"You can't say that because it offends me"

Сообщение от Orranis

Ah. I'd say it's different because that is actually a current issue, where Nazism really isn't.

Сообщение от Magician22773

I feel like freedom of speech should have some slight limits really...

For example that small church that pickets at the funerals of US soldiers. That in itself serves no real purpose and I think shouldn't be allowed.

As vile and disgusting as Westboro is, they do still have the right to be vile and disgusting.

My town and area has had 2 run-in's with Westboro in the last few years.

The first one was a military funeral that they showed up to. Since they are limited as to where they can assemble, one company here came up with a pretty amazing plan. We have one of the largest trucking companies here in the US, so they used their big-rigs to completely block the view of the protesters all the way from the funeral home to the cemetary, and also surrounded the cemetary as well. The news station also gave them no coverage. So the end result was, the family of the soldier, and the public did not ever get so much as a glimpse of their hate.

The second run-in was after the tornado in Joplin, MO that killed more than 150 people. Westboro decided to picket a ceremony for all those that were killed in the storm. Once again, leave it to the truck drivers to put a stop to them. They all stopped at a truck stop just outside of Joplin to get ready, and it would seem that several big rigs all broke down, at the same time..........right behind every one of their busses. They couldn't get them moved at all for hours....and Westboro missed the whole ceremony.

So, like my post before said......they have the right to be the way they are. But everyone else has the right to retaliate against them, disrupt them, or in our case, just leave them stuck in a truck stop parking lot for 6 hours. (BTW...the truck stop had the right to refuse service to anyone....and they did)

Сообщение от 557473

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Сообщение от Magician22773

Wikileaks, IMHO, crosses a line, but its not freedom of speech. Much of what they release are documents that were "stolen" one way or the other, and some of it is a matter of National Security. Again, they have the right to be critical of our government and the military, no matter how much I disagree with their stance. But they dont have the right to release information stolen by a communication officer. And they really dont have a right to release information that could put our troops in additional harms way. The line I think they have crossed is a pretty big one.....Treason.

Issues like this are why my first post on the matter started with "as it pertains to this issue", when it come to Freedom of Speech. There are, of course things that are not protected. You can't write lies about someone. You can't threaten to harm the President. You cant release sensitive national documents.

Сообщение от Lombax

Сообщение от asakawa

I've removed some off-topic, argumentative and pointless posts.

Сообщение от Aimsyr

I feel like freedom of speech should have some slight limits really...

For example that small church that pickets at the funerals of US soldiers. That in itself serves no real purpose and I think shouldn't be allowed.

While I am against things like that, I would like to clarify that Freedom of Speech is the right to express your opinions and any limits on this right means it is no longer free speech.

As for wikileaks - as they stole that information, freedom of speech doesn't really come into it. What is legal and/or ethical would come into it though.

Сообщение от Squishalot

There's two quite separate discussions here. One that boils down to "Don't be a $%^&" (which I can get right behind but doesn't seem a particularly interesting talking point) and one that asks if a group or individual can prohibit discussion or depiction of a subject (the more interesting topic (in my mind) and the one which Fry was addressing).

My issue is when people use the latter as an argument to be the former, which is what Fry is (jokingly) espousing. "So f$%^@# what?" is a pretty rude way of dealing with a situation, no?

Separately to that I'm sort of in agreement with Moreco in that my opinion is that taboo words should be used at every opportunity when it's in an inoffensive way.

Taboo words, sure, but if you're caveating it with 'when it's in an inoffensive way', aren't we looping back on the argument?

You're using an overly expansive definition of "harm", if people in a different country drawing a cartoon can qualify.

(And speaking as someone who was recently accused of spewing hateful bile, I can't say it did me any harm. :P )

It's libel no matter where it's done, no? I don't think it's overly expansive, but we may need to agree to disagree here.

And as someone who was recently accused of spewing hateful bile, you're not the one who was harmed :P You can't play the victim card!

Сообщение от asakawa

My issue is when people use the latter as an argument to be the former, which is what Fry is (jokingly) espousing. "So f$%^@# what?" is a pretty rude way of dealing with a situation, no?
Here's Fry talking in context.
Stephen Fry isn't using the latter to argue the former at all and nor am I. He's talking about someone attempting to close down open discussion and debate by feigning offence. As I have said, someone's level of offence taken tells you nothing about how appropriate the discussion is.

Taboo words, sure, but if you're caveating it with 'when it's in an inoffensive way', aren't we looping back on the argument?
I don't know what you're getting at.

Сообщение от Squishalot

Here's Fry talking in context.

I'll check it out when I get home afterwards.

I don't know what you're getting at.

If people take offense at taboo words, has it been used in an inoffensive way? What is an inoffensive way - a way that is not intended to harm (not quite 'inoffensive'), or a way that doesn't generate offense (the definition of inoffensive)? We're creating a circular argument by trying to say the latter.

Сообщение от 134377

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Сообщение от Morec0

The problem with "offensive words" is that the only reason they have meaning and power is because people give them that power. If they just stopped caring, if they just decided "oh, you said that? Should I care?" then they would realize they are no longer offended by those words and be able to go on their merry way. Because people continue to consider these words as offensive, however, they maintain the power they have and continue to be offensive.

To put it in comical terms; offensive words and phrases are the very first completely self-sustaining creations of mankind.

I don't know you, but I imagine you've not been bullied or harassed much in your life, if at all. I have. Let me make something clear: no matter how strong a person is emotionally or mentally, they will break down after repeated incidents of people calling them "offensive words." It may not be the first time, it may take weeks or months or even years, but those words actually do take a toll on a person - even if they try to ignore them or "stop caring." At first, the words have a big impact, but as time progresses and the incidents continue, a person can build up a resistance to them. But given more time and more situations, that resistance falters, the internal wall built to protect the person emotionally crumbles, and the words begin to have a more pronounced effect.
And regardless of whether the person to whom the "offending words" are being said is able to ignore them and "be on their merry way," the person who said them is at fault. Saying something offensive to someone, knowing how the words will be received, is offensive in itself because it is intentionally trying to hurt someone. Freedom of speech only goes so far.

Ha! I was teased endlessly back in middleschool and before! Was I ever physically threatened? No, but words and names were thrown at me almost everyday, and it hurt. MY GOD DID IT HURT! It was a pain I carried with me for years afterwards, even after transfering to a new school. But years later I realized what I said above; that words only have power if you let them have power. If you give them power.

So, I stopped giving them power, I stopped caring about the meaning they supposidly had. Could be simply be because I built up a ressistance to those words over the years? Maybe, but with that ressistance, I think, also came the above understanding. Yes, something will still hurt you at first - hell, MyTie's above refference I actually recoiled in shock for a little bit - but even then the feelings can be suppressed quickly enough so that they're not a bother.

I think Morec was talking about it more in the context of 'rude' words and insults that are said without the intent of bullying. Bullying is somewhat of a difference topic, in my opinion, as it is repeated attempts to hurt a someone or try to offend them when they are at their weakest.

Indeed, though the idea can potentially extend to bullying as well - it does for me, anyway. And I've always had remarkably thin skin.

Сообщение от asakawa

If people take offense at taboo words, has it been used in an inoffensive way? What is an inoffensive way - a way that is not intended to harm (not quite 'inoffensive'), or a way that doesn't generate offense (the definition of inoffensive)? We're creating a circular argument by trying to say the latter.

So taking "the N word" as an example, what I'm saying is that if this were real life and we were friends talking about taboo words I would say the actual word and not "the N word". I think it's massively important to say it in that context because it's just a word and the taboo can only be broken by people hearing it without connotation.

I just don't think you're on the right track with "harm". If I question Mit Romney's beliefs then am I trying to cause them "harm" and can "harm" be claimed to have been done? It seems to me that you're undermining actual harm to call it the same thing (like when people talk about being "cyber-bullied" when they get a bad reaction to something they post on the forum - they're undermining the real and awful cyber-bullying that can happen).

"Offence" (usually feigned or claimed to be taken on behalf of others) is used to designate a topic taboo so that it may not be discussed and it's allowed, far too much, to shape the conversations humans have with each other.

"You can't say that! I'm offended" is what you might say to me if I said the actual N-word in a conversation (about the word) because you clearly would not be able to claim to have been harmed in any way or that the intention was to cause harm. That is both what the thread is titled (what I've been focussing on) and what Fry is referring to.

Сообщение от Squishalot

"You can't say that! I'm offended" is what you might say to me if I said the actual N-word in a conversation (about the word) because you clearly would not be able to claim to have been harmed in any way or that the intention was to cause harm. That is both what the thread is titled (what I've been focussing on) and what Fry is referring to.

I know, and I've been saying all along that it's too difficult for us to be able to draw boundary lines between what is a claim of offence and what is us crossing the boundary lines and harming someone else. The grey area is far too wide for us to create an general rule that says "you know what, who cares whether people are offended or not".

It seems to me that you're undermining actual harm to call it the same thing (like when people talk about being "cyber-bullied" when they get a bad reaction to something they post on the forum - they're undermining the real and awful cyber-bullying that can happen).
To suggest that calling 'minor cyber-bullying' the term 'cyber-bullying' undermines the 'real and awful cyber-bullying' that occurs, is broadly equivalent to saying that 'a pat/grope on the bum' is 'minor sexual assault' undermines the 'real and awful sexual assault' that occurs. Call it what it is. Minor cyber-bullying is cyber-bullying and minor sexual assault is sexual assault. Punching a guy in a bar is minor assault. Beating him to within an inch of his life is serious assault. I don't think that the severity of the crime undermines the status of it one bit.

I think that once you start giving tolerance for bad behaviour of any sort, it opens the gateways for worse behaviour as people start pushing the boundaries. I hope, from your moderator experience, you'd appreciate that.

Сообщение от 168916

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Сообщение от asakawa

Indeed Fenomas! Squish, from your moderator experience you know that someone making a thread saying "Yay! I killed Dathwing today in LFR!" will get a reaction like "Nobody cares". Now if that person says "That's cyber-bullying!" (Yes, I've seen this) then that undermines actual cyber-bullying because it is not the same thing. It is not different points on the same scale. It is not minor cyber-bullying.

I'm actually offended that you compare what I said about cyber-bullying to sexual assault and I want you to remove that text from the thread. I'm not harmed by it and nor is anyone else but it makes me look bad and it's a discussion I want to avoid and if I claim to be offended you've got to do what I ask or risk looking like an insensitive cyber-bully!

Fenomas said a long time ago in this thread - if someone is harmed by something then they can claim that they have been harmed and that can be dealt with. If they're claiming to be offended then they are NOT claiming to be harmed.(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##

Сообщение от ElhonnaDS

Сообщение от asakawa

The point is that you telling them "I'm offended, you can't say that" doesn't achieve anything. You're only trying to close something down.
Your post here says a lot so what good does shutting the conversation down serve when you could open it up with all the points you mention above?

The red-headed kid who's upset about people saying he doesn't have a soul isn't saying people shouldn't talk about it, he made a video opening the discussion and eloquently giving his point of view.
It's the discussions that solve problems not putting things in a taboo box that nobody is ever allowed to open.

Сообщение от Laihendi

Сообщение от ElhonnaDS

But what if someone is offended, because they consider something harmful on a broader level?

For example: Lets say I am in a group of Caucasian people, of which I am one, and someone makes some rather vulgar jokes about people of other ethnicities. No one to whom the jokes pertain is actually there, so I wouldn't think this counts as any kind of bullying. I am not of that ethnicity, and so the insults were not directed at me, and I can't say that I was harmed in any way. But I would still be offended. I'd be offended because I feel like those kinds of thoughts and stereotypes are harmful to society as a whole, and reinforcing them, even when the people who are the subject of them aren't present, still is harmful further down the line. Am I wrong to feel that way? Am I not allowed to be offended by something that I think is harmful to someone else, if it doesn't directly affect me?

The mistake Laihendi sees with that way of thinking is that you are getting involved in something that isn't any of your business. You're getting upset because someone is saying something that might offend some hypothetical person if he/she were around to hear it. Of course, that hypothetical person isn't around to here what is being said, so no one is being harmed. You are deciding that jokes about people of other ethnicities are harmful to society and, therefore, should not be said. Who are you to decide what is best for society, or how all of society should behave?

If you are offended, that's okay. If you expect people to deliberately avoid doing things that offend you, that is not okay (this is all Laihendi's opinion, of course), because you are showing a lack of respect for the thoughts, decisions, and freedom of others.

I disagree, which is my right. I think that social pressure against ideas that we feel are harmful is important to society. I don't think that every idea and opinion is equally valid, and I feel the right to say such. If they have the right to express their opinion, so do I. If they want to speak that way, I have the right to let them know that I won't associate with them, respect them, and don't want them around me as a result. If someone wants to have a working relationship with me, then they have to be someone I want to associate with, and that is not someone who is offensive to me.

The double standard here is that you are technically doing everything you're complaining about other people doing in this scenario. If someone and I have a conversation, and I tell them I am offended, you are getting involved in something that isn't any of your business by caring what goes on between us, by the same definition that you think I am. If you think you can tell everyone NOT to expect certain things to be not said around them, then you are also making decisions about how the rest of society needs to behave. So I'll ask you to answer your own question- why are you getting involved in something that's none of your business, and who are you to decided how the rest of society should behave?

Personally, I think collective conscience is a good thing. I'm not talking about government control, but if someone is rude, nasty, vulgar, demeaning to others, etc. I feel that anyone who thinks that behavior is wrong has every right to tell them so, and to refuse to be around it. After all, when someone says "That's offensive, you can't say that..." it's never saying that they're going to physically restrain you, or legally restrain you. It's saying, "You can't say that, and still be my friend, and still stay in my home, and still be around my children, and still represent my company." And in those situations, the person has every right to modify their own actions in response to feeling that another person is being offensive.

No one is making someone else stop- they're just refusing to be around them if they don't.

"You can't say that because it offends me"

Ответить