Bansturbate an analysis.

[drone]

Further examples abound as a random sample from the past couple of weeks reveals: the EU Justice Commissioner suggests censoring the entire internet to keep those who might copy the Glasgow bombers from learning how to make bombs.

Actually, I would think they would want this knowledge at the forefront of the terrorists' Google hit list. Seems like a fairly easy way to catch a lot of troublemakers with no real damage caused.

These bans do nothing but make criminals of the populace, which is probably the whole point.

[HoreTore]

And you're wondering why we don't want to join your union so we can also have these politicians, eh?

[Peasant Phill]

I have several problems with this article.

One candidate is the verb “to bansturbate” (origin, Harry Haddock, who blogs at nationofshopkeepers.wordpress.com). The word – a fusion of “ban” and the term for self-abuse – refers to both the public abuse of the rights of the citizenry as things that some people simply disapprove of are made illegal, and the near-sexual frisson of pleasure gained by those who pass such laws.

Can't you just say masturbate? How can anybody be shocked by a word? And if it can be possible to be shocked by a word, will the effect be any different if you describe that word?

Also, it might be me that hasn't fully grasped the English language but isn't abuse a negative term? Is in this day and age, giving oneself pleasure by masturbation negatively conceived?

One recent example is the ban on smoking in pubs. That the dangers of passive smoking have been hugely overstated is one thing, but even if they were as advertised they still would not trump the rights of consenting adults to do as they wish on private property. But banned it was; and as calls to ban puffing in our homes show, once we’ve started down the path of pleasurable “bansturbating” kinkiness, then ever greater doses must be consumed to maintain the effect.

I can follow this to some point. Banning smoking in pubs is/was rather radical but he just ranting instead of pointing things out. He states that facts about passive smoking are overstated but never backs this up. To strengthen his point he than claims, again unsupported, that the ban will eventually effect people in their own home. He just sounds more like a frustrated smoker than a collumnist.

Further examples abound as a random sample from the past couple of weeks reveals: the EU Justice Commissioner suggests censoring the entire internet to keep those who might copy the Glasgow bombers from learning how to make bombs.

He suggests it. Like no other politician has ever suggested such a thing. I bet this writer isn't all to happy either that such information is so widly available. It was a suggestion and it it'll stay a suggestion so it can't be used as an example of bansturbation.

This week we learnt that the European Commission wants to ban the very word “sunblock” for fear that we are all too stupid to realise that it is a relative, not absolute, term.

Hmm, that is stupid (if he's right I'll admit it too).
I however suspect that he has a long standing beef with the EU and its influence on Great Britain. I understand Britain's attitude towards the EU though I never could appreciate it. The glory of the British empire is over, deal with it.

Of course, none of the above advances the cause of human civilisation, happiness or freedom: yet ever more such regulations pour from Parliament and committee rooms. The future is not, as Orwell forecast, a boot stamping on a human face, for ever. It is our masters and rulers, grinning wildly in their mad bansturbation.

This is just a bad example of a columnist, having a go at everything he dislikes at the moment without anything to back it up. It doesn't even has any skill to it other than to be able to write correctly in way of spelling and grammar. No irony, No humour, ...