9 ms·

It's really hard to tell the difference between what is genuinely offensive and what is not. No easy answers. In this case, maybe there is a relatively simple

It's really hard to tell the difference between what is genuinely offensive and what is not. No easy answers. In this case, maybe there is a relatively simple rule: Supporting democracy must not in itself be regarded as offensive...

trentnix 7y ago
It is hard to tell, that is true. And that reality is exploited to silence opposition and control others. That’s why language policing, hate speech laws, Twitter mobs, and bully-the-bully efforts are abominations. So really, the answer is easy: everyone has the right to offend, and has no right not to be offended. Your simple rule doesn’t go far enough.
- whoevercares 7y ago
  Humans are emotional animals and many can be dominated by feelings, your answer assume they are entirely logical
  - trentnix 7y ago
    They?
    - Waterluvian 7y ago
      Oooooh girl you did NOT just go there.
    - drdeca 7y ago
      They, as in, the aforementioned humans (humans, plural). What is the problem?
      - trentnix 7y ago
        The problem is that the parent didn't say We.
        whoevercares 7y ago
        I’m gonna report to my ET boss that earth can be safely destroyed
        drdeca 7y ago
        Oh, I misunderstood. For some reason I thought it was a complaint about singular they. I don’t see the comment anymore though, so idk what led me to think that.
  - jerf 7y ago
    Quite the contrary. You should assume that if you step out into the stream of general discourse, you will be offended by something. You will have feelings. Be ready.
- streb-lo 7y ago
  Hate-speech laws exist because people are programmable. Try and tell me your opinions are your own and the books and media you consume do not own some portion of them. Hate-speech laws exist to prevent the programming of people to systematically hate and exterminate other people, a lesson that has been learned many times over in history.
  - trentnix 7y ago
    If hate-speech laws exist to deal with people that are programmed, wouldn't it also follow that hate-speech laws might exist because programmed people want to control the speech of others? It would go like this: hate speech is first yelling fire in a theater, then it's espousing bigotry, then it's holding the wrong opinions, until it's finally speaking ill of the Party. That's also a lesson that has been learned many times over in history.
    - streb-lo 7y ago
      We're all programmable, sure. And I think it's important for their to be competing voices such that we don't end up in the Party. But some level of social cohesion is desirable, and I think starting at the level of 'not allowed to advocate for the rape and murder of peoples' is a reasonable step towards ensuring less people think that is viable.
      - luckylion 7y ago
        And to attain that social cohesion, outlawing wrongthink is certainly a way. It is allowed to advocate doing harm to people, it's just that you have to be selective. You can't do it to protected classes, but unprotected groups are just fine, which is why I believe the moral case for hate speech laws typically falls flat. If it was about morals, it would target everybody equally. It doesn't, so it isn't.
        streb-lo 7y ago
        That's not true at all. Maybe in America, I have no idea, but where I'm from its applied equally.
olah_1 7y ago
>It's really hard to tell the difference between what is genuinely offensive and what is not. It's not hard to tell the difference actually. You know when you are offended quite obviously. The hard part is knowing when other people are offended. This is why we can't have rules based on subjective experience. I remember reading an article about how someone breaking your heart is a much more egregious crime than shoplifting. Yet, there is no law against breaking hearts.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ekianjo 7y ago
> It's really hard to tell the difference between what is genuinely offensive and what is not. You can't have both "Free Speech" and "You Can't Say Anything Offensive" at the same time, because there is too much overlap. So you have to choose. The US constitution is pretty clear that "Free Speech" is the higher principle.
- umvi 7y ago
  "Free Speech only protects you from the government, not private companies who don't want to tolerate your hate on their platform" I don't agree with this stance, but it is an oft-heard one defending companies who stifle speech (as long as the stifled speech was a far right Nazi website or anti-LGBT comments). As we see, that stance is dangerous and extends to companies stifling politically inconvenient speech like "I support Hong Kong protesters".
  - icebraining 7y ago
    It's a silly stance, even if one thinks private companies should be allowed censor who they want on their platform. It conflates "free speech" (which is a wide philosophical concept) with the "first amendment to the US constitution", which is just a particular law regulating the government of a specific country.
  - XorNot 7y ago
    We're free to protest the move, but I'd hardly say that Apple should be forced by anyone to actually change their stance. It's their choice where they want to stand on public opinion - much as it's our choice to boycott Apple products or protest that decision they've made.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    The reason we constrain the government the way we do is that Blitzchung is still perfectly free to go on his own blog, or out in the street, or to any media network willing to broadcast him and share his view, and the FBI won't lock him up. It's a key distinction, and yes, the media still has the liberty to not broadcast is views (because the same liberty that lets them refrain from repeating "I support Hong Kong protesters" lets them refrain from repeating all manner of "Death to all X"). Is that gameable in a multinational world where some media companies are cross-oceanic superpowers? Sure. There are other media outlets that aren't that. It's possible the solution to these speech issues is to aggressively enforce antitrust.
short_sells_poo 7y ago
I think perhaps the more important point is that one should not be prevented from voicing an offensive opinion. If you look very hard in an extremely boring place, e.g. a phone directory, you might just by chance perhaps find something that won't be offensive to anyone on this Earth. Outside of contrived scenarios, the moment we let "being offended" be the watermark of censoring ideas, we might as well pack up the idea of freedom altogether. E.g. I don't agree with Trump's policies, I generally disagree on most topics with his voters, but I wholeheartedly support their right to voice their opinions. I want them to voice their opinions, even if sometimes they will result in rules that I dislike. I'm too terrified of the alternative where a certain group is not allowed to participate. In an open society, there can and should be heated debates, sides that stand firm behind their beliefs and everyone should be prepared to fight (in debate) for what they deem important. Crucially however, no debate should be won by silencing the other side through decree. It is easy to handwave this case away as fringe, but it is only fringe inasmuch as you only see the tip of an iceberg. As other posts have pointed out, this seemingly low impact act by Blizzard is actually a sign of a cultural collision. Where the culture of open dispute and free expression of ideas is met with a closed and conformist culture of be silent or be silenced by force. We must fight back against this problem every time it surfaces, because the moment we stop, we lose. Whenever it becomes normalized and accepted that corporations that arose from the support and foundations of a free society can turn on those principles whenever they deem profitable, we lose a bit of those freedoms. If history is of any indication, freedoms once lost this way can only ever bought back by bloodshed.
- LocalH 7y ago
  I wish more people held your viewpoint. I agree wholeheartedly.
- hahaoo9 7y ago
  My mind wonders if you’re going to go to bat for American employees that have been fired by American companies in America for what they say on social media? Or say do something real about kids in cages in America? This forum is nothing but the same as the rest of America: whole lot of bragging about our exceptionalism, whole lot of half assing the real work of engaging the political machine. Here you are: looking to boycott a game company from the comfort of your armchair. Not protesting the expropriation of others land for a wall and a pipeline, or kids in cages in your country. I have no respect for any of the political positions on this forum cause in my view they’re emotional masturbation alone and lack any real will and ability. As an American of 40 years, having built and sold companies, pretty experienced in seeing Americans talk a huge game, and act like spoiled, lazy, clueless rubes when it comes to actually doing the work.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> It's really hard to tell the difference between what is genuinely offensive and what is not. Calling for liberation of any territory is genuinely offensive to the government from which one is calling for it to be liberated, and to people who support that government (and often to those who support the territorial integrity of the relevant state event if they don't strongly support the government in question.)
gus_massa 7y ago
In Venezuela both parts claim to be the democratic elected government. What if the people actually prefer another form of government like monarchy?
- bayesian_horse 7y ago
  Democracy is not the dictatorship of the majority. The decision to abandon democracy can never be democratic or democratically legitimated. In the example of Venezuela, both parties agree to the same constitution, though they interpret it differently.
johnchristopher 7y ago
> It's really hard to tell the difference between what is genuinely offensive and what is not. That's because it's not up to the prankster or the offender or a third party to decide if one is suffering. It's up to the offended, mocked or bullied one who are the only ones knowing what they feel. Of course, in the public political space, everybody tries to play the victim/innocent game to their advantage.
- bayesian_horse 7y ago
  We can however be convinced, that certain offenses are indeed worthy of recognition. Racial slurs, for example. Sexual or sexist jokes in certain contexts. Feeling offended because somebody criticized a state is harder to make stick.
  - johnchristopher 7y ago
    I agree that for some culture or some communities or in some part of the world there are consensus around things. Coincidentally I stumbled upon a comment on imgur today that went like this: - canadian guy is in saskatoon, in a bar - chinese guy at the counter - chinese guy backs away from the counter with beverage - bumps into canadian guy he didn't see - canadian guy blurps 'woops, sorry' - chinese guy 'YOU APOLOGIZE TO ALL OF CHINA' - canadian guy thinks it's funny, laught it off - mates from chinese guy laugh and pull him away Then imgur commenters: "Yeah, some Chinese tourists/expats/students can be very sensitive about China". Feeling offended because somebody criticized a state is harder to make stick. All that to say that in some parts of the world personal identity can be tied real tight to national/territorial origin. And we all meet on the intertubes.
    - johnchristopher 7y ago
      Source if anyone is interested https://imgur.com/gallery/nBUysFF/comment/1724607027 https://imgur.com/gallery/nBUysFF/comment/1724607027 (NSFW, imgur of course)

trentnix 7y ago

It is hard to tell, that is true. And that reality is exploited to silence opposition and control others. That’s why language policing, hate speech laws, Twitter mobs, and bully-the-bully efforts are abominations. So really, the answer is easy: everyone has the right to offend, and has no right not to be offended. Your simple rule doesn’t go far enough.

whoevercares 7y ago
Humans are emotional animals and many can be dominated by feelings, your answer assume they are entirely logical
- trentnix 7y ago
  They?
  - Waterluvian 7y ago
    Oooooh girl you did NOT just go there.
  - drdeca 7y ago
    They, as in, the aforementioned humans (humans, plural). What is the problem?
    - trentnix 7y ago
      The problem is that the parent didn't say We.
      - whoevercares 7y ago
        I’m gonna report to my ET boss that earth can be safely destroyed
      - drdeca 7y ago
        Oh, I misunderstood. For some reason I thought it was a complaint about singular they. I don’t see the comment anymore though, so idk what led me to think that.
- jerf 7y ago
  Quite the contrary. You should assume that if you step out into the stream of general discourse, you will be offended by something. You will have feelings. Be ready.
streb-lo 7y ago
Hate-speech laws exist because people are programmable. Try and tell me your opinions are your own and the books and media you consume do not own some portion of them. Hate-speech laws exist to prevent the programming of people to systematically hate and exterminate other people, a lesson that has been learned many times over in history.
- trentnix 7y ago
  If hate-speech laws exist to deal with people that are programmed, wouldn't it also follow that hate-speech laws might exist because programmed people want to control the speech of others? It would go like this: hate speech is first yelling fire in a theater, then it's espousing bigotry, then it's holding the wrong opinions, until it's finally speaking ill of the Party. That's also a lesson that has been learned many times over in history.
  - streb-lo 7y ago
    We're all programmable, sure. And I think it's important for their to be competing voices such that we don't end up in the Party. But some level of social cohesion is desirable, and I think starting at the level of 'not allowed to advocate for the rape and murder of peoples' is a reasonable step towards ensuring less people think that is viable.
    - luckylion 7y ago
      And to attain that social cohesion, outlawing wrongthink is certainly a way. It is allowed to advocate doing harm to people, it's just that you have to be selective. You can't do it to protected classes, but unprotected groups are just fine, which is why I believe the moral case for hate speech laws typically falls flat. If it was about morals, it would target everybody equally. It doesn't, so it isn't.
      - streb-lo 7y ago
        That's not true at all. Maybe in America, I have no idea, but where I'm from its applied equally.

olah_1 7y ago

>It's really hard to tell the difference between what is genuinely offensive and what is not. It's not hard to tell the difference actually. You know when you are offended quite obviously. The hard part is knowing when other people are offended. This is why we can't have rules based on subjective experience. I remember reading an article about how someone breaking your heart is a much more egregious crime than shoplifting. Yet, there is no law against breaking hearts.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

ekianjo 7y ago

> It's really hard to tell the difference between what is genuinely offensive and what is not. You can't have both "Free Speech" and "You Can't Say Anything Offensive" at the same time, because there is too much overlap. So you have to choose. The US constitution is pretty clear that "Free Speech" is the higher principle.

umvi 7y ago
"Free Speech only protects you from the government, not private companies who don't want to tolerate your hate on their platform" I don't agree with this stance, but it is an oft-heard one defending companies who stifle speech (as long as the stifled speech was a far right Nazi website or anti-LGBT comments). As we see, that stance is dangerous and extends to companies stifling politically inconvenient speech like "I support Hong Kong protesters".
- icebraining 7y ago
  It's a silly stance, even if one thinks private companies should be allowed censor who they want on their platform. It conflates "free speech" (which is a wide philosophical concept) with the "first amendment to the US constitution", which is just a particular law regulating the government of a specific country.
- XorNot 7y ago
  We're free to protest the move, but I'd hardly say that Apple should be forced by anyone to actually change their stance. It's their choice where they want to stand on public opinion - much as it's our choice to boycott Apple products or protest that decision they've made.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  The reason we constrain the government the way we do is that Blitzchung is still perfectly free to go on his own blog, or out in the street, or to any media network willing to broadcast him and share his view, and the FBI won't lock him up. It's a key distinction, and yes, the media still has the liberty to not broadcast is views (because the same liberty that lets them refrain from repeating "I support Hong Kong protesters" lets them refrain from repeating all manner of "Death to all X"). Is that gameable in a multinational world where some media companies are cross-oceanic superpowers? Sure. There are other media outlets that aren't that. It's possible the solution to these speech issues is to aggressively enforce antitrust.

short_sells_poo 7y ago

I think perhaps the more important point is that one should not be prevented from voicing an offensive opinion. If you look very hard in an extremely boring place, e.g. a phone directory, you might just by chance perhaps find something that won't be offensive to anyone on this Earth. Outside of contrived scenarios, the moment we let "being offended" be the watermark of censoring ideas, we might as well pack up the idea of freedom altogether. E.g. I don't agree with Trump's policies, I generally disagree on most topics with his voters, but I wholeheartedly support their right to voice their opinions. I want them to voice their opinions, even if sometimes they will result in rules that I dislike. I'm too terrified of the alternative where a certain group is not allowed to participate. In an open society, there can and should be heated debates, sides that stand firm behind their beliefs and everyone should be prepared to fight (in debate) for what they deem important. Crucially however, no debate should be won by silencing the other side through decree. It is easy to handwave this case away as fringe, but it is only fringe inasmuch as you only see the tip of an iceberg. As other posts have pointed out, this seemingly low impact act by Blizzard is actually a sign of a cultural collision. Where the culture of open dispute and free expression of ideas is met with a closed and conformist culture of be silent or be silenced by force. We must fight back against this problem every time it surfaces, because the moment we stop, we lose. Whenever it becomes normalized and accepted that corporations that arose from the support and foundations of a free society can turn on those principles whenever they deem profitable, we lose a bit of those freedoms. If history is of any indication, freedoms once lost this way can only ever bought back by bloodshed.

LocalH 7y ago
I wish more people held your viewpoint. I agree wholeheartedly.
hahaoo9 7y ago
My mind wonders if you’re going to go to bat for American employees that have been fired by American companies in America for what they say on social media? Or say do something real about kids in cages in America? This forum is nothing but the same as the rest of America: whole lot of bragging about our exceptionalism, whole lot of half assing the real work of engaging the political machine. Here you are: looking to boycott a game company from the comfort of your armchair. Not protesting the expropriation of others land for a wall and a pipeline, or kids in cages in your country. I have no respect for any of the political positions on this forum cause in my view they’re emotional masturbation alone and lack any real will and ability. As an American of 40 years, having built and sold companies, pretty experienced in seeing Americans talk a huge game, and act like spoiled, lazy, clueless rubes when it comes to actually doing the work.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> It's really hard to tell the difference between what is genuinely offensive and what is not. Calling for liberation of any territory is genuinely offensive to the government from which one is calling for it to be liberated, and to people who support that government (and often to those who support the territorial integrity of the relevant state event if they don't strongly support the government in question.)

gus_massa 7y ago

In Venezuela both parts claim to be the democratic elected government. What if the people actually prefer another form of government like monarchy?

bayesian_horse 7y ago
Democracy is not the dictatorship of the majority. The decision to abandon democracy can never be democratic or democratically legitimated. In the example of Venezuela, both parties agree to the same constitution, though they interpret it differently.

johnchristopher 7y ago

> It's really hard to tell the difference between what is genuinely offensive and what is not. That's because it's not up to the prankster or the offender or a third party to decide if one is suffering. It's up to the offended, mocked or bullied one who are the only ones knowing what they feel. Of course, in the public political space, everybody tries to play the victim/innocent game to their advantage.

bayesian_horse 7y ago
We can however be convinced, that certain offenses are indeed worthy of recognition. Racial slurs, for example. Sexual or sexist jokes in certain contexts. Feeling offended because somebody criticized a state is harder to make stick.
- johnchristopher 7y ago
  I agree that for some culture or some communities or in some part of the world there are consensus around things. Coincidentally I stumbled upon a comment on imgur today that went like this: - canadian guy is in saskatoon, in a bar - chinese guy at the counter - chinese guy backs away from the counter with beverage - bumps into canadian guy he didn't see - canadian guy blurps 'woops, sorry' - chinese guy 'YOU APOLOGIZE TO ALL OF CHINA' - canadian guy thinks it's funny, laught it off - mates from chinese guy laugh and pull him away Then imgur commenters: "Yeah, some Chinese tourists/expats/students can be very sensitive about China". Feeling offended because somebody criticized a state is harder to make stick. All that to say that in some parts of the world personal identity can be tied real tight to national/territorial origin. And we all meet on the intertubes.
  - johnchristopher 7y ago
    Source if anyone is interested https://imgur.com/gallery/nBUysFF/comment/1724607027 https://imgur.com/gallery/nBUysFF/comment/1724607027 (NSFW, imgur of course)