useful tactic...

And the upside of that is what, exactly? Tens of millions of his people are oppressed and abused for decades just so the oppressors don't get hurt? Sorry, I've never seen a tyrant I wouldn't rather see dead than alive.

The upside is the British soldiers who were just doing their jobs were not hurt, and that the Indians actually gained independence, instead of an insurgency.

Ohh... I kinda thought he was implying that it is not a very useful tactic...

I understand how nonviolence can be useful, but I feel that it is a last resort, something to be fallen back on if you do not have the power to overthrow the government. I feel that the only reasons you would turn to nonviolence when you a more immediate solution at hand are either cowardice or a strain of passivism that borders on mental illness.

I'd move to Israel, renounce American citizenship, and use the Internet to pour subversive propaganda into the US.

The population? Restricting the Internet would be extraordinarily difficult, as everything subversive would simply be hosted abroad. A lot of Americans would move to Canada, while hardcore leftists would begin launching guerilla attacks. Some of these would be justifiable moves against specific elements of the government. Others would be terrorist attacks against the American populace. The government would then exploit these to justify further limits on our civil liberties, until the final move was made to form a dictatorship...

And that would be the signal for the Second Civil War. I would be very thankful that I left early, because it would not be pretty.



W00t! second civil war, I'm already a veteran of that war...its been secretly going on now for a few years already, with limited action, but its there, Its going to surface into the light in and around 2008

I understand how nonviolence can be useful, but I feel that it is a last resort, something to be fallen back on if you do not have the power to overthrow the government. I feel that the only reasons you would turn to nonviolence when you a more immediate solution at hand are either cowardice or a strain of passivism that borders on mental illness.

Yup, Passivism can work, but imagen what a jewish protest in nazi germany would like? or a capitalist protest in Communist China. Teinamin Sqaure. In allot of places, nonviolent resistance will get you killed faster then violent defense. Depending on the situation Violence has to happen.

And the upside of that is what, exactly? Tens of millions of his people are oppressed and abused for decades just so the oppressors don't get hurt? Sorry, I've never seen a tyrant I wouldn't rather see dead than alive.

I guess that must be the difference in us. I would never wish death upon anyone or hurt them willingly.

The upside is the British soldiers who were just doing their jobs were not hurt, and that the Indians actually gained independence, instead of an insurgency.

Thats...disgusting. Think carefully about what you're saying. You are stating that the lives of individuals who accepted a job whose discription is to oppress your people are of greater value than the lives of your people. Sure, the Indians eventually gained independence, but along the way they suffered under decades of more abuse then they would have had they simply risen up. Worse, the Indians gained their independence on British terms, begging for their sovereignty like mendicants rather than claiming it.

I guess that must be the difference in us. I would never wish death upon anyone or hurt them willingly.

In a world of good men, I would find that noble. Considering the state of the world today, I just see such as sentiment as hopelessly naive. There is a fundamental difference between defending yourself and "wish[ing] death upon anyone or hurt[ing] them willingly." I don't relish the idea of violence, but if someone harms me or threatens my family I have no moral problem turning such aggression back upon them.

The government started banning books (I.E. 1984), movies (I.E. V for Vendetta), and bands (I.E. System of a Down) because they "Promoted terrorist actions and disunity amongst the American people."? What would you do? What do you think the population would do?

I'd support System of a Down and V for Vendetta from getting banned. Not because of their silly messages but because their piss poor quality.

Actually, the Wachowski Bros. or however you spell their names should be sent to Guantanamo because of Matrix: Revolutions *gag*

Thats...disgusting. Think carefully about what you're saying. You are stating that the lives of individuals who accepted a job whose discription is to oppress your people are of greater value than the lives of your people. Sure, the Indians eventually gained independence, but along the way they suffered under decades of more abuse then they would have had they simply risen up. Worse, the Indians gained their independence on British terms, begging for their sovereignty like mendicants rather than claiming it.

The Indians would have been slaughtered if they started harming British troops. They probably would have gotten their independence in the end, but i doubt any sooner than they did through peaceful means.

an uprising through peace shows courage, creativity and is to be admired. The problem is if it was Nazis they were dealing with, they would just be systematically executed one by one. The British were actually more "civil" than other possible imperialists.

The Indians would have been slaughtered if they started harming British troops. They probably would have gotten their independence in the end, but i doubt any sooner than they did through peaceful means.

an uprising through peace shows courage, creativity and is to be admired. The problem is if it was Nazis they were dealing with, they would just be systematically executed one by one. The British were actually more "civil" than other possible imperialists.

I'm not so sure the Indians would have been slaughtered. The Americans acheived the same goal with fewer people and resources. Were it not for shittly leadership the Indians would have kicked the British out in 1857. The Indian people were geographically distant from England, far superior in numbers, knowledgable of the terrain, and equipped with fairly modern technology. By the late 19th century/early 20th century(when Ghandi first started his campaigns) many Indians had formal military training and experiance and a good number had even served in WWI. Beyond training, the Indian people had four major opportunities in the early 20th century to revolt when England would have had little power to deal with it(during each world war and during the weak periods that followed). England would have faced major supply problems, and would have had great trouble replacing lost troops.

I'm not sure why you bring up the Nazis, seeing as how they were completely uninvolved Indian independence and were such a short-lived regieme that they managed little imperialist activity. The Nazis were assholes, not Gods, and I'm not quite sure how they would manage to systematically execute an armed and organized resistance of superior number on foriegn soil. They couldn't even manage to stop out the French insurgency. The ONLY reason the Nazis were able to attack the Jews was that the Jews were a small minority group who was attacked in small steps through the power of law. The final solution didn't actually kick into full gear until the Jews had been completely disarmed, socially and financially destroyed, fully isolated, and vilified by the populace. In short, the Germans picked a weak target, then systematically weakened it further until they could manage to play the all-powerful bully.

Still, to answer what might have been your point, the only difference between a rebellion against the Nazis and a rebellion against the British would be the aftermath in the even of an Indian loss, and even them I'm not entirely certain the responses would be so different. Colonial England was a pretty savage master.

Those sorts of bans are worse than useless because they bring prominence to the very thing you're trying to ban. It would be the worst thing the government could do. They're much more effective at controlling us the way they do now--keeping us so occupied with mindless entertainment that we don't notice them robbing us blind and wrecking the nation.

I'm in agreement with you on this one. How odd. :p

I'm not so sure the Indians would have been slaughtered. The Americans acheived the same goal with fewer people and resources. Were it not for shittly leadership the Indians would have kicked the British out in 1857. The Indian people were geographically distant from England, far superior in numbers, knowledgable of the terrain, and equipped with fairly modern technology. By the late 19th century/early 20th century(when Ghandi first started his campaigns) many Indians had formal military training and experiance and a good number had even served in WWI. Beyond training, the Indian people had four major opportunities in the early 20th century to revolt when England would have had little power to deal with it(during each world war and during the weak periods that followed). England would have faced major supply problems, and would have had great trouble replacing lost troops.

I'm not sure why you bring up the Nazis, seeing as how they were completely uninvolved Indian independence and were such a short-lived regieme that they managed little imperialist activity. The Nazis were assholes, not Gods, and I'm not quite sure how they would manage to systematically execute an armed and organized resistance of superior number on foriegn soil. They couldn't even manage to stop out the French insurgency. The ONLY reason the Nazis were able to attack the Jews was that the Jews were a small minority group who was attacked in small steps through the power of law. The final solution didn't actually kick into full gear until the Jews had been completely disarmed, socially and financially destroyed, fully isolated, and vilified by the populace. In short, the Germans picked a weak target, then systematically weakened it further until they could manage to play the all-powerful bully.

Still, to answer what might have been your point, the only difference between a rebellion against the Nazis and a rebellion against the British would be the aftermath in the even of an Indian loss, and even them I'm not entirely certain the responses would be so different. Colonial England was a pretty savage master.

I am not an expert on the subject so I will press the issue much further but I do remember reading that the Indian army was actually loyal to the Queen. Brainwashed, indoctrinated, whatever phrase you may want to use to explain this, but the Indian army seemed like it would turn against its own people. Or at least most of them would have.

and I brought up the Nazis because I was thinking out loud, so to speak. It really was off topic, I just remembered a discussion I had with someone about whether the peaceful protests actually would have worked against the Nazis who really were more ruthless than the British. Where a British soldier may bash the head of an Indian who sits down and refuses to work or take orders, a Nazi soldier would put a bullet in his head and continue down the line. Even if it meant a line of a thousand dead indians and a depleted workforce.

again though, I was off topic.

I am not an expert on the subject so I will press the issue much further but I do remember reading that the Indian army was actually loyal to the Queen. Brainwashed, indoctrinated, whatever phrase you may want to use to explain this, but the Indian army seemed like it would turn against its own people. Or at least most of them would have.

and I brought up the Nazis because I was thinking out loud, so to speak. It really was off topic, I just remembered a discussion I had with someone about whether the peaceful protests actually would have worked against the Nazis who really were more ruthless than the British. Where a British soldier may bash the head of an Indian who sits down and refuses to work or take orders, a Nazi soldier would put a bullet in his head and continue down the line. Even if it meant a line of a thousand dead indians and a depleted workforce.

again though, I was off topic.

british army has killed more people and invaded more countries than the nazi's ever did. the nazi's just did alot in a short amount of time.

also i would like to to answer the topic question.
they already have started banning books that may promote terrorism or whatever bad things. the country that holds the record of having the most books from that country banned in other countries, is ireland.
also european books have been altered to suit the american public, like animal farm.

Those sorts of bans are worse than useless because they bring prominence to the very thing you're trying to ban. It would be the worst thing the government could do. They're much more effective at controlling us the way they do now--keeping us so occupied with mindless entertainment that we don't notice them robbing us blind and wrecking the nation.

I guess they don't teach much Roman History in the States? I mean, the 'bread-and-circuses' aspect to the method of control in play is as plain as Dubya's ears (and has been for years) - but why am I left wondering...?

british army has killed more people and invaded more countries than the nazi's ever did. the nazi's just did alot in a short amount of time.


ok let me be clear, the British Empire was not a gentle giant! Hell, the majority of their navy was made up of people forced to enlist and were repeatedly flogged to keep the "discipline". An army of slaves.

But the Nazis, like you said, did quite a bit in the short amount of time they had. Imagine if they lasted... *shudders*

The government started banning books (I.E. 1984),

They didn't ban books in 1984. The government provided "acceptable" ones. They banned them in Fahrenheit 451.

If the government started that type censorship, I'd be in a lot of trouble. I suffer from a complete inability to keep my mouth shut. My father once told me that if I'd been born in Cuba, I'd have been shot by time I was five.

I am not an expert on the subject so I will press the issue much further but I do remember reading that the Indian army was actually loyal to the Queen. Brainwashed, indoctrinated, whatever phrase you may want to use to explain this, but the Indian army seemed like it would turn against its own people. Or at least most of them would have.


The Indian army was only so loyal. It is important to note that the Indian army refused, despite being ordered, to fight in WWII. Indeed, there was even one group of fighters who fought with the help of Japan. The Quit India movement sent a direct message that revolution was on the table, and despite Ghandi's calls for non-violence, there were bombings, arson, and other attacks on government and infrastructure. Had Ghandi called for rebellion, it wouldn't have been hard to have taken India when the British lacked the troops and the resources to defend.

If the government started that type censorship, I'd be in a lot of trouble. I suffer from a complete inability to keep my mouth shut. My father once told me that if I'd been born in Cuba, I'd have been shot by time I was five.

I'd totally pay to see a 5 year old shoot Castro...

The government started banning books (I.E. 1984), movies (I.E. V for Vendetta), and bands (I.E. System of a Down) because they "Promoted terrorist actions and disunity amongst the American people."? What would you do? What do you think the population would do?

Is that Molotov cocktail I smell?

The Nazis didn't kill so many because they didn't get very far. The Nazi party was in power for all of 12 years (1933-45). But they killed millions in that short time, and would have killed more if they had the chance.

The Indian army was only so loyal. It is important to note that the Indian army refused, despite being ordered, to fight in WWII. Indeed, there was even one group of fighters who fought with the help of Japan. The Quit India movement sent a direct message that revolution was on the table, and despite Ghandi's calls for non-violence, there were bombings, arson, and other attacks on government and infrastructure. Had Ghandi called for rebellion, it wouldn't have been hard to have taken India when the British lacked the troops and the resources to defend.

Gandhi was already leading the peaceful revolution before WWII. Several years before WWII started, an act was passed by Parliament that gave India its own government. Basically, India was already well on its way to becoming independent before WWII. And Britain committed India's troops to WWII without consulting the new government.

Gandhi was already leading the peaceful revolution before WWII. Several years before WWII started, an act was passed by Parliament that gave India its own government. Basically, India was already well on its way to becoming independent before WWII. And Britain committed India's troops to WWII without consulting the new government.

I'm aware of the context. My post was mainly a rebuttal to the claim that the Indian army was so loyal to the crown that it would turn against the Indian people. The violent side of Quit India(and other major Indian protests of the time), the mutiny of the Indian army, and the attempts by at least one faction within the army to ally with Japan shows(to me at least) that there was great internal support for revolution and an army more concerned with Indian soveriegnty than the Crown's orders.