Author Topic: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?  (Read 59979 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #105 on: November 12, 2015, 07:39:17 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
And rather than having empathy and trying to have understanding, and act in this better way, instead dismissing them. This is what I stated earlier as to that even though the world is cruel and unjust, one shouldn't just throw their hands up and say we all have it hard, quit whining. But to understand the difference of those difficulties and experiences, even if you could never experience them (thankfully), and work towards not perpetuating them.
Oh, we had this conversation with Pho in another thread, where he claimed that despite empathy and understanding, every white (male?) in the country is still culpable for white privilege. Apparently this argument doesn't extend to rich-railroad-executive-daddy privilege in the same manner.

  It should though, they just haven't made the connection yet. White males who derive no benefit from their status and do nothing to oppress minorities are culpable merely because they participate in a system in which inequality exists. Minorities also participate in the system, so they're culpable as well. It's a fairly inescapable conclusion.

Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #106 on: November 12, 2015, 07:46:45 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
Like, why not be nice? You're putting  so much more effort and time into making yourself feel persecuted and attacked, when it isn't even happening, when that  energy could be used to listen to others.

  Somewhat ironic, considering how much time and effort many of those other people put into making themselves feel persecuted and attacked.

Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #107 on: November 12, 2015, 08:45:23 AM »

Offline Celtics18

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11677
  • Tommy Points: 1466
Like, why not be nice? You're putting  so much more effort and time into making yourself feel persecuted and attacked, when it isn't even happening, when that  energy could be used to listen to others.

  Somewhat ironic, considering how much time and effort many of those other people put into making themselves feel persecuted and attacked.


"Those other people"?


DKC Seventy-Sixers:

PG: G. Hill/D. Schroder
SG: C. Lee/B. Hield/T. Luwawu
SF:  Giannis/J. Lamb/M. Kuzminskas
PF:  E. Ilyasova/J. Jerebko/R. Christmas
C:    N. Vucevic/K. Olynyk/E. Davis/C. Jefferson

Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #108 on: November 12, 2015, 09:33:51 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16471
  • Tommy Points: 1173
When the simple idea of being receptive to the difference of other people's experiences is met with such obstinace  stubbornness, and outright dismissal,  we'll,  why do you think people are frustrated and fed up?
I'm NOT going to be receptive to the idea that I am in any way responsible for the wrongs of folks I don't know, and for suffering I didn't cause. You're free not to like that. You're not, however, free to break the law and harass/threaten/assault me.

You aren't being persecuted.
I never said I am. Fabricating persecution is other people's domain.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/11/mizzou-students-hallucinate-kkk-on-campus/

« Last Edit: November 12, 2015, 09:41:02 AM by kozlodoev »
(Formerly) managing Rilski Sportist to glory at http://www.buzzerbeater.com

Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #109 on: November 12, 2015, 01:25:26 PM »

Offline mgent

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7430
  • Tommy Points: 1936
However, there is a line.  Even you would admit there's a line.  This thread is about where that line is.  I think you've gone a little abstract here..
Me, or Pho?

I'm really not all that abstract. The line is mostly written in the law of the land, and the law says that being a jerk is everyone's constitutional right.


Well, in an ethical discussion, the law isn't necessarily relevant -- the law itself may or may not be ethical.

I think Phosita's point isn't that you don't have the legal right to be a jerk.

He's saying that if you get an indication that what you are doing is harmful (even if simply 'emotionally' / 'psychologically' harming) someone, a non-jerk person (i.e., an ethical person) would assess the necessity of doing said action.

Note - even an ethical person might still decide to continue the action, if all things considered, he finds it necessary (For example, if my breathing offends you, too bad.).   But if he doesn't find it necessary, an ethical person would probably stop.

A jerk would not stop - and in fact, a jerk would probably not even bother to make the assessment.

There's a huge difference between not doing the act you've deemed "harmful," and forcing others to not do it (for example, canceling Halloween).

That's the whole point, YOU'RE the one who determined whether or not the act is okay.  You can determine for yourself what's okay and control yourself accordingly, but who is supposed to determine/decide for everybody what's okay or not?  You can't make everybody happy.

This is stuff the founding fathers figured out hundreds of years ago without twitter and the internet and lightbulbs, etc, yet some people still can't accept it today?

I could decide that posts in the CE forum are sometimes psychologically/emotionally harmful to me, but are you going to stop posting there since it's not necessary to your survival?  Or would it be easier if I just stopped reading the post that hurts me and forgot about it?  (The fact that Celticsblog brought back the CE forum points toward the latter).
« Last Edit: November 12, 2015, 01:51:06 PM by mgent »
Philly:

Anderson Varejao    Tiago Splitter    Matt Bonner
David West    Kenyon Martin    Brad Miller
Andre Iguodala    Josh Childress    Marquis Daniels
Dwyane Wade    Leandro Barbosa
Kirk Hinrich    Toney Douglas   + the legendary Kevin McHale

Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #110 on: November 12, 2015, 01:56:05 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
Like, why not be nice? You're putting  so much more effort and time into making yourself feel persecuted and attacked, when it isn't even happening, when that  energy could be used to listen to others.

  Somewhat ironic, considering how much time and effort many of those other people put into making themselves feel persecuted and attacked.


"Those other people"?

  The post I quoted spoke of "others". I was basically writing "those others" to refer to them, but I didn't realize adding the word "people" would be an issue.

Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #111 on: November 12, 2015, 02:35:23 PM »

Offline Smokeeye123

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2370
  • Tommy Points: 156
I wanna be clear that I have no problem with students or people protesting racism and discrimination, but when I see news story and media attention given to Starbucks cups, and the Obsessive Christmas Disorder shirt at target I want to rage. On a similar line,I read a post on twitter from a feminist that parents shouldn't call their child he or she and should call their baby 'babyself' until they can articulate their gender. That is where I draw the line. I'm pro gay and transgender rights, but when I can't call my son a boy or use male pronouns it gets ridiculous.

These things are real too that babyself tweet had like 1500 favorites on twitter and wasn't a joke. People are insane.

Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #112 on: November 12, 2015, 02:37:02 PM »

Online Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23335
  • Tommy Points: 993
  • What a Pub Should Be
I wanna be clear that I have no problem with students or people protesting racism and discrimination, but when I see news story and media attention given to Starbucks cups, and the Obsessive Christmas Disorder shirt at target I want to rage. On a similar line,I read a post on twitter from a feminist that parents shouldn't call their child he or she and should call their baby 'babyself' until they can articulate their gender. That is where I draw the line. I'm pro gay and transgender rights, but when I can't call my son a boy or use male pronouns it gets ridiculous.

These things are real too that babyself tweet had like 1500 favorites on twitter and wasn't a joke. People are insane.

That's a new one I haven't heard.    That's utterly insane.


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #113 on: November 12, 2015, 03:16:01 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
I wanna be clear that I have no problem with students or people protesting racism and discrimination, but when I see news story and media attention given to Starbucks cups, and the Obsessive Christmas Disorder shirt at target I want to rage. On a similar line,I read a post on twitter from a feminist that parents shouldn't call their child he or she and should call their baby 'babyself' until they can articulate their gender. That is where I draw the line. I'm pro gay and transgender rights, but when I can't call my son a boy or use male pronouns it gets ridiculous.

These things are real too that babyself tweet had like 1500 favorites on twitter and wasn't a joke. People are insane.

That's a new one I haven't heard.    That's utterly insane.

  It's the way of the world. Sooner or later gender-based pronouns will be called hate speech.

Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #114 on: November 12, 2015, 03:21:30 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16502
  • Tommy Points: 1451


However, there is a line.  Even you would admit there's a line.  This thread is about where that line is.  I think you've gone a little abstract here..

Right.

There's a lot of "false dichotomy" tendency in this discussion.


Either we just tell everybody to toughen up and not expect anybody else to care about their feelings, or we engage in an effort to police every type of speech or behavior that could possibly be interpreted as offensive.

Definitely no middle ground there, right?
You値l have to excuse my lengthiness葉he reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #115 on: November 12, 2015, 03:25:01 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16502
  • Tommy Points: 1451
I wanna be clear that I have no problem with students or people protesting racism and discrimination, but when I see news story and media attention given to Starbucks cups, and the Obsessive Christmas Disorder shirt at target I want to rage. On a similar line,I read a post on twitter from a feminist that parents shouldn't call their child he or she and should call their baby 'babyself' until they can articulate their gender. That is where I draw the line. I'm pro gay and transgender rights, but when I can't call my son a boy or use male pronouns it gets ridiculous.

These things are real too that babyself tweet had like 1500 favorites on twitter and wasn't a joke. People are insane.

That's a new one I haven't heard.    That's utterly insane.

  It's the way of the world. Sooner or later gender-based pronouns will be called hate speech.


The use of pronouns is one of the biggest thing I struggle with in relation to transgender activism -- like, even being generous, what portion of the population is transgender?  It's a very small number, right? 

Our entire language is built on gender distinctions.  I think it's unrealistic to expect people to completely change the way they talk in general just to allow for the possibility that there could be an issue with gender identity.

Once somebody self-identifies a certain way, I fully encourage making every effort to respect that self-identification. But until then, I think we've got to be able to use basic words like "he" and "she."
You値l have to excuse my lengthiness葉he reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #116 on: November 12, 2015, 03:34:25 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16502
  • Tommy Points: 1451

There's a huge difference between not doing the act you've deemed "harmful," and forcing others to not do it (for example, canceling Halloween).

Who ever talked about cancelling Halloween?  I believe the original idea here was that people should not wear costumes that they have every reason to believe will be offensive to their peers.

I think it's pretty simple -- don't go out in black face on Halloween.  Don't put on a big sombrero and a blanket and wear a fake mustache and say you've dressed up as a "Mexican."


Quote

I could decide that posts in the CE forum are sometimes psychologically/emotionally harmful to me, but are you going to stop posting there since it's not necessary to your survival?  Or would it be easier if I just stopped reading the post that hurts me and forgot about it?  (The fact that Celticsblog brought back the CE forum points toward the latter).

Some people don't have the luxury of just "walking away" or "avoiding" the behaviors and representations that hurt or bother them, because our popular culture is permeated with those behaviors and representations.

And that's the point of efforts like these, I think -- to say, "Hey, you may not realize it, but this stuff disrespects who I am as a person and I don't find it funny.  It's messed up that this is considered normal and acceptable."
You値l have to excuse my lengthiness葉he reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #117 on: November 12, 2015, 03:41:12 PM »

Offline Ilikesports17

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7507
  • Tommy Points: 767
There is no constitutional right not to be offended.

That being said most of this could be solved by people following the "don't be a ****" rule
Quote from: George W. Bush
Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions.

Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #118 on: November 12, 2015, 03:41:45 PM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16502
  • Tommy Points: 1451


I'm really not all that abstract. The line is mostly written in the law of the land, and the law says that being a jerk is everyone's constitutional right.


There is no constitutional right not to be offended.


Well, just to be clear, when you talk about "Constitutional rights," you're talking about you're right to be free from action by the government.

So, sure, the government can't arrest you for being a jerk, at least not insofar as "being a jerk" involves speech (though there are exceptions to that, even).

You also, as pointed out above, don't have a "right" to not be exposed to offensive behavior by your peers.

At the same time, the Constitution doesn't prevent your fellow citizens from calling you out on your behavior and ostracizing you for it.   The "marketplace of ideas," after all, absolutely allows for a public consensus that certain kinds of behavior are repugnant and unacceptable.  The Constitution simply prevents us from throwing people in jail for repugnant behaviors that are limited to speech and expression.

I don't think anybody in the thread has suggested there be a law against saying offensive words.  So the Constitution is mostly irrelevant here.  Maybe it's relevant, going back to the original example, when you're talking about what a school might or might not do to restrict the behavior of its students.  But Yale is a private institution, so the Constitution doesn't apply to that example, either.
You値l have to excuse my lengthiness葉he reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: So... Anyone else concerned about the war on free speech?
« Reply #119 on: November 12, 2015, 03:48:31 PM »

Offline Ilikesports17

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7507
  • Tommy Points: 767


I'm really not all that abstract. The line is mostly written in the law of the land, and the law says that being a jerk is everyone's constitutional right.


There is no constitutional right not to be offended.


Well, just to be clear, when you talk about "Constitutional rights," you're talking about you're right to be free from action by the government.

So, sure, the government can't arrest you for being a jerk, at least not insofar as "being a jerk" involves speech (though there are exceptions to that, even).

You also, as pointed out above, don't have a "right" to not be exposed to offensive behavior by your peers.

At the same time, the Constitution doesn't prevent your fellow citizens from calling you out on your behavior and ostracizing you for it.   The "marketplace of ideas," after all, absolutely allows for a public consensus that certain kinds of behavior are repugnant and unacceptable.  The Constitution simply prevents us from throwing people in jail for repugnant behaviors that are limited to speech and expression.

I don't think anybody in the thread has suggested there be a law against saying offensive words.  So the Constitution is mostly irrelevant here.  Maybe it's relevant, going back to the original example, when you're talking about what a school might or might not do to restrict the behavior of its students.  But Yale is a private institution, so the Constitution doesn't apply to that example, either.
Actually constitutional rights have been upheld in schools in the past. If Yale kicks a kid out for saying mean things it could feasibly face legal action.
Quote from: George W. Bush
Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions.