| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not just "these days". People were "offended"/hurt by others words and actions before - it's just that complaining tended to lead to assault, rape, and death, not just for yourself but often other people that those in power thought were in the same group as retribution for not keeping one of theirs in their place.
As groups have gotten better protection from that (though it still happens), people are able to express how they want to be treated and possibly more important, how they do NOT want to be treated. There has been a lot written about this and most of it connects to history of words or actions, and these give a general framework. Obviously, it varies a lot from individual to individual and part of dealing with individuals is respecting how a person wants to be treated and recognizing the validity in a different worldview that is often affected by how the world treats people differently depending on they pass to its expectations. Calling people 'easily offended', 'oversensitive', or 'PC-defenders' is invalidating and continues the unequal structures and systems built into our society that are slowly being rebuilt. If people listened rather than blaming those at the bottom, it would get rebuilt a lot quicker.
We can say we're all human as much as we want but the reality is that society has been systematically built with unequal power at the basis of its structures and while it is slowly being rebuilt, people are treated differently by the world depending on what group they appear to belong to. 96% of people in America who are raped state that their rapist was White, but 80% of those in jail for rape are black, Native American woman are 3 times more likely to be sexually assaulted than White women, White people were less than 20% of stop and searches in NYC in 2010 yet had over 65% of the contraband, and the response the next year was to stop fewer White people. Our experiences and treatment by the world is affected by who we pass as, we can't make it better until we acknowledge it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
seetrobe, hopefully no one is denying that great inequalities have existed, and continue to exist to this day. I think we all agree that speaking out against them is a good thing all around. However, there are some cases in which the veneer of speaking out against inequality can actually used as a veil over efforts to cause strife where none exists.
(A) If I'm in a bar and some guy says "move it, shorty," and elbows me aside, I'd probably appreciate it if someone else says to him, "If you keep acting like such a dick someone's going to kick your ass."
(B) If I'm with my friends and one of them jokes, "Hey, Kirth, you better take the high stool so you can reach the bar," he's my friend and I'm not taking offense, so I REALLY don't appreciate it if some would-be moral crusader comes over and says, "MY BROTHER IS SHORT, YOU BIGOT, SO NOW YOU BETTER STEP OUTSIDE!" In the latter case, the guy really just wants to start a fight, and is using my friend's (non-offensive to me) remarks as an excuse to do so.
Even without violence in the offering, an extremely common variant of Scenario B is when a person adopts an exaggerated White Knight approach in a transparent to impress nearby observers with his supposed "moral superiority" over everyone else within earshot.
Sadly, as Scenario "A" gets to be more common (which we'd all hope it would), Scenario "B" becomes more common as well (which is unfortunate).
seetrobe, hopefully no one is denying that great inequalities have existed, and continue to exist to this day. I think we all agree that speaking out against them is a good thing all around. However, there are some cases in which the veneer of speaking out against inequality can actually used as a veil over efforts to cause strife where none exists.
(A) If I'm in a bar and some guy says "move it, shorty," and elbows me aside, I'd probably appreciate it if someone else says to him, "If you keep acting like such a dick someone's going to kick your ass."
(B) If I'm with my friends and one of them jokes, "Hey, Kirth, you better take the high stool so you can reach the bar," he's my friend and I'm not taking offense, so I REALLY don't appreciate it if some would-be moral crusader comes over and says, "MY BROTHER IS SHORT, YOU BIGOT, SO NOW YOU BETTER STEP OUTSIDE!" In the latter case, the guy really just wants to start a fight, and is using my friend's (non-offensive to me) remarks as an excuse to do so.
Even without violence in the offering, an extremely common variant of Scenario B is when a person adopts an exaggerated White Knight approach in a transparent to impress nearby observers with his supposed "moral superiority" over everyone else within earshot.
Sadly, as Scenario "A" gets to be more common (which we'd all hope it would), Scenario "B" becomes more common as well (which is unfortunate).
The problem is...that guy would find another reason for that fight anyway. You'd knock him, or his drink, or dislike his favourite sports minion. Someone looking for an excuse to fight will find one. That they're trying to white knight as an excuse to fight is stupid, and the person who was joke insulted (although, personally, I never got the funnies behind joke insults except to myself) should call him on it.
I'd rather a guy have a stupid excuse to try causing a fight (instead of a variety of other excuses for causing a fight) and someone defend someone when some ass insults him, or some women gets cornered by, 'Hey baby, you want a good time? We don't care, you're coming with us' crowd than the guy have to yell about spilled drinks and no one goes to help someone who really needs it.
That they're trying to white knight as an excuse to fight is stupid
Yes! It is! And a lot of people have latched onto politically-correctness as somehow giving them free license to be stupid. I'm not saying I endorse it, only that it's becoming fairly common. Look at my example above, regarding Christmas break with the family. Ask my brother why he started a huge argument, he'd say he was "defending gay people." But there were no gay people there to defend, and no one was attacking them anyway. Mostly I suspect that, at a subconscious level, he just wanted to (a) stir up trouble, and (b) show off for his wife, who eats up all that sort of pseudo-White Knight stuff.
|
I'm reminded of the family reunion in which I had the temerity to call the guys on Entourage "metrosexuals," IIRC. My brother flipped. I was told that I was a hateful, bigoted slimeball for even using the word (verbatim quote: "That is the most homophobic thing I have ever heard!!!!"), and it was implied that I should be thrown in prison and/or re-educated for the good of humanity. When I said, "Look, that's how they struck me. But, seriously, it's Christmas time, and we're all together, and you're sidelining all that on a quest for speech control, even though you have no means of actually enforcing your edicts." The rejoinder consisted of calling me a lot of much worse things than "metrosexual."
Bear in mind, this is a month after a big show of support for GLBT rights on my behalf -- because an off-hand remark in private is far more important than any actual actions in public.
I'm totally in favor of equal rights for all, and for not calling people really offensive stuff just to be obnoxious. But when all is said and done, I'm still sometimes left with the impression that "political correctness" is often used as a drama-queen card when you're bored and really just want to stir up a lot of argument and animosity, and claim the moral high ground for doing so -- that it has less to do with defending minorities and more to do with certain peoples' need to tell each other what to do.
Or maybe some people just really, really like Entourage, I don't know.
Your brother was not being politically correct.
So... Worth considering
So... Worth considering
Evidently my bandwidth isn't up to it. I get to 00:00:44 and it stalls out, and no amount of waiting or fast-forwarding or rewinding helps.
Yeah. I totally shouldn't get upset when someone calls me a dy**. I mean when I was in school, I got called that all of the time, and nobody (except me) got upset, so why shouldn't people be able to call me that now?
|
|
So... Worth consideringEvidently my bandwidth isn't up to it. I get to 00:00:44 and it stalls out, and no amount of waiting or fast-forwarding or rewinding helps.
Damnit, he's funny and clever...
Tried clicking on the little cog and selecting the lower quality version?
Yeah. I totally shouldn't get upset when someone calls me a dy**. I mean when I was in school, I got called that all of the time, and nobody (except me) got upset, so why shouldn't people be able to call me that now?
Not sure if you're talking to me? I sure has hell wouldn't call you that -- but if one of your friends alludes to your preference one way or the other (correctly or incorrectly), I don't necessarily think it's my place to try to butt in and impress you by sticking my nose between the two of you, denouncing your friend as a homophobe, and assuming that you'll thank me for it and maybe swoon over me.
A lot of people do make those sorts of assumptions, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure if you're talking to me? I sure has hell wouldn't call you that -- but if one of your friends alludes to your preference one way or the other (correctly or incorrectly), I don't necessarily think it's my place to try to butt in and impress you by sticking my nose between the two of you, denouncing your friend as a homophobe, and assuming that you'll thank me for it and maybe swoon over me.
A lot of people do make those sorts of assumptions, though.
Not you. Just a couple of people on this thread who really do seem not to understand why someone would object to it.
I certainly didn't mean you. and I don't swoon. over anybody. ever.
Not you. Just a couple of people on this thread who really do seem not to understand why someone would object to it.
Ah, OK. Cool. Never hurts to ask for clarification; I appreciate the response.
and I don't swoon. over anybody. ever.
Good for you!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
not to mention freedom of speech. Liberty is messy and you must take the bad with the good
I strongly support the legality of free speech, almost without restriction. However, the appropriateness of it is often questionable, and if someone says stupid, horrid things, I feel no particular qualms about treating them accordingly. I just happen to feel that while I as a private citizen can do that, the government should not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Free speech means that yes, you have to take what others say about you, but you are just as entitled to react to their comments. Limiting what can be said will only stifle communication - and communication is the best hope we have of surviving as a species.
Why do people take the time to be jerkfaces in the first place?
I see no reason to call people a noob when a game goes bad: It only serves to make you lose worse.
Stereotypes suck. Really really bad. (Not all Christians are dumb, not all Aethiests are scumbags, not all gays act wierd, and most importantly: NOT ALL BLONDES ARE DUMB.)
Also, why do people have to go out of their way (and waste their time) to say someone's beliefs suck and are wrong. Personally, I don't even care what you believe in (or don't). I don't spend my time trying to prove that someone's beliefs suck.
And finally: Sarcasm doesn't translate across the internet.
Free speech means that yes, you have to take what others say about you, but you are just as entitled to react to their comments. Limiting what can be said will only stifle communication - and communication is the best hope we have of surviving as a species.
With the limiting factor of not trampling on other rights in the process. Calling someone names is permissible; making up false accusations is not.
As with any right, though, the best way to protect it is to use it wisely.
Why do people take the time to be jerkfaces in the first place?
Because when the Internet protocols were first established, no one bothered to write up PTP (Poo Transfer Protocol). Since the civilized primates can't fling poo, they settle on being a jerkface over the Internet.
|
Also, why do people have to go out of their way (and waste their time) to say someone's beliefs suck and are wrong. Personally, I don't even care what you believe in (or don't). I don't spend my time trying to prove that someone's beliefs suck.
What happens is that people read something that does not agree with their view and they feel that it is an attack on their own belief. They start counterattacking to defend their deeply held belief. Then the other side does the same.
Old as humanity really.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
not to mention freedom of speech. Liberty is messy and you must take the bad with the good
The free exchange of ideas and thought is not infringed upon by prohibiting hate speech. If anything, hate speech has a freezing effect on others' ability to freely express themselves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
not to mention freedom of speech. Liberty is messy and you must take the bad with the goodThe free exchange of ideas and thought is not infringed upon by prohibiting hate speech. If anything, hate speech has a freezing effect on others' ability to freely express themselves.
Depends on the situation.
There's hate speech like shouting someone down in public and using racial epithets, but that's already covered under harassment laws presumably.Printing up and handing out flyers about how group A is inferior and whatnot absolutely should be protected. In fact I'd argue that that type of speech which is antithetical to our collective moral character deserves the MOST protection.
As soon as you say some kind of speech isn't allowed, and that speech doesn't directly impinge on someone else's equivalent rights, the game becomes who gets to define that category. Soon you won't be able to read Mein Kampf of unedited versions of Huck Finn.
People are offended for the same reason people argue about player entitlement or what have you.
It all comes down to people thinking they have the superior view, which is natural and normal. Just because it's natural and normal doesn't mean it's right.
not to mention freedom of speech. Liberty is messy and you must take the bad with the goodThe free exchange of ideas and thought is not infringed upon by prohibiting hate speech. If anything, hate speech has a freezing effect on others' ability to freely express themselves.
And I was on such an uncharacteristic streak of agreeing with you in the recent marriage equality threads. I have to strenuously disagree here though on the same grounds as meatrace. Who gets to decide what speech is censored. I don't want to do it, don't trust you to do it, I sure as hell don't trust the authorities to make the right choice.
Our system of rights only works when even people we don't like get the full spectrum of rights as well.
If people get offended, I get it.
If people tell someone that by being offensive they've committed some crime against humanity, I don't get it. In fact, ironically, I'm a bit offended. Does that meat I think people who are like that should apologize? No, because that would be hypocritical.
Just because it's natural and normal doesn't mean it's right.
What's your definition of "right" then?
And I was on such an uncharacteristic streak of agreeing with you in the recent marriage equality threads. I have to strenuously disagree here though on the same grounds as meatrace. Who gets to decide what speech is censored.
The government.
The fact of the matter is that that ship has sailed. We began to place boundaries on the right to freedom of speech long ago. Obviously, a line exists demarcating what can and cannot be legally expressed (and the context under which it may be expressed), and it's up to us as a society (and our government, by proxy) to decide where that line is drawn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I was on such an uncharacteristic streak of agreeing with you in the recent marriage equality threads. I have to strenuously disagree here though on the same grounds as meatrace. Who gets to decide what speech is censored.The government.
The fact of the matter is that that ship has sailed. We began to place boundaries on the right to freedom of speech long ago. Obviously, a line exists demarcating what can and cannot be legally expressed (and the context under which it may be expressed), and it's up to us as a society (and our government, by proxy) to decide where that line is drawn.
Right, but the line has been set at things that cause harm or put others in danger. Like shouting fire in a crowded theater. Or death threats.
Maybe we're just not thinking about the same things. There are types or expressions of speech which are able to cross the line, and those the state has the right to police. But the state hasn't the right to police my private thoughts, or my private expression of those thoughts, be it in private conversation or in a personal journal or blog.
Preventing free expression, even when we think it deplorable, is the most insidious kind of tyranny.
Maybe we're just not thinking about the same things. There are types or expressions of speech which are able to cross the line, and those the state has the right to police. But the state hasn't the right to police my private thoughts, or my private expression of those thoughts, be it in private conversation or in a personal journal or blog.
You're absolutely right, as long as speech doesn't cross the line into the territory of unprotected speech, you have the right to say what you want. But hate speech has a very short walk to take to reach incitement of violence, and we do not consider such speech to be protected. Unpopular opinions absolutely must be tolerated. Hate speech, however, goes beyond mere opinion - those same opinions can be expressed without the characteristics of hate speech that make it so dangerous.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Scott Betts: Then you'll have to give me a airtight definition of hate speech. As it stands, I've seen and heard the term applied to all manner of things.
I've been accused of hate speech on these boards--making legitimate political complaints about the state of Israel, for example, is apparently antisemitic.
How about the infamous Mohammed/Bomb Danish political cartoon? Is it protected because it's political speech or no because it is "hate speech?"
Is any use of racial epithets hate speech? Should we just start burning our copies of Huck Finn and Mein Kampf now? How about all my NWA albums?
The problem with "hate speech" laws is this "I'll know it when I see it" attitude, which is the sort of thing anathema to the rule of law; it gives the authorities trusted with enforcing it cart blanche to interpret it.
not to mention freedom of speech. Liberty is messy and you must take the bad with the goodThe free exchange of ideas and thought is not infringed upon by prohibiting hate speech. If anything, hate speech has a freezing effect on others' ability to freely express themselves.
Are you serious? Haven't you seen enough people wanting to discuss, for example, where current immigration laws are wrong and being called racists for it? Whenever some kind of speech is prohibited, someone has to judge what speech falls under that prohibition. Usually, that means the state, and usually, the state uses this to limit discussion and criticism of what the state does wrong.
I don't often agree with you, but this comment is uncharacteristically naïve of you.
Nutcase in a white sheet spewing racial hate: Easy to deal with *cracks knuckles*
A morass of conflicting government bureaucracies deciding that something shouldn't be said and bringing the full weight and power of the government on an individual for saying it... MUCH harder to deal with.
Neither is good but I'd rather deal with the first one.
Just because it's natural and normal doesn't mean it's right.What's your definition of "right" then?
If it is beneficial to a majority of people who would be effected by the situation/action/what have you.
No, that's not what I really think. It's just my secular answer. I think I've made my position clear regarding religion and I won't talk about it again.
|
|
If anything, hate speech has a freezing effect on others' ability to freely express themselves.
I would not say that it freezes free expression, but it quickly polarizes any debate to its extremes and any notion of a reasonable/balanced point of view will be drown in the subsequent tumult.
Check any alignment thread or entitled player/GM thread to see what I mean.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Scott Betts -- try this one out: to be elected to government, one must raise obscene amounts of money, meaning that all candidates are beholden to wealthy sponsors; that's now established law. No candidiate who does not ultimately serve the very wealthy can get elected. If it becomes the government's function to censor "hate speech," it's extremely logical, then, to censor complaints about the wealth gap -- "hate speech" against the plutocracy -- talk like that might incite people to Occupy Wall Street or something! Can't have speech that's hateful against the "job creators" -- shut that right down.
The logical next step would be to look at the tragic Giffords shooting, and use that as an excuse to restrict speech some more -- any criticism of the government becomes "hate speech" then, under the rationale that it might incite someone else to do something similar.
I know your very low opinion of the Bill of Rights, but ensuring freedom of speech was a very wise -- even critical -- move on the Framers' part, in my opinion. I'm no Texas Libertarian, but trusting the government to censor speech is about the dumbest thing a free people can do.
@ Scott Betts -- try this one out: to be elected to government, one must raise obscene amounts of money, meaning that all candidates are beholden to wealthy sponsors; that's now established law. No candidiate who does not ultimately serve the very wealthy can get elected.
There is some serious debate over whether that is as true as you make it out to be. In the 2008 election cycle Obama, for instance, raised the majority of his campaign donations through backers contributing $1000 or less (and most of that sub-group was donations of $200 or less). Not pocket change, certainly, but also not enough to make him financially beholden to any one group. Heck, I fell into the $200-$1000 range during that cycle, and I was a poor college student.
Historically, you're right; candidates have a very difficult time winning election if they don't out-raise their opponent, and wooing very wealthy donors is an attractive way of accomplishing that.
The logical next step would be to look at the tragic Giffords shooting, and use that as an excuse to restrict speech some more -- any criticism of the government becomes "hate speech" then, under the rationale that it might incite someone else to do something similar.
I don't view that as the next logical step. I don't think any lawmakers view that as the next logical step. Mrs. Giffords certainly doesn't see it as the next logical step. So who, exactly, sees that as the next logical step?
I know your very low opinion of the Bill of Rights,
Woah, back the truck up, there. My opinion of the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution as a whole, is not "low". Perhaps it may seem that way to people who consider the Constitution holy writ (and anyone who dares to question bits and pieces of it must therefore think it trash; ironic, coming from someone defending others' right to criticize government), but my take on the Constitution is simply that it is a governing document, and serves the people; as such, it does not deserve respect simply for having been written, but rather deserves the respect of law so long as the rights it enumerates are justified. They require re-examination on a regular basis, both for the purpose of codifying new rights, and for the purpose of acknowledging when a right needs to be curtailed (both of which we have done - often - in the past).
but ensuring freedom of speech was a very wise -- even critical -- move on the Framers' part, in my opinion. I'm no Texas Libertarian, but trusting the government to censor speech is about the dumbest thing a free people can do.
You already trust the government to censor speech. Or perhaps you don't trust them, but the reality is that the government already does it anyway, and pretty much everyone accepts that.
Again, Scott, I'm thinking we must be operating under different definitions of hate speech. Please give me your rhetorical definition, one you believe legislators do or ought to use in making decisions about legislation that restricts speech, and post examples of speech you don't think ought to be protected. Like specific examples.
Again, Scott, I'm thinking we must be operating under different definitions of hate speech. Please give me your rhetorical definition, one you believe legislators do or ought to use in making decisions about legislation that restricts speech, and post examples of speech you don't think ought to be protected. Like specific examples.
The definition I'm using is close to that held by the Supreme Court - hate speech is unprotected when it is delivered in a fashion that stands a high likelihood of inciting violence by its continued use. This is sometimes called the "fighting words" exception, though I prefer to refer to it simply as hate speech. The term "hate speech" does not simply mean hateful speech, in much the same way as the term "hate crime" does not merely refer to a hateful crime.
Again, Scott, I'm thinking we must be operating under different definitions of hate speech. Please give me your rhetorical definition, one you believe legislators do or ought to use in making decisions about legislation that restricts speech, and post examples of speech you don't think ought to be protected. Like specific examples.The definition I'm using is close to that held by the Supreme Court - hate speech is unprotected when it is delivered in a fashion that stands a high likelihood of inciting violence by its continued use. This is sometimes called the "fighting words" exception, though I prefer to refer to it simply as hate speech. The term "hate speech" does not simply mean hateful speech, in much the same way as the term "hate crime" does not merely refer to a hateful crime.
In other words there is no definition, it's purely "I know it when I see it" reason, and is cart blanche for authorities to exert their will.
Gotcha.
hate speech is unprotected when it is delivered in a fashion that stands a high likelihood of inciting violence by its continued use
Hmmm.. So if trans dimensional tesseractists are hated in a community, to the point that "Hello, would you like to become a trans dimensional tesseractists?" elicits a torches and pitchforks response from the town, could the government stop the trans dimensional tesseractists from proslethizing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm.. So if trans dimensional tesseractists
RAWR!
*has no self control and cannot be reasonable or legally held responsible for his actions when TDTs are mentioned**flies into rage*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
hate speech is unprotected when it is delivered in a fashion that stands a high likelihood of inciting violence by its continued use.
Therefore, the craziest group of people gets to use the government to enforce censorship.
Consider: If me and my gang of Kirthites burn buildings every time someone disagrees with me, then disagreeing with me has a high likelihood of inciting violence -- especially with continued use. Therefore disagreeing with me would legally fit the definition of "hate speech," and you would therefore call on the government to use the force of law to censor it? That works powerfully contrary to maintaining any sort of free society.
Again, Scott, I'm thinking we must be operating under different definitions of hate speech. Please give me your rhetorical definition, one you believe legislators do or ought to use in making decisions about legislation that restricts speech, and post examples of speech you don't think ought to be protected. Like specific examples.The definition I'm using is close to that held by the Supreme Court - hate speech is unprotected when it is delivered in a fashion that stands a high likelihood of inciting violence by its continued use. This is sometimes called the "fighting words" exception, though I prefer to refer to it simply as hate speech. The term "hate speech" does not simply mean hateful speech, in much the same way as the term "hate crime" does not merely refer to a hateful crime.In other words there is no definition, it's purely "I know it when I see it" reason, and is cart blanche for authorities to exert their will.
Gotcha.
You should probably read up on this. There is a world of difference between Scalia's interpretation of "fighting words" and Stewart's rubric for obscene content.
Remember, this is one of the reasons why we have a Supreme Court. So that when a line must be drawn, someone is in a position to actually draw it.
Oddly there are a number of 1st world democratic countries that do ban various forms of hate speech and that lack our pretense at absolute free speech.
Oddly they haven't gone charging wildly down that slippery slope towards government censorship and the silencing of all contrary political opinion. Some of them even seem to have a more robust public debate than the US, despite the theoretical lack of protections.
Imagine that.