8 ms·
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, Twitt
by 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 agoHumans are emotional animals and many can be dominated by feelings, your answer assume they are entirely logical
- trentnix 7y agoThey?
- Waterluvian 7y agoOooooh girl you did NOT just go there.
- drdeca 7y agoThey, as in, the aforementioned humans (humans, plural). What is the problem?
- trentnix 7y agoThe problem is that the parent didn't say We.
- whoevercares 7y agoI’m gonna report to my ET boss that earth can be safely destroyed
- drdeca 7y agoOh, 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 agoQuite 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 agoHate-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 agoIf 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 agoWe'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 agoAnd 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 agoThat's not true at all. Maybe in America, I have no idea, but where I'm from its applied equally.