3 ms·

I wish the right to offend was a human right. Otherwise you have to keep watching the media and be constantly up to date about what thought you speak up could c

I wish the right to offend was a human right. Otherwise you have to keep watching the media and be constantly up to date about what thought you speak up could cancel you.

orthecreedence 6y ago
> I wish the right to offend was a human right I mean, this is effectively what free speech is. It's already a "right" at least in the US. But offended people also have the right to blacklist (oops!) you. I think the setup is fine, but we're in an interesting place culturally where it's effectively a McCarthyesque "offense" witch-hunt. I don't really think you can regulate witch hunts. It's more a matter of enough people saying "ok, enough" and not caving to the whims of a bunch of perpetually-offended twitter crybabies with anime avatars. Once a critical mass of people stop caving to this bullshit, it will eventually just die out, and offended people can go back to writing in their diary instead of getting people fired. I think the tides are starting to turn here, TBH. Personally I've been more actively speaking out against cancel culture recently. And I'm a communist.
- FeepingCreature 6y ago
  Rights that incur reprisals and sanctions are not rights. By that standard, China has freedom of speech.
  - orthecreedence 6y ago
    This logic reduces to "I should be able to shout the N-word at Applebees and not be kicked out." I'm a free speech advocate, but your concept of rights is pretty skewed. Being free from the consequences of your actions is not a right, it's a childish fantasy. The closest thing you get is what we already have: systemic protections for speech against state suppression. Everything else after that (ie, forcing Applebees to let you shout slurs) is oppression in one form or another.
    - FeepingCreature 6y ago
      > This logic reduces to "I should be able to shout the N-word at Applebees and not be kicked out." Yes it would. And that's why total unrestricted free speech is too much. But it's still free speech. Like, this is not an argument, just "this logic reduces to <bad conclusion>, so it's wrong." > Being free from the consequences of your actions is not a right Disagree, rights only exist to the extent they are free of reprisals - that's what it means for something to be a right. Obviously there's a balance here, I'm not saying free speech implies that your speech can only have positive causal effects, but there's a class of responses that has historically included government sanctions (and that I'd argue should also include corporate sanctions) that do need to be prevented for speech to be considered free at all. Otherwise, the only way for a regime to not have free speech would be to physically sew your mouth shut. > Everything else after that (ie, forcing Applebees to let you shout slurs) is oppression in one form or another. Sure, it's a tradeoff. I probably just don't care very much about oppressing corporations.

I wish the right to offend was a human right. Otherwise you have to keep watching the media and be constantly up to date about what thought you speak up could cancel you.

orthecreedence 6y ago

> I wish the right to offend was a human right I mean, this is effectively what free speech is. It's already a "right" at least in the US. But offended people also have the right to blacklist (oops!) you. I think the setup is fine, but we're in an interesting place culturally where it's effectively a McCarthyesque "offense" witch-hunt. I don't really think you can regulate witch hunts. It's more a matter of enough people saying "ok, enough" and not caving to the whims of a bunch of perpetually-offended twitter crybabies with anime avatars. Once a critical mass of people stop caving to this bullshit, it will eventually just die out, and offended people can go back to writing in their diary instead of getting people fired. I think the tides are starting to turn here, TBH. Personally I've been more actively speaking out against cancel culture recently. And I'm a communist.

FeepingCreature 6y ago
Rights that incur reprisals and sanctions are not rights. By that standard, China has freedom of speech.
- orthecreedence 6y ago
  This logic reduces to "I should be able to shout the N-word at Applebees and not be kicked out." I'm a free speech advocate, but your concept of rights is pretty skewed. Being free from the consequences of your actions is not a right, it's a childish fantasy. The closest thing you get is what we already have: systemic protections for speech against state suppression. Everything else after that (ie, forcing Applebees to let you shout slurs) is oppression in one form or another.
  - FeepingCreature 6y ago
    > This logic reduces to "I should be able to shout the N-word at Applebees and not be kicked out." Yes it would. And that's why total unrestricted free speech is too much. But it's still free speech. Like, this is not an argument, just "this logic reduces to <bad conclusion>, so it's wrong." > Being free from the consequences of your actions is not a right Disagree, rights only exist to the extent they are free of reprisals - that's what it means for something to be a right. Obviously there's a balance here, I'm not saying free speech implies that your speech can only have positive causal effects, but there's a class of responses that has historically included government sanctions (and that I'd argue should also include corporate sanctions) that do need to be prevented for speech to be considered free at all. Otherwise, the only way for a regime to not have free speech would be to physically sew your mouth shut. > Everything else after that (ie, forcing Applebees to let you shout slurs) is oppression in one form or another. Sure, it's a tradeoff. I probably just don't care very much about oppressing corporations.