6 ms·

I do not think Bobstaples is advocating no repercussions for exercising free speech. I know that in a thread I commented on someone assumed I was saying the sa

I do not think Bobstaples is advocating no repercussions for exercising free speech. I know that in a thread I commented on someone assumed I was saying the same. I think what he is saying is that we can have a respefult open discussion that does not devolve into snap judgments, name calling, etc. And you are correct that speech has consequences; it can make you feel like you are walking on air and can hurt more than a physical blow. I think what he is saying is that we have to learn how to listen without judging and respond without casting aspersions. Sometimes we simply have to agree to disagree. No two people are alike.

pkilgore 9y ago
> I think what he is saying is that we can have a respectful open discussion that does not devolve into snap judgments, name calling, etc. We can. You and I are probably about to do it. My point is simply that there often are people--their perception being their reality--for whom snap judgments and an invective response is the reasonable, if not respectful response to others' speech. Note, for much of human history (and current history, see Russia and Venezuela), an acceptable response has actually been violent/rights restricting. Invective in response to speech is desirable in its efficiency, should a critical mass feel the same. We can't be having reasonable conversations every time someone has a socially abhorrent thought and brings it up for discussion (no matter how often it's been addressed before). Ain't nobody got time for that. Better a hundred people shouting "fuck you, racist." Over time what becomes so socially abhorrent to discuss in mixed, public company changes. Whether this is a good or bad thing is besides the point. It has always been this way, and to pretend otherwise is silly. If you want to change the status quo, it takes a lot of fucking work. You will likely deal with quite a bit of push back (because EVERYONE who has done this, has). That push back is a feature of civil society, not a bug. If your idea is good enough, it will probably end up overcoming the initial consequences (by the way, that outcome is still in the cards here!). > we have to learn how to listen without judging Why? Why are you allowed to say something I find abhorrent, but I am not allowed to think and express my honest (here, judgmental) response? You don't have control over how I feel in response to anything you do. I do. Period. > Sometimes we simply have to agree to disagree. But this does not mean I cannot express my disagreement with my own speech, including invective, should I find it appropriate to do so. The fact that my response might be hostile to your idea is a good indication we might end up agreeing to disagree. But your speech does not gain the privilege of being immune to my criticism in the interim. > I do not think Bobstaples is advocating no repercussions for exercising free speech. . . . I think what he is saying is that we can have a respefult open discussion that does not devolve into snap judgments, name calling, etc. (Tl;dr) Which leads me to my point. Even if you don't realize it, you are. By demanding that the listener be respectful to an idea they find abhorrent, you are asking for immunity from the most obvious consequence of abhorrent speech--complete and total disrespect (and an appropriately verbalized response) from the listener. I use the word "you" and "I" here as shorthand...I'm not trying to make this personal it's just easier than typing "some third person blah blah."
- zanethomas 9y ago
  >By demanding that the listener be respectful to >an idea they find abhorrent They could have stopped reading at any point, no need to be respectful by finishing. Please see my comment above about the way things used to be in America. Yes, there were sometimes overly-heated disagreements, the Vietnam war comes to mind, but generally speaking political disagreements didn't devolve into calling others Nazis or threatening their ability to work. That sort of extreme partisanship can only result in unpleasant consequences.
  - pkilgore 9y ago
    > They could have stopped reading at any point, no need to be respectful by finishing. Now you are advocating for freedom from consequences of speech by enforced ignorance. > Please see my comment above about the way things used to be in America Color me shocked the world was so agreeable when there was less diversity in people with power and the conflict was not about their essential worth based on unalterable traits of gender and race. > generally speaking political disagreements didn't devolve into calling others Nazis It doesn't now either, excluding the anonymity provided by the internet. I've had a lot of conversations about politics where me and the counterparty disagreed, I cannot recall one instance where someone called someone a Nazi to their face. Twitter is not reality. > That sort of extreme partisanship can only result in unpleasant consequences. Even accepting your premise...unpleasant for whom? Change is never pleasant.
- Powerofmene 9y ago
  Pkilgore, Discussion is a two way street. It involves one talking and another responding. What I am advocating is for honest, open discussion. All I said was that we can have a discussion without judgment. You and I may not agree on something but I am not going to judge you for having an opinion that may be different from my own. >We have to learn to listen without judging. "Why? Why are you allowed to say something I find abhorrent, but I am not allowed to think and express my honest (here, judgmental) response? You don't have control over how I feel in response to anything you do. I do." And hence the open discussion. To me, and maybe I see things with rose colored glasses, but honest entails truthful which could involved heated, passionate, calm, even frenzied discussion. It could involve telling me I am wrong, it could involve agreeing. That allows us to understand where each other is coming from and could involve me or you having a change in position. I am in no way saying I have control over your response or feelings about my stance just as you have no control over my interpretation of yours. >Sometimes we have to agree to disagree and your response was "that this does not mean I cannot express my disagreement with my own speech, including invective, should I find it appropriate to do so.....But your speech does not gain the privilege of being immune to my criticism in the interim." I think you have wholly misunderstood my statement. I welcome your response, in whatever form you may find appropriate. What I said was that at the end of the day (after the discussion, which may sometimes be heated as passionate discussions sometimes are), we may have to face facts and that may be that you and I (as your example showed) may stand on opposite sides of the issue. We have openly discussed the issue. You are correct that change is difficult. Nobody is advocating that a listener must be respectful of an idea they find abhorrent as you stated. I am simply saying that after the discussion is over, I am simply saying that response to the idea that is disrespectful is wholly different than slurs etc that are disrespectful or degrading to the person on the opposite side. I have spent my career fighting for the rights of marginalized persons (the disabled) but my experience is that you gain more ground from listening, responding, and then working to find common ground in order to make some progress. And, yes, sometimes that common ground is the tiniest of slivers, but once it is found, change can occur. If I stay on my side of the street and you on yours, hurling words across the void gets neither of us closer to a better place. YMMV.

pkilgore 9y ago

> I think what he is saying is that we can have a respectful open discussion that does not devolve into snap judgments, name calling, etc. We can. You and I are probably about to do it. My point is simply that there often are people--their perception being their reality--for whom snap judgments and an invective response is the reasonable, if not respectful response to others' speech. Note, for much of human history (and current history, see Russia and Venezuela), an acceptable response has actually been violent/rights restricting. Invective in response to speech is desirable in its efficiency, should a critical mass feel the same. We can't be having reasonable conversations every time someone has a socially abhorrent thought and brings it up for discussion (no matter how often it's been addressed before). Ain't nobody got time for that. Better a hundred people shouting "fuck you, racist." Over time what becomes so socially abhorrent to discuss in mixed, public company changes. Whether this is a good or bad thing is besides the point. It has always been this way, and to pretend otherwise is silly. If you want to change the status quo, it takes a lot of fucking work. You will likely deal with quite a bit of push back (because EVERYONE who has done this, has). That push back is a feature of civil society, not a bug. If your idea is good enough, it will probably end up overcoming the initial consequences (by the way, that outcome is still in the cards here!). > we have to learn how to listen without judging Why? Why are you allowed to say something I find abhorrent, but I am not allowed to think and express my honest (here, judgmental) response? You don't have control over how I feel in response to anything you do. I do. Period. > Sometimes we simply have to agree to disagree. But this does not mean I cannot express my disagreement with my own speech, including invective, should I find it appropriate to do so. The fact that my response might be hostile to your idea is a good indication we might end up agreeing to disagree. But your speech does not gain the privilege of being immune to my criticism in the interim. > I do not think Bobstaples is advocating no repercussions for exercising free speech. . . . I think what he is saying is that we can have a respefult open discussion that does not devolve into snap judgments, name calling, etc. (Tl;dr) Which leads me to my point. Even if you don't realize it, you are. By demanding that the listener be respectful to an idea they find abhorrent, you are asking for immunity from the most obvious consequence of abhorrent speech--complete and total disrespect (and an appropriately verbalized response) from the listener. I use the word "you" and "I" here as shorthand...I'm not trying to make this personal it's just easier than typing "some third person blah blah."

zanethomas 9y ago
>By demanding that the listener be respectful to >an idea they find abhorrent They could have stopped reading at any point, no need to be respectful by finishing. Please see my comment above about the way things used to be in America. Yes, there were sometimes overly-heated disagreements, the Vietnam war comes to mind, but generally speaking political disagreements didn't devolve into calling others Nazis or threatening their ability to work. That sort of extreme partisanship can only result in unpleasant consequences.
- pkilgore 9y ago
  > They could have stopped reading at any point, no need to be respectful by finishing. Now you are advocating for freedom from consequences of speech by enforced ignorance. > Please see my comment above about the way things used to be in America Color me shocked the world was so agreeable when there was less diversity in people with power and the conflict was not about their essential worth based on unalterable traits of gender and race. > generally speaking political disagreements didn't devolve into calling others Nazis It doesn't now either, excluding the anonymity provided by the internet. I've had a lot of conversations about politics where me and the counterparty disagreed, I cannot recall one instance where someone called someone a Nazi to their face. Twitter is not reality. > That sort of extreme partisanship can only result in unpleasant consequences. Even accepting your premise...unpleasant for whom? Change is never pleasant.
Powerofmene 9y ago
Pkilgore, Discussion is a two way street. It involves one talking and another responding. What I am advocating is for honest, open discussion. All I said was that we can have a discussion without judgment. You and I may not agree on something but I am not going to judge you for having an opinion that may be different from my own. >We have to learn to listen without judging. "Why? Why are you allowed to say something I find abhorrent, but I am not allowed to think and express my honest (here, judgmental) response? You don't have control over how I feel in response to anything you do. I do." And hence the open discussion. To me, and maybe I see things with rose colored glasses, but honest entails truthful which could involved heated, passionate, calm, even frenzied discussion. It could involve telling me I am wrong, it could involve agreeing. That allows us to understand where each other is coming from and could involve me or you having a change in position. I am in no way saying I have control over your response or feelings about my stance just as you have no control over my interpretation of yours. >Sometimes we have to agree to disagree and your response was "that this does not mean I cannot express my disagreement with my own speech, including invective, should I find it appropriate to do so.....But your speech does not gain the privilege of being immune to my criticism in the interim." I think you have wholly misunderstood my statement. I welcome your response, in whatever form you may find appropriate. What I said was that at the end of the day (after the discussion, which may sometimes be heated as passionate discussions sometimes are), we may have to face facts and that may be that you and I (as your example showed) may stand on opposite sides of the issue. We have openly discussed the issue. You are correct that change is difficult. Nobody is advocating that a listener must be respectful of an idea they find abhorrent as you stated. I am simply saying that after the discussion is over, I am simply saying that response to the idea that is disrespectful is wholly different than slurs etc that are disrespectful or degrading to the person on the opposite side. I have spent my career fighting for the rights of marginalized persons (the disabled) but my experience is that you gain more ground from listening, responding, and then working to find common ground in order to make some progress. And, yes, sometimes that common ground is the tiniest of slivers, but once it is found, change can occur. If I stay on my side of the street and you on yours, hurling words across the void gets neither of us closer to a better place. YMMV.