27 ms·

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 c

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.
    - Dracophoenix 4y ago
      > Wasn't that due to the fact that he acted in a way that looked as if he actually cared to defend his woman? Nope. Some of the few who supported Will Smith have used that line of thought to justify his actions, but that's not why he was lambasted. The main reasons cited are that: 1) he attacked and subsequently threatened to harm Chris Rock, a comedian and fellow actor simply doing his job as a host and jester. 2) he diverted all the attention of Oscars away from the achievements of all the other winning actors with his petty slap 3) he behaved inconsistently as he himself had laughed at the GI Jane joke just before attacking Mr.Rock I can't speak for the supposed feminists you've come across, but many actors, directors, and members of the public stateside expressed shock and disapproval towards the physical violence. Some like Jim Carey were angry at the audience for giving Mr. Smith a standing ovation while he gave a poorly reasoned justification for his actions during his award speech. > 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. Well firstly, he himself wasn't insulted and his wife isn't a defenseless child. As Mr. Smith was not the object of derision, he, in legal parlance, would have no reasonable claim to sue (much less attack) Chris Rock. As far as insults go, Mr. Smith was the only foul-mouthed participant during the altercation. He already started the shitshow while Mr. Rock had instead attempted to end it by placating him. It's plainly evident from his actions that Mr. Rock had no interest in initiating a fight. If Mr. Smith truly had a problem with his wife's alopecia being made fun of, he could have done what any normal person did and Tweet about how bald jokes aren't funny or how they hurt people's feelings or meaningless drivel like that. If he was more serious, he could have put money in some sort of campaign for alopecia.
- 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.

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.
  - Dracophoenix 4y ago
    > Wasn't that due to the fact that he acted in a way that looked as if he actually cared to defend his woman? Nope. Some of the few who supported Will Smith have used that line of thought to justify his actions, but that's not why he was lambasted. The main reasons cited are that: 1) he attacked and subsequently threatened to harm Chris Rock, a comedian and fellow actor simply doing his job as a host and jester. 2) he diverted all the attention of Oscars away from the achievements of all the other winning actors with his petty slap 3) he behaved inconsistently as he himself had laughed at the GI Jane joke just before attacking Mr.Rock I can't speak for the supposed feminists you've come across, but many actors, directors, and members of the public stateside expressed shock and disapproval towards the physical violence. Some like Jim Carey were angry at the audience for giving Mr. Smith a standing ovation while he gave a poorly reasoned justification for his actions during his award speech. > 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. Well firstly, he himself wasn't insulted and his wife isn't a defenseless child. As Mr. Smith was not the object of derision, he, in legal parlance, would have no reasonable claim to sue (much less attack) Chris Rock. As far as insults go, Mr. Smith was the only foul-mouthed participant during the altercation. He already started the shitshow while Mr. Rock had instead attempted to end it by placating him. It's plainly evident from his actions that Mr. Rock had no interest in initiating a fight. If Mr. Smith truly had a problem with his wife's alopecia being made fun of, he could have done what any normal person did and Tweet about how bald jokes aren't funny or how they hurt people's feelings or meaningless drivel like that. If he was more serious, he could have put money in some sort of campaign for alopecia.
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.