4 ms·

In high school, I had a teacher who had a rack of books/comics which he lent to students. One day, a single student complained about curse words / nudity in so

In high school, I had a teacher who had a rack of books/comics which he lent to students. One day, a single student complained about curse words / nudity in some of the books, and the teacher was forced to take those books out of the school. This struck me as silly. Why let one person's complaint take away this great thing for all of the students? Also in high school, there was a girl who was into hard core music and died her hair blue. She was routinely mocked in the halls for being weird. This also struck me as silly. Why should a person, just because they have a minority interest / opinion, be forced to deal with such harassment? I'm empathetic to both sides of this issue. However, I think we should generally err on the side of not harassing people, even if that causes unnecessary inconveniences for the majority sometimes.

rdancer 11y ago
I don't think you're making your point very well: Being forced not to bully Bluelocks does not inconvenience you. Having the opportunity (not obligation) to read something you don't want to read does not inconvenience you either. If anything, we should, in a secular state, agree that people differ in their view of morality, and we should be tolerant of each other's needs, perceived or otherwise.
- iamsohungry 11y ago
  > If anything, we should, in a secular state, agree that people differ in their view of morality, and we should be tolerant of each other's needs, perceived or otherwise. The problem is that some people's perceived needs are not compatible with other people's perceived needs. In order to decide which group gets their perceived needs, I think it makes sense to have a societal conversation about which of those perceived needs are actual needs, and which of those perceived needs are just wants.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > I don't think you're making your point very well This is unnecessary. Please just make your point without criticizing the author.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
icanhackit 11y ago
a single student complained [...] and the teacher was forced to take those books out of the school. [...] Why let one person's complaint take away this great thing for all of the students? The phenomenon can be summed up as Society moves as quickly as its slowest walker. I guess the discussion around this phenomenon should be is this the most ideal system? Is Silicon Valley a kind of opposite where the fastest walkers have priority and in the process many people get left behind while those with merit surge further away? Is that how all of society should operate? Personally I advocate total free-speech, the good with the bad, so that we can enjoy unrestricted debate. But is there value in maintaining a kind of cultural speed limit, not a lockstep or unrestricted speed, so that society can move together harmoniously? It's a difficult and nuanced topic.
- hackuser 11y ago
  > Personally I advocate total free-speech, the good with the bad, so that we can enjoy unrestricted debate. I generally agree but I think that, as always, reality is too complex to address with a simple logical statement. Consider this example: A room in an almost all white small town, with a history of discrimination, of 20 white people and one black person, discussing some policy issue. A white person says, 'N-'s don't belong in this town; they should keep their mouths shut.' If you are the black person, that's a very intimidating situation. I'm not sure I support 'free speech' there. That might sound extreme, but many schools are not more than 1/20th black and from what the news says about U. of Missouri, behavior like that isn't rare. This isn't insults, it's intimidation. It's scary enough at 18 years old to venture out of your neighborhood into a almost all-white world, where people suspect you of crime when you just walk into a store. Where you are the 'The Black Man/Woman' in every room you enter, all day long. Generally I approach it this way: The only speech I won't tolerate is intolerance itself. (But of course, reality still isn't that simple.)
  - icanhackit 11y ago
    A white person says, 'N-'s don't belong in this town; they should keep their mouths shut.' If you are the black person, that's a very intimidating situation. I'm not sure I support 'free speech' there. It would be intimidating and rage-inducing, but its worth keeping in mind that the person who uttered the racist threat is still bound by law and physical violence is not free speech. And here we've found the line to make free-speech work: even-handed law-enforcement against physical violence, theft etc. Racist slurs on the other hand, while more cutting to people who have been marginalized, are just words designed to produce an emotional response. They fall under the category of speech. The only speech I won't tolerate is intolerance itself. Which is a form of intolerance.

rdancer 11y ago

I don't think you're making your point very well: Being forced not to bully Bluelocks does not inconvenience you. Having the opportunity (not obligation) to read something you don't want to read does not inconvenience you either. If anything, we should, in a secular state, agree that people differ in their view of morality, and we should be tolerant of each other's needs, perceived or otherwise.

iamsohungry 11y ago
> If anything, we should, in a secular state, agree that people differ in their view of morality, and we should be tolerant of each other's needs, perceived or otherwise. The problem is that some people's perceived needs are not compatible with other people's perceived needs. In order to decide which group gets their perceived needs, I think it makes sense to have a societal conversation about which of those perceived needs are actual needs, and which of those perceived needs are just wants.
hackuser 11y ago
> I don't think you're making your point very well This is unnecessary. Please just make your point without criticizing the author.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

icanhackit 11y ago

a single student complained [...] and the teacher was forced to take those books out of the school. [...] Why let one person's complaint take away this great thing for all of the students? The phenomenon can be summed up as Society moves as quickly as its slowest walker. I guess the discussion around this phenomenon should be is this the most ideal system? Is Silicon Valley a kind of opposite where the fastest walkers have priority and in the process many people get left behind while those with merit surge further away? Is that how all of society should operate? Personally I advocate total free-speech, the good with the bad, so that we can enjoy unrestricted debate. But is there value in maintaining a kind of cultural speed limit, not a lockstep or unrestricted speed, so that society can move together harmoniously? It's a difficult and nuanced topic.

hackuser 11y ago
> Personally I advocate total free-speech, the good with the bad, so that we can enjoy unrestricted debate. I generally agree but I think that, as always, reality is too complex to address with a simple logical statement. Consider this example: A room in an almost all white small town, with a history of discrimination, of 20 white people and one black person, discussing some policy issue. A white person says, 'N-'s don't belong in this town; they should keep their mouths shut.' If you are the black person, that's a very intimidating situation. I'm not sure I support 'free speech' there. That might sound extreme, but many schools are not more than 1/20th black and from what the news says about U. of Missouri, behavior like that isn't rare. This isn't insults, it's intimidation. It's scary enough at 18 years old to venture out of your neighborhood into a almost all-white world, where people suspect you of crime when you just walk into a store. Where you are the 'The Black Man/Woman' in every room you enter, all day long. Generally I approach it this way: The only speech I won't tolerate is intolerance itself. (But of course, reality still isn't that simple.)
- icanhackit 11y ago
  A white person says, 'N-'s don't belong in this town; they should keep their mouths shut.' If you are the black person, that's a very intimidating situation. I'm not sure I support 'free speech' there. It would be intimidating and rage-inducing, but its worth keeping in mind that the person who uttered the racist threat is still bound by law and physical violence is not free speech. And here we've found the line to make free-speech work: even-handed law-enforcement against physical violence, theft etc. Racist slurs on the other hand, while more cutting to people who have been marginalized, are just words designed to produce an emotional response. They fall under the category of speech. The only speech I won't tolerate is intolerance itself. Which is a form of intolerance.