<div class="header-image"></div> <table class="table-header"> <thead> <tr> <th colspan="2"></th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>2024-08-25</td> <td style="text-align: right;"><a href="About.md" class="internal-link">About</a></td> </tr> </tbody> </table> # Debate is a Luxury of the Past  When I was an adolescent, I loved music that was loud and abrasive. And I loved that my parents hated it. It was shocking to them. They didn't "get it" and that made me feel like I had something of my own, that I could identify with. It was a part of *me*. I came of age during the Satanic Panic. I've written about this, and [other panics,](../Blog/2024-05-26%20The%20Cycles%20of%20Censorship%20in%20Comics.md) briefly before. Tipper Gore was warning parents all over North America about the dangers of Heavy Metal music.  The Satanic Panic was large, fierce, and incredibly brief. It really wasn't long before the Satanism scare was seen as it truly was: silly adults in costume playing theatre, and harmless fun. After the ridiculousness of that particular panic came an unprecedented time of shock entertainment. We had 90s era Howard Stern on the radio, industrial music, a resurgent drug culture, and amalgamation of sex and feminism. Tattoos and body-piercings became prominent. It was a time of experimentation in art and culture that had been missing for almost 2 decades. I feel immense gratitude for having grown up in this period, the last truly free time so far in our history. It was during this time in the mid-90s, that I was watching a Marilyn Manson video and wondered what would shock me when I got to be in my 40s. I was thinking along the lines of how Elvis Presley, "Elvis the Pelvis" as he was called, was so shocking to the older generations of his time, back in the 50s and early 60s, and how that grew to psychedelic rock 10 years later, to Black Sabbath and Ozzy after that and finally Marilyn Manson and others. Each time was more shocking than the next, as it needed to be. What is rock 'n' roll, after all, if not scary and dangerous to older generations? What will come next? What can possibly shock me?  Well, I didn't get exactly what I wanted, but it *was* shocking. I wanted more shocking art. I wanted music that sickened me. I wanted to experience thinking it had all gone too far. And while music and movies have only gotten unbearably bland, the shocking part is that left wing movements made it so, in wanting to censor language and nudity, and it's the right who wants to bring back freedom of speech and expression. [The *left* is now censoring movies and other media](2024-06-12%20VHS%20Directors%20Cuts%20and%20Digital%20Fig%20Leaves.md), and it's the "MAGA chuds" who are advocating for civil liberties and keeping personal libraries of physical media to preserve art as it was intended to be seen. I always assumed that, having witnessed these movements as a child, that the battle was obviously done. We wouldn't have need to revisit these subjects because we've already, as a society, learned the lesson. The lesson, at least I thought, was that while you can warn about content before people see it, banning words and images has no place in civilised society, so long as no one is harmed in the creation of said content.[^1] The choice of whether or not to view content should always be left to the individual. This freedom to choose is paramount, and without it, society cannot be considered open and free. [^1]: The word "harmed" here has only the meaning of physical harm, or involuntary subjection to criminal activity. For example, legal adults signing a contract to knowingly have sex on screen is not physical harm. Filming someone who is being forced to do anything, without first giving permission (as being part of a script, for example) can be construed as harm. The real lesson, though, is that these freedoms are never "won." They are only preserved. Each generation has a responsibility to protect these rights and freedoms from those who would take them away. This goes beyond the simple debates of "should intelligent design be taught in schools," for example. Debates like that should be expected. They're healthy, even. They contrast different viewpoints of the society in which we all live, and it's good to present a *fair* description of the evidence to create arguments for and against. Obviously, in this case, it's primarily a religious argument, and whether or not we want religion to be taught as fact in schools. When these arguments were fashionable online, I don't remember there being a huge emphasis on who was making the argument, or whether it was moral to even *have* the discussion. The strength of the argument itself was the important thing, and it went *without saying* that the freedom to have the discussion was even more important than the discussion itself. What's *dangerous* is presenting those with an opposing view as "evil." It's an ad-hominem attack that only elevates the *opposing* viewpoint, in my opinion. But this seems to be the way of the world today. No one wants to debate topics any more. Not only is the opposing view abhorrent, it has become an excuse to avoid having the argument at all. All anyone wants to do is yell and scream and bully everyone into agreement and conformity. The discussion *itself* has become immoral. Take the issue of abortion: the extreme of one side of the argument is that life begins at conception, and the moment the tail of a sperm disappears into an embryo, new life is created and removing it is now murderous. The other extreme is that abortion should be permitted up to the moment of birth.  Clearly, neither of these two options are the right answer, but neither are they the *only* two options. Words have meaning, and we have definitions for the word murder, and for human being. Murder is the unjustifiable killing of another human being. What exactly defines a human being is more difficult. But clearly at the moment when a sperm disappears inside an embryo, before new DNA is even created (the sperm hasn't yet been dissolved), no new life is yet created, and certainly that wouldn't meet any threshold for the definition of a human being. The argument, therefore, should not be whether abortion is legal, it should be "at what point during a pregnancy does a fetus meet the definition of a human being?" And *that* debate needs to be had continually. As long as there is advancements in the understanding of human biology and physiology, this debate is essential to revisit. Because getting it wrong can *very well* meet the definition of murder. But no one wants debate. Nobody wants to listen to anyone else's point of view. In the case of abortion, the numerous special interest groups fighting for women's right to choose, for rights of the unborn, religious rights, states' rights, etc. are far more interested in painting anyone with an opposing viewpoint as morally repugnant than actually convincing anyone that their side of the argument has merit. People would rather castigate anyone who sees things differently as an enemy to be defeated in whatever way available, including harassment of family and employers. And there *is* a debate to be had about the content we want to have in art, as well as television ads and billboards, movies and shows. We have to face up to the fact that the proliferation of certain types of images and tone in media *does* have some effect on the culture. We can't ignore the fact that the [Paris Hilton phenomenon](../Blog/2024-07-02%20AdBusters,%20Occupy%20Wall%20Street,%20and%20the%20Great%20Culture%20War%20Swindle.md#^ParisHilton) did have negative consequences on how teenage girls saw themselves, to the point where many were wearing too much makeup, not enough clothing, and even getting breast implants for their birthdays. Instagram has ushered in a rash of depression and suicide in the same demographic. It would behoove us to have some study in how much of this is a result of images shown in public spaces. After all, if this is harmful:  then surely this is too:  But again, we can't have the debate. As soon as anyone would bring up opposing arguments with examples of the opposite end of the spectrum, the yelling would begin and debate would end. No one wants to have this conversation. No one wants to admit that, perhaps, there might be a valid point or two in the argument opposing their own. Personally, I would never want to ban any media made by consenting adults. I can, however, also admit that children viewing some material, or an excess of some material, could cause some harm. Children need to have their innocence preserved, and some material should not be shown freely in public. Adults, however, should always have the freedom of choice, both in consuming, and producing, content. It is the cornerstone of a free society. The only debate should be things like the age of consent, at what age does one become an adult, and how do we go about ensuring that only adults view adult content? What should the punishment be for allowing children access to adult content? What exactly should constitute "adult content" anyway? Should parents be permitted to show their kids content that other parents might object to? I can certainly remember, being a child of the 70s, seeing [movies in the theatre, with a PG rating, that did have some nudity](2024-06-12%20VHS%20Directors%20Cuts%20and%20Digital%20Fig%20Leaves.md#^splash), and I don't think it did me any harm whatsoever. And if I can't object to this, what right do I have to prohibit something like "Drag Queen Story Hour," for example? At the same time, however, I can also admit that I might be wrong. I will always fight against censorship, but if some people want the debate as to whether there *should* be some censorship, I will also fight for their right to have that debate. We should always be willing to at least entertain other perspectives, to acknowledge they exist, even if we would never agree with them. Yes, even perspectives we do find abhorrent.  And if the debate itself is too upsetting, every individual, of course, has the right to abstain from having it, or witnessing it. What we shouldn't have the right to do is make that choice for any other adult. Here is the issue: the points of view I'm giving in this piece would have me absolutely *crucified* by both the right and left sides of the cultural spectrum (I'm not even going to call it political). If I was to write this without any anonymity, I would have my family and employer harassed. I might have a swatting attempt on me. Perhaps having such a low profile might save me, but what if, as sometimes happens, one of my posts goes viral for some reason? The world is moving past its ability to have reasonable discussion. It's leaving people like me behind, and I've made my peace with that. The further this goes on (meaning mobs on social media, mostly, but also as these mobs bleed out onto the streets), the more I believe that there is not much left to fight for. Humanity is ugly. And I feel more and more that it's just best to step back, and allow it to devolve into madness. Civility is over. Let's just watch it disintegrate.