Does Free Speech Offend You?

[ENMaker]

If someone says something you disagree with, you can explain to them why you disagree and hope to convince them to change their mind, or for them to at least understand the issue you take with it so they're aware. Alternatively, you ban them from saying such things, and their ideas are unchanged and unchallenged, only they can now be punished for expressing them. It doesn't make things you object to go away, it just pushes them out of sight, and nobody benefits.

[vla1ne]

Why? I don't mean to spam or be argumentative. But, curious, why?

Do we not attempt to limit the cons best we can?

in this case, the cons are one of the reasons we have the system. if opposing views (even hateful ones) cannot be put out in the open, then there can be little to no discussion. and beyond that, who dictates what is and isn't "hate speech"? sure, there's things that we can all likely agree on as hate speech (and i defend the right to say even those things so long as i can debate them openly as well), but not all "hate speech" is equal, and even more, not all hate speech is "hate speech" 150 years ago, calling somebodies religion shitty qualified as hate speech, today, it's just rude (still true, but still rude). when you cannot discuss an idea openly, you cannot be rebutted (or supported) properly. which is why i support both the pros and cons of speech, to ensure that all ideas are put under fair scrutiny. if they pass, fine, but it's because of the failures that we need freedom of speech the most, because those are the ideas that need to be the most exposed, so that instead of everybody simply saying they're wrong, everybody can know why they're wrong.

 

EDIT: to expand upon "everybody can know why they're wrong" sure, you can tell people why even when the speech isn't allowed, but it has far more impact when it can be done multiple times, in the open, by anybody, at any time, with no danger of somebody going to jail/ being fined/ ect.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Object_Permanence

 

This is why I feel people pushing PC are children. Object permanence is the concept that, just because you don't see something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist

 

 

c'mon

 

Babies fall for this stuff, grown ass people should be more obejective

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Object_Permanence

 

This is why I feel people pushing PC are children. Object permanence is the concept that, just because you don't see something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist

 

 

c'mon

 

Babies fall for this stuff, grown ass people should be more obejective

Calling people children is not a good way to argue something.

Anyway. An alternate thought is. It may exist, but perhaps it has less of an impact?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Calling people children is not a good way to argue something.

Anyway. An alternate thought is. It may exist, but perhaps it has less of an impact?

Maybe that was going a bit to far to the Ad Hom side. But Object Permanence? You see that in infants...that fact that political correctness is basically that manifesting in young adults to adults is just a bit saddening to see

[evilfusion]

Calling people children is not a good way to argue something.

Anyway. An alternate thought is. It may exist, but perhaps it has less of an impact?

 

Metaphorical.

 

Children forget something exists if they can't see it. Close-minded adults pretend something doesn't exist if they shove it under the rug and stomp on it.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Metaphorical.

 

Children forget something exists if they can't see it. Close-minded adults pretend something doesn't exist if they shove it under the rug and stomp on it.

Yes I know, he said that twice. No point in repeating. Point still stands. Insults are a bad way to start.

 

And still doesn't answer my alternative. "Still exists but less impact". It's there. But there's less chance for it to make a difference, to spur someone to action, etc etc. Is that not something to think about?

[vla1ne]

And still doesn't answer my alternative. "Still exists but less impact". It's there. But there's less chance for it to make a difference, to spur someone to action, etc etc. Is that not something to think about?

i thought i answered that already? or did i miss the point?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Yes I know, he said that twice. No point in repeating. Point still stands. Insults are a bad way to start.

 

And still doesn't answer my alternative. "Still exists but less impact". It's there. But there's less chance for it to make a difference, to spur someone to action, etc etc. Is that not something to think about?

How about...you just accept that not everyone is going to agree with you? I despise the concept of American Welfare as it stands currently. But what I won't do is pass on my dislike for a policy onto people you like it. 

 

PC culture has had the negative affect of merging the person with the idea (look no further than the hate towards Trump and Sanders to see this manifest)

 

It's insulting because there is so much more to a person than just their views on one or even a few matters, and judging them solely for that is silly.

 

Like for example know about the Carl the Cuck video right? They're judging a paramedic who saves lives daily and accusing of him of not caring for people just because he's a Trump supporter...like really? That's what this PC dumbing down of issues does

 

I miss the days when more people would argue issues not people

 

Yeah, I realize how "better than you" that sounded, but I can't think of a better way to phrase it

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

i thought i answered that already? or did i miss the point?

Your answer was lacking. You claim that it's better to have those things in the open, so they can be denied. And yet, it clearly doesn't do anything. As was mentioned earlier. Words can drive people to violent and negative actions. This has been the case for years. Racism and the like are still around, despite how in the open people have been about it, and how many people have argued against it.

 

So the theory I'm putting forth is perhaps less exposure to this will make it have less impact. Those who do say these things become more rare, and so when it's said, then people look at it like "Wow, what a strange and unpopular opinion" rather than the current trend of "Well he's an jabroni but hey its his right to say it" followed by some agreeing and some disagreeing.

The idea is that those with hateful and harmful ideas being allowed to express these ideas shows society that it's possibly an okay thing to do.

 

I'm not even saying this is the truth. But it's certainly something to consider.

How about...you just accept that not everyone is going to agree with you? I despise the concept of American Welfare as it stands currently. But what I won't do is pass on my dislike for a policy onto people you like it. 

 

PC culture has had the negative affect of merging the person with the idea (look no further than the hate towards Trump and Sanders to see this manifest)

 

It's insulting because there is so much more to a person than just their views on one or even a few matters, and judging them solely for that is silly.

 

Like for example know about the Carl the Cuck video right? They're judging a paramedic who saves lives daily and accusing of him of not caring for people just because he's a Trump supporter...like really? That's what this PC dumbing down of issues does

 

I miss the days when more people would argue issues not people

 

Yeah, I realize how "better than you" that sounded, but I can't think of a better way to phrase it

Have you not done this before yourself? You disagree with the idea of PC culture so strongly that you lash out occasionally against those who believe in it and disagree with you.

This is not such a simple matter.

As for "when more people would argue issues" I'd say, those days don't exist. Even looking at presidential campaigns of the past, 100 years ago, you'll see it.

[ENMaker]

Your answer was lacking. You claim that it's better to have those things in the open, so they can be denied. And yet, it clearly doesn't do anything. As was mentioned earlier. Words can drive people to violent and negative actions. This has been the case for years. Racism and the like are still around, despite how in the open people have been about it, and how many people have argued against it.

 

So the theory I'm putting forth is perhaps less exposure to this will make it have less impact. Those who do say these things become more rare, and so when it's said, then people look at it like "Wow, what a strange and unpopular opinion" rather than the current trend of "Well he's an jabroni but hey its his right to say it" followed by some agreeing and some disagreeing.

The idea is that those with hateful and harmful ideas being allowed to express these ideas shows society that it's possibly an okay thing to do.

 

I'm not even saying this is the truth. But it's certainly something to consider.

 

Words can drive to people to peaceful and positive actions just as much. People can be bastards and so racism and sexism and homophobia are always going to exist. Simply telling people that they can't express this isn't going to change anyone's mind, in fact it's more likely to have the opposite effect and give them a sense of justification in a fuk da police kind of way.

 

If you confront a racist or sexist or homophobe or whatever, and ask them to justify their beliefs, and argue with them over what they say, you will at the very least induce some degree of introspection and may change the way they think. If you instead tell them they can't say it they're not going to think about it at all, they're going to just observe someone trying to stop them expressing their thoughts and assume it's because they're in the right and the other side can't argue against them so are trying to pre-emptively shut them down.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

The permanence argument doesn't really apply in situation where acknowledging and giving attention to things, such as clearly bigoted views, can inflate and exacerbate the issue.

 

Hatred breeds hatred.

[ENMaker]

The permanence argument doesn't really apply in situation where acknowledging and giving attention to things, such as clearly bigoted views, can inflate and exacerbate the issue.

 

Hatred breeds hatred.

 

Then don't give them attention...? If you don't want to challenge someone you can just ignore them.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Not really...I'm bisexual...if you can give me an objective scientific reason why funking guys is "unhealthy" I'll be willing to listen. The problem is, all people have is a line from a thousand year outdated book. If say a scientific study points out that homosexual relationships increases STD transmission (hypothetical, I'm NOT saying it does), is that study homophobic? 

 

Terms like bigoted have just come to mean disagreement=hatred or in the greatest failing of English language disagreement=fear

 

Like lets look at homophobic, it's honestly brilliant of the LGBT community, what better way to shut down the opposition than to couple something as irrational as privacy in the bedroom with "fear"

 

Like there is hatred, but just throwing out Bigot and other buzzwords every time someone disagrees with you isn't the way to deal with it at all. All you're doing is disenfranchising people who did have a chance of seeing your side of the argument

 

disenfranchisement breeds hopelessness which breeds hatred. 

 

PC is a parasite that just by existing creates it's own food supply to feed off

 

You disagree with the idea of PC culture so strongly that you lash out occasionally against those who believe in it and disagree with you.

I lash out at PC sure, but I'm not gonna say you're a dimwitted bigot for believing in it. The only way for people to change is if they realize that themselves

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Words can drive to people to peaceful and positive actions just as much. People can be bastards and so racism and sexism and homophobia are always going to exist. Simply telling people that they can't express this isn't going to change anyone's mind, in fact it's more likely to have the opposite effect and give them a sense of justification in a fuk da police kind of way.

 

If you confront a racist or sexist or homophobe or whatever, and ask them to justify their beliefs, and argue with them over what they say, you will at the very least induce some degree of introspection and may change the way they think. If you instead tell them they can't say it they're not going to think about it at all, they're going to just observe someone trying to stop them expressing their thoughts and assume it's because they're in the right and the other side can't argue against them so are trying to pre-emptively shut them down.

Yes but positive words make positive things. Negative make negative. I'm not sure why "Saying good things can make good things happen" is an argument against not saying bad things.

The idea is this, however. If you claim that confronting them might change the way the think (Which, let's be honest, how often has anyone changed their opinion because someone said why they were incorrect, when it comes to morals?). Then why would it not work like this.

Someone isn't allowed to express this hatred, so they are forced to wonder why.

Again, it's not like this is the answer. And it very well could be incorrect. But if you believe people can change their minds because another person disagrees and explains why. Then it should be logical to think perhaps telling them they can't say it would do similar.

Also. You next post of not giving them attention. Does that not take away the idea that you can argue against their ideas and change their minds?

 

Thing that's interesting about this, to me. Is that words have been used to get people to think a certain way, do certain actions, for hundreds of years. Personally I think it's wonderful that we're now discussing the possibility that we've been approaching this the wrong way for a long time.

[vla1ne]

Your answer was lacking. You claim that it's better to have those things in the open, so they can be denied. And yet, it clearly doesn't do anything. As was mentioned earlier. Words can drive people to violent and negative actions. This has been the case for years. Racism and the like are still around, despite how in the open people have been about it, and how many people have argued against it.

 

So the theory I'm putting forth is perhaps less exposure to this will make it have less impact. Those who do say these things become more rare, and so when it's said, then people look at it like "Wow, what a strange and unpopular opinion" rather than the current trend of "Well he's an a****** but hey its his right to say it" followed by some agreeing and some disagreeing.

The idea is that those with hateful and harmful ideas being allowed to express these ideas shows society that it's possibly an okay thing to do.

 

I'm not even saying this is the truth. But it's certainly something to consider.

and as i said before, who's the arbiter of free speech? who makes the rules deciding what's hateful or not? and why should they? people are going to be motivated to violence either way, be it from racism via words, or feeling as if their views are being oppressed by the government. what you are advocating is the removal of the discussion of ideas that make you uncomfortable on the off chance that words will inspire violence. you're limiting the freedom of other people just because you think their ideas are wrong, and blame it on possible violence. whether or not they're wrong, they have to be allowed to say them. it holds the discussion, and reminds people (while convincing others) why discriminatory beliefs are not right. and more than that, there are many things that do need discussion that can be deemed hateful (and as a result, be shut down, regardless of the importance of the content) violence is already illegal, that's not justification to ban speech. were you to place limitations on speech, you would, even if by accident, make it possible to shut down avenues of criticism just by claiming "hate speech" this has been done multiple times in the past, and it has been shut down every time, because even if it were hate speech, is was still a legitimate criticism.

 

 

less exposure naturally, will have less impact, but banning it is not the way to go. hate speech that is not backed by action is no worse than normal speech, you can't shove speech of any kind under the rug and expect it to go away. it'll just foster there, and just grow while unnoticed until an event occurs where it can come to the front in full.  the way things stand now, people do not face legal action for their beliefs, they are not persecuted for their beliefs, it's an even playing field. and that is how it has to be if you want negative ideas to go away naturally, with minimal consequences down the line (such as repeating history due to an ignorance of it). there is no one person, or even group of people, who could limit free speech in a way that didn't infringe upon avenues outside of just hate speech. and limiting it would only harm proper discussion.

 

i'm losing track of what i want to say though. i need sleep.

[chairman ali]

Then don't give them attention...? If you don't want to challenge someone you can just ignore them.

 

You ignore them, someone else doesn't. We're evolutionarily different, in action. Fight-flight. Hunter-scavenger.

[ENMaker]

 

Yes but positive words make positive things. Negative make negative. I'm not sure why "Saying good things can make good things happen" is an argument against not saying bad things.

The idea is this, however. If you claim that confronting them might change the way the think (Which, let's be honest, how often has anyone changed their opinion because someone said why they were incorrect, when it comes to morals?). Then why would it not work like this.

Someone isn't allowed to express this hatred, so they are forced to wonder why.

Again, it's not like this is the answer. And it very well could be incorrect. But if you believe people can change their minds because another person disagrees and explains why. Then it should be logical to think perhaps telling them they can't say it would do similar.

Also. You next post of not giving them attention. Does that not take away the idea that you can argue against their ideas and change their minds?

 

That was just because you said bad words make people do bad things or something similar. Yes, words influence people. Also, people have agency. If they hear both sides of an issue and decide to ally themselves to what you perceive as the wrong side, then that's their decision made by themselves. If everything is one sided because the side supposedly in the wrong are not allowed to say anything, it's going to create a false illusion that the other side does not exist, when it instead is simply hidden from plain view.

 

Of course nobody has ever changed their opinion solely off being told they're wrong, and I didn't suggest they would. But most people can be reasoned with, or so I'd like to believe, and can be convinced to change their mind through actual discourse, not "you're wrong!" "no I'm not" "but you are!" because unless you have no resolve in your beliefs anyway that'd never work on anyone.

 

Yes if you ban someone saying something they may reflect on it. They may also react as I described, feeling persecuted for their thoughts and thinking that an attempt at shutting them down serves only to prove that they're in the right and there's no argument that can fell them so there's an attempt being made to silence them instead.

 

And no it doesn't. It was a short post that explained itself and that seems quite a silly point to bring up. The option of ignoring someone doesn't take away from the option of confronting them, it presents an alternative, the path of least resistance. You can express your disagreement vocally or by simply disregarding them and paying no attention, but in the long run only one of those is likely to have any tangible effect on how they think.

 

You ignore them, someone else doesn't. We're evolutionarily different, in action. Fight-flight. Hunter-scavenger.

 

Yes...? I don't quite understand why this is in response to me, I agree with that unless I'm misinterpreting.

[chairman ali]

Yes...? I don't quite understand why this is in response to me, I agree with that unless I'm misinterpreting.

 

It means if you don't argue with someone, someone else will come and do it. Fire + fire. It won't solve the issue.

[Dad]

I don't like the "ignore them" argument.  While none of this is bullet proof, I (and I'm sure others as well) have tried "turning the other cheek" and "looking the other way".  But after you're antagonized, and followed, and you've made peaceful steps to let something go, sometimes you can only take so much.

 

Mind you, it doesn't justify violence, but I'm going to say what I've said before.  Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequence.  If you're prepared to push, and push, and push, you should be ready for what follows your actions.  And don't turn around and be a pussy once you've gotten what's coming to you.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

and as i said before, who's the arbiter of free speech? who makes the rules deciding what's hateful or not? and why should they? people are going to be motivated to violence either way, be it from racism via words, or feeling as if their views are being oppressed by the government. what you are advocating is the removal of the discussion of ideas that make you uncomfortable on the off chance that words will inspire violence. you're limiting the freedom of other people just because you think their ideas are wrong, and blame it on possible violence. whether or not they're wrong, they have to be allowed to say them. it holds the discussion, and reminds people (while convincing others) why discriminatory beliefs are not right. and more than that, there are many things that do need discussion that can be deemed hateful (and as a result, be shut down, regardless of the importance of the content) violence is already illegal, that's not justification to ban speech. were you to place limitations on speech, you would, even if by accident, make it possible to shut down avenues of criticism just by claiming "hate speech" this has been done multiple times in the past, and it has been shut down every time, because even if it were hate speech, is was still a legitimate criticism.

 

 

less exposure naturally, will have less impact, but banning it is not the way to go. hate speech that is not backed by action is no worse than normal speech, you can't shove speech of any kind under the rug and expect it to go away. it'll just foster there, and just grow while unnoticed until an event occurs where it can come to the front in full.  the way things stand now, people do not face legal action for their beliefs, they are not persecuted for their beliefs, it's an even playing field. and that is how it has to be if you want negative ideas to go away naturally, with minimal consequences down the line (such as repeating history due to an ignorance of it). there is no one person, or even group of people, who could limit free speech in a way that didn't infringe upon avenues outside of just hate speech. and limiting it would only harm proper discussion.

 

i'm losing track of what i want to say though. i need sleep.

Ironically I feel you're removing the discussion here. It seems you are not open at all to the thought that perhaps we've been thinking wrongly. Al-Ajnabi said it best up there. We're all different. You can say that one thing will motivate people to do things more than another. But we cannot know that. Hence the discussion I opened up on the idea that limiting what can be said would effect people in a way that's more desirable than letting people try and discuss the idea that those beliefs are wrong.

I mean, think about it. We automatically think of some things as wrong. Yet people still spread the hate speech, and feel justified in that. There's got to be some reason, yes?

I think it's good to look at alternatives. There may be a way to go that's overall better that hasn't been considered because it's just not how it's done.

 

I don't see where "shoving it under the rug" comes from. Murder is illegal, we know about it, it's not shoved under the rug. People haven't suddenly thought "Well maybe it's okay...". An extreme example but maybe it gets the point across?

[vla1ne]

ah! remembered what i was forgetting in my above response!
 
people are polite in discussion because sometimes the opposition does have good points. you can't throw out the entire argument by default just because you object. if your opponent has valid points, then you would do well to acknowledge them instead of gloss over them. it's not a bad thing, and that's one of the reasons we need freedom of speech. even speech you object to can have valid points.
 
EDIT, since it's already below the comment.

Ironically I feel you're removing the discussion here. It seems you are not open at all to the thought that perhaps we've been thinking wrongly. Al-Ajnabi said it best up there. We're all different. You can say that one thing will motivate people to do things more than another. But we cannot know that. Hence the discussion I opened up on the idea that limiting what can be said would effect people in a way that's more desirable than letting people try and discuss the idea that those beliefs are wrong.
I mean, think about it. We automatically think of some things as wrong. Yet people still spread the hate speech, and feel justified in that. There's got to be some reason, yes?

alright i'm fully open to discussion, i'm vouching for freedom of speech because of that. when i object to your opinion it's not because i want to halt discussion, it's because i believe you're wrong. that's what discussion is. i'm willing to hold discussions instead of bury the problem. you (i assume) want to bury the discussion hoping it'll remove the problem. these two views are in opposition clearly. so, we hold a discussion to see where we are coming from. and that is what i'm getting at.

 

yes, some people do spout hate, and feel completely justified, but that's how this works. it's their views, vs your views. you can call them wrong, debate the points, and hold all manner of discussion, when you tell one side "you cannot speak" no matter how small that side is, you are performing a cop-out. it is no longer an open forum, it's shutting down the discussion because your opponent refuses to agree with you. and the funniest part is that you somewhat counter this with your first line in the same comment.

 

"We're all different."

does this not apply to the racists? is it because their views are different? is it because their views are harmful to the current way of society? they're different, but are they not humans, each deserving to speak their minds? you're saying silence them for their opinions, using legal power, but opinions themselves are not harmful, it is actions that do harm. what you want is to stop opinions, even though the actions associated are the only thing that can actually harm others (and are already banned)

[Dad]

One more thing.  There's a difference between something being tolerated and something being accepted.  I can tolerate that you may be a racist.  But I won't accept you calling me a jabroni.  Let's just add that in to this whole discussion.

[ENMaker]

It means if you don't argue with someone, someone else will come and do it. Fire + fire. It won't solve the issue.

 

The issue in this case being someone thinks differently to you. If that bothers you and you want to try change their mind, you can. It won't be fire with fire unless you take an argumentative approach and aren't willing to listen.

[Dad]

The issue in this case being someone thinks differently to you. If that bothers you and you want to try change their mind, you can. It won't be fire with fire unless you take an argumentative approach and aren't willing to listen.

 

That's also implying that every thing someone says can be justified.  Then, there could be productive conversation and an approach from both sides.  But how do you justify racism?