Venezuela, Marijuana and Family Guy

[Revy]

FOR ALL THOSE NEW TO THE THREAD, PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NO RELIABLE EVIDENCE THAT FAMILY GUY HAS ACTUALLY BEEN BANNED IN VENEZUELA. PEACE OUT Y'ALL- RP

Link to BBC article with allegations. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8277129.stm)
smells like bullshit....more proof is needed.

I was able to find this (http://www.aporrea.org/tiburon/a87046.html)on Aporrea (in Spanish)

[JJM 777]

also that the show was replaced by Baywatch (really?)
Yes that sounds catastrophic. :blink:

[9]

Why bother anymore?

Don't.

[Q]

No Family Guy, no socialism!

Seriously though, this is quite stupid.

[NecroCommie]

I hope venezuelan pirates are doing a good job replacing this hole in their TV program. :rolleyes:

[Pirate Utopian]

Banning it for marijuana promotion is crazy.

They should ban it because it sucks so much.

[Dimentio]

Is it the Venezuelan government or the Venezuelan public broadcasting corporation which are responsible for this?

[bricolage]

This is very strange.

[Manifesto]

Banning it for marijuana promotion is crazy.

They should ban it because it sucks so much.
Family Guy is one of the best shows how could you hate it?

[Revy]

Is it the Venezuelan government or the Venezuelan public broadcasting corporation which are responsible for this?

The government. The article didn't say what Chavez thought, just the Minister of Interior & Justice.....

How can Venezuela, which declares itself as having an ongoing socialist revolution, be lagging behind in what is described as a "wave of decriminalization (http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/kristin-bricker/2009/09/argentina-legalizes-personal-marijuana-use)" in Latin America? All the other governments on Venezuela's side, like Bolivia, or Ecuador, have taken steps to reform the drug policy.

[Black&Red]

Is it the Venezuelan government or the Venezuelan public broadcasting corporation which are responsible for this?

It's the Venezuelan government.

First of all, it's important to remember that western medias hate Chavez. So of course they're going to report idiotic and ridiculous news.

Second, everyone should know that Chavez, though politically in the right direction, is morally and culturally on a bad road, he is very christian and has spent way to much time with Ahmadinenejad who is a religious dick head (he has forbidden all importation of foreign music in his country, because of the bad influence is has on his people). So you can see where Tarek al-Assaimi gets his influence from. Chavez needed to hire him to make good figure in front of Iran who is one of its allies.

So basically, always doubt someone religious, especially when they're in power.

[KarlMarx1989]

Venezuela bans Family Guy.

...and?

I am going to go ahead and use this quote, here:

Fuck the goddamned TV and the radio and fuck making hits, I'm taking credit for the death toll

Banning it for marijuana promotion is crazy.
I agree. They should just ban the episode, rather than the whole series. FOX did that, here in the US, with the episode When You Wish Upon a Wienstien.

he is very christian
This has been well known by me for a long time, now; since he came to power. That, I think, is the only reason he may be making Venezuela Socialist eventually; because Biblia Sacra promotes that kind of society. However, He would be just another Hitler for that very book actually teaches that all systems will go corrupt so one must wait for the second coming of their messiah.

[Random Precision]

Doesn't look like they're doing anything of the sort from reading the article. It says that a Venezuelan minister presented an episode of Family Guy at the beginning of a talk on the influence of drugs and thus the movement to legalize marijuana in the US. I'm translating it right now, will post when complete.

[Manifesto]

I agree. They should just ban the episode, rather than the whole series. FOX did that, here in the US, with the episode When You Wish Upon a Wienstien.

Adult Swim ended up showing that one once and FOX also banned an abortion episode.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Venezuela bans Family Guy.

...and?

I am going to go ahead and use this quote, here:


I agree. They should just ban the episode, rather than the whole series. FOX did that, here in the US, with the episode When You Wish Upon a Wienstien.

This has been well known by me for a long time, now; since he came to power. That, I think, is the only reason he may be making Venezuela Socialist eventually; because Biblia Sacra promotes that kind of society. However, He would be just another Hitler for that very book actually teaches that all systems will go corrupt so one must wait for the second coming of their messiah.
Just another Hitler? Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up this claim? You think Chávez can be compared to Hitler just for banning one stupid TV show? Even though he consistently promotes real socialism, democracy, internationalism, and solidarity?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Where's Sam B to comment on this?

[Holden Caulfield]

This has been well known by me for a long time, now; since he came to power. That, I think, is the only reason he may be making Venezuela Socialist eventually; because Biblia Sacra promotes that kind of society. However, He would be just another Hitler for that very book actually teaches that all systems will go corrupt so one must wait for the second coming of their messiah.


We all love you, we are all here to learn.
Now I've got that out of the way, you are talking out of your arse mate. Please don't try to make arguments based on nothing at all, this isn't Stormfront. Also the Bible sasaxsccscsfsf or whatever is not the important thing when talking about Chavez, the state or anything, Economics is.

Economic system comes first in everything, religion, ideas, etc etc is secondry. If I had ever been a goth, or arsed enough to read religious texts I could point on why it teaches what it does.

[redasheville]

Banning it for marijuana promotion is crazy.

They should ban it because it sucks so much.

I just think that the above quote needed to be restated. When workers' councils form in the US, I'm going to definitely agitate around banning this show too. :D

[GPDP]

Doesn't look like they're doing anything of the sort from reading the article. It says that a Venezuelan minister presented an episode of Family Guy at the beginning of a talk on the influence of drugs and thus the movement to legalize marijuana in the US. I'm translating it right now, will post when complete.

Yeah, I didn't pick up anything on this from that article either.

[KarlMarx1989]

Economic system comes first in everything, religion, ideas, etc etc is secondry. If I had ever been a goth, or arsed enough to read religious texts I could point on why it teaches what it does.
Look, all I'm saying is that would be a definite cause of why he would:

1) Ban Family Guy
2) Go Socialist


Just another Hitler? Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up this claim? You think Chávez can be compared to Hitler just for banning one stupid TV show? Even though he consistently promotes real socialism, democracy, internationalism, and solidarity?
Calm down, calm down. What I meant by that is Chavez may be getting his political ideas from Biblia Sacra as Adolf Hitler did.

Adult Swim ended up showing that one once and FOX also banned an abortion episode.
Yes, I am aware of the airing of that episode on Cartoon Network's [Adult Swim]. The one about abortion, on the other hand, I have never heard of the banning of. Interesting.

[Dimentio]

The government. The article didn't say what Chavez thought, just the Minister of Interior & Justice.....

How can Venezuela, which declares itself as having an ongoing socialist revolution, be lagging behind in what is described as a "wave of decriminalization (http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/kristin-bricker/2009/09/argentina-legalizes-personal-marijuana-use)" in Latin America? All the other governments on Venezuela's side, like Bolivia, or Ecuador, have taken steps to reform the drug policy.

Depends on various things. Sweden for example is socially liberal concerning most laws, but there are very hard penalties for drug use here.

[Random Precision]

Translation follows. It's more of an editorial:

Just as in the United States, the general use of marijuana in Venezuela is illegal. The website of the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) classifies it as a controlled substance, in the same category as heroin or LSD. So, how does one justify that cartoons transmitted from the United States and imported on the cables of this country openly promote its consumption? The minister Tarek El Assaimi, after presenting the video of the episode “A bag of weed” from the animated series “Family Guy”, stated that at least a third of the American population are consumers of some kind of prohibited substance.

Beginning from the fact that one out of three Americans take drugs, one can understand the extensive “cultural movement” that exists in that country for the legalization of marijuana. Since in whatever form millions of people have access to drugs, why not legalize it? In March of this year, President Barack Obama responded negatively to the possibility of collecting taxes on the sale of marijuana to help solve the economic recession. So, in spite of the constant promotion of marijuana consumption that according to the American newspaper the Los Angeles Times occurs in the television series Family Guy, The Simpsons, Entourage, Curb Your Enthusiasm, True Blood and Desperate Housewives (all broadcast in Venezuela), marijuana remains illegal in the United States. If it is to do with cynicism or the defense of hidden economic interests, it is only a problem for the United States. However, should the Venezuelan people be receiving by cable messages like “everything is better with a bag of weed”?

We know that we find ourselves between the largest producer and the largest consumer* of drugs on the Earth. This geographical coincidence has political implications that have recently pointed toward [American] interventionism. Venezuela is classified- each time with higher frequency- as a “drug state” for its means of communication that defend the Bolivarian Revolution. This begins from questionable information presented by the US Department of State since the sovereign decision of the government of President Chávez to not allow DEA intervention in Venezuela. Sovereign decisions like that should include vigilance toward messages emitted by cable television, particularly if they occur during hours that children may be watching.

Perhaps the most emblematic case of this is that of the series Weeds, broadcast in Venezuela by the channel A&E, one of the primary cable channels of the country. On the synopsis of the web page of this channel one can read: “The life of Nancy Botwin was so perfect: a clean house, two children and a husband… who died, leaving her in economic difficulties that made her to begin to sell to her upright neighbors… ahem… marijuana. Will the life of her neighborhood remain so idyllic forever?” Is it necessary to enlarge the review of programs broadcast indiscriminately to the Venezuelan people?

Even though the Law on Social Responsibility** does not provide for this necessary regulation of cable and satellite TV, those channels should not be able to push around the Constitution, much less when the control of drug trafficking represents for the United States a perfect excuse to intervene in our country. “What immorality and cynicism!” declared El Aissami this Tuesday. Cynicism in cartoons: we saw it on April 12th, 2002, when they were broadcast to censor what was occurring on the streets***; today we see it in the cultural products of a country that according to our Minister of the Interior “supports its economy with between 2.5 and 3 billion dollars yearly from products of the drug trade”.

* Columbia and the United States respectively, I'm guessing.
** Law on Social Responsibility on Radio and Television: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_on_Social_Responsibility_on_Radio_and_Televisi on
*** Date of attempted coup against Chávez, when TV channels broadcast cartoons instead of news of the street action against the coup to lend it support.

[Pirate Utopian]

Family Guy is one of the best shows how could you hate it?
The inane dumb humour, the fact it's largely a Simpsons ripoff, the constant flashbacks and irrelevant popculture references and most of all they suck at satire.

It's predictable, annoying and cliched.



I am going to go ahead and use this quote, here:
Marilyn Manson. :cool:

[Random Precision]

It's the Venezuelan government.

First of all, it's important to remember that western medias hate Chavez. So of course they're going to report idiotic and ridiculous news.

This is an editorial from a pro-Chávez website. The BBC does nothing but confirm what he says; it does not mean Family Guy is going to be made illegal.


So you can see where Tarek al-Assaimi gets his influence from. Chavez needed to hire him to make good figure in front of Iran who is one of its allies.

Pardon me, but you have no fucking idea who Tarek El Aissami is. You just presume that since he has an Arabic name, he might be a religious Muslim. In fact I was able to find out that he is of Lebanese descent, which could just as well mean that he's Christian. And you also have no reason to believe that Chávez appointed him to cuddle up to Iran.

Sorry, but that fucking sickens me.

[Dimentio]

I think that Family Guy and The Simpsons are fulfilling a very important cultural position, as their role as caricatures could allow them to be quite much meaner and more cynical than average American comedies like "Friends".

Both Family Guy and The Simpsons are showing very dysfunctional families which are trying to attain a semblance of normality in all the chaos. In both families, we have a family father with very low intelligence and social competence, a wife who is trying to uphold an appearance of normal family life, and children with behavioural problems. We also have a lot of criticism of contemporary culture espoused in both series.

[Manifesto]

The inane dumb humour, the fact it's largely a Simpsons ripoff, the constant flashbacks and irrelevant popculture references and most of all they suck at satire.

It's predictable, annoying and cliched.

What about the fact that just about all of the jokes are not connected to the plot?

[gorillafuck]

Calm down, calm down. What I meant by that is Chavez may be getting his political ideas from Biblia Sacra as Adolf Hitler did.

This has been well known by me for a long time, now; since he came to power. That, I think, is the only reason he may be making Venezuela Socialist eventually; because Biblia Sacra promotes that kind of society. However, He would be just another Hitler for that very book actually teaches that all systems will go corrupt so one must wait for the second coming of their messiah.

You said you think if Venezuela became truly socialist then Chavez would be another Hitler because you think he gets his political ideas from Biblia Sacra (do you have anything to back up that he get's his ideas from there other than he's Christian?)

[Outinleftfield]

Translation follows. It's more of an editorial:

Just as in the United States the general use of marijuana in Venezuela is illegal. The website of the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) classifies it as a controlled substance, in the same category as heroin or LSD. So, how does one justify that cartoons transmitted from the United States and imported by the cables of this country openly promote its consumption? The minister Tarek El Assaimi, after presenting the video of the episode “A bag of weed” from the animated series “Family Guy”, stated that at least a third of the American population are consumers of some kind of prohibited substance.

Beginning from the fact that one out of three Americans takes drugs, one can begin to understand the extensive “cultural movement” that exists in that country for the legalization of marijuana. Since in whatever form millions of people have access to drugs, why not legalize it? In March of this year, President Barack Obama responded negatively to the possibility of collecting taxes on the sale of marijuana to help solve the economic recession. So, in spite of the constant promotion of marijuana consumption that according to the American newspaper the Los Angeles Times occurs constantly in the television series Family Guy, The Simpsons, Entourage, Curb Your Enthusiasm, True Blood and Desperate Housewives (all broadcast in Venezuela) marijuana remains illegal in the United States. If it is to do with cynicism or the defense of hidden economic interests, it is only a problem for the United States. However, should the Venezuelan people be receiving by cable messages like “everything is better with a bag of weed”?

We know that we find ourselves between the largest producer and the largest consumer* of drugs on the Earth. This geographical coincidence has political implications that have recently pointed toward [American] interventionism. Venezuela is classified- each time with higher frequency- as a “drug state” for its means of communication that defends the Bolivarian Revolution. This begins from questionable information presented by the US Department of State since the sovereign decision of the government of President Chávez to not allow DEA intervention in Venezuela. Sovereign decisions like that should include vigilance toward messages emitted by cable television, particularly if they occur during hours that children may be watching.

Perhaps the most emblematic case of this is that of the series Weeds, transmitted in Venezuela by the channel A&E, presently on the first cable channels of the country. On the synopsis of the web page of this channel one can read: “The life of Nancy Botwin was so perfect: a clean house, two children and a husband… who died, leaving her in economic difficulties that made her to begin to sell to her upright neighbors… ahem… marijuana. Will the life of her neighborhood remain so idyllic forever?” Is it necessary to enlarge the review of programs that today are transmitted indiscriminately to the Venezuelan people?

Even though the Law on Social Responsibility** does not provide for this necessary regulation of cable and satellite TV, those channels should not be able to push around the Constitution, much less when the control of drug trafficking represents for the United States a perfect excuse to intervene in our country. “What immorality and cynicism!” declared El Aissami this Tuesday. Cynicism in cartoons: we have seen it on April 12th, 2002, when they were broadcast to censor what was occurring on the streets***; today we see it in the cultural products of a country that according to our Minister of the Interior “supports its economy with between 2.5 and 3 billion dollars yearly from products of the drug trade”.

* Columbia and the United States respectively, I'm guessing.
** Law on Social Responsibility on Radio and Television: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_on_Social_Responsibility_on_Radio_and_Televisi on
*** Date of attempted coup against Chávez, when TV channels broadcast cartoons instead of news of the street action against the coup to lend it support.

To summarize they're worried about these cartoons because they're worried about the US intervening using drugs as an excuse. So they're bowing to American drug war imperialism.

[Random Precision]

To summarize they're worried about these cartoons because they're worried about the US intervening using drugs as an excuse. So they're bowing to American drug war imperialism.

That was the writer's own stance, not that of Chávez' government.

[ls]

Doesn't look like they're doing anything of the sort from reading the article. It says that a Venezuelan minister presented an episode of Family Guy at the beginning of a talk on the influence of drugs and thus the movement to legalize marijuana in the US. I'm translating it right now, will post when complete.

Simply this, if you wanna look at past BBC bias, there are so many things about it, just use google. :cool:

Note that even if this is true, if a great many people in the USA and UK had their way, it would be banned there too. :cool:

[GPDP]

So the BBC was basically lying, huh?

Maybe I'm not familiar enough with the BBC's standards or journalistic integrity, but that sounds like some Fox News shit right there.

[bleh]

and also that the show was replaced by Baywatch (really?)


The mention of the Simpsons made me suspicious about the veracity of the whole story. What happened there is that a year or so ago the state regulator in Venezuela received a bunch of complaints from parents (the channel has a largely conservative audience from what I understand) about the content of the simpsons. The former responded by telling the channel that it cant broadcast the show "in an early morning slot" (as the bbc says). The channel in turn responded by pulling the show completely off the air and sending out press releases to western media about how the government was repressing them. So for about a week or so there were articles in the u.s. papers about how "chavez bans the simpsons" and lolz they replaced it with baywatch. After the whole thing died down the channel brought the simpsons back on the air at a later time-slot, which it was planing to do all along.
So the BBC article is lying, in respect to that at least, although in typical fashion it subtly and indirectly tells what really happened by stating:

One local station was threatened with financial sanctions for broadcasting the adventures of the dysfunctional family in an early morning slot.It wouldnt be totally out of character for the Venezuelan gov. to ban a tv show for content though, so the family guy part could be true.


So you can see where Tarek al-Assaimi gets his influence from. Chavez needed to hire him to make good figure in front of Iran who is one of its allies.That's racist. Did U.S. president Obama make Rahm Emanuel his chief of staff to appease our "zionist" masters in Israel?

[bleh]

I think that Family Guy and The Simpsons are fulfilling a very important cultural position, as their role as caricatures could allow them to be quite much meaner and more cynical than average American comedies like "Friends".
Both Family Guy and The Simpsons are showing very dysfunctional families which are trying to attain a semblance of normality in all the chaos. In both families, we have a family father with very low intelligence and social competence, a wife who is trying to uphold an appearance of normal family life, and children with behavioural problems. We also have a lot of criticism of contemporary culture espoused in both series.

That might have been true of the Simpsons in the early 90's but today the show is basically 'the all ameircan tv family' that it was making fun of when it first came out. The Simpsons back then were a fairly well off but struggling working class family with the perfect all-around christian fundamentalists living next door. Today the episodes have the Simpsons opening up small businesses or hanging out with the cultural elite and the fundamentalists next door are depicted as 'those republican wierdos we have in america.' and family guy sucks (even the original 'good seasons' have lost most of their appeal because of the crap made now) and its misogynist humor and rape jokes have really started to weird me out. and I especially hate the idiotic u.s. style liberalism preached on these shows.

[Dr Mindbender]

if theres no family guy, it aint my revolution.

Thats fucked up, Venezuela has suddenly dropped a notch on my imaginary list of 'cool places'.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

I agree. They should just ban the episode, rather than the whole series. FOX did that, here in the US, with the episode When You Wish Upon a Wienstien.

What's the difference? It's censorship either way.

Besides, that episode was one of the few good recent ones... If anything, that's the one people should be watching.

[cb9's_unity]

This is how rumors get started.

[Axle]

This is over the top, yeah, but its just a TV show. And let's be honest, its really not all that good of a TV show, either.

[Raúl Duke]

So you can see where Tarek al-Assaimi gets his influence from. Chavez needed to hire him to make good figure in front of Iran who is one of its allies.
Pardon me, but you have no fucking idea who Tarek El Aissami is. You just presume that since he has an Arabic name, he might be a religious Muslim. In fact I was able to find out that he is of Lebanese descent, which could just as well mean that he's Christian.Random Precision is right; I lived in Miami and meet many Venezuelans some are of Lebanese descent but in most cases I don't know what religion they practice but usually they're Catholic. Although he does have a very "arabic-sounding name" compared to many Venezuelans of Lebanese descent I've meet.

Now about the editorial...it seems to go along with the message that they kind of want to "one-up" the hypocritical U.S. on their claims that South American, the "rogue states" (outside of U.S. control) in particular, is filled with "narco-states" by proving that they're "more against the idea [of drugs] then the U.S. ("which support drug use on tv, etc")" and that by doing so they avoid intervention...the editorial is pretty weak and dumb in my opinion but as mentioned it isn't exactly the reason that the government has.

[Luís Henrique]

Biblia Sacra
The name of the book in English is Holy Bible.

And the original is not in Castillian.

Luís Henrique

[Pirate Utopian]

What about the fact that just about all of the jokes are not connected to the plot?
That too.

The worst Simpsons episode is still better than the best Family Guy episode.

[Olerud]

This is terribly silly and i think it's been said in an earlier post that they should have just banned the episode. It's a pretty rubbish show anyway. Fraiser Ftw.

[Eat the Rich]

First of all Family Guy is shit. Second of all they didn't make it illegal. Third of all this shitstorm shows how a lot of you are a bunch of fucking liberals. "They banned Family Guy, a show that we all have the freedom to enjoy here in our white middle class suburbs. Therefore Chavez is an authoritarian dictator and we must attack the Bolivarian revolution from the side of the imperialists, rather than criticizing it from a left standpoint, advocating for socialism and workers control".

This thread disgusted me. All those who are willing to drop their support for the revolution just for a stupid show -who didn't get illegal after all- disgust me.

[Spawn of Stalin]

First of all, for a country which is always under threat from Washington backed right wingers, having American stuff on TV all the time is hardly wise. Chávez has always been a critic of Hollywood imperialism, American culture taking over the world, etc. Has it occured to anyone that Venezuela might actually have the capabilities to produce some pretty good shows domestically? Instead of having to import everything from America?

Secondly, none of that matters, because Family Guy isn't even getting banned, the article is just an opinion piece, so you can all rest easy, our Venezuelan Comrades will be able to watch Family Guy and have a socialist revolution.

[Das war einmal]

Haha typical. Why is this even considered news? Just like the simpsons-case the show will probably be send out at a late time. This has nothing to do with politics but more with the concerned catholic parents of Venezuela. Now I don't completely agree with this desission, but I will admit that this show is not suitable for children at all.

It is easy to be misled by this 'news' but thats the whole point....

[Revy]

ETR, don't call this thread disgusting you troll. There are greater issues here than a TV show. You cannot try and shut down discussion. People in many countries will see this and their opinion of Venezuela will be influenced. Therefore it is worthy of discussion, whether to debunk the claim or not.

I have read about far worse that was done by the Venezuelan government in relation to workers and strikes. However, I still support what the Revolution has stood for, and I would like to see that fulfilled. Does that make me a liberal? The ever-present usage of "liberal" as a meaningless slur is what I think is disgusting. I will have no part in it.

The main issue for me here, is not even the alleged censorship, but the justification, as it relates to the legality of marijuana in Venezuela.

But too many posters just want to post bullshit like "family guy sucks". That does not contribute to this at all.

[Eat the Rich]

it relates to the legality of marijuana in Venezuela.Legalizing marijuana is not in the agenda of most socialists. We do not fight for decadence but for workers control and ownership of the means of production.
On any rate, Family Guy was not banned get your facts straight.

That being said, I certainly don't think that Venezuela has achieved socialism. But banning Family Guy is certainly not a sign of not trying to reach this goal. The bureaucratic fifth column in the republic, the fact that the capitalist state is still intact, the fact that the bureaucrats within the party don't want to upset the right wing, all are signs that socialism is far away in Venezuela and they are not moving towards it in any decisive way.

I remain firm in my view that all those who use the "banning Family Guy" argument against Venezuela are a bunch of liberals. A ban on Family Guy has no relation with the struggle for socialism.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Legalizing marijuana is not in the agenda of most socialists. We do not fight for decadence

Wow.. So liberty = decadence? Yep, you definitely sound like a socialist.

[khad]

Wow.. So liberty = decadence? Yep, you definitely sound like a socialist.
This thread is an epic fail. The moral indignation of first world suburbanites is always an ugly spectacle to behold.

For that matter I don't give a shit that the right wing show Family Guy is restricted (it isn't, so stop crying).

Even if it were outright banned, I wouldn't give a shit for the Americans who get butthurt over it.

[gorillafuck]

They shouldn't have banned Family Guy (I don't see it as particularly counter-revolutionary, just not that funny). But it doesn't matter that much in the big picture and this shouldn't effect someones support for the transformations that are happening in Venezuela. There will never be a socialist movement that makes the right decision on every single tiny issue there is, and whether family guy is banned doesn't have any bearing on whether socialism is being built.


Wow.. So liberty = decadence? Yep, you definitely sound like a socialist.
You could believe in the banning of wearing gym shorts by penalty of a year in prison and it wouldn't make you any less of a socialist if you believed in workers control and a socialist economy.

You'd just be a socialist with a stupid view on gym shorts.

[proudcomrade]

Wow.. So liberty = decadence? Yep, you definitely sound like a socialist.

No, you sound like a libertarian.

If the story had actually been accurate, I would have been fine with Vz. banning Family Guy; would be fine with them banning pot; am fine with Cuba having banned the Beatles for a good many years (the music itself was innocent fun; but at the time, the Beatles themselves had been heavily fucking around with LSD, violating their marriages, loudly proclaiming absolute pacifism, objectifying the living hell out of India's ancient culture and belief systems, and then going all First-World liberal in using their fame and fortune to escape the consequences; meanwhile, the rest of the world proletariat was being heavily punished for the same behavior that the band was openly inciting).

There is such a thing as healthy authoritarianism in a socialist state. Behavior which alters people's mood reactions and intellectual capacities, increases disease and vehicle fatalities, causes domestic strife in the family, or brainwashes the people with flagrant displays of US libertine behavior, can and should be prevented from corrupting a revolutionary people. Chavez is correct; Fidel had been correct; the Soviets were correct. The people do not need the absolute lowest forms of the neolibs' entertainment culture degrading them, alienating them from each other, and breaking their character and solidarity.

[khad]

No, you sound like a libertarian.

If the story had actually been accurate, I would have been fine with Vz. banning Family Guy; would be fine with them banning pot; am fine with Cuba having banned the Beatles for a good many years (the music itself was innocent fun; but at the time, the Beatles themselves had been heavily fucking around with LSD, violating their marriages, loudly proclaiming absolute pacifism, objectifying the living hell out of India's ancient culture and belief systems, and then going all First-World liberal in using their fame and fortune to escape the consequences; meanwhile, the rest of the world proletariat was being heavily punished for the same behavior that the band was openly inciting).

There is such a thing as healthy authoritarianism in a socialist state. Behavior which alters people's mood reactions and intellectual capacities, increases disease and vehicle fatalities, causes domestic strife in the family, or brainwashes the people with flagrant displays of US libertine behavior, can and should be prevented from corrupting a revolutionary people. Chavez is correct; Fidel had been correct; the Soviets were correct. The people do not need the absolute lowest forms of the neolibs' entertainment culture degrading them, alienating them from each other, and breaking their character and solidarity.
I am going to so shower you with rep once this 24 hour limit wears off.

[Spawn of Stalin]

proudcomrade said it all, Venezuela has a government, governments do stuff, learn to love it, or just be quiet.

[Raúl Duke]

Venezuela has a government, governments do stuff, learn to love it, or just be quiet. You do know that attitude is contrary to what most of us do?

We don't just "learn to love and/or be quiet" about things that governments, especially bourgeois ones, do. If that were the case then we wouldn't care about imperialistic wars since "governments do [that kind of] stuff."

[Spawn of Stalin]

You are on the right track but your argument is slightly flawed, you are comparing war with TV, you see I am against imperialistic wars, I oppose them in every single way possible, but I really don't care about some TV show which the Venezuelan people are probably better off without anyway, even though it didn't get banned. We are progressives, we oppose imperialism, and capitalism, and fascism, but we do not necessarily oppose changes in television regulations, as terrible as it may seem, the banning of one show is not a breach of human rights. That is why I refuse to sit by and do nothing while a small minority twist the truth about Venezuela's government, bourgeois or not, there are many of us who view it as progressive. It's all well and good whining and moaning about Family Guy, but meanwhile the Venezuelan people are having a revolution, we can support it, or we can act like pathetic little children, and if you are having trouble deciding, please remember that anti-Chávez attitudes like the ones displayed in this thread basically do Fox News reporters' jobs for them. Some of the things which have been said in this thread really do make me question the sincerity of some leftists, considering how much this tiny issue has hurt some of your feelings, how many of you people are actually ready and willing to take part in a revolution?

[makesi]

The real tragedy here is that the show wasn't banned.

[Pirate Utopian]

am fine with Cuba having banned the Beatles for a good many years (the music itself was innocent fun; but at the time, the Beatles themselves had been heavily fucking around with LSD, violating their marriages.
Wont anyone think of the children?!

[GPDP]

No, you sound like a libertarian.

If the story had actually been accurate, I would have been fine with Vz. banning Family Guy; would be fine with them banning pot; am fine with Cuba having banned the Beatles for a good many years (the music itself was innocent fun; but at the time, the Beatles themselves had been heavily fucking around with LSD, violating their marriages, loudly proclaiming absolute pacifism, objectifying the living hell out of India's ancient culture and belief systems, and then going all First-World liberal in using their fame and fortune to escape the consequences; meanwhile, the rest of the world proletariat was being heavily punished for the same behavior that the band was openly inciting).

There is such a thing as healthy authoritarianism in a socialist state. Behavior which alters people's mood reactions and intellectual capacities, increases disease and vehicle fatalities, causes domestic strife in the family, or brainwashes the people with flagrant displays of US libertine behavior, can and should be prevented from corrupting a revolutionary people. Chavez is correct; Fidel had been correct; the Soviets were correct. The people do not need the absolute lowest forms of the neolibs' entertainment culture degrading them, alienating them from each other, and breaking their character and solidarity.

Oh, come off of it. If the people of Venezuela want to ban Family Guy, that's their prerogative. But the way you put it here, you come off as a patronizing ass, dictating what is or isn't good for the Venezuelan working class to watch.

Somehow, I knew the "bourgeois decadence" card would eventually come into play here.

[Wanted Man]

ETR, don't call this thread disgusting you troll. There are greater issues here than a TV show. You cannot try and shut down discussion. People in many countries will see this and their opinion of Venezuela will be influenced. Therefore it is worthy of discussion, whether to debunk the claim or not.

I have read about far worse that was done by the Venezuelan government in relation to workers and strikes. However, I still support what the Revolution has stood for, and I would like to see that fulfilled. Does that make me a liberal? The ever-present usage of "liberal" as a meaningless slur is what I think is disgusting. I will have no part in it.

Then maybe the name of the thread should be changed, since it has been proved wrong.

Also, ETR did not try to "shut down discussion". I thought he was right about some things, a lot of people do seem to think socialism depends on whether a show aimed at adults is broadcast in the early morning. It does show some liberal baggage. I realize that this does not include you, so that is a little unfair. Anyway, nobody (not even ETR, I think) claims that Venezuela is socialist, or that every decision by Chavez needs to be supported.


The main issue for me here, is not even the alleged censorship, but the justification, as it relates to the legality of marijuana in Venezuela.

Well, if you read RP's translation of the Spanish article, it shows that nobody is trying to censor Family Guy because it promotes marijuana. What the minister (and the author of the editorial) argue is that it's immoral and cynic that the US fights the war on drugs, while drug use is accepted on American TV. Therefore, he questions whether TV shows like that should be broadcast in the morning.

So basically, the thread title of "Venezuela bans Family Guy" is completely false. What really happened in one sentence is "Venezuelan minister questions morality of early morning cartoons". Quite a difference.

Nevermind the idiot who said that the education minister was appointed to appease Iran. Why? Because he had an Ay-rab sounding name? (Iranians are Ay-rabs, after all :rolleyes:).

[What Would Durruti Do?]

No, you sound like a libertarian.

If the story had actually been accurate, I would have been fine with Vz. banning Family Guy; would be fine with them banning pot; am fine with Cuba having banned the Beatles for a good many years (the music itself was innocent fun; but at the time, the Beatles themselves had been heavily fucking around with LSD, violating their marriages, loudly proclaiming absolute pacifism, objectifying the living hell out of India's ancient culture and belief systems, and then going all First-World liberal in using their fame and fortune to escape the consequences; meanwhile, the rest of the world proletariat was being heavily punished for the same behavior that the band was openly inciting).

There is such a thing as healthy authoritarianism in a socialist state. Behavior which alters people's mood reactions and intellectual capacities, increases disease and vehicle fatalities, causes domestic strife in the family, or brainwashes the people with flagrant displays of US libertine behavior, can and should be prevented from corrupting a revolutionary people. Chavez is correct; Fidel had been correct; the Soviets were correct. The people do not need the absolute lowest forms of the neolibs' entertainment culture degrading them, alienating them from each other, and breaking their character and solidarity.

This is absolutely disgusting.

And yes, I am a libertarian. Does this somehow interfere with my leftism? On the contrary, I think if you aren't a libertarian you have no business claiming to be fighting for human liberation and equality.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

This thread is an epic fail. The moral indignation of first world suburbanites is always an ugly spectacle to behold.

For that matter I don't give a shit that the right wing show Family Guy is restricted (it isn't, so stop crying).

Even if it were outright banned, I wouldn't give a shit for the Americans who get butthurt over it.

My comment was about marijuana, although censorship is equally as disgusting as restricting personal freedoms, yes. (Shitty American TV show or not, it WOULD BE censorship if the story were true. but i have plenty of other reasons to not be aboard the Chavez train)

So when you win power for the working class, oh glorious leader, will you tell those who disagree with your opinions to "stop crying" and "get butthurt over it"?

[Jethro Tull]

Legalizing marijuana is not in the agenda of most socialists. We do not fight for decadence

yeah, those decadent glaucoma-sufferers....:laugh:

[Jethro Tull]

you sound like a libertarian.

communism is liberty.


I would be fine with them banning pot;probably because you don't have a medical disorder that can be treated with marijuana.


at the time, the Beatles themselves had been heavily fucking around with LSD, violating their marriages, loudly proclaiming absolute pacifism, objectifying the living hell out of India's ancient culture and belief systems, and then going all First-World liberal in using their fame and fortune to escape the consequences;i agree. hence why i hate the fucking beatles. however, whenever a state bans any act of cultural expression, it develops an anti-establishment mystique. two good examples are nazi imagery in modern-day deutschland, and banal american pop-culture in iran immediately after the islamic revolution. (the iranian graphic novel persepolis depicts alienated iranian youth listening to michael jackson and iron maiden, music they probably wouldn't give a shit about were it not banned) the real way to fight shitty western pop culture is to critique it using methods of communist artistic criticism...


meanwhile, the rest of the world proletariat was being heavily punished for the same behavior that the band was openly incitingand how does that justify the further heavy punishment of the proletariat by the soviet, cuban, and venezuelan states? for listening to music and smoking marijuana?


There is such a thing as healthy authoritarianism in a socialist state.there is such a thing as healthy authoritarianism, however the "authoritarianism" of capitalist states, "socialist" or otherwise, is almost always just a pretense for capital-accumulation and social domestication.


Behavior which alters people's mood reactionswelp, there goes asparin!


vehicle fatalitiesagain, there goes asparin and tylenol. and sleep deprivation. and cell phones. and coffee. and sexual excess. and eating while driving. and holding in your bowel movements. etc...

automobiles are hazardous. they should be destroyed. "drunk driving" and "stoned driving" moral crusades are just a red herring to distract the masses from the mass-slaughter intrinsic to maintaining a capitalist transportation infastructure.


causes domestic strife in the familywhat "causes domestic strife in the family" is the fact that "the family" is a patriarchal institution imposed during the primitive accumulation of capital. anyone who gets drunk and beats his wife is a violent asshole in the first case, by blaming alcohol (or whatever drug) you're enabling the abusive asshole by giving him an excuse and allowing him to forgoe responsibility for his choices.


or brainwashes the people with flagrant displays of US libertine behaviorah yes, moral outrage at u.s. society. (because the populist lowest-common-denominator is so much better in other reigons of the capitalist world, such as latin america, the middle east, etc.) you all should just go ahead and join the salafis or the german neo-nazis so you can fight against the decadent cosmopolitan influence of jewish-controlled americanism. should jazz music also be banned for being "libertine"?


The people do not need the absolute lowest forms of the neolibs' entertainment culture degrading them, alienating them from each other, and breaking their character and solidarity.that's what television and other forms of mass-entertainment do, not just "neo-liberal" tv, whatever that is...(other than an example of leftist pendants using "neo-liberal" mindlessly as a synonym for bad) i think family guy is shit, but i'm sure venezuelan tv is just as stupid.

[Jethro Tull]

For that matter I don't give a shit that the right wing show Family Guy is restricted (it isn't, so stop crying).

i agree that family guy was not restricted, and that the bbc article is an example of psychological warfare waged by the western media against a rival state...however, mindlessly referring to everything you dislike as "right-wing" is an example of sophism.

unfortunately, i have seen more episodes of family guy than i could ever possibly wish. the show's commentary is banal social-democratic *****ing...they ***** about wal-mart, they ***** about the f.c.c., they ***** about opponents of gay marriage, they ***** about bush, they ***** about o'reilly and limbaugh, they ***** about mcdonalds, etc. the show is defintely not "right-wing" (unless your definition of "right-wing" includes u.s. liberals, and everyone else who happens to disagree with you) that doesn't make it any less stupid.

i mean, if you had just described family guy as racist, homophobic, sexist, and fucking stupid, i would have agreed. however, it's not just right-wingers who are racist, homophobic, sexist, and fucking stupid. it's the general society, including most of "the left".

[ezza_lv]

well I would also ban that, if it had somethinfg to do with marijuana and it doesn't meter if it's a cartoon or something else...still our children are watching all that...and I would probably beaned all american sites...

[Raúl Duke]

Either way, it's childish to assume that a show/single episode of a show is the only reason Venezuelans smoke marijuana.

Banning the show or not showing a single episode is a pretty dumb response and the justification elaborated by the editorial is also weak.

The article ridiculously even tentatively hints that banning these kinds of shows/episode will avoid "U.S. imperialistic intervention" when it's obvious that the act of banning will work against them, in terms of propaganda, by fueling "Venezuela as rogue/totalitarian state" perspective that could be used as justification for the feared "intervention".

[Pirate Utopian]

well I would also ban that, if it had somethinfg to do with marijuana and it doesn't meter if it's a cartoon or something else...still our children are watching all that...and I would probably beaned all american sites...
Wont anyone pleeeaaase think of our christian val... uhh.. children!

[Edelweiss]

No matter what western media makes out of it, banning a Family Guy episode for whatever moralist reasons is fucking ridiculous. You don't have to be an "imperialist agent" or whatever to realize that.

[#FF0000]

No matter what western media makes out of it, banning a Family Guy episode for whatever moralist reasons is fucking ridiculous. You don't have to be an "imperialist agent" or whatever to realize that.

Yeah I agree. But while being fucking ridiculous, I also don't think it's that big a deal.

[Jethro Tull]

of course it's not a big deal, seth macfarlane is a millionaire because of his poorly animated television franchises, which are usually nothing more than a half-hour of prolonged fart, weed, and nigger jokes interspliced with pseudo-dada nonsequitors and "ironic" references to bad 80s pop culture that should be forgotten. any venezuelan desperate enough to kill their braincells watching the show is just going to pirate it off the internet anyway...

macfarlane, el aissami, and chavez are all our class-enemies...

and I'm a stupid fucking ****.

[the last donut of the night]

No, you sound like a libertarian.

If the story had actually been accurate, I would have been fine with Vz. banning Family Guy; would be fine with them banning pot; am fine with Cuba having banned the Beatles for a good many years (the music itself was innocent fun; but at the time, the Beatles themselves had been heavily fucking around with LSD, violating their marriages, loudly proclaiming absolute pacifism, objectifying the living hell out of India's ancient culture and belief systems, and then going all First-World liberal in using their fame and fortune to escape the consequences; meanwhile, the rest of the world proletariat was being heavily punished for the same behavior that the band was openly inciting).

There is such a thing as healthy authoritarianism in a socialist state. Behavior which alters people's mood reactions and intellectual capacities, increases disease and vehicle fatalities, causes domestic strife in the family, or brainwashes the people with flagrant displays of US libertine behavior, can and should be prevented from corrupting a revolutionary people. Chavez is correct; Fidel had been correct; the Soviets were correct. The people do not need the absolute lowest forms of the neolibs' entertainment culture degrading them, alienating them from each other, and breaking their character and solidarity.


I'm not a libertarian, but I know what's horseshit and what isn't. So naturally, my B.S detector went right off when you wrote this dandy piece of literature.

You like to think it's you, not the working class itself, that decides what's good and what isn't. If the working class wants to watch animal porn or America's Funniest Videos, let them do so. It's geniuses like you who, at every revolution, claim that freedom of speech and general liberties are "bourgeois vices", or some other shit.

My rant is done. And I hope your love for despotism is over as well. However, I doubt that.

[Luís Henrique]

The main issue for me here, is not even the alleged censorship, but the justification, as it relates to the legality of marijuana in Venezuela.

But too many posters just want to post bullshit like "family guy sucks". That does not contribute to this at all.
Family Guy is a commercial product; it can be bought, and it can be not bought. Or are American capitalists buying every commercial product of Venezuela, regardless of their own interest, and regardless of United States regulation about the import of foreign products?

The Venezuelan State is in a delicate situation, where it is accused by the United States of facilitating the drug traffic to North America, and at the same has to buy American ideologic propaganda that amounts to drug apology. So they are well within their rights to call on such hipocrisy.

Marijuana is illegal in all polities that I am informed of, except for the Netherlands, where it is rather regulated than freely marketed. Why does the Venezuelan State have to be the exception, particularly if being such exception would be immediately the cause for an ideologic (at the least) offensive from its enemies?

When the United States legalises marijuana they will have the proper moral standing to complain about this.

Luís Henrique

[Pirate Utopian]

But in other countries marijuana isnt legal yet crappy horrible Family Guy (which totally completely sucks) episodes on it is allowed.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Jethro Tull is so right it hurts.


If the story had actually been accurate, I would have been fine with Vz. banning Family Guy; would be fine with them banning pot; am fine with Cuba having banned the Beatles for a good many years (the music itself was innocent fun; but at the time, the Beatles themselves had been heavily fucking around with LSD, violating their marriages
Do you actually think that it's legitimate to ban a cultural product because the makers have used LSD or "violated their marriage"? What's your line on Wagner?


There is such a thing as healthy authoritarianism in a socialist state. Behavior which alters people's mood reactions and intellectual capacities, increases disease and vehicle fatalities, causes domestic strife in the family, or brainwashes the people with flagrant displays of US libertine behavior, can and should be prevented from corrupting a revolutionary people. Chavez is correct; Fidel had been correct; the Soviets were correct. The people do not need the absolute lowest forms of the neolibs' entertainment culture degrading them, alienating them from each other, and breaking their character and solidarity.You certainly don't seem to have much faith in "the people". I presume you'd at least pretend to agree with the basic communist principle that the emancipation of the working class must be the action of the workers themselves? I find it hard to believe that the workers are capable of dismantling capitalism and creating a new society, but not capable of watching cartoons or listening to music without crashing their cars or raping women like I do, which seems to be what you're claiming.

[dez]

It might have nothing to do with it, but Family Guy is seen as a more conservative version of the simpsons over here (in brazil, tv stations promote it almost as a rebuttal, being "more sarcastic and acid", and as people consider it, free of "leftist" bias).
Mostly due to crude depictions of racism, which is something the national elites here have always tried to stimulate.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

well I would also ban that, if it had somethinfg to do with marijuana and it doesn't meter if it's a cartoon or something else...still our children are watching all that...and I would probably beaned all american sites...

Here's an idea: actually be a parent and raise your kid so a TV show doesn't have to

You could ban anything by using the justification of "think about the children". when do we get to think about ourselves?

[Random Precision]

No matter what western media makes out of it, banning a Family Guy episode for whatever moralist reasons is fucking ridiculous. You don't have to be an "imperialist agent" or whatever to realize that.

Um, is it too much to ask that people should read the thread before responding?

[Spirit of Spartacus]

In any case, we cannot hope to censor out imperialist propaganda, racism, classism, sexism and other harmful themes from the worldwide media, because ultimately,to some extent you could argue that nearly everything on the media is problematic in one way or another. We'd end up having to close down most of the global film industry, news agencies, music industry, etc, because these items of culture are obviously inspired by the reality of life under capitalism.

So, the ultimate answer to the question of censorship vs imperialist propagnada is...*drum roll*... a worldwide socialist order.

No imperialism in the real world = No imperialist propaganda in the media
No classes in the real world = No class-based chauvinism in the media
No racism in the real world = No racism in the media
No sexism in the real world = No sexism in the media

etc.

But I suppose everyone here knows this, since this is a revolutionary leftist forum.

So now, lets come to Venezuela and banning Family Guy.

It's a pity they had to ban Family Guy. Or anything for that matter.

But, this does not mean that we should stop supporting the Venezuelan revolution, just because they banned Family Guy.

Yes, we want people to be able to smoke weed, but if Cuba doesn't allow that, it doesn't mean that all the achievements of the Cuban people (which were made possible by revolution) are useless.

The same applies to Venezuela. I can only laugh at the starry-eyed liberals on this very thread (masquerading as revolutionary leftists), who are saying stuff like "Oh I used to support Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution, but ever since they banned Family Guy, I'm totally done with the Venezuelan revolution!"

When you raise questions about the process of radical change taking place in Venezuela just because the government over-reacted to something and banned Family Guy, that's just plain dumb, and I'd like you to think about what you're saying. Basically, you're telling us that the efforts of the Bolivarian leadership to introduce democracy in the workplace, to bring the exercise of popular power to the grassroot level, to provide food, healthcare, education to millions of urban and rural poor, to resist the dictates of First-world imperialism, to build a socialist alternative to neo-liberal capitalism...

...you just flushed all of this down the drain.

For what?

Family Guy.

Fine, maybe they shouldn't have banned it. Maybe they over-reacted. Maybe they're being a little unnecessarily authoritarian. Or maybe they have good reasons to do so. I want to avoid that debate for now.

But seriously...Family Guy? Is that how you're going to judge the Bolivarian revolution? :confused:

[Spawn of Stalin]

I didn't read the thread properly.
:rolleyes:

[Revy]

In any case, we cannot hope to censor out imperialist propaganda, racism, classism, sexism and other harmful themes from the worldwide media, because ultimately,to some extent you could argue that nearly everything on the media is problematic in one way or another. We'd end up having to close down most of the global film industry, news agencies, music industry, etc, because these items of culture are obviously inspired by the reality of life under capitalism.

So, the ultimate answer to the question of censorship vs imperialist propagnada is...*drum roll*... a worldwide socialist order.

No imperialism in the real world = No imperialist propaganda in the media
No classes in the real world = No class-based chauvinism in the media
No racism in the real world = No racism in the media
No sexism in the real world = No sexism in the media

etc.

But I suppose everyone here knows this, since this is a revolutionary leftist forum.

So now, lets come to Venezuela and banning Family Guy.

It's a pity they had to ban Family Guy. Or anything for that matter.

But, this does not mean that we should stop supporting the Venezuelan revolution, just because they banned Family Guy.

Yes, we want people to be able to smoke weed, but if Cuba doesn't allow that, it doesn't mean that all the achievements of the Cuban people (which were made possible by revolution) are useless.

The same applies to Venezuela. I can only laugh at the starry-eyed liberals on this very thread (masquerading as revolutionary leftists), who are saying stuff like "Oh I used to support Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution, but ever since they banned Family Guy, I'm totally done with the Venezuelan revolution!"

When you raise questions about the process of radical change taking place in Venezuela just because the government over-reacted to something and banned Family Guy, that's just plain dumb, and I'd like you to think about what you're saying. Basically, you're telling us that the efforts of the Bolivarian leadership to introduce democracy in the workplace, to bring the exercise of popular power to the grassroot level, to provide food, healthcare, education to millions of urban and rural poor, to resist the dictates of First-world imperialism, to build a socialist alternative to neo-liberal capitalism...

...you just flushed all of this down the drain.

For what?

Family Guy.

Fine, maybe they shouldn't have banned it. Maybe they over-reacted. Maybe they're being a little unnecessarily authoritarian. Or maybe they have good reasons to do so. I want to avoid that debate for now.

But seriously...Family Guy? Is that how you're going to judge the Bolivarian revolution? :confused:

Comrade, no, that is not how I judge the Bolivarian Revolution. My comment was not clear enough. I said I used to be an "enthusiastic" (I meant unquestioning, no criticisms) supporter of the Bolivarian Revolution. What that means is that it still has my strong support, although I hold my doubts about certain things. Events like strikes being broke up by police, that is what I have read about. That makes one doubtful, but not necessarily under the influence of the opposition, right? The alleged banning of Family Guy does not bother me as much as the alleged justification, marijuana. Of course, I could have chosen a different title, but it wouldn't make much difference.

As I stated before, my rationale for posting this thread was to discuss the claim of the ban and debate its authenticity and the reasons for it, and to paint a more clear picture of the event besides the denunciatory one provided to us by the British Broadcasting Company.

I have a long record of supporting Chavez, as I mentioned. I am not some naive hater who assumes what the media tells him about Chavez is true, because I have ample experience arguing against that rhetoric. The fact that I know of sites like Aporrea should tell one that.

I do not think it is helpful to accuse me of judging the Bolivarian Revolution on Family Guy. A lot of what I post here is opening up discussion. I don't see how I am (as it was said) somehow doing Fox News's job. In other words, everyone needs to can the self-righteous rants or don't post in here at all.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

:rolleyes:

Possibly. :sleep:

[Spirit of Spartacus]

:rolleyes:

Hang on, we seem to be saying much the same thing actually. Except that I threw in a bit of irrelevant material in my post, for which I'm sorry.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

@ Stancel

I apologize for any unnecessary labelling, comrade. Perhaps I misunderstood you.

But then again, this thing here, in your first post:



I had a lot of "fun" arguing with people who insisted with Chavez was a dictator who hated free speech only for stuff like this to happen. Why bother anymore?


Why bother any more? It seemed to me (and I might be wrong, in which case you should correct me) that you're saying you have no reason to defend Chavez's leadership of the Bolivarian revolution any more.

And since you posted this in connection with Family Guy being supposedly banned for allegedly promoting drug use, well, I put two and two together.

If I inferred anything wrong about your views, once again, I'm sorry, but there you go. That's just what you sounded like.

[Revy]

well I shouldn't have said that. I don't blame you for making that connection. I wasn't thinking when I said that, but it was related to other unrelated events I had read about before, like workers' strikes being broken up by police. But I recognize those may have been actions opposed by the government. you can see how confused I am on this issue? I would like to support what is happening in Venezuela , I am not here to attack it.

And when I said "self-righteous rants" I wasn't referring to yours, just some others here.

[KarlMarx1989]

You said you think if Venezuela became truly socialist then Chavez would be another Hitler because you think he gets his political ideas from Biblia Sacra
Again, all I am saying is that he possibly gets his ideas from Biblia Sacra like Hitler. That's the only comparrison I am purposing between the two. No genocide, no conquering other countries for one race, none else; OK?

[Axle]

Go thread, go!

Seriously...we all realize that this massive heap of argument and failure was brought to us courtesy of Family Guy, right?

[RHIZOMES]

The topic creator should edit his original post to say that it's bullshit, otherwise we're just gonna have more and more pages going WTF HUGO CHAVEZ.

[Random Precision]

The topic creator should edit his original post to say that it's bullshit, otherwise we're just gonna have more and more pages going WTF HUGO CHAVEZ.

I've gone ahead and edited the thread title as well as the OP for that purpose.

[the last donut of the night]

unfortunately, i have seen more episodes of family guy than i could ever possibly wish. the show's commentary is banal social-democratic *****ing...they ***** about wal-mart, they ***** about the f.c.c., they ***** about opponents of gay marriage, they ***** about bush, they ***** about o'reilly and limbaugh, they ***** about mcdonalds, etc.

Nice usage of the word '*****'.


i mean, if you had just described family guy as racist, homophobic, sexist, and fucking stupid, i would have agreed. however, it's not just right-wingers who are racist, homophobic, sexist, and fucking stupid. it's the general society, including most of "the left".

I hate to be that guy, but if you're going to complain about sexism, and how it pervades the left, it'd be a smart step to not be a hypocrite and not use sexist lexicon when complaining about sexism.

What a mindfuck, right?

[Revy]

The topic creator should edit his original post to say that it's bullshit, otherwise we're just gonna have more and more pages going WTF HUGO CHAVEZ.

Done;)

[proudcomrade]

Oy vey... so much hullabaloo; so little time. Looks like I've ruffled some liberal and libertarian feathers with my opinions. The person who called me a dictator was especially priceless. :laugh: Thanks for the lulz, guys- and a more sincere thanks goes out to those comrades who replied respectfully.

[Luís Henrique]

I said I used to be an "enthusiastic" (I meant unquestioning, no criticisms) supporter of the Bolivarian Revolution.

But why? Why support such "revolution"? What exactly does make you believe this is a possible way forward?


What that means is that it still has my strong support, although I hold my doubts about certain things. Events like strikes being broke up by police, that is what I have read about. That makes one doubtful, but not necessarily under the influence of the opposition, right?

See, strikes being broken by police are a serious concern, and not a recent one; such events have been reported a few months ago. Why then become critical of the regime on such an uneventful thing such as this one?


The alleged banning of Family Guy does not bother me as much as the alleged justification, marijuana.

But, again, why?

Not that I believe that the current world wide prohibition can solve the problem, but it is not like there are many States in the world in which marijuana is legal, so?... And also it is not like the Venezuelan State chose to forbid it now - it has always been forbidden, for all that time you were enthusiastically supporting Chavez's regime... so?

Don't misunderstand me, please - I do not support Chavez's regime in and of itself. I support non-intervention in Venezuela, and I am aware that the Venezolan opposition is the internal arm of an intervention. And these portrayals of commonplace decisions of the Venezolan government - which are quite similar to what other bourgeois governments in the world take everyday - as scandalous attempts against democracy play directly on the hands of the Venezolan opposition and its external allies.

(In fact, the "socialist" delusions of so many enthusiastic people about Chavez also play on the hands of the oposición.)

Luís Henrique

[makesi]

I'm not a libertarian, but I know what's horseshit and what isn't. So naturally, my B.S detector went right off when you wrote this dandy piece of literature.

You like to think it's you, not the working class itself, that decides what's good and what isn't. If the working class wants to watch animal porn or America's Funniest Videos, let them do so. It's geniuses like you who, at every revolution, claim that freedom of speech and general liberties are "bourgeois vices", or some other shit.

My rant is done. And I hope your love for despotism is over as well. However, I doubt that.


Your "rant" is sick and disgusting. You didn't really think that what you wrote there would change someone's mind, did you?

Broadcast "animal porn" if the working class "wants to watch" it??

You and others on this thread accuse those of us who support a ban of programs such as Family Guy of imposing our tastes and decisions on the working class, an argument quite similar to the one made in bourgeoise social science against the supposedly flawed conception of false consciousness that is found in some Marxist thought.
On the contrary, I would argue, the majority of posters on this thread favoring Family Guy are taking at face value the notion of TV viewers wanting what is presented to them, accepting a supply and demand and open market rationale argument as to why these shows are popular and prevalent. The winnowing of humorous devices, themes, and formulae in culture could also be taken as a demonstration of the transposition of Marx's analysis of the way competition operates and shapes the field of a competitive market. Big fish eats little fish.

The Family Guy supporters are posing abstract notions such as free speech when, in fact, I would argue, they are moreso exhibiting an arrogant, US-based, culturally biased assumption that all the rest of the world wants and needs to see these shows and that prohibiting other nations' access to them is a violation of their human rights. I believe that this is an unstated and probably unrecognized premise of many, if not all, of the posters on this thread opposing the banning of shows like FG in other parts of the world. Put in simpler language: you like your Family Guy and your pot and your animal porn (that's for you Red Manatee) and you can't understand how any other people wouldn't like it as well. Therefore, what is actually a real imposition coming from cultural imperialism, you take as a spreading of human liberty. And, I don't think that this an exaggerration on my part, or at the very least only a slight one, because one can cite the indignation of the pro-FG posters on the Beatles, on the legalization of pot, on the right to animal porn (for you again, RM), etc.

The same goes for the culturally biased assumption that the rest of the world is all screaming "Legalize!"

[makesi]

There was no referendum or upsurge of popular demand in Venezuela, or in any other country for that matter, that the degenerate, reactionary, and neoliberal programs produced for US audiences (actually for US advertisers, let's be honest and actually capable of genuine radical analysis, here, if you can) be imported into their countries.

Neoliberal is a good descriptor for the Family Guy show. It is a "no-holds barred," new racist fount for the ideas of a resurgent capitalism. The show, similar to South Park, takes an economic conservatism and combines it with a snarky libertarianism of today, supposedly attacking one and all and skewering the social order. The show, with its postmodernist pastiche of popular culture referents and piled-on jokes is not something that would have been produced 30 years ago. To deny that it is neoliberal is to have no historical sense. The show emerges from a reactionary network at a time of generalized reaction.

Why shouldn't it be banned?

I mean, maybe, and I think Red Manatee would agree with here, we shouldn't ban animal porn but we can at least agree on banning Family Guy.

[makesi]

I mean, really, Animal Porn?! WTF.

[Raúl Duke]

I mean, really, Animal Porn?! WTF.

We are not in charge to decide morality...

If under communism a large referendum and debate was held whether for animal porn to be broadcasted and it won then so be it.

However, in reality, it's most likely such a referendum won't pass (in our culture nor in Venezuela's culture) so to complain about this single reference in that post is somewhat like making a strawman of the argument they want to convey.

Personally, I don't give a rats ass about this damn show (although I do watch south park, preferably high too; which is the actual point of contention of this thread. What's Venezuela's issue with censorship of unimportant shows/episodes and/or what is the government's view on marijuana?)

[the last donut of the night]

Your "rant" is sick and disgusting. You didn't really think that what you wrote there would change someone's mind, did you?

Probably not. However, somebody has to stand up to your fallacies.





On the contrary, I would argue, the majority of posters on this thread favoring Family Guy are taking at face value the notion of TV viewers wanting what is presented to them, accepting a supply and demand and open market rationale argument as to why these shows are popular and prevalent. The winnowing of humorous devices, themes, and formulae in culture could also be taken as a demonstration of the transposition of Marx's analysis of the way competition operates and shapes the field of a competitive market. Big fish eats little fish.
You are distorting our words. We don't believe in the whole notion that choosing what you buy will change. We are not some kind of Adbusters. Also, I doubt that the working class is becoming radical due to Family Guy. However, the story is that one episode of such a show was not shown due to marijuana use. And who banned it? Not the working class, but the government. If there's a difference between working class and government, I doubt that's socialism. In fact, Venezuela isn't socialist. You are defending the interests not of the working class. Nothing will be imposed unto the working class unless the class itself decides to do so. You, my friend, seem to be defending anti-democratic ideals.


The Family Guy supporters are posing abstract notions such as free speech when, in fact, I would argue, they are moreso exhibiting an arrogant, US-based, culturally biased assumption that all the rest of the world wants and needs to see these shows and that prohibiting other nations' access to them is a violation of their human rights. I believe that this is an unstated and probably unrecognized premise of many, if not all, of the posters on this thread opposing the banning of shows like FG in other parts of the world. Put in simpler language: you like your Family Guy and your pot and your animal porn (that's for you Red Manatee) and you can't understand how any other people wouldn't like it as well. Therefore, what is actually a real imposition coming from cultural imperialism, you take as a spreading of human liberty. And, I don't think that this an exaggerration on my part, or at the very least only a slight one, because one can cite the indignation of the pro-FG posters on the Beatles, on the legalization of pot, on the right to animal porn (for you again, RM), etc.

The same goes for the culturally biased assumption that the rest of the world is all screaming "Legalize!"

What a doozy, this post. I understand why people don't like Family Guy, or animal porn (who even said I enjoyed two horses fucking), or pot. I understand that people have different values. However, you can't understand that some people in Venezuala might actually like animal porn, pot and Family Guy. However, just because animal porn, FG, and pot seem like Western "bourgeois decadences" to you, you keep prohibiting it to others. It is you who cannot understand the fact that people have different tastes.

You assume facts about the working class in Venezuela;you cry the same bull that the so-called Communists cried during the Cultural Revolution.

P.S: We are for the legalization of marijuana not because it's a cultural thing. We're for the legalization for marijuana because (1) marijuana poses no threat as a drug, (2) its prohibition is a tool of racist bigotry against Blacks and Latinos, and (3) people should consume what they wish to consume.

But not you, bucko. I hope I'm wrong, but you seem like the pseudo-Maoist guy who believes that anybody who listens to indie rock and eats cheeseburgers is an imperialist, capitalist dog.

[proudcomrade]

"You, my friend, seem to be defending anti-democratic ideals."

Democracy is overrated.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Democracy is overrated.

You're an idiot.

[VientoLibre]

Democracy is overrated.

You're overrated..

Yeah--doesn't feel so good to be called 'overrated' does it?

[proudcomrade]

Ah, yes, namecalling, the surest way to prove your intellectual prowess. Stay classy!

[Raúl Duke]

Democracy is overrated.


"Socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen"-[hypocritically from] Trotsky

I say, democracy without equality is a farce...equality without democracy is a joke.

[makesi]

Probably not. However, somebody has to stand up to your fallacies.





You are distorting our words. We don't believe in the whole notion that choosing what you buy will change. We are not some kind of Adbusters. Also, I doubt that the working class is becoming radical due to Family Guy. However, the story is that one episode of such a show was not shown due to marijuana use. And who banned it? Not the working class, but the government. If there's a difference between working class and government, I doubt that's socialism. In fact, Venezuela isn't socialist. You are defending the interests not of the working class. Nothing will be imposed unto the working class unless the class itself decides to do so. You, my friend, seem to be defending anti-democratic ideals.



What a doozy, this post. I understand why people don't like Family Guy, or animal porn (who even said I enjoyed two horses fucking), or pot. I understand that people have different values. However, you can't understand that some people in Venezuala might actually like animal porn, pot and Family Guy. However, just because animal porn, FG, and pot seem like Western "bourgeois decadences" to you, you keep prohibiting it to others. It is you who cannot understand the fact that people have different tastes.

You assume facts about the working class in Venezuela;you cry the same bull that the so-called Communists cried during the Cultural Revolution.

P.S: We are for the legalization of marijuana not because it's a cultural thing. We're for the legalization for marijuana because (1) marijuana poses no threat as a drug, (2) its prohibition is a tool of racist bigotry against Blacks and Latinos, and (3) people should consume what they wish to consume.

But not you, bucko. I hope I'm wrong, but you seem like the pseudo-Maoist guy who believes that anybody who listens to indie rock and eats cheeseburgers is an imperialist, capitalist dog.


A few things, if I may.

First, can you clarify this for me please: "We don't believe in the whole notion that choosing what you buy will change. We are not some kind of Adbusters. Also, I doubt that the working class is becoming radical due to Family Guy."

The first sentence is very unclear to me, perhaps you misunderstood my point or I didn't make myself clear. My point, to reiterate, is that I believe that most, if not all, of the people making the pro-FG (just using that for shorthand, ok, it doesn't mean that they are necessarily members of the FG fan club) arguments are making ahistorical and decontextualized arguments that are turning on notions such as free speech, the wants of TV viewers, the desires of pot smokers, etc. These arguments are, in my opinion, decontextualized and ahistorical because they take at face value the animated production of a major corporation, its being broadcast on a global level, and its popularity as simple facts of life. Those three aspects of FG's existence are taken as reflecting no more than the unimpeded and unmediated (as in supposedly not being mediated by that very same capitalist enterprise and its army of marketers, writers, promoters, etc) desires and tastes of a (implicitly universalized) public. I would assert that the globalization of American culture--now perhaps not every aspect of it, but certainly things like FG would come under this appelation, for me at least--is best described as cultural imperialism, not just as a rhetorical device or a slogan, but as a social science term with a specific (marxist) definition to it. These cultural products are, in my opinion, oftentimes harldy less insidious than the more common forms of economic and technological imperialism and are probably inseparable from them.

A response to another thing you said: "I hope I'm wrong, but you seem like the pseudo-Maoist guy who believes that anybody who listens to indie rock and eats cheeseburgers is an imperialist, capitalist dog."

Well, I wouldn't say I automatically assume it, but they do become suspect in my eyes. The worse imperialist dog, however, might be the one who thinks it the duty of socialists to not present any principled opposition to the importation (more accurately, strategic imperialist imposition) of McDonaldses and FGs and etc. etc. into other countries, particularly those that are trying to build some (at least some kind, I think most people [pro-FG or not] on this thread would agree) kind of alternative to a typically rapacious and violent capitalism.

By the by, I was harping on the animal porn thing more as a joke, although I do think it was a rather poor example to use.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Democracy is overrated.
Had to be said. It's not nearly the outlandish claim that liberal anarcho-Trots would have people believe. Recent history shows us that so-called dictatorships and authoritarian states like the Soviet Union and Cuba are much truer to the ideal of majority rule than traditional "democracy". I'd take a socialist "dictator" over bourgeois parliamentary democracy any day.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Had to be said. It's not nearly the outlandish claim that liberal anarcho-Trots would have people believe. Recent history shows us that so-called dictatorships and authoritarian states like the Soviet Union and Cuba are much truer to the ideal of majority rule than traditional "democracy". I'd take a socialist "dictator" over bourgeois parliamentary democracy any day.

how about neither? I'll take real democracy.

[KarlMarx1989]

The name of the book in English is Holy Bible.
Even though "Bible" isn't a word.

Biblia is latin for book, not bible

[Raúl Duke]

the Soviet Union and Cuba are much truer to the ideal of majority rule than traditional "democracy". I'd take a socialist "dictator" over bourgeois parliamentary democracy any day.:rolleyes:

This is [one reason] why we (the revolutionary left) aren't taken seriously anymore.

-----

With the exception of a few, most think it's stupid to censor/ban/whatever a stupid show especially over marijuana. Legalization and/or decriminization of pot is something that most of the modern-day left (During a RCI rally I stumble uponed, Rifundazione Communista Italiano, there was little stickers for the legalization of weed from Die Linke) supports.

Thus this conversation...why would self-proclaimed socialists in Venezuela be against marijuana use? This censorship over an episode concerning pot leads some to wonder what's the government's opinion on drugs. It's not exactly a "Latin-American thing" either to be against pot, (If I remembered correctly) someone mentioned previously how the other South American countries were becoming more lenient over drugs

[khad]

:rolleyes:

This is [one reason] why we (the revolutionary left) aren't taken seriously anymore.
Animal Porn FTW! :thumbup:

[Raúl Duke]

Animal Porn FTW! :thumbup:

Plus this

Purge the zoophiles!!! :p

[Saorsa]

"I hope I'm wrong, but you seem like the pseudo-Maoist guy who believes that anybody who listens to indie rock and eats cheeseburgers is an imperialist, capitalist dog.

Cheeseburgers are the epitome of proletarian, revolutionary perfection, and McDonalds is delicious. Anyone who listens to indie rock however deserves to be shot.

[Luís Henrique]

anarcho-Trots

Can you please spare us this kind of ridiculous slur? Anarchists are not Trostskyists, and Trotskyists are not anarchists. Using such label says nothing about either, while it says a lot about yourself.

Luís Henrique

[Spawn of Stalin]

It is no more of a ridiculous slur than "Stalinist".

[Vanguard1917]

It shouldn't be broadcast in any country. It's rubbish. Under socialism, state TV will only show one 'adult-humour' cartoon, and that will, obviously, be South Park. Class-conscious workers will always wage the most ruthless and resolute struggle against cheap, unintelligent and predictable jokes that, as others have observed, usually aren't even related to the episode plot.

[Random Precision]

Even though "Bible" isn't a word.

Biblia is latin for book, not bible

Actualy Biblia does mean "Bible". It comes from biblion, Greek for book or scroll, which in Latin came to be associated with just one particular book. Other books are called "libri" or variations thereof.

[debase89]

i don't really watch family guy but i think itd be stupid to ban a show just cause you don't agree with it.

-debase

[revolt4thewin]

Na family guy is funny well some episodes are while others are just lame byt that is TV these days. South Park FTW!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSyyCWrnTsw&feature=related

[TC]

Your "rant" is sick and disgusting. You didn't really think that what you wrote there would change someone's mind, did you?

Broadcast "animal porn" if the working class "wants to watch" it??

You and others on this thread accuse those of us who support a ban of programs such as Family Guy of imposing our tastes and decisions on the working class, an argument quite similar to the one made in bourgeoise social science against the supposedly flawed conception of false consciousness that is found in some Marxist thought.
On the contrary, I would argue, the majority of posters on this thread favoring Family Guy are taking at face value the notion of TV viewers wanting what is presented to them, accepting a supply and demand and open market rationale argument as to why these shows are popular and prevalent. The winnowing of humorous devices, themes, and formulae in culture could also be taken as a demonstration of the transposition of Marx's analysis of the way competition operates and shapes the field of a competitive market. Big fish eats little fish.

The Family Guy supporters are posing abstract notions such as free speech when, in fact, I would argue, they are moreso exhibiting an arrogant, US-based, culturally biased assumption that all the rest of the world wants and needs to see these shows and that prohibiting other nations' access to them is a violation of their human rights. I believe that this is an unstated and probably unrecognized premise of many, if not all, of the posters on this thread opposing the banning of shows like FG in other parts of the world. Put in simpler language: you like your Family Guy and your pot and your animal porn (that's for you Red Manatee) and you can't understand how any other people wouldn't like it as well. Therefore, what is actually a real imposition coming from cultural imperialism, you take as a spreading of human liberty. And, I don't think that this an exaggerration on my part, or at the very least only a slight one, because one can cite the indignation of the pro-FG posters on the Beatles, on the legalization of pot, on the right to animal porn (for you again, RM), etc.

The same goes for the culturally biased assumption that the rest of the world is all screaming "Legalize!"

Consider this a verbal warning for attacking Red Manatee

[TC]

You're an idiot.

Consider this a verbal warning for that comment

[Josef Balin]

No, you sound like a libertarian.

If the story had actually been accurate, I would have been fine with Vz. banning Family Guy; would be fine with them banning pot; am fine with Cuba having banned the Beatles for a good many years (the music itself was innocent fun; but at the time, the Beatles themselves had been heavily fucking around with LSD, violating their marriages, loudly proclaiming absolute pacifism, objectifying the living hell out of India's ancient culture and belief systems, and then going all First-World liberal in using their fame and fortune to escape the consequences; meanwhile, the rest of the world proletariat was being heavily punished for the same behavior that the band was openly inciting).

There is such a thing as healthy authoritarianism in a socialist state. Behavior which alters people's mood reactions and intellectual capacities, increases disease and vehicle fatalities, causes domestic strife in the family, or brainwashes the people with flagrant displays of US libertine behavior, can and should be prevented from corrupting a revolutionary people. Chavez is correct; Fidel had been correct; the Soviets were correct. The people do not need the absolute lowest forms of the neolibs' entertainment culture degrading them, alienating them from each other, and breaking their character and solidarity.
"If the story had actually been accurate, I would have been fine with Vz. banning Family Guy; would be fine with them banning pot; am fine with Cuba having banned the Beatles for a good many years (the music itself was innocent fun; but at the time, the Beatles themselves had been heavily fucking around with LSD, violating their marriages, loudly proclaiming absolute pacifism, objectifying the living hell out of India's ancient culture and belief systems, and then going all First-World liberal in using their fame and fortune to escape the consequence"

WHAT? HOW IS VIOLATING MARRIAGES, FUCKING AROUND WITH LSD, LOUDLY PROCLAIMING PACIFISM, AND "OBJECTIFYING INDIAN CULTURE" (liking India, the same way weeaboo's like Japan, something that is BOUND TO FUCKING EXIST YOU MINDLESS IDIOT) AND BEING RICH (which is not bad nor was it opposed by the founders of Marxism, and you'd know that if you were actually a Marxist) RIGHTFUL CAUSE TO MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO HEAR SOMEONE SPEAK WORDS WITH SOUNDS IN THE BACKGROUND?
/rage

And what the fuck is "healthy authoritarianism"? Do you just completely lack ideological understanding? No one "supports" authoritarianism, you are either "against" it or see it as an imperialist concept used on pretty much every non-Western State. No socialist ideology, not Stalinists, not Hoxhaists, not Soviet-era communists believes "authoritarianism" is a useful tactic, mainly because authoritarianism has a definition made up by Western academics that almost has to include "unfair elections" (in the neutral sense of the word, as in bad), rule of men as opposed to rule of law, and generally scary life in the mind of a Westerner. It is a bourgeoise concept that could only be used fittingly by a bourgeoise idealogist.

You are exactly what is wrong with the communist movement.

"Behavior which alters people's mood reactions and intellectual capacities, increases disease and vehicle fatalities, causes domestic strife in the family, or brainwashes the people with flagrant displays of US libertine behavior, can and should be prevented from corrupting a revolutionary people."
If you're saying drugs should be illegal because of that, you're just not smart. I don't even think I have to address that, if you're being that conservative I'm sure someone with experience on the subject will rage and respond.

EDIT: Also, what is this bullshit about "Hollywood imperialism"? That "American culture" is being spread by Hollywood to the deterrent of foreign places? Such nationalist bullshit so blatantly ripped from populist nationalist leaders has no place on revleft.

[proudcomrade]

Nota Bene- the following is not addressed to any one individual in particular:

I respond to criticisms when presented in a scholarly manner, with references in Marx, and with tact. I do not dignify post after post after post of screeching personal insults in allcaps. Stop making Revleft a tedious and annoying place; it is utterly unnecessary.

[Josef Balin]

Nota Bene- the following is not addressed to any one individual in particular:

I respond to criticisms when presented in a scholarly manner, with references in Marx, and with tact. I do not dignify post after post after post of screeching personal insults in allcaps. Stop making Revleft a tedious and annoying place; it is utterly unnecessary.
That's like saying "I respond to criticisms when someone calls me King Proudcomrade, and only then." It just makes me right, the fact that you can't handle when someone presses their caps lock button to put emphasis on something or calls you an idiot instead of beating around the bush for twenty minutes doesn't negate the fact that you're wrong and a walking stereotype of what people imagine communists to be (Super uptight "authoritarians", you even embrace a term made solely by the imperialists ffs). Plus that's an attitude completely unsuitable for the real world, both political and otherwise, and entirely detrimental.

EDIT: I shouldn't have responded to something so utterly childish and I should have just trolled him, but I'm pretty sure that's an area of comedy completely unappreciated around these parts so I'll leave it at this.

[Lodestar]

How can someone be a serious progressive/leftist and believe that government must regulate how people live their private lives/behaviors?

Marijuana is completely harmless, and it's a bit of an embarassment when governments that advocate socialist/progressive principles assume the puritanical, reactionary attitudes against it.

You can get years of imprisonment in Cuba for having mary jane, for instance.

[TC]

"If the story had actually been accurate, I would have been fine with Vz. banning Family Guy; would be fine with them banning pot; am fine with Cuba having banned the Beatles for a good many years (the music itself was innocent fun; but at the time, the Beatles themselves had been heavily fucking around with LSD, violating their marriages, loudly proclaiming absolute pacifism, objectifying the living hell out of India's ancient culture and belief systems, and then going all First-World liberal in using their fame and fortune to escape the consequence"

WHAT? HOW IS VIOLATING MARRIAGES, FUCKING AROUND WITH LSD, LOUDLY PROCLAIMING PACIFISM, AND "OBJECTIFYING INDIAN CULTURE" (liking India, the same way weeaboo's like Japan, something that is BOUND TO FUCKING EXIST YOU MINDLESS IDIOT) AND BEING RICH (which is not bad nor was it opposed by the founders of Marxism, and you'd know that if you were actually a Marxist) RIGHTFUL CAUSE TO MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO HEAR SOMEONE SPEAK WORDS WITH SOUNDS IN THE BACKGROUND?
/rage

And what the fuck is "healthy authoritarianism"? Do you just completely lack ideological understanding? No one "supports" authoritarianism, you are either "against" it or see it as an imperialist concept used on pretty much every non-Western State. No socialist ideology, not Stalinists, not Hoxhaists, not Soviet-era communists believes "authoritarianism" is a useful tactic, mainly because authoritarianism has a definition made up by Western academics that almost has to include "unfair elections" (in the neutral sense of the word, as in bad), rule of men as opposed to rule of law, and generally scary life in the mind of a Westerner. It is a bourgeoise concept that could only be used fittingly by a bourgeoise idealogist.

You are exactly what is wrong with the communist movement.

"Behavior which alters people's mood reactions and intellectual capacities, increases disease and vehicle fatalities, causes domestic strife in the family, or brainwashes the people with flagrant displays of US libertine behavior, can and should be prevented from corrupting a revolutionary people."
If you're saying drugs should be illegal because of that, you're just not smart. I don't even think I have to address that, if you're being that conservative I'm sure someone with experience on the subject will rage and respond.

EDIT: Also, what is this bullshit about "Hollywood imperialism"? That "American culture" is being spread by Hollywood to the deterrent of foreign places? Such nationalist bullshit so blatantly ripped from populist nationalist leaders has no place on revleft.


That's like saying "I respond to criticisms when someone calls me King Proudcomrade, and only then." It just makes me right, the fact that you can't handle when someone presses their caps lock button to put emphasis on something or calls you an idiot instead of beating around the bush for twenty minutes doesn't negate the fact that you're wrong and a walking stereotype of what people imagine communists to be (Super uptight "authoritarians", you even embrace a term made solely by the imperialists ffs). Plus that's an attitude completely unsuitable for the real world, both political and otherwise, and entirely detrimental.

EDIT: I shouldn't have responded to something so utterly childish and I should have just trolled him, but I'm pretty sure that's an area of comedy completely unappreciated around these parts so I'll leave it at this.

Consider this a warning for trolling and being personally insulting to another forum member.