4 ms·

Sorry but I'm disgusted with this thought process that has taken hold over the last several years. You decide the truth value of something and based on that you

Sorry but I'm disgusted with this thought process that has taken hold over the last several years. You decide the truth value of something and based on that you further decide that a topic is off limits. It's shockingly self-centered and leaves no room for the possiblity that you might be wrong about the matter, and that you are moving the goalposts for what is considered acceptable speech. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
wesleywt 4y ago
Free speech absolutionist, like you, also seem to be against the consequences of that speech, such as being "cancelled". I am for both free speech and getting cancelled for it. In this way, standards acceptable to our society can be policed without interferance from the government.
- effingwewt 4y ago
  This is where I find myself as well. You are free to say things, you are not free of the consequences. I expect someone to deck me for saying certain things. Growing up in Texas we had a saying- 'Them's fightin' words.' ie if someone said something out of bounds, they were headed for a scrap, or at least that wad a very real possibility. Having said that I would still defend their right to talk shit. edit- screw cancel culture though, that shit ruins lives over even perceived slights. I don't believe any adult hasn't said something stupid or asinine we regret now. The thought that can ruin a life or career is crazy. If you don't like what someone says don't listen. If they aren't inciting violence or something.
  - Dracophoenix 4y ago
    > Growing up in Texas we had a saying- 'Them's fightin' words.' ie if someone said something out of bounds, they were headed for a scrap, or at least that wad a very real possibility. From a legal viewpoint, even if said speech meets the Chaplinsky definition of "fighting words", that does not exonerate or justify one man's violence against another. I have a hard time seeing that most would accept hitting a person as an acceptable response to what is perceived to be distasteful speech. Millions of people lambasted Will Smith not so long ago for doing just that.
    - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 4y ago
      Even if someone is hurling a monstrous slew of verbal insults at you, hitting them is both morally wrong and illegal. Today's awareness of mental trauma and triggers is a good thing, but it blurs the line a bit between physical and verbal attacks. Personally, I strongly believe that words should be treated fundamentally differently than physical violence. Sticks and stones, etc. That said, if you're the one hurling insults, you're intentionally trying to evoke an emotional response, and you should not be surprised if the person you're insulting responds emotionally and violently.
      - effingwewt 4y ago
        I think it's more about it making you choose your words carefully. For the record I'm very against what will smith did (posters above mentioned it), but I'd have felt differently if it hadn't been a comedian telling jokes, but say someone got in will's face and called him the N word with malice. I think it'd be perfectly reasonable to knock someone out over that. If the other person knows this is a good possibility, they may only use those words if they mean them enoughto accept the consequences. I'm not saying my way is right, I'm just saying how it was growing up, and how that's shaped me. In another thread I mentioned a friend of mine getting hurled insults at her abortion appointment. Had any of them been a man I'd have definitely gotten in some trouble that day. My belief is they have the right to say it, not protection from the consequences. But I'm also very against cancel culture. Am I weird for all of this? Alone in these beliefs? Totally wrong? Quite possibly, I know the world now confuses the shit out of me, and sometimes I feel like I am the only sane one for seeing some things (ie- trading our lives to the rich for a pittance, rules for thee but not for me, etc). Truly I could be very wrong, and if so I will accept that and try and change my views. I do try and live by the scientific method.
    - the_only_law 4y ago
      Especially when street fights can easily wind up a manslaughter or murder case.
    - Gnob 4y ago
      "Millions of people lambasted Will Smith not so long ago for doing just that." Wasn't that due to the fact that he acted in a way that looked as if he actually cared to defend his woman? afaik it had nothing to do with violence but more against having personal honour or pride and thinking of one's woman as him alone and having a sacred relationship with her that anyone insulting / degrading her is directly insulting the man, and that idea triggers the feminists to the moon and back I guess. "even if said speech meets the Chaplinsky definition of "fighting words", that does not exonerate or justify one man's violence against another." Then what is a man supposed to do? go to court over an insult? be rude and start a shitshow of exchanging insults? take it and move on? wait for the other party to initiate the fight? or what? I am not a westerner by any means, just curious.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
- DarkWiiPlayer 4y ago
  > also seem to be against the consequences of that speech, such as being "cancelled" Getting shot for saying the wrong thing is also just another consequence. Is that also acceptable to you? I'm sure it's not, but that would also mean your whole point is BS. There's a line when it comes to social consequences of speech and people like you are conveniently ignoring that fact to avoid having to explain why it should be drawn so cancelling falls on the acceptable side. But the thing is, if you advocate for any personal consequences against the person expressing their opinion, then you're arguing directly against a human right.
  - jgwil2 4y ago
    >> also seem to be against the consequences of that speech, such as being "cancelled" > Getting shot for saying the wrong thing is also just another consequence. Is that also acceptable to you? I'm sure it's not, but that would also mean your whole point is BS. OP never said any consequences were acceptable; we have laws against shooting people so clearly such a consequence is proscribed in civil society. > But the thing is, if you advocate for any personal consequences against the person expressing their opinion, then you're arguing directly against a human right. By that logic, if someone says something racist and then loses friends or a job because of it, that violates their human rights. But surely we cannot force people to associate with someone who says abhorrent things without in turn violating their rights.
    - DarkWiiPlayer 4y ago
      > By that logic My logic is that, in order to guarantee the right to freedom of expression, there needs to be a line. The moment the "consequences" of expressing an opinion are predominantly punitive is where it needs to stop. So no, by my logic, you're totally allowed to not be friends with someone who says something racist. As for losing a job, in an ideal world where this person could just get another job, yes, that'd be acceptable. But when it turns into losing the right to have any job whatsoever, then no, that's definitely not okay either.
      - davorak 4y ago
- colordrops 4y ago
  Not sure what your point is, but I'm not suggesting any law that forces private entities to allow free speech. I'm also expressing my own opinion on the matter in a social context, using social energy rather than legal means toward the person who is telling me to shut up, using my own social vote to influence what standards are acceptable in society. Not out of line with what you are saying at all.
mariusor 4y ago
> You decide the truth value of something and based on that you further decide that a topic is off limits I would normally agree with this viewpoint, but there are things which have an objective quality of being immoral. Supporting the persecution of a group of people because of their ethnicity (or whichever other criteria) is such a thing. Please tell me how I'm wrong about that.
- colordrops 4y ago
  You are wrong about that because it's not possible to know if something is true with certainty. Hearing about things in the news and social media doesn't make it true. See: Iraq WMD.
  - mariusor 4y ago
    I am not arguing about something that is true or not. I am arguing that someone that supports an objectively immoral act is objectively immoral and even though they might be free to espouse that point of view, any private individual or organization is equally free in shunning them.
    - colordrops 4y ago
      Let's talk about the word "objective" here. It means outside of any person's perspective, the same for everyone. Like the laws of physics for instance. "objective" and "moral" are contradictory, considering that "morals" are defined by individual perspectives. Even murder and child molestation were considered normal in some cultures historically (e.g. classical Greece). There is no such thing as objective morals, which is why the same story told by two different people can have vastly different tones. It's why we have laws to draw lines, and courts to get around the confusion about where those lines lie.
      - mariusor 4y ago
        Let's not argue semantics, please. I am pretty sure you understood what I meant. Persecuting a group of people for various criteria is unethical, immoral, evil, whatever you want to call it. I also claim that it is objectively so, and I would like you to argue in good faith how I am wrong about these two facts, instead of - like you accused grand-parent - moving the goal posts.
trash_goblin 4y ago
pas 4y ago
The thought process that taken hold over the last several years... like the last 250? The thought process that using various means to try to achieve human rights goals? Oh well maybe you think the civil war was fought on a nice delightful afternoon between tea and cake, and folks shook hands after, slaves were freed and everyone went home, and the president recommend soldiers to go get some tan in the south for the photo op next year.
- colordrops 4y ago
  Yes, keeping slaves and saying words you don't like are equivalent crimes worthy of warfare.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

wesleywt 4y ago

Free speech absolutionist, like you, also seem to be against the consequences of that speech, such as being "cancelled". I am for both free speech and getting cancelled for it. In this way, standards acceptable to our society can be policed without interferance from the government.

effingwewt 4y ago
This is where I find myself as well. You are free to say things, you are not free of the consequences. I expect someone to deck me for saying certain things. Growing up in Texas we had a saying- 'Them's fightin' words.' ie if someone said something out of bounds, they were headed for a scrap, or at least that wad a very real possibility. Having said that I would still defend their right to talk shit. edit- screw cancel culture though, that shit ruins lives over even perceived slights. I don't believe any adult hasn't said something stupid or asinine we regret now. The thought that can ruin a life or career is crazy. If you don't like what someone says don't listen. If they aren't inciting violence or something.
- Dracophoenix 4y ago
  > Growing up in Texas we had a saying- 'Them's fightin' words.' ie if someone said something out of bounds, they were headed for a scrap, or at least that wad a very real possibility. From a legal viewpoint, even if said speech meets the Chaplinsky definition of "fighting words", that does not exonerate or justify one man's violence against another. I have a hard time seeing that most would accept hitting a person as an acceptable response to what is perceived to be distasteful speech. Millions of people lambasted Will Smith not so long ago for doing just that.
  - rrrrrrrrrrrryan 4y ago
    Even if someone is hurling a monstrous slew of verbal insults at you, hitting them is both morally wrong and illegal. Today's awareness of mental trauma and triggers is a good thing, but it blurs the line a bit between physical and verbal attacks. Personally, I strongly believe that words should be treated fundamentally differently than physical violence. Sticks and stones, etc. That said, if you're the one hurling insults, you're intentionally trying to evoke an emotional response, and you should not be surprised if the person you're insulting responds emotionally and violently.
    - effingwewt 4y ago
      I think it's more about it making you choose your words carefully. For the record I'm very against what will smith did (posters above mentioned it), but I'd have felt differently if it hadn't been a comedian telling jokes, but say someone got in will's face and called him the N word with malice. I think it'd be perfectly reasonable to knock someone out over that. If the other person knows this is a good possibility, they may only use those words if they mean them enoughto accept the consequences. I'm not saying my way is right, I'm just saying how it was growing up, and how that's shaped me. In another thread I mentioned a friend of mine getting hurled insults at her abortion appointment. Had any of them been a man I'd have definitely gotten in some trouble that day. My belief is they have the right to say it, not protection from the consequences. But I'm also very against cancel culture. Am I weird for all of this? Alone in these beliefs? Totally wrong? Quite possibly, I know the world now confuses the shit out of me, and sometimes I feel like I am the only sane one for seeing some things (ie- trading our lives to the rich for a pittance, rules for thee but not for me, etc). Truly I could be very wrong, and if so I will accept that and try and change my views. I do try and live by the scientific method.
  - the_only_law 4y ago
    Especially when street fights can easily wind up a manslaughter or murder case.
  - Gnob 4y ago
    "Millions of people lambasted Will Smith not so long ago for doing just that." Wasn't that due to the fact that he acted in a way that looked as if he actually cared to defend his woman? afaik it had nothing to do with violence but more against having personal honour or pride and thinking of one's woman as him alone and having a sacred relationship with her that anyone insulting / degrading her is directly insulting the man, and that idea triggers the feminists to the moon and back I guess. "even if said speech meets the Chaplinsky definition of "fighting words", that does not exonerate or justify one man's violence against another." Then what is a man supposed to do? go to court over an insult? be rude and start a shitshow of exchanging insults? take it and move on? wait for the other party to initiate the fight? or what? I am not a westerner by any means, just curious.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
DarkWiiPlayer 4y ago
> also seem to be against the consequences of that speech, such as being "cancelled" Getting shot for saying the wrong thing is also just another consequence. Is that also acceptable to you? I'm sure it's not, but that would also mean your whole point is BS. There's a line when it comes to social consequences of speech and people like you are conveniently ignoring that fact to avoid having to explain why it should be drawn so cancelling falls on the acceptable side. But the thing is, if you advocate for any personal consequences against the person expressing their opinion, then you're arguing directly against a human right.
- jgwil2 4y ago
  >> also seem to be against the consequences of that speech, such as being "cancelled" > Getting shot for saying the wrong thing is also just another consequence. Is that also acceptable to you? I'm sure it's not, but that would also mean your whole point is BS. OP never said any consequences were acceptable; we have laws against shooting people so clearly such a consequence is proscribed in civil society. > But the thing is, if you advocate for any personal consequences against the person expressing their opinion, then you're arguing directly against a human right. By that logic, if someone says something racist and then loses friends or a job because of it, that violates their human rights. But surely we cannot force people to associate with someone who says abhorrent things without in turn violating their rights.
  - DarkWiiPlayer 4y ago
    > By that logic My logic is that, in order to guarantee the right to freedom of expression, there needs to be a line. The moment the "consequences" of expressing an opinion are predominantly punitive is where it needs to stop. So no, by my logic, you're totally allowed to not be friends with someone who says something racist. As for losing a job, in an ideal world where this person could just get another job, yes, that'd be acceptable. But when it turns into losing the right to have any job whatsoever, then no, that's definitely not okay either.
    - davorak 4y ago
colordrops 4y ago
Not sure what your point is, but I'm not suggesting any law that forces private entities to allow free speech. I'm also expressing my own opinion on the matter in a social context, using social energy rather than legal means toward the person who is telling me to shut up, using my own social vote to influence what standards are acceptable in society. Not out of line with what you are saying at all.

mariusor 4y ago

> You decide the truth value of something and based on that you further decide that a topic is off limits I would normally agree with this viewpoint, but there are things which have an objective quality of being immoral. Supporting the persecution of a group of people because of their ethnicity (or whichever other criteria) is such a thing. Please tell me how I'm wrong about that.

colordrops 4y ago
You are wrong about that because it's not possible to know if something is true with certainty. Hearing about things in the news and social media doesn't make it true. See: Iraq WMD.
- mariusor 4y ago
  I am not arguing about something that is true or not. I am arguing that someone that supports an objectively immoral act is objectively immoral and even though they might be free to espouse that point of view, any private individual or organization is equally free in shunning them.
  - colordrops 4y ago
    Let's talk about the word "objective" here. It means outside of any person's perspective, the same for everyone. Like the laws of physics for instance. "objective" and "moral" are contradictory, considering that "morals" are defined by individual perspectives. Even murder and child molestation were considered normal in some cultures historically (e.g. classical Greece). There is no such thing as objective morals, which is why the same story told by two different people can have vastly different tones. It's why we have laws to draw lines, and courts to get around the confusion about where those lines lie.
    - mariusor 4y ago
      Let's not argue semantics, please. I am pretty sure you understood what I meant. Persecuting a group of people for various criteria is unethical, immoral, evil, whatever you want to call it. I also claim that it is objectively so, and I would like you to argue in good faith how I am wrong about these two facts, instead of - like you accused grand-parent - moving the goal posts.

trash_goblin 4y ago

pas 4y ago

The thought process that taken hold over the last several years... like the last 250? The thought process that using various means to try to achieve human rights goals? Oh well maybe you think the civil war was fought on a nice delightful afternoon between tea and cake, and folks shook hands after, slaves were freed and everyone went home, and the president recommend soldiers to go get some tan in the south for the photo op next year.

colordrops 4y ago
Yes, keeping slaves and saying words you don't like are equivalent crimes worthy of warfare.