5 ms·

> The idea that people's feelings should come first, especially before truth/understanding of reality No one is arguing for this.

by coldpie 11y ago

jerf 11y ago
Yes, they are. As soon as you claim they are, they scurry away claiming that's not what they mean, but as soon as you say "OK then" and move on, they turn right around and it's all about their feelings again. It is very much a part of the modern PC platform that if someone "feels" assaulted, they are, and you must believe them or you are blaming the victim. This is why accusations are as good as conviction in places where PC reigns supreme, because the fact of accusation is itself proof of feeling, and that's it, case closed. Don't fall for this transparent rhetorical ploy. Arguments that only appear transiently to dismiss one point, then disappear into the ether immediately after, are not arguments, just rhetoric. (This is a general point that applies in many places, actually.)
- coldpie 11y ago
  In what case is someone doing this at the cost of "truth/understanding of reality"?
adventured 11y ago
In fact it's being very openly argued all over the place in US culture today. The recent famous video of the Yale professor that was trying to talk rationally to the irrational students around him - it was all about the students claiming they had a right to not be offended, and the notion that their feelings trumped freedom of speech.
- coldpie 11y ago
  I'm sorry, I don't know what video you're referring to. What rational point was the professor trying to make? That white people dressing in racially-charged costumes should not be shunned?
  - Tenhundfeld 11y ago
    I think this is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IEFD_JVYd0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IEFD_JVYd0 Along with some NYT coverage on this general topic: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/11/02/when-a-generation-becomes-less-tolerant-of-free-speech http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/11/02/when-a-gener... This issue of students complaining about trigger warnings and the need for safe spaces certainly seems to be increasingly prevalent, but that could just be due to the media giving it more attention.
    - coldpie 11y ago
      Interesting that according to that NYTimes link, offensive speech is considered protected "free speech," while people objecting to offensive speech does not qualify. I have just as much a right to tell you you're an asshole and not welcome near me as you do to say offensive things to me.
      - tdkl 11y ago
        "Free speech" and "freedom of acting like a little bitch" are two different things though.
        coldpie 11y ago
        Lol
      - JungleGymSam 11y ago
        > and not welcome near me Are you saying you believe that another person can only be near you because you give them implicit permission to? And that at any time, and for any reason, you could remove that permission? Where did you get that idea?
- coldpie 11y ago
  Separately, please note that "freedom of speech" is a term which refers specifically to the government using force to prevent or compel speech from private citizens. In the context of university student conduct, I'm not aware of any law or court case which impinges on this freedom. Being expelled from a university for your conduct does not qualify as an infringement of your freedom of speech.
  - forgottenpass 11y ago
    Freedom of speech is a generic concept. "The Freedom of Speech," the legal right defined by the constitution only applies to the government because the constitution only applies to the government.
    - coldpie 11y ago
      Indeed, you are free to make your offensive speech. And I also have the freedom to tell you your speech makes me uncomfortable, and to convince those around me to do the same and shun you while you continue to speak it near us. Now both our freedoms of speech have been preserved and any appeal to "Freedom of Speech" is vacuous and we can never use the term again in this context. Great.
  - Caprinicus 11y ago
    There is a difference between the legal right and the principle.
  - stefantalpalaru 11y ago
    > Separately, please note that "freedom of speech" is a term which refers specifically to the government using force to prevent or compel speech from private citizens. There's a whole world outside US: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
- tlrobinson 11y ago
  Prof: So who gets to decide what's offensive? Who gets to decide guys? Stud 2: When it hurts me! Stud 1: When it's offensive to me! https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/3s5wz2/yale_administrators_responds_to_safe_space_hands/cwui6xq https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/3s5wz2/yale_adminis...

> The idea that people's feelings should come first, especially before truth/understanding of reality No one is arguing for this.

by coldpie 11y ago

> The idea that people's feelings should come first, especially before truth/understanding of reality No one is arguing for this.

jerf 11y ago

Yes, they are. As soon as you claim they are, they scurry away claiming that's not what they mean, but as soon as you say "OK then" and move on, they turn right around and it's all about their feelings again. It is very much a part of the modern PC platform that if someone "feels" assaulted, they are, and you must believe them or you are blaming the victim. This is why accusations are as good as conviction in places where PC reigns supreme, because the fact of accusation is itself proof of feeling, and that's it, case closed. Don't fall for this transparent rhetorical ploy. Arguments that only appear transiently to dismiss one point, then disappear into the ether immediately after, are not arguments, just rhetoric. (This is a general point that applies in many places, actually.)

coldpie 11y ago
In what case is someone doing this at the cost of "truth/understanding of reality"?

adventured 11y ago

In fact it's being very openly argued all over the place in US culture today. The recent famous video of the Yale professor that was trying to talk rationally to the irrational students around him - it was all about the students claiming they had a right to not be offended, and the notion that their feelings trumped freedom of speech.

coldpie 11y ago
I'm sorry, I don't know what video you're referring to. What rational point was the professor trying to make? That white people dressing in racially-charged costumes should not be shunned?
- Tenhundfeld 11y ago
  I think this is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IEFD_JVYd0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IEFD_JVYd0 Along with some NYT coverage on this general topic: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/11/02/when-a-generation-becomes-less-tolerant-of-free-speech http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/11/02/when-a-gener... This issue of students complaining about trigger warnings and the need for safe spaces certainly seems to be increasingly prevalent, but that could just be due to the media giving it more attention.
  - coldpie 11y ago
    Interesting that according to that NYTimes link, offensive speech is considered protected "free speech," while people objecting to offensive speech does not qualify. I have just as much a right to tell you you're an asshole and not welcome near me as you do to say offensive things to me.
    - tdkl 11y ago
      "Free speech" and "freedom of acting like a little bitch" are two different things though.
      - coldpie 11y ago
        Lol
    - JungleGymSam 11y ago
      > and not welcome near me Are you saying you believe that another person can only be near you because you give them implicit permission to? And that at any time, and for any reason, you could remove that permission? Where did you get that idea?
coldpie 11y ago
Separately, please note that "freedom of speech" is a term which refers specifically to the government using force to prevent or compel speech from private citizens. In the context of university student conduct, I'm not aware of any law or court case which impinges on this freedom. Being expelled from a university for your conduct does not qualify as an infringement of your freedom of speech.
- forgottenpass 11y ago
  Freedom of speech is a generic concept. "The Freedom of Speech," the legal right defined by the constitution only applies to the government because the constitution only applies to the government.
  - coldpie 11y ago
    Indeed, you are free to make your offensive speech. And I also have the freedom to tell you your speech makes me uncomfortable, and to convince those around me to do the same and shun you while you continue to speak it near us. Now both our freedoms of speech have been preserved and any appeal to "Freedom of Speech" is vacuous and we can never use the term again in this context. Great.
- Caprinicus 11y ago
  There is a difference between the legal right and the principle.
- stefantalpalaru 11y ago
  > Separately, please note that "freedom of speech" is a term which refers specifically to the government using force to prevent or compel speech from private citizens. There's a whole world outside US: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
tlrobinson 11y ago
Prof: So who gets to decide what's offensive? Who gets to decide guys? Stud 2: When it hurts me! Stud 1: When it's offensive to me! https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/3s5wz2/yale_administrators_responds_to_safe_space_hands/cwui6xq https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/3s5wz2/yale_adminis...