7 ms·

So your opinion can cause physical harm against others. Someone's livelihood should be jeapardized in this event. People are suffering right this second around

So your opinion can cause physical harm against others. Someone's livelihood should be jeapardized in this event. People are suffering right this second around the world by those that advocate the same thoughts as you are. Thoughts leads to words, words leads to actions, actions lead to atrocities.

rothbardrand 9y ago
Physical harm requires an action, whether legislative or physical. Words don't ipso-facto lead to actions and not all actions lead to atrocities. An opinion does not cause physical harm. This is the error with political correctness- as precisely defined-- it is the idea that you must be politically correct, otherwise you're causing a moral wrong. I don't think this can be justified rigorously. But it is taken as an article of faith, almost, among its adherents. From my perspective, it is used as a tool to control, by moving the overton window to exclude areas of thought that are different, and to rationalize actual actions that cause damage. (Firing someone isn't an atrocity, but it is harm.) So, ironically you're advocating doing the harm you're using as justification to defend your ideology.
- UncleMeat 9y ago
  Opinions and culture can cause real harm. This was the basis for the scientific argument used in Brown v Board. That even if you could make everything literally equal, these sorts of spoken biases really do lead to measurable negative effects on people's lives.
toomuchtodo 9y ago
Ideas must be able to be freely discussed, argued, and debated in a free and democratic society. Are you prepared to suppress and jail based on speech and words? Because that's what you're advocating for, and that's what authoritarian/totalitarian governments do.
- jchrisa 9y ago
  Driving people out of a job is a far cry from jailing them.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    Apologies that I did not include "financially cripple/impoverish" in my list.
- ucaetano 9y ago
  > Ideas must be able to be freely discussed, argued, and debated in a free and democratic society. Not everywhere. You don't have to allow the free discussion of ideas by anyone in your home. Freedom of speech is not a right to voice such speech wherever and whenever you want, or to be free of the consequences of such. Nobody has to give you the space or time to voice your speech.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - stagbeetle 9y ago
    > or to be free of the consequences of such. This is false. Under the United Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." an extension of John Mill's: "Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction. Societal sanction and interference include the loss of one's job, threats against the speaker, etc. See: "The first step in assessing whether a particular measure or situation breaches the right to freedom of expression is to assess the threshold question of whether or not someone’s right to freedom of expression has been interfered with or restricted. ... The scope of what constitutes an interference with freedom of expression is very wide. The European Convention on Human Rights, for example, refers to any “formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties” imposed on the exercise of the right. In many cases, it is fairly obvious that there has been an interference, for example where someone has been sanctioned for making a statement or prevented from establishing a media outlet. International courts take a wide view of this. For example, the UN Human Rights Committee held that removing a teacher from the classroom for racist statements made outside of the classroom, while keeping him employed on the same conditions, was an interference with his right to freedom of expression..."[0] [0]http://www.law-democracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/10.03.Paper-on-Restrictions-on-FOE.pdf http://www.law-democracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/10.0...
olewhalehunter 9y ago
>People are suffering right this second around the world by those that advocate the same thoughts as you are People suffer for other reasons too though, like societal inaction and economics. Do you hold yourself to the same standard, with your lifestyle choices affecting others as they do, in the same regard that you're holding others for their political ideas? Have you adopted dozens of children from third world countries instead of creating more mouths to feed? Do you ride a horse to work to reduce your climate impact? Have you optimized your entire life for the supremely calculated reduction of suffering? How would such a calculation even be verified correct? Where does that line get drawn in your world? Is it simply on people with philosophies that are convenient for you to criticize to make yourself the superior humanitarian?
remarkEon 9y ago
This is the most Orwellian thing that has emerged out of all of this, that opinions are "physical" actions. Do you not realize the endstate that line of thinking? Physical reaction in response to opinions.
- jacalata 9y ago
  You should look up the doctrine of fighting words.
  - rtx 9y ago
    That sounds like something Tolkien said, "Words have power".
  - Sacho 9y ago
    This doctrine - https://www.thefire.org/misconceptions-about-the-fighting-words-exception/ https://www.thefire.org/misconceptions-about-the-fighting-wo... ?

rothbardrand 9y ago

Physical harm requires an action, whether legislative or physical. Words don't ipso-facto lead to actions and not all actions lead to atrocities. An opinion does not cause physical harm. This is the error with political correctness- as precisely defined-- it is the idea that you must be politically correct, otherwise you're causing a moral wrong. I don't think this can be justified rigorously. But it is taken as an article of faith, almost, among its adherents. From my perspective, it is used as a tool to control, by moving the overton window to exclude areas of thought that are different, and to rationalize actual actions that cause damage. (Firing someone isn't an atrocity, but it is harm.) So, ironically you're advocating doing the harm you're using as justification to defend your ideology.

UncleMeat 9y ago
Opinions and culture can cause real harm. This was the basis for the scientific argument used in Brown v Board. That even if you could make everything literally equal, these sorts of spoken biases really do lead to measurable negative effects on people's lives.

toomuchtodo 9y ago

Ideas must be able to be freely discussed, argued, and debated in a free and democratic society. Are you prepared to suppress and jail based on speech and words? Because that's what you're advocating for, and that's what authoritarian/totalitarian governments do.

jchrisa 9y ago
Driving people out of a job is a far cry from jailing them.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  Apologies that I did not include "financially cripple/impoverish" in my list.
ucaetano 9y ago
> Ideas must be able to be freely discussed, argued, and debated in a free and democratic society. Not everywhere. You don't have to allow the free discussion of ideas by anyone in your home. Freedom of speech is not a right to voice such speech wherever and whenever you want, or to be free of the consequences of such. Nobody has to give you the space or time to voice your speech.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- stagbeetle 9y ago
  > or to be free of the consequences of such. This is false. Under the United Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." an extension of John Mill's: "Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction. Societal sanction and interference include the loss of one's job, threats against the speaker, etc. See: "The first step in assessing whether a particular measure or situation breaches the right to freedom of expression is to assess the threshold question of whether or not someone’s right to freedom of expression has been interfered with or restricted. ... The scope of what constitutes an interference with freedom of expression is very wide. The European Convention on Human Rights, for example, refers to any “formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties” imposed on the exercise of the right. In many cases, it is fairly obvious that there has been an interference, for example where someone has been sanctioned for making a statement or prevented from establishing a media outlet. International courts take a wide view of this. For example, the UN Human Rights Committee held that removing a teacher from the classroom for racist statements made outside of the classroom, while keeping him employed on the same conditions, was an interference with his right to freedom of expression..."[0] [0]http://www.law-democracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/10.03.Paper-on-Restrictions-on-FOE.pdf http://www.law-democracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/10.0...

olewhalehunter 9y ago

>People are suffering right this second around the world by those that advocate the same thoughts as you are People suffer for other reasons too though, like societal inaction and economics. Do you hold yourself to the same standard, with your lifestyle choices affecting others as they do, in the same regard that you're holding others for their political ideas? Have you adopted dozens of children from third world countries instead of creating more mouths to feed? Do you ride a horse to work to reduce your climate impact? Have you optimized your entire life for the supremely calculated reduction of suffering? How would such a calculation even be verified correct? Where does that line get drawn in your world? Is it simply on people with philosophies that are convenient for you to criticize to make yourself the superior humanitarian?

remarkEon 9y ago

This is the most Orwellian thing that has emerged out of all of this, that opinions are "physical" actions. Do you not realize the endstate that line of thinking? Physical reaction in response to opinions.

jacalata 9y ago
You should look up the doctrine of fighting words.
- rtx 9y ago
  That sounds like something Tolkien said, "Words have power".
- Sacho 9y ago
  This doctrine - https://www.thefire.org/misconceptions-about-the-fighting-words-exception/ https://www.thefire.org/misconceptions-about-the-fighting-wo... ?