Taking the Free Speech Argument a Step Further


unixknight
 Share

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, Mores said:

The problem that the left has with it is the purpored "dog whistle".  They believe that conservatives somehow have this secret code that when we say certain Constitutionally protected speech, the subtext is actually inciting violence in a "clear and present" manner.

The rank and file "left" (this doesn't only happen on the left, by the way, but it is prevalent in universities where very young, naive, ignorant students are easy to influence) became conditioned into this thinking by the socio-political "left" who has used political correctness for decades to control the narrative.  It is a lot easier to accuse somebody of hate speech than it is to create a counter-argument, especially if you know your counter-argument is weak.

As it is, the students of a few decades past who have been conditioned by the PC police have now grown up to be the world's movers and shakers, taking their skewed ideology with them and teaching the next generation.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
2 hours ago, Mores said:

My gripe is that the left seems to take route #3 all too often.  The right does it at a much lower rate and looks for evidence (real evidence) to back up the suspicion of dog whistles.  The biggest issue is that when there are actual dog whistles, we have to admit, that the average person is just as likely to say very similar things without even knowing they're using them.  They don't mean anything other than what they're actually saying.  They have no hidden message.  But people will simply blame them anyway.

Personally, I'm not talking about pundits. I'm referring to people I have spoken with about actually experiences they have had.  Also books I've read, but I see that as different from news media. 

I agree that sometimes people use phrases that may be offensive without knowing it. The question then is what do they do when it's pointed out to them.

This recently occurred with my husband on a neighborhood email list. I pointed out the offensive term (as did someone on the list). My husband said, "Oh. I didn't know. Sorry." Then he chose another word to use. No one called him a racist or over reacted including my husband.

There was some push back from people who disagreed that the term was offensive. And wanted to argue, but they were ignored, so the conversation ended.  

To me this is a good example of how things can work when people are respectful of one another (and those who choose not to be respectful are ignored. They silence themselves then.) 

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, unixknight said:

I do believe that much of this stuff is well intentioned, but what people don't understand is that they're forging the very same weapons that will be used against them in the future, and don't realize it.  

 

 

This is true on many levels: 

 

1 Nephi 14:3 And that great pit, which hath been digged for them by that great and abominable church, which was founded by the devil and his children, that he might lead away the souls of men down to hell—yea, that great pit which hath been digged for the destruction of men shall be filled by those who digged it, unto their utter destruction, saith the Lamb of God; not the destruction of the soul, save it be the casting of it into that hell which hath no end.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I agree that sometimes people use phrases that may be offensive without knowing it. The question then is what do they do when it's pointed out to them.

This recently occurred with my husband on a neighborhood email list. I pointed out the offensive term (as did someone on the list). My husband said, "Oh. I didn't know. Sorry." Then he chose another word to use. No one called him a racist or over reacted including my husband.

There was some push back from people who disagreed that the term was offensive. And wanted to argue, but they were ignored, so the conversation ended.  

To me this is a good example of how things can work when people are respectful of one another (and those who choose not to be respectful are ignored. They silence themselves then.) 

The problem is this:  What's offensive to some is not offensive to others.  "Offensive" is a 100% subjective term.  It cannot be applied objectively. 

So we, as a society, have two options:

  • Take every single complaint about offense seriously, and continue to narrow our vocabulary in a vain effort to get to a place here nobody gets offended, ever.
  • Progress as a society to the point where people aren't so sensitive that they have to be verbally coddled at every turn.  (We actually achieved this at one point, but have been deteriorating for about the last 30 years until here we are... with people being jailed for speech.)

In any case, I don't think the story you've shared here makes the point.  In your story, nobody appears to have gotten angry at the term, nobody appears to have been hateful in using it... But that isn't what we see in the media, is it?  People are not only failing to behave as adults out there, they're actively being encouraged and rewarded for behaving like children

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
24 minutes ago, unixknight said:

The problem is this:  What's offensive to some is not offensive to others.  "Offensive" is a 100% subjective term.  It cannot be applied objectively. 

So we, as a society, have two options:

  • Take every single complaint about offense seriously, and continue to narrow our vocabulary in a vain effort to get to a place here nobody gets offended, ever.
  • Progress as a society to the point where people aren't so sensitive that they have to be verbally coddled at every turn.  (We actually achieved this at one point, but have been deteriorating for about the last 30 years until here we are... with people being jailed for speech.)

In any case, I don't think the story you've shared here makes the point.  In your story, nobody appears to have gotten angry at the term, nobody appears to have been hateful in using it... But that isn't what we see in the media, is it?  People are not only failing to behave as adults out there, they're actively being encouraged and rewarded for behaving like children

 

If you tell someone that you would prefer not to be called a Mormon, but would rather be called a Latter-day Saint, isn't that a request that any reasonable person would accept? But what happens is then a Born Again Christian (or insert any religion here) comes along and says, "Nah, just call 'em Mormons."  

About my story, offense could easily have been taken about the word my husband used (it is considered  a racial slur). Fortunately, the people who were accidentally insulted were very patient. I think the story is perfect for this discussion because not everyone flies off the handle and starts calling people racist. Once he u understood, hubby humbly agreed not to use that term.  The people who could have been offended were humble too.  As I said there were some less humble "that's not racist...blah, blag, blah"...but the rest of us gave them treatment they deserved....we ignored them. That is what being an adult is about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

If you tell someone that you would prefer not to be called a Mormon, but would rather be called a Latter-day Saint, isn't that a request that any reasonable person would accept? But what happens is then a Born Again Christian (or insert any religion here) comes along and says, "Nah, just call 'em Mormons."  

I'll do you one better, because I don't really care if someone says that.  In more than one job I've bubbled up to HR that it would be really great if "Jesus Christ" weren't commonly used as an expletive.  Has it ever made a difference?  Not that I can tell. 

That leaves me with two options.  I can fret about it or I can do my best to ignore it.  I choose the latter.

You're right that reasonable people will behave reasonably... but that's another subjective term.  Someone else might find it perfectly reasonable to say those things.  Whose  version of "reasonable" gets priority?  This is why we need to make room for each other.

5 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

About my story, offense could easily have been taken about the word my husband used (it is considered  a racial slur). Fortunately, the people who were accidentally insulted were very patient. I think the story is perfect for this discussion because not everyone flies off the handle and starts calling people racist. Once he u understood, hubby humbly agreed not to use that term.  The people who could have been offended were humble too.  As I said there were some less humble "that's not racist...blah, blag, blah"...but the rest of us gave them treatment they deserved....we ignored them. That is what being an adult is about. 

That's fine but again, that's not the way we're being encouraged to think by pop culture, is it?  You're talking about how reasonable adults handle it.  I'm talking about a dangerous cultural trend that's going the other way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
1 minute ago, unixknight said:

That's fine but again, that's not the way we're being encouraged to think by pop culture, is it?  You're talking about how reasonable adults handle it.  I'm talking about a dangerous cultural trend that's going the other way.

As you pointed out with your work analogy the only person we can change is ourselves. You're talking about pop culture, and making broad generalizations, I'm sharing a real life example..The things we can do something about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

As you pointed out with your work analogy the only person we can change is ourselves. You're talking about pop culture, and making broad generalizations, I'm sharing a real life example..The things we can do something about.

Given that we're seeing legislation in other countries (and an effort to introduce it here) meant to punish people for saying offensive things, and given that's the subject of the thread, of course I'm making generalizations.

We agree that it's better to ignore people being offensive to us if they refuse to stop, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
21 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Given that we're seeing legislation in other countries (and an effort to introduce it here) meant to punish people for saying offensive things, and given that's the subject of the thread, of course I'm making generalizations.

We agree that it's better to ignore people being offensive to us if they refuse to stop, right?

You are right that legislation is a different matter.  Sorry, Mores got me sidetracked with the discussion about dog whistling. Thread hijacks happen.  :)

So bringing it together....

I am very concerned about the dog whistling at the UN that pertains to families. We should not ignore that because it potentially threatens us. We agree on that, right?

The trouble I often see in these discussions (I'm generalizing) is both sides believe they are the ones being threatened. For example, Christian's feel persecuted, but my Atheist friend says they are the ones being persecuted. Religious people feel persecuted by LGBT issues and LGBT people feel persecuted by religious people. I agree that egregious things have happened on both sides.  And so on....

I think for the most part I agree with you about free speech, but I think care must be taken for both sides. No easy answers here (I don't mean you were suggesting that.  Just explaining why I'm not emphatically agreeing with you.)  I think Better Angels has the right idea, trying to get people together to talk and listen to each other. I think that is a better answer than more legislation. But getting people to listen to each other....well, it seems unlikely.

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

If you tell someone that you would prefer not to be called a Mormon, but would rather be called a Latter-day Saint, isn't that a request that any reasonable person would accept? But what happens is then a Born Again Christian (or insert any religion here) comes along and says, "Nah, just call 'em Mormons."  

The First Presidency do not expect other people, reasonable or otherwise, to change what they call us except for News organizations who are paid professionals whose job is to be accurate.  The First Presidency expects US to change how we refer to ourselves in the hopes of eventually changing how other people refer to us.  Therefore, if Born Again Christians (or insert anybody here) comes along and insists on calling us Mormons, then oh well.  Free agency and all that jazz.  What the Church has taught is that taking offense is the younger sister making offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I think Better Angels has the right idea, trying to get people together to talk and listen to each other. I think that is a better answer than more legislation. But getting people to listen to each other....well, it seems unlikely.

As Better Angels is displaying - more speech is the answer to offensive speech and not silencing speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
17 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

As Better Angels is displaying - more speech is the answer to offensive speech and not silencing speech.

Touche.  :) Yes, talking things out, but don't forget listening part. It won't help if both parties simply yell at one another. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
22 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The First Presidency do not expect other people, reasonable or otherwise, to change what they call us except for News organizations who are paid professionals whose job is to be accurate.  The First Presidency expects US to change how we refer to ourselves in the hopes of eventually changing how other people refer to us.  Therefore, if Born Again Christians (or insert anybody here) comes along and insists on calling us Mormons, then oh well.  Free agency and all that jazz.  What the Church has taught is that taking offense is the younger sister making offense.

Yes, we need to be the change we want to see.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

You are right that legislation is a different matter.  Sorry, Mores got me sidetracked with the discussion about dog whistling. Thread hijacks happen.  :)

No worries!

25 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I am very concerned about the dog whistling at the UN that pertains to families. We should not ignore that because it potentially threatens us. We agree on that, right?

I'm inclined to agree with you just based on my respect for you, but I don't know anything about that issue, to be honest.  It's something I'll look into.

25 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

The trouble I often see in these discussions (I'm generalizing) is both sides believe they are the ones being threatened. For example, Christian's feel persecuted, but my Atheist friend says they are the ones being persecuted. Religious people feel persecuted by LGBT issues and LGBT people feel persecuted by religious people. I agree that egregious things have happened on both sides.  And so on....

True, though I'd add to that by pointing out that it's not all happening at once.  For instance, there have been times, historically, where atheists could certainly claim they're being persecuted, and they wouldn't be wrong.  I do not believe that to be true today.  Similarly, gay people have bene persecuted at some points (and some places) historically and not in others.  Again, I think they're overall on top of the social ladder, at least in this part of the world.  Meanwhile I wouldn't say that Christians are being persecuted per se, since we still have it way better in this time an din this country than we have in other times and places, but the caveat I would add is that the pendulum was definitely swinging in the direction of Christianity getting stepped on.  I think its momentum has slowed over the last couple of years, but it hasn't yet stopped.

25 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I think for the most part I agree with you about free speech, but I think care must be taken for both sides. No easy answers here (I don't mean you were suggesting that.  Just explaining why I'm not emphatically agreeing with you.)  I think Better Angels has the right idea, trying to get people together to talk and listen to each other. I think that is a better answer than more legislation. But getting people to listen to each other....well, it seems unlikely.

I agree.  At this point I think there's a strong movement to push back against the loss of free speech.  We just need to do what we can to help keep it going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Touche.  :) Yes, talking things out, but don't forget listening part. It won't help if both parties simply yell at one another. 

Doesn't matter if they're simply yelling at each other.  Or hurling insults at each other on each of their youtube channels.  Or trolling each other's Twitter feeds.  The louder these people get, the more other people hear, not only what they're saying, but how ridiculously they are becoming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
9 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Doesn't matter if they're simply yelling at each other.  Or hurling insults at each other on each of their youtube channels.  Or trolling each other's Twitter feeds.  The louder these people get, the more other people hear, not only what they're saying, but how ridiculously they are becoming.

Better Angel's is an organization whose goal is to get Conservatives and Liberals to sit down, talk, and really listen to each other. To stop the yelling and start communicating. 

I see stupidity, stubbornness and ridiculousness on both sides. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LiterateParakeet said:

Better Angel's is an organization whose goal is to get Conservatives and Liberals to sit down, talk, and really listen to each other. To stop the yelling and start communicating. 

I see stupidity, stubbornness and ridiculousness on both sides. 

Exactly.  They're on both sides.  So the more they are allowed to be stupid, stubborn, and ridiculous, the more you realize they are stupid, stubborn, and ridiculous.  So you get to know who they are and won't put much weight on what they say.  If they were silenced, then people won't know if they're truly stupid, stubborn, and ridiculous.  Rather, people will become curious as to why they were silenced so they seek them out instead and the stupidity, stubbornness, and ridiculousness finds another avenue to manifest itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet

@unixknight the only reason I know about the UN issue is because we talked about it in my Family Advocacy class.  The teacher has been to the UN, several times, I believe, to advocate for family. 

I apologize if it seems like I'm being evasive, or flip flopping here..the truth is I'm trying to find middle ground,. I don't want to get into a disagreement about racial issues or LGBTQ issues. That creates tip toeing...  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

@unixknight the only reason I know about the UN issue is because we talked about it in my Family Advocacy class.  The teacher has been to the UN, several times, I believe, to advocate for family. 

I apologize if it seems like I'm being evasive, or flip flopping here..the truth is I'm trying to find middle ground,. I don't want to get into a disagreement about racial issues or LGBTQ issues. That creates tip toeing...  :)

I totally understand, and no I didn't think you were being evasive.  😊

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember, in the 1980s, when conservatism was ascendant. Christians would boycott magazines, radio stations, TV, advertisers, etc. because something was considered not-family-friendly. The artistic left successfully pushed back, and most Christians came to realize that boycotts are attention-drawing, bullying, and ineffective. After all, if we are right in our beliefs, we should persuade rather than insist. SCOTUS declared gay marriage a basic human right, and the rug got pulled out from under us. Suddenly, liberal morality was ascendant. Now Chick Fil-A and Hobby Lobby get boycotted. When we pushed back and asked, "What about the tolerance you cried out for the past few decades?" They responded, "We don't tolerate hate." And that was that. I'm still grappling with political and moral PTSD. :dontknow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
14 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

I remember, in the 1980s, when conservatism was ascendant. Christians would boycott magazines, radio stations, TV, advertisers, etc. because something was considered not-family-friendly. The artistic left successfully pushed back, and most Christians came to realize that boycotts are attention-drawing, bullying, and ineffective. After all, if we are right in our beliefs, we should persuade rather than insist. SCOTUS declared gay marriage a basic human right, and the rug got pulled out from under us. Suddenly, liberal morality was ascendant. Now Chick Fil-A and Hobby Lobby get boycotted. When we pushed back and asked, "What about the tolerance you cried out for the past few decades?" They responded, "We don't tolerate hate." And that was that. I'm still grappling with political and moral PTSD. :dontknow:

The hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me.  But a very close second is the level of ignorance coupled with extreme zeal.

As I said, I enjoy having the conversations with those on the left that actually want to talk.  But when you find protesters who don't even know what they're protesting it makes me wonder what that's about.  Interviews with some of them reveal that they are protesting "What (insert group or individual name) stands for!!!"  Then asked, what (those guys) stand for you get two responses: 

1) Well, you know... just everything they stand for... where do I begin?  (well how about ANYTHING?).
2) They're racists, misogynists, homophobic, etc... They're hateful people...

That's what's out there.  Sure, most leftists can hide behind the idea that such people are outliers.  So, what if they are?  Who's actually making policy?  Who's taking legal action?  Who's preventing freedom of speech?  This is all happening because of these so called "outliers". 

Imagine a tyrannical ruler who favors a slight majority of the population.  He's willing to sue, disrupt, harass, take legal action, establish laws & policy, restrict freedoms of all who oppose him.  He's just one man.  He's just an outlier.  But look at the damage he does.  And the slight majority keeps him in power because he happens to like them.  And they simply claim,"Oh, he's just one man."

The entire point of the American Revolution was that we did not want "an outlier" being a tyrant over all the nation.  The lesson learned from the Articles of Confederation was that we also don't want to be governed by a million "little tyrant" outliers.  So, we have a Constitution that tries to stay in the middle. 

And those wanting to do away with the Constitution simply want tens of millions of outlier tyrants to govern the nation.  And if you're a leftist who says that you're FOR the Constitution, then I really wonder if you've really thought about it.

  • If you're for putting LGBTQ rights above the right to freedom of religion, then you want to do away with the Constitution.
  • If you're for using the phrase "hate speech" to limit freedom of speech, then you want to do away with the Constitution.
  • If you're for disruptively protesting to prevent their opposition from peaceably assembling, then you want to do away with the Constitution.
  • If you're for open borders, then you want to do away with the Constitution.
  • If you believe "every woman should be believed" rather than allowing due process, then you want to do away with the Constitution.
  • If you're banning "semi-automatic weapons", then you want to do away with the Constitution.
  • If you want to do away with the electoral college, then you want to do away with the Constitution.
  • If you're for allowing a foreign born individual to become President, then you want to do away with the Constitution.
  • If you're for compelling commercial exchanges, then you want to do away with the Constitution.
  • If you're for compelling businesses to provide insurance and healthcare in violation of one's conscience, then you want to do away with the Constitution.
  • If you're for government takeover or dictation of private industry, then you want to do away with the Constitution.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Mores said:

The hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me.  But a very close second is the level of ignorance coupled with extreme zeal.

I think it's partly hypocrisy, but also partly myopia.

Keep in mind that most of the loudest and most aggressive voices weren't even alive for most of the 90s, nevermind the 80s.  To them, it isn't hypocrisy, because they never saw what it was like to be on the other side of cultural sentiment.  The pundits and politicians making  those noises?  They're just pandering to the young.  They know what they're doing. 

We all, on both sides, have a tendency to be more forgiving of shenanigans that are pointed at the other side and less forgiving of mistakes affecting ours.  It's human nature.  The more honest and rational among us try to be as objective as we can, but it's still a struggle sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
8 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I think it's partly hypocrisy, but also partly myopia.

I don't see much difference between myopia and ignorance.

8 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Keep in mind that most of the loudest and most aggressive voices weren't even alive for most of the 90s, nevermind the 80s.  To them, it isn't hypocrisy, because they never saw what it was like to be on the other side of cultural sentiment.  The pundits and politicians making  those noises?  They're just pandering to the young.  They know what they're doing. 

I don't see the right pandering to the young much.  If you give me an example of one on the right, I can give you 10 on the left.

Quote

We all, on both sides, have a tendency to be more forgiving of shenanigans that are pointed at the other side and less forgiving of mistakes affecting ours.  It's human nature.  The more honest and rational among us try to be as objective as we can, but it's still a struggle sometimes.

Of course it's human nature.  And, no, the right is not lily white either.  But again, if you give me one example of the right doing these "shenanigans" I'll give you 10 on the left.

Consider Occupy Wall Street.  How many crimes were committed?  Tea Party protests?  How many crimes?

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mores said:

I don't see the right pandering to the young much.  If you give me an example of one on the right, I can give you 10 on the left.

In this case, I wasn't talking about the right.  I was specifically addressing the current phenomenon we're seeing on the left.

1 minute ago, Mores said:

Of course it's human nature.  And, no, the right is not lily white either.  But again, if you give me one example of the right doing these "shenanigans" I'll give you 10 on the left.

Relax, bro.  This isn't a "but the right does it too!" defense of the behavior of the contemporary left.  Just pointing out the nature of politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
23 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Personally, I'm not talking about pundits.

Then replace the word "pundits" with whomever else you hear things from. You're parroting rather than really considering all the ramifications yourself.  You're not looking at the other side before making a judgment.

Quote

I'm referring to people I have spoken with about actually experiences they have had.  Also books I've read, but I see that as different from news media. 

And...? 

How is that any different?

Quote

I agree that sometimes people use phrases that may be offensive without knowing it. The question then is what do they do when it's pointed out to them.

This recently occurred with my husband on a neighborhood email list. I pointed out the offensive term (as did someone on the list). My husband said, "Oh. I didn't know. Sorry." Then he chose another word to use. No one called him a racist or over reacted including my husband.

There was some push back from people who disagreed that the term was offensive. And wanted to argue, but they were ignored, so the conversation ended.  

To me this is a good example of how things can work when people are respectful of one another (and those who choose not to be respectful are ignored. They silence themselves then.) 

Offensive?  I'm not talking about being "offensive".  I'm talking about advocating and encouraging violence.

See how far ingrained you are in left-think?  You've drunk the kool-aid so much that you're making arguments against phantoms.  This is exactly what I'm talking about.  You're seeing arguments and points made that were never part of the conversation.

If someone says something offensive, they have every right to do so -- even if we disagree with it or are hurt by it.  It is only when someone actively, knowingly encourages violence that it is not a basic human right.

Imagine if we lived in a world where everyone was afraid of speaking, lest it offend someone.  What a terrible world.  You have to understand that by simply saying,"I'm a Christian" is offensive to SOOOO many people on the left.  Why?  Because it is a purported dog whistle.  Are you going to stop telling people you're a Christian simply because people find it offensive?

How on earth did that become a standard by which we restrict free speech?

On the flip side, you have every right to be offended by it.  And you can ignore or boycott or any number of things like that.  But when you seek to threaten, intimidate, or harass, or take away someone else's rights because of it, this is wrong.

Edited by Mores
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share