3 ms·

"What many people failed to understand, and therefore failed to defend, is an unpleasant fact of intellectual liberalism: When speech causes emotional or mental

"What many people failed to understand, and therefore failed to defend, is an unpleasant fact of intellectual liberalism: When speech causes emotional or mental pain, the offended parties are morally entitled to nothing in the form of compensation from or punishment for the offender." A line that many people still can't handle.

devmor 4y ago
It's entirely subjective. For instance, if you're a Christian, the Bible would have you beaten, stoned, amputated or killed for different types of speech deemed offensive to specific parties. The US legal system also provides many avenues for punishing people based on their speech. Most legal systems and most religions follow similar rules.
- aidenn0 4y ago
  That's why the quote specifically mentions "intellectual liberalism" not Biblical laws nor the US legal system.
  - devmor 4y ago
    That's why those are examples of why it's subjective.
Zetice 4y ago
It’s not that people expect compensation or punishment, it’s that as private citizens, we’re totally and completely free to judge the shit out of people for what they say and do. I don’t expect the government to step in when someone says something hateful, but I do pay attention to which groups allow that kind of behavior in their associations and which don’t. We all do have a right to leave the rooms hateful people are in, and the people in charge of those rooms (as long as its not the government) are free to control how their space gets used.
- aidenn0 4y ago
  This privileges the government as one of many organizations with outsized power. Should we also restrict private, yet powerful, organizations from similar actions? Clearly the article was considering various non-governmental institutions as places where liberal intellectualism are traditionally important and whether or not they should continue to have those values.

devmor 4y ago

It's entirely subjective. For instance, if you're a Christian, the Bible would have you beaten, stoned, amputated or killed for different types of speech deemed offensive to specific parties. The US legal system also provides many avenues for punishing people based on their speech. Most legal systems and most religions follow similar rules.

aidenn0 4y ago
That's why the quote specifically mentions "intellectual liberalism" not Biblical laws nor the US legal system.
- devmor 4y ago
  That's why those are examples of why it's subjective.

Zetice 4y ago

It’s not that people expect compensation or punishment, it’s that as private citizens, we’re totally and completely free to judge the shit out of people for what they say and do. I don’t expect the government to step in when someone says something hateful, but I do pay attention to which groups allow that kind of behavior in their associations and which don’t. We all do have a right to leave the rooms hateful people are in, and the people in charge of those rooms (as long as its not the government) are free to control how their space gets used.

aidenn0 4y ago
This privileges the government as one of many organizations with outsized power. Should we also restrict private, yet powerful, organizations from similar actions? Clearly the article was considering various non-governmental institutions as places where liberal intellectualism are traditionally important and whether or not they should continue to have those values.