There seems to be, in our society t

There seems to be, in our society today, a crackdown on communication of a spiritual, candid and honest nature; a tacit censorship or “chilling out” of opinions, ideas, beliefs and worldviews that do not promote spending and consumption, free market neoliberalism, xenophobia and the characterisation of entire groups of people as enemies, to name a few major tangents.

It strikes me that this kind of censorship is a product of certain lawmakers, legislators, “public interest” groups, judges, police, members of government and moneyed lobby groups of big business and the church who embody an attitude of thought that seeks to control others and limit their expression to what they consider “acceptable.”

This kind of totalitarian thought is not at all unlike the mentality of German National Socialists burning books in the thirties, it is not unlike the mindsets of the Chinese who set out to “purify” Tibet from its own culture, and it is not at all unlike the current madness in North Korea.

It strikes me that people who think in this way, with the usual excuses for such obvious inhumanity as the beating of children to teach them “lessons,” the return to the “good old days” before women had a say in their own reproduction and so forth, have never in fact confronted or attempted to relate themselves to the objects of their desired censorship.

Nor, for that matter, have they confronted or attempted to relate themselves to the problem of censorship itself, or to the consequences of their actions and intrusions into the rights of others to freely and safely express their feelings and thoughts.

Most of these lawmakers, judges, members of government and “leaders” of various descriptions tend to hide behind a wall of rhetoric and soundbyte-esque phrases that rely on questioning the “moral” and social integrity of those who support basic human freedom of expression. Questions pertaining to the individual’s sexual orientation and practice, designed to create some form of scandal or to impeach the ethical standing of the person in question, are rolled out with frightening regularity, and never with the expectation that the questioner might detail his own sexual practices and kinks in fairness to the other. In fact, the notion that one of these censors could be held to his own standard of questioning is seen as absurd and “rude,” a typical retort of those accustomed to privilege.

ผลลัพธ์ (อังกฤษ) 2:

There seems to be, in our society today, a crackdown on communication of a spiritual, candid and honest nature; a tacit censorship or "Chilling out" of opinions, ideas, Beliefs and worldviews that do not Promote spending and consumption, free Market neoliberalism, xenophobia and the characterization of entire groups of people as enemies, to name a few Major tangents. Strikes Me. that this kind of censorship is a product of certain lawmakers, legislators, "public interest" groups, judges, police, members of government and moneyed lobby groups of big business and the church who embody an attitude of thought that seeks to control others and limit. their Expression to what they consider "acceptable." This Kind of totalitarian thought is not at all unlike the Mentality of German National Socialists Burning Books in the thirties, it is not unlike the mindsets of the Chinese Who SET out to "Purify" Tibet from. its own Culture, and it is not at all unlike the current Madness in North Korea. It Strikes Me that people Who Think in this Way, with the usual Excuses for such Obvious Inhumanity as the beating of children to teach them "Lessons," the. Return to the "good Old days" before Women had a Say in their own Reproduction and so forth, have Never in Fact confronted or attempted to Relate themselves to the Objects of their desired censorship. Nor, for that Matter, have they confronted or attempted. to Relate themselves to the Problem of censorship Itself, or to the Consequences of their Actions and intrusions Into the rights of others to freely and safely Express their Feelings and Thoughts. Most of these lawmakers, Judges, Members of Government and "Leaders" of Various. descriptions tend to hide behind a wall of rhetoric and soundbyte-esque phrases that rely on questioning the "moral" and social integrity of those who support basic human freedom of expression. Questions pertaining to the individual's sexual orientation and practice, designed to create some form of scandal or to impeach the ethical standing of the person in question, are rolled out with frightening regularity, and never with the expectation that the questioner might detail his own sexual practices. and kinks in fairness to the other. In fact, the notion that one of these censors could be held to his own standard of questioning is seen as absurd and "rude," a typical retort of those accustomed to privilege.

ผลลัพธ์ (อังกฤษ) 3:

There seems, to be in our society today a crackdown, on communication of, a spiritual candid and honest nature; a tacit. Censorship or "chilling out", of opinions ideas beliefs and, worldviews that do not promote spending, and consumption free. Market neoliberalism xenophobia and, the characterisation of entire groups of people, as enemies to name a few major tangents.

.It strikes me that this kind of censorship is a product of, certain lawmakers legislators, "public interest." groups judges,,, Police members of, government and moneyed lobby groups of big business and the church who embody an attitude of thought. That seeks to control others and limit their expression to what they consider "acceptable."

.This kind of totalitarian thought is not at all unlike the mentality of German National Socialists burning books in the. Thirties it is, not unlike the mindsets of the Chinese who set out to "purify." Tibet from its own culture and it, is not. At all unlike the current madness in North Korea.

It strikes me that people who think in, this wayWith the usual excuses for such obvious inhumanity as the beating of children to teach them "lessons," the return to the. "Good old days." before women had a say in their own reproduction and so forth have never, in fact confronted or attempted. To relate themselves to the objects of their desired censorship.

Nor for that matter,,Have they confronted or attempted to relate themselves to the problem of censorship itself or to, the consequences of their. Actions and intrusions into the rights of others to freely and safely express their feelings and thoughts.

Most of these. ,, lawmakers judgesMembers of government and "leaders." of various descriptions tend to hide behind a wall of rhetoric and soundbyte-esque. Phrases that rely on questioning the "moral." and social integrity of those who support basic human freedom of, expression. Questions pertaining to the individual 's sexual orientation, and PracticeDesigned to create some form of scandal or to impeach the ethical standing of the person, in question are rolled out with. Frightening regularity and never, with the expectation that the questioner might detail his own sexual practices and kinks. In fairness to the other. In fact the notion, that one of these censors could be held to his own standard of questioning. Is seen as absurd and, "rude