3 ms·

It’s not political correctness, it’s fundamental respect. I think that's the battle cry of all those who enforce PC behavior. UH OH! OUT COMES THE INTERNET P

It’s not political correctness, it’s fundamental respect. I think that's the battle cry of all those who enforce PC behavior. UH OH! OUT COMES THE INTERNET PUNDITS! <g> ... Most of them are just contrarians. They would never dare to wear a swastika openly, but they love to argue about how the world has "misunderstood" this symbol. The way I read this is as a criticism of people who do not hold a particular belief, but are defending the rights of others who do hold it. This seems completely contrary to the ideal attitude of "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

ajscherer 16y ago
What right are you talking about here? There is no right to use a privately owned service in a way that scares off paying customers, much like you don't have the right to spray paint a swastika on your neighbor's house. The right to free speech means that the government can't punish you for your speech. It doesn't make it illegal for someone to do otherwise legal things (such as banning an xbox live account) in retaliation for your speech. I don't understand why so many people view the first amendment as a guarantee that one's self expression will never have negative consequences.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  There is no right to use a privately owned service in a way that scares off paying customers, much like you don't have the right to spray paint a swastika on your neighbor's house. This is perfectly correct, and I never claimed otherwise. As far as I can see, this part of the discussion was purely abstract, about whether the negative associations of the swastika so overwhelm other uses as to render the latter irrelevant. Indeed, the whole discussion would be irrelevant given your context. That is, in a conversation about how a property owner chooses to allow their property to be used, the only relevant point, legally and morally, is "this is how I choose to allow my property to be used". There need be no further explanation. Since the whole thing is dilatory in that context, the only meaningful interpretation is as an abstract discussion of why one might want to make such a distinction. In such a discussion, the idea of tolerating the thoughts of others -- not just those who might claim offense at seeing such speech, but also those who would like to profess their beliefs -- certainly has a place.
anthuswilliams 16y ago
He's not criticizing the defenders of free speech. He's challenging the internet iconoclasts who defend the viewpoint itself, and worse, do so dishonestly. The thing is, I have a chickenboner uncle who defends the use of the word 'nigger' by citing its (supposedly) non-racist etymology. He emphatically claims he is NOT racist. I'm not so sure, but let's do a thought experiment. If he's at all reasonable, he'll probably make the same assumption I do when he encounters someone who uses the word frequently: thar be a skinhead. Toulouse is right in pointing out that most of these people are Americans who are presumably familiar with western opprobrium wrt the swastika. If they saw a guy on the street with it tattooed on his chest, Toulouse argues, they would cry neo-Nazi, just like the rest of us. I happen to disagree with the guy on the issue of the swastika, because I know that its disgracefulness is largely a western phenomenon. But I know that online gaming is not a suitable forum to challenge cultural norms. It's interesting to note that many Indians I talk too are far more understanding of the swastika's inappropriateness in that context than these reddite Americans are. I'm all for challenging normative cultural symbolism, but I know that's not what this is about. As Toulouse points out, the same arguments are made regarding the term 'fag', and the fact that means 'cigarette' in the UK. The issue is not free speech; it's intellectual dishonesty.

ajscherer 16y ago

What right are you talking about here? There is no right to use a privately owned service in a way that scares off paying customers, much like you don't have the right to spray paint a swastika on your neighbor's house. The right to free speech means that the government can't punish you for your speech. It doesn't make it illegal for someone to do otherwise legal things (such as banning an xbox live account) in retaliation for your speech. I don't understand why so many people view the first amendment as a guarantee that one's self expression will never have negative consequences.

CWuestefeld 16y ago
There is no right to use a privately owned service in a way that scares off paying customers, much like you don't have the right to spray paint a swastika on your neighbor's house. This is perfectly correct, and I never claimed otherwise. As far as I can see, this part of the discussion was purely abstract, about whether the negative associations of the swastika so overwhelm other uses as to render the latter irrelevant. Indeed, the whole discussion would be irrelevant given your context. That is, in a conversation about how a property owner chooses to allow their property to be used, the only relevant point, legally and morally, is "this is how I choose to allow my property to be used". There need be no further explanation. Since the whole thing is dilatory in that context, the only meaningful interpretation is as an abstract discussion of why one might want to make such a distinction. In such a discussion, the idea of tolerating the thoughts of others -- not just those who might claim offense at seeing such speech, but also those who would like to profess their beliefs -- certainly has a place.

anthuswilliams 16y ago

He's not criticizing the defenders of free speech. He's challenging the internet iconoclasts who defend the viewpoint itself, and worse, do so dishonestly. The thing is, I have a chickenboner uncle who defends the use of the word 'nigger' by citing its (supposedly) non-racist etymology. He emphatically claims he is NOT racist. I'm not so sure, but let's do a thought experiment. If he's at all reasonable, he'll probably make the same assumption I do when he encounters someone who uses the word frequently: thar be a skinhead. Toulouse is right in pointing out that most of these people are Americans who are presumably familiar with western opprobrium wrt the swastika. If they saw a guy on the street with it tattooed on his chest, Toulouse argues, they would cry neo-Nazi, just like the rest of us. I happen to disagree with the guy on the issue of the swastika, because I know that its disgracefulness is largely a western phenomenon. But I know that online gaming is not a suitable forum to challenge cultural norms. It's interesting to note that many Indians I talk too are far more understanding of the swastika's inappropriateness in that context than these reddite Americans are. I'm all for challenging normative cultural symbolism, but I know that's not what this is about. As Toulouse points out, the same arguments are made regarding the term 'fag', and the fact that means 'cigarette' in the UK. The issue is not free speech; it's intellectual dishonesty.