3 ms·

There is no such thing as "just words". That's a position only sustainable from privilege.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
See grandalf's reply to eropple. In addition: No, it's not a position only sustainable from privilege. I'm fairly privileged - white, male, upper middle class, good job, good neighborhood. If someone threatened to kill me, that's just words - it's not the same as them showing up at my door with a gun in their hand. But I'd still have to think seriously about whether they were going to show up at my door, and what to do about it. It's just words, and also it's not. My "privilege" doesn't insulate me from the "and also it's not" part.
- grandalf 10y ago
  Very true. My comment was not meant to suggest that I think Twitter should promote already illegal forms of speech like threats, etc. To conflate speech with privilege is absurd. We are all equally empowered and equally vulnerable in a free speech society. A non-privileged person is free to draw a cartoon of Trump that looks like Muhammed. In a totalitarian society nobody is free to draw cartoons of certain subjects. To assume that a person of lower social status is more likely to be emotionally wounded from words is akin to claiming him/her to be less rational (and thus less human) than others. Speech is dangerous because it can incite passionate behavior while also being nonviolent. That is why we must preserve our right to this freedom. It is far better than the many coercive alternatives. Information is powerful, and it can empower and inspire people to act. But the idea that certain ideas are dangerous and must be suppressed reminds me of the embarrassing attempts during the 1980s by social conservatives to cast heavy metal lyrics as satanic and deserving of censorship.
  - eropple 10y ago
    > To conflate speech with privilege is absurd. We are all equally empowered and equally vulnerable in a free speech society. No, we're not. As a straight white guy, I can say "video games suck because X, Y, and Z" and people might call it stupid or call me a "cuck", but that's about it. A woman who say "video games are generally cool but have some problematic tendencies like X, Y, and Z" gets death and rape threats and have people post her personal information online. I know this happens because a friend did this, had it happen, and ended up crashing on my couch for a few days while she found a new apartment and moved because she feared for her safety, something which literally-literally does not happen to straight white men (though does happen, in varying but generally lesser quantities, to queer and minority men, and happens a lot more to trans people in general) who express similar opinions in that space. Almost as if the numbers I drew in the genetic lottery has led to the privileged position of being able to speak in ways that others cannot without being literally endangered. How very strange.
    - grandalf 10y ago
      > does not happen to straight white men There are many aspects of how society treats men and women differently that are abhorrent to me. One of the most abhorrent is how a girl who struggles in math is more likely to be encouraged to focus on other subjects, while a boy in the same situation is more likely to be encouraged to achieve mastery. We (as a society) can do so much better... but censoring ideas is not he solution.
      - eropple 10y ago
        Refusing to associate with people is not "censorship" of ideas or anything else. Damaging, abusive people can be kicked out of one's place of business and it ain't a problem. I will not cede the ground of basic language to protofascists and you shouldn't either.
        AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        So you see it as protofascism to allow such speech (presuming I understood your last paragraph). grandalf sees blocking that speech as protofascism (more or less - he doesn't use that word). I agree with you that the speech in question is horrific - something any civilized person should be ashamed of having thought, let alone said. But I still side with grandalf on this. Prohibiting speech as if it were violence - no matter how threatening the content of the speech - opens another door to the fascists. You want it as a weapon to use against vile speech. But the problem is, that weapon will be turned against your speech soon enough. Your speech will be classified as "vile", "hateful", "violent", and banned. Rationally, based on content? No, but as a means of control by whoever's in power at the time.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        grandalf 10y ago
        Well put. I don't use phrases like "proto-fascists" because I don't think the term really has meaning. > as a means of control by whoever's in power at the time. This is exactly right. When we allow liberties to be taken away, they are likely gone for good, even when the context for their removal goes away.
JarlUlvi 10y ago
I hate senseless privilege arguments which is really masquerading anti-white sexism & racism.

See grandalf's reply to eropple. In addition: No, it's not a position only sustainable from privilege. I'm fairly privileged - white, male, upper middle class, good job, good neighborhood. If someone threatened to kill me, that's just words - it's not the same as them showing up at my door with a gun in their hand. But I'd still have to think seriously about whether they were going to show up at my door, and what to do about it. It's just words, and also it's not. My "privilege" doesn't insulate me from the "and also it's not" part.

grandalf 10y ago
Very true. My comment was not meant to suggest that I think Twitter should promote already illegal forms of speech like threats, etc. To conflate speech with privilege is absurd. We are all equally empowered and equally vulnerable in a free speech society. A non-privileged person is free to draw a cartoon of Trump that looks like Muhammed. In a totalitarian society nobody is free to draw cartoons of certain subjects. To assume that a person of lower social status is more likely to be emotionally wounded from words is akin to claiming him/her to be less rational (and thus less human) than others. Speech is dangerous because it can incite passionate behavior while also being nonviolent. That is why we must preserve our right to this freedom. It is far better than the many coercive alternatives. Information is powerful, and it can empower and inspire people to act. But the idea that certain ideas are dangerous and must be suppressed reminds me of the embarrassing attempts during the 1980s by social conservatives to cast heavy metal lyrics as satanic and deserving of censorship.
- eropple 10y ago
  > To conflate speech with privilege is absurd. We are all equally empowered and equally vulnerable in a free speech society. No, we're not. As a straight white guy, I can say "video games suck because X, Y, and Z" and people might call it stupid or call me a "cuck", but that's about it. A woman who say "video games are generally cool but have some problematic tendencies like X, Y, and Z" gets death and rape threats and have people post her personal information online. I know this happens because a friend did this, had it happen, and ended up crashing on my couch for a few days while she found a new apartment and moved because she feared for her safety, something which literally-literally does not happen to straight white men (though does happen, in varying but generally lesser quantities, to queer and minority men, and happens a lot more to trans people in general) who express similar opinions in that space. Almost as if the numbers I drew in the genetic lottery has led to the privileged position of being able to speak in ways that others cannot without being literally endangered. How very strange.
  - grandalf 10y ago
    > does not happen to straight white men There are many aspects of how society treats men and women differently that are abhorrent to me. One of the most abhorrent is how a girl who struggles in math is more likely to be encouraged to focus on other subjects, while a boy in the same situation is more likely to be encouraged to achieve mastery. We (as a society) can do so much better... but censoring ideas is not he solution.
    - eropple 10y ago
      Refusing to associate with people is not "censorship" of ideas or anything else. Damaging, abusive people can be kicked out of one's place of business and it ain't a problem. I will not cede the ground of basic language to protofascists and you shouldn't either.
      - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        So you see it as protofascism to allow such speech (presuming I understood your last paragraph). grandalf sees blocking that speech as protofascism (more or less - he doesn't use that word). I agree with you that the speech in question is horrific - something any civilized person should be ashamed of having thought, let alone said. But I still side with grandalf on this. Prohibiting speech as if it were violence - no matter how threatening the content of the speech - opens another door to the fascists. You want it as a weapon to use against vile speech. But the problem is, that weapon will be turned against your speech soon enough. Your speech will be classified as "vile", "hateful", "violent", and banned. Rationally, based on content? No, but as a means of control by whoever's in power at the time.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        grandalf 10y ago
        Well put. I don't use phrases like "proto-fascists" because I don't think the term really has meaning. > as a means of control by whoever's in power at the time. This is exactly right. When we allow liberties to be taken away, they are likely gone for good, even when the context for their removal goes away.

JarlUlvi 10y ago

I hate senseless privilege arguments which is really masquerading anti-white sexism & racism.