Being Offended, Censoring and the "Think of the Children!" Attitude
Initially meant to write something else today, but the direction a thread on the MobyGames forums ended up taking made me think about these issues yet again and, considering how hard it is to get myself to write non-personal posts anyway, I couldn’t miss the opportunity. Seriously, why do people believe they’re entitled to special treatment if they’re offended by something, which only means they can neither control their reaction nor mentally block the issue that bothers them, or if they have children they want to impose their own views on by preventing them from being exposed to any opposing or otherwise inconvenient ones?
One problem here is that modern society selected certain issues that one is expected to be offended by, perhaps even pressured into it, which definitely leads to this sense of entitlement for those who actually have a negative reaction they’re unwilling or unable to control when exposed to them. Worse, these issues have not been selected in any rational manner, so completely natural and, if done right, beneficial things like sex and nudity are hidden away and seen as far more offensive than undeniably harmful behaviors like, for example, smoking. Not to mention that those who claim to enforce this state of affairs supposedly for the benefit of children choose to ignore the fact that anything becomes more interesting if it’s forbidden and children and teenagers experimenting on their own, be it with sex, alcohol, drugs or any other such things, in an environment that attempts to prevent them from accessing appropriate information and obtaining proper guidance only serves to increase the risks.
As such, I tend to reply to any so-called arguments from the “think of the children” series by saying that, oddly enough, I actually do. Those who don’t are specifically those making such accusations while in fact thinking mainly, if not solely, of themselves. They project their own discomfort and inability to deal with or even properly comprehend certain issues and views upon children who, in most cases, do not inherently have such limitations and have perhaps not yet been conditioned by society to develop them, they demand full support for their desire to enforce their views upon the potentially impressionable from everyone else, they shamelessly request that others make up for their lack of parenting skills, which would require them to be there and properly explain, in an age-appropriate manner, anything their children may experience or otherwise come into any sort of contact with, by blocking as many potential sources of information as possible, and then they still have the audacity to claim that those who try to break this vicious circle are the ones causing harm!
The best approach, whether we’re talking of children, teenagers or adults, would be to expose everyone to as many things as possible, as early as possible. It should obviously be done in a safe manner, alongside accurate and age-appropriate information presented in a manner that’s easy to understand, and in case of children and anyone else who’s not sufficiently developed mentally to take care of themselves, also under the supervision of responsible and knowledgeable adults, but everyone should go through this step and understand what something entails before deciding whether or not they want to continue exposing themselves to it, or what amount of exposure is appropriate for them. Obviously, this decision should be taken only by the person in question and can also be changed by them whenever they see fit, without society determining general censorship rules, though of course individual ones may be necessary on a case-by-case basis, if and when it can be proven that specific individuals cause harm to others as a result of such exposure.
The problem there is that, while people should be able to limit or completely prevent their exposure to certain issues, they will also need to understand that there’s no way for others to guarantee this. If we actually want to be fair for a change, the surroundings can’t conform to the will of anyone who has such a desire, if only because everyone is different and some may well have a far better claim than them anyway. For example, recovering addicts who fear a relapse and survivors of any sort of traumatic experience who can’t deal with being reminded of it have valid and serious reasons to want to avoid exposure to certain issues, far more so than, say, prudes who want to avoid sex, nudity or “bad” words, yet instead of accepting, as a society, that we can’t do this, that we can’t and shouldn’t block anything because some people, with or without a valid reason, don’t want to see or hear it, we just keep choosing to cater to a few while ignoring all the rest.
I mean, if we open that can of worms, why not also give diehard animal rights activists and vegans the right to avoid exposure to animal products or products tested on animals? Immigrants, to any nationalist propaganda? Nationalists, to anything positive about immigrants or other nationalities? Misogynists, to anything positive or empowering about women? Female supremacists, since the term feminist would be a bit misused for that breed, to anything positive or empowering about men? Traditionalists, to anything non-traditional, and there’s a lot that would fit under that description? Very strictly gay people, to any straight displays of affection? (What? Don’t think that some of them may be as bothered by those as certain people seem to be by theirs?) Fundamentalist members of any religion, to anything about any other religion? Diehard supporters of any political ideology, to anything about any other ideology contradicting theirs? Hell, if I’m infuriated by those who aggravate the world’s worst problem by having children and frightened by illness and medical stuff, why shouldn’t I be able to block anything related to that as well? And so on and so forth, taking into account each thing that any person, for whatever reason, may find offensive, inconvenient or, far more importantly, a trigger.
Well, unless every single person will end up living in their own personal and completely customized virtual reality, that’s perfectly impossible. As such, any censorship should be done individually, people wishing to reduce their exposure to one thing or another learning to avoid activities or locations that make such exposure likely and simply block, mentally, anything they won’t be able to avoid in such a manner, learning to deal with the situation without demanding that the environment and everyone else conform to their inability, be it justified or not, to properly control their reaction to something that, in the end, is simply information perceived through their senses in order to be processed by their brains.
