3 ms·

Free speech has never been about protecting popular ideas. It's the ideas that those in power find obnoxious that get censored. Though the particular ideas vary

by xiaoma 10y ago

Free speech has never been about protecting popular ideas. It's the ideas that those in power find obnoxious that get censored. Though the particular ideas vary between modern America, communist Russia and medieval Spain, it's the threatening views of outsiders that are met with suppression or violence.

glangdale 10y ago
You appear to have been moved (triggered, even) to say something about "free speech" and "obnoxiousness". Aside from the fact that post posts contain these words, I am at a loss to understand how it connects in any way to anything I wrote.
- current_call 10y ago
  When you said, "There appears to be a alchemical transformation that results in people's minds, where "<Obnoxious Statement X>" on its own is obnoxious, but "I know it's politically incorrect to say so, but <Obnoxious Statement X>!" makes you a Free Speech Martyr and a real deep thinker.", you were implying that free speech shouldn't protect obnoxious ideas, but that's wrong. Free speech exists specifically to protect unpopular ideas.
  - glangdale 10y ago
    No, I was implying that people invoke "political correctness" in an effort to pretend to be Free Speech Martyrs when they are just being obnoxious. This is generally done in circumstances when neither version of the statement is in any real danger of being suppressed, but invoking "political correctness" gives a thrill of posturing as if you are in imminent danger of getting shut down by a cabal of "academic feminazis" or some such. Like the GP of your post, you have also clearly been 'triggered' to share your uncontroversial but irrelevant statements on free speech by keywords alone.
- xiaoma 10y ago
  >"You appear to have been moved (triggered, even)..." This kind of uncharitable guessing at others' states of mind isn't very constructive. Focusing on one's impression of a speaker often makes it harder to parse their speech.
  - glangdale 10y ago
    I still don't understand what your point was or how it was relevant to what I originally wrote, and you haven't seen fit to explain.
Retra 10y ago
Just because something is popular doesn't mean it is wrong, though. And it may be that people in power find something obnoxious because it is obnoxious. In either case, "political correctness" is only an exchange of tokens of respect. A transaction of political capital. "If you speak in a culturally respectful manner then I'll listen to you. Otherwise, I won't." That's not violent. That's not suppressive. That's not censorship. It is judgmental, but that's only a necessary feature of having good judgment. When you find yourself unable to legally express an idea, then you are in trouble. You are not in trouble if nobody listens to you because you are inarticulate. (In that case, you are probably just stupid.)
- current_call 10y ago
  In either case, "political correctness" is only an exchange of tokens of respect. A transaction of political capital. "If you speak in a culturally respectful manner then I'll listen to you. Otherwise, I won't." You're using a different definition of political correctness than used in the article. It's very easy to make something sound bad if you redefine it.

by xiaoma 10y ago

glangdale 10y ago

You appear to have been moved (triggered, even) to say something about "free speech" and "obnoxiousness". Aside from the fact that post posts contain these words, I am at a loss to understand how it connects in any way to anything I wrote.

current_call 10y ago
When you said, "There appears to be a alchemical transformation that results in people's minds, where "<Obnoxious Statement X>" on its own is obnoxious, but "I know it's politically incorrect to say so, but <Obnoxious Statement X>!" makes you a Free Speech Martyr and a real deep thinker.", you were implying that free speech shouldn't protect obnoxious ideas, but that's wrong. Free speech exists specifically to protect unpopular ideas.
- glangdale 10y ago
  No, I was implying that people invoke "political correctness" in an effort to pretend to be Free Speech Martyrs when they are just being obnoxious. This is generally done in circumstances when neither version of the statement is in any real danger of being suppressed, but invoking "political correctness" gives a thrill of posturing as if you are in imminent danger of getting shut down by a cabal of "academic feminazis" or some such. Like the GP of your post, you have also clearly been 'triggered' to share your uncontroversial but irrelevant statements on free speech by keywords alone.
xiaoma 10y ago
>"You appear to have been moved (triggered, even)..." This kind of uncharitable guessing at others' states of mind isn't very constructive. Focusing on one's impression of a speaker often makes it harder to parse their speech.
- glangdale 10y ago
  I still don't understand what your point was or how it was relevant to what I originally wrote, and you haven't seen fit to explain.

Retra 10y ago

Just because something is popular doesn't mean it is wrong, though. And it may be that people in power find something obnoxious because it is obnoxious. In either case, "political correctness" is only an exchange of tokens of respect. A transaction of political capital. "If you speak in a culturally respectful manner then I'll listen to you. Otherwise, I won't." That's not violent. That's not suppressive. That's not censorship. It is judgmental, but that's only a necessary feature of having good judgment. When you find yourself unable to legally express an idea, then you are in trouble. You are not in trouble if nobody listens to you because you are inarticulate. (In that case, you are probably just stupid.)

current_call 10y ago
In either case, "political correctness" is only an exchange of tokens of respect. A transaction of political capital. "If you speak in a culturally respectful manner then I'll listen to you. Otherwise, I won't." You're using a different definition of political correctness than used in the article. It's very easy to make something sound bad if you redefine it.