4 ms·

You do not need to be offensive and hatefull to make a point. This might not be the US way, but it does work.

by emj 8y ago

Nasrudith 8y ago
That they can't decide what you "need" is the point of free speech.
- asveikau 8y ago
  I agree, but I actually think your phrasing hints at perhaps missing the point. I came to an interesting conclusion about individual rights recently. You are not granted them because You are a specific You, and You are that awesome. Rather, it is someone else who is denied denying you rights, not because they would make the wrong call in your specific case, but because in aggregate, any authority making such calls would make a certain number of mistakes. This is completely separate from that authority being right or wrong, or the individual granted rights being right or wrong. People get upset and offended about "being told what they need", they think an abridgement of rights is a personal affront to them and their ego, but I don't think it's actually about any of that. It's more a recognition that any body set up to decide will sometimes (not even always, or most of the time, but sometimes) be wrong. Not personal, but meaningful in aggregate. Apologies if you already recognize this argument. I feel like US political discussions tend to have other subtexts around these issues, which set me on a bit of a tangent.
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    The point of rights is they belong to individuals. It /is/ a personal affront but it isn't of ego but territoriality and justly so - denial of them is a violence delivered upon them. There may be limits in practicality in ability to claim them but it doesn't make it less of an affront any more than inability to escape a life of literal slavery is okay because the slave is physically incapable of breaking their chains and killing every last master and overseer.
    - asveikau 8y ago
      The slavery example doesn't resonate with me. I am not sure what you are trying to say. But in everything else I would say you seem a little too attached to yourself as a decider. You are a stand-in for literally any other person. Hence everyone else shares the same rights. The whole thing is a legal approximation of fairness. But we get mixed up and call it our identity. The goal shouldn't necessarily be to be the best individual You are because of how awesome that is to be You. We are a society. A fair society functions well valuing individual rights because it works out in the aggregate. But I am going too far in a tangent. Enjoy your day.
      - Nasrudith 8y ago
        It isn't an attachment and it has nothing to do with individual virtue but rights and ownership. If it is infringed it is stolen and a travesty. They are meant to be guarded and fought for jealously. That you cannot see rights as belonging to people fundamentally is a disturbing mentality - for it suggests throwing it all away whenever it is expedient. Which is no way for an ethical or moral framework. Which has a definition so open to interpretation that killing you to "donate" your organs would be justifiable or taken further turned into very expensive furniture it would be justified because your flayed corpse embedded in plastic would be worth a billion to some depraved collector. Don't worry about the arbitrary deaths - all were done by lottery for the benefit of the rest of society.
        asveikau 8y ago
        I am not advocating taking away rights, or murdering people for their organs. If you are so quick to get angry and compare things to slavery and murder, perhaps look at why that is.
rjf72 8y ago
The problem with this is that offense and hate is often little more than a matter of perspective. Let's imagine I say "it is self evident that women should be treated equally to men." This, from 'our' perspective, is probably about as controversial as saying that water is wet. Now let's shift perspective just slightly. And I'm in a stadium speaking to an audience in Saudi Arabia, and say the same thing. I now just insulted their religion, their culture, and their worldview. For some my comment would be edging towards outright heresy (as I just stated that overt contradictions of their religious texts are "self evident"), which is punishable by death. And while Saudi Arabia is the ever low hanging fruit, this would be comparably true for hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people across the world. It's easy to say 'well it's obvious that your statement is not offensive or hateful' but in doing so, you're doing little more than projecting your values. Many people would vehemently disagree. So who gets to decide what's offensive or hateful? Without free speech the answer there easy - whoever is in power. And what they're going to decide is, at some point, going to end up being abused to their own benefit. And even without abuse it's often going to be little more than an exercise in entrenching a status quo. One fun example there is that Britain still has a law on the books such that advocating for the abolition of the monarchy is technically punishable by life in prison. Quite progressive though, it used to be death! [1] [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_Felony_Act_1848 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_Felony_Act_1848
- dosy 8y ago
  That's awesome, thank you for that. It's refreshing to see cool and clear head in the midst of all these topics that are too easy to trigger people in the amygdala.

You do not need to be offensive and hatefull to make a point. This might not be the US way, but it does work.

by emj 8y ago

You do not need to be offensive and hatefull to make a point. This might not be the US way, but it does work.

Nasrudith 8y ago

That they can't decide what you "need" is the point of free speech.

asveikau 8y ago
I agree, but I actually think your phrasing hints at perhaps missing the point. I came to an interesting conclusion about individual rights recently. You are not granted them because You are a specific You, and You are that awesome. Rather, it is someone else who is denied denying you rights, not because they would make the wrong call in your specific case, but because in aggregate, any authority making such calls would make a certain number of mistakes. This is completely separate from that authority being right or wrong, or the individual granted rights being right or wrong. People get upset and offended about "being told what they need", they think an abridgement of rights is a personal affront to them and their ego, but I don't think it's actually about any of that. It's more a recognition that any body set up to decide will sometimes (not even always, or most of the time, but sometimes) be wrong. Not personal, but meaningful in aggregate. Apologies if you already recognize this argument. I feel like US political discussions tend to have other subtexts around these issues, which set me on a bit of a tangent.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  The point of rights is they belong to individuals. It /is/ a personal affront but it isn't of ego but territoriality and justly so - denial of them is a violence delivered upon them. There may be limits in practicality in ability to claim them but it doesn't make it less of an affront any more than inability to escape a life of literal slavery is okay because the slave is physically incapable of breaking their chains and killing every last master and overseer.
  - asveikau 8y ago
    The slavery example doesn't resonate with me. I am not sure what you are trying to say. But in everything else I would say you seem a little too attached to yourself as a decider. You are a stand-in for literally any other person. Hence everyone else shares the same rights. The whole thing is a legal approximation of fairness. But we get mixed up and call it our identity. The goal shouldn't necessarily be to be the best individual You are because of how awesome that is to be You. We are a society. A fair society functions well valuing individual rights because it works out in the aggregate. But I am going too far in a tangent. Enjoy your day.
    - Nasrudith 8y ago
      It isn't an attachment and it has nothing to do with individual virtue but rights and ownership. If it is infringed it is stolen and a travesty. They are meant to be guarded and fought for jealously. That you cannot see rights as belonging to people fundamentally is a disturbing mentality - for it suggests throwing it all away whenever it is expedient. Which is no way for an ethical or moral framework. Which has a definition so open to interpretation that killing you to "donate" your organs would be justifiable or taken further turned into very expensive furniture it would be justified because your flayed corpse embedded in plastic would be worth a billion to some depraved collector. Don't worry about the arbitrary deaths - all were done by lottery for the benefit of the rest of society.
      - asveikau 8y ago
        I am not advocating taking away rights, or murdering people for their organs. If you are so quick to get angry and compare things to slavery and murder, perhaps look at why that is.

rjf72 8y ago

The problem with this is that offense and hate is often little more than a matter of perspective. Let's imagine I say "it is self evident that women should be treated equally to men." This, from 'our' perspective, is probably about as controversial as saying that water is wet. Now let's shift perspective just slightly. And I'm in a stadium speaking to an audience in Saudi Arabia, and say the same thing. I now just insulted their religion, their culture, and their worldview. For some my comment would be edging towards outright heresy (as I just stated that overt contradictions of their religious texts are "self evident"), which is punishable by death. And while Saudi Arabia is the ever low hanging fruit, this would be comparably true for hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people across the world. It's easy to say 'well it's obvious that your statement is not offensive or hateful' but in doing so, you're doing little more than projecting your values. Many people would vehemently disagree. So who gets to decide what's offensive or hateful? Without free speech the answer there easy - whoever is in power. And what they're going to decide is, at some point, going to end up being abused to their own benefit. And even without abuse it's often going to be little more than an exercise in entrenching a status quo. One fun example there is that Britain still has a law on the books such that advocating for the abolition of the monarchy is technically punishable by life in prison. Quite progressive though, it used to be death! [1] [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_Felony_Act_1848 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason_Felony_Act_1848

dosy 8y ago
That's awesome, thank you for that. It's refreshing to see cool and clear head in the midst of all these topics that are too easy to trigger people in the amygdala.