6 ms·

In the "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave" not only do we have "free speech zones" but we apparently have so much in the non-free-speech category that

In the "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave" not only do we have "free speech zones" but we apparently have so much in the non-free-speech category that Watch-dog groups have to sue to get rid of some of them. In the name of convenience, "anti-disruption", security, etc we are essentially selling one of America's greatest founding principles down the river. While this might be a controversial comparison What we really need is a NRA style rabidly pro-free-speech (First amendment- freedom of speech or press clause) organization. This group will fight EVERY single "free speech zone" crap on every public place - colleges, Borders, Govt buildings, what not.

vezzy-fnord 12y ago
You mean like the ACLU?
ihnorton 12y ago
Isn't that the ACLU? (and perhaps the ACLJ?) The need for the parenthetical is telling - various groups fight vehemently against some restrictions while accepting or promoting others. Some progressives advocate restriction on offensive or "hate" speech, while some conservatives, as mentioned in the article, advocate restrictions on speech perceived as threatening to national security or social mores (explicit lyrics or imagery, for example).
stcredzero 12y ago
In the name of convenience, "anti-disruption", security, etc we are essentially selling one of America's greatest founding principles down the river. A part of the problem is the stridency of "speech." There are too many activists that seem to think they know everything, and figure they only need to be louder to get to social justice. The groups that actually produce social justice, however, are the organizations that are good at listening and reacting to that information. I've noticed a pattern in people I've met in the Bay Area. There seems to be a pattern of using tribal affiliation as a substitute for actually listening to people and thinking. You can put people into cubby-holes, and then you are excused from having to listen to what they say or can even dismiss them as some sort non-sentient subhuman. Basically some people seem to engage in stereotyping, but tell themselves that in doing so, they're being progressive intellectuals making the world a better place. Some even go so far as to defend the stereotyping because the signals are chosen and not innate, "So it's not like racism." Hooray for judging books by their covers. If activists were better at listening and getting disparate people to work together, the conditions that caused the backlash would improve. But many people aren't interested in a diverse multicultural society anymore. Instead, it's about saving "us" from the horrible villainous "them" and forcing the others to do what we want through political and legal means or public bullying.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Very true. Case in point: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-protest-causes-major-delays-in-service-2354913.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-protest-causes-ma...
- Loughla 12y ago
  I think it all stems from a lack of understanding of subtlety in arguments. For example, when you watch mainstream news, all you see are the extreme points of an issue. You never really see the middle ground, and you never really see any rational arguments. You see either fire and brimstone, or puppies and sunshine. Take climate change for instance. The only arguments that come up are that either (a) it's not happening, so go fuck yourself; or (b) WE'RE ALL GOING TO CATCH ON FIRE THEN DROWN AND IT'S THE APOCALYPSE. It's never; the world is headed in a direction that we may have control over, but even if we don't, we should probably try to do a better job than we've been doing. I don't know when it started, but it seems that anytime an even remotely controversial issue comes up, we never see a rational explanation, it's always hyperbole and ridiculous nonsense. It's like people believe that every other human is mentally incompetent, and need to be shown the most extreme example that could possibly exist for an argument to be effective. For good examples see global warming, immigration, and my recent favorite source of 'the sky is falling' hyperbole - CISPA. Please note, I am neither endorsing, attacking, nor am I any other verb-ing the items I listed. I am simply saying that a majority of the arguments about those items come across as ham-fisted and ridiculous.
  - wyager 12y ago
    The middle ground is not better than extreme viewpoints just because it's easier to get people to accept. A "subtle" argument is not a good thing. Arguments should, ideally, be glaringly obvious. A statement is either true or false. If you can't decide on one of those two extremes, it means either your statement is ill-formed or your axioms aren't consistent.
    - stcredzero 12y ago
      The middle ground is not better than extreme viewpoints just because it's easier to get people to accept. A "subtle" argument is not a good thing. Arguments should, ideally, be glaringly obvious. Better than an argument, how about a nuanced discussion of reality? How about we get people away from the marketing caricature of reality, and we have them discussing reality? A statement is either true or false. If you can't decide on one of those two extremes, it means either your statement is ill-formed or your axioms aren't consistent. Human language and human models of the world are ill-formed and inconsistent. This is why honest nuanced discussions that aren't arguments are the best.
chaqke 12y ago
This was a pretty cool example of that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSwys0dm_EA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSwys0dm_EA (context: after some occupy wall street protests were met with police violence, an armed Arizona militia watched over a local occupy movement to prevent police violence)

vezzy-fnord 12y ago

You mean like the ACLU?

ihnorton 12y ago

Isn't that the ACLU? (and perhaps the ACLJ?) The need for the parenthetical is telling - various groups fight vehemently against some restrictions while accepting or promoting others. Some progressives advocate restriction on offensive or "hate" speech, while some conservatives, as mentioned in the article, advocate restrictions on speech perceived as threatening to national security or social mores (explicit lyrics or imagery, for example).

stcredzero 12y ago

In the name of convenience, "anti-disruption", security, etc we are essentially selling one of America's greatest founding principles down the river. A part of the problem is the stridency of "speech." There are too many activists that seem to think they know everything, and figure they only need to be louder to get to social justice. The groups that actually produce social justice, however, are the organizations that are good at listening and reacting to that information. I've noticed a pattern in people I've met in the Bay Area. There seems to be a pattern of using tribal affiliation as a substitute for actually listening to people and thinking. You can put people into cubby-holes, and then you are excused from having to listen to what they say or can even dismiss them as some sort non-sentient subhuman. Basically some people seem to engage in stereotyping, but tell themselves that in doing so, they're being progressive intellectuals making the world a better place. Some even go so far as to defend the stereotyping because the signals are chosen and not innate, "So it's not like racism." Hooray for judging books by their covers. If activists were better at listening and getting disparate people to work together, the conditions that caused the backlash would improve. But many people aren't interested in a diverse multicultural society anymore. Instead, it's about saving "us" from the horrible villainous "them" and forcing the others to do what we want through political and legal means or public bullying.

anigbrowl 12y ago
Very true. Case in point: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-protest-causes-major-delays-in-service-2354913.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/BART-protest-causes-ma...
Loughla 12y ago
I think it all stems from a lack of understanding of subtlety in arguments. For example, when you watch mainstream news, all you see are the extreme points of an issue. You never really see the middle ground, and you never really see any rational arguments. You see either fire and brimstone, or puppies and sunshine. Take climate change for instance. The only arguments that come up are that either (a) it's not happening, so go fuck yourself; or (b) WE'RE ALL GOING TO CATCH ON FIRE THEN DROWN AND IT'S THE APOCALYPSE. It's never; the world is headed in a direction that we may have control over, but even if we don't, we should probably try to do a better job than we've been doing. I don't know when it started, but it seems that anytime an even remotely controversial issue comes up, we never see a rational explanation, it's always hyperbole and ridiculous nonsense. It's like people believe that every other human is mentally incompetent, and need to be shown the most extreme example that could possibly exist for an argument to be effective. For good examples see global warming, immigration, and my recent favorite source of 'the sky is falling' hyperbole - CISPA. Please note, I am neither endorsing, attacking, nor am I any other verb-ing the items I listed. I am simply saying that a majority of the arguments about those items come across as ham-fisted and ridiculous.
- wyager 12y ago
  The middle ground is not better than extreme viewpoints just because it's easier to get people to accept. A "subtle" argument is not a good thing. Arguments should, ideally, be glaringly obvious. A statement is either true or false. If you can't decide on one of those two extremes, it means either your statement is ill-formed or your axioms aren't consistent.
  - stcredzero 12y ago
    The middle ground is not better than extreme viewpoints just because it's easier to get people to accept. A "subtle" argument is not a good thing. Arguments should, ideally, be glaringly obvious. Better than an argument, how about a nuanced discussion of reality? How about we get people away from the marketing caricature of reality, and we have them discussing reality? A statement is either true or false. If you can't decide on one of those two extremes, it means either your statement is ill-formed or your axioms aren't consistent. Human language and human models of the world are ill-formed and inconsistent. This is why honest nuanced discussions that aren't arguments are the best.

chaqke 12y ago

This was a pretty cool example of that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSwys0dm_EA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSwys0dm_EA (context: after some occupy wall street protests were met with police violence, an armed Arizona militia watched over a local occupy movement to prevent police violence)