Political Correctness

[El Dildo 14,384]

sorry taken from another topic...

...a thousand South Park re-runs isn't going to change the fact that "fa**ot" is an inherently homophobic slur, regardless of the context it's used in, or the intent of the speaker. I don't necessarily disagree with your decision to berate and insult irish 'I like Fascism' fever, but if you could not use slurs in the process, that would be pretty cool.

agree to disagree... completely.

it's not a slur unless it's used as a slur.
context literally means everything.

 

I don't know when we all decided to collectively ignore context but it's killing open dialogue in this society.

[Clem Fandango 5,174]

sorry taken from another topic...

...a thousand South Park re-runs isn't going to change the fact that "fa**ot" is an inherently homophobic slur, regardless of the context it's used in, or the intent of the speaker. I don't necessarily disagree with your decision to berate and insult irish 'I like Fascism' fever, but if you could not use slurs in the process, that would be pretty cool.

agree to disagree... completely.

 

it's not a slur unless it's used as a slur.

context literally means everything.

 

I don't know when we all decided to collectively ignore context but it's killing open dialogue in this society.

How is it even used in a different context though? When you call someone a fa**ot meaning 'jerk' half the people listening think you are insulting their masculinity. You don't typically call women fa**ots.

 

Also how is repurposing a slur for a group so that it's a general insult not bigoted? If I used 'ni**er' as an insult but insisted I just use it to mean 'the worst c*nt possible' surely that is racist?

 

I don't understand the reference to 'context' either. If someone calls me a fa**ot it wouldn't be immediately clear how they were using it, should I clarify if they meant 'effeminate man' or 'twat' before dragging them outside?

[Sir Michael 5,280]

In that scenario, it would really come down to situational awareness. Let's say I whoop somebody's ass in a video game or start talking sh*t to them in a game of basketball, there's a chance that they'll call me a fa**ot (or any slur for that matter) in the sense that I'm somebody they despise. If I'm wearing tight/fitted clothing at the gym or when I'm going out (which I do btw), I'll know exactly which version of fa**ot they're thinking about as there are people who categorize men that wear slim clothing as homosexual.

 

I do agree that using these words in a re-purposed manner is a stupid thing to do, but people come from different circles, so the words could hold different meaning to them than it would to us.

[Eutyphro 3,104]

I use fag/ot both neutral and as a pejorative. If I see an extravagant homosexual I can think to myself "wow what a fag/ot", and I wouldn't mean it as a pejorative. And when a guy is being easily agitated, whiny, and annoying I'll think he is being a fag/ot and I'd mean it as a pejorative. I guess using it in those two ways inconsistently is kind of bad.. but that's how I dooz it, and I ain't perfect, but I iz how I iz, and I never ain't changin nuh uh..

Nah, but seriously though, I guess nig/er is so offensive that using it in a pejorative context is even more off limits than fag/ot. But if someone used nig/er as a pejorative and I'd be convinced he was not a racist I wouldn't find it offensive. But that's hard to do. Chris Rock used it as a pejorative in his controversial bit "nig/ers vs black people". Actually using nig/er neutrally is just as impossible now that I think about it.

But yeah, Diablo using fag/ot in stead of 'prick' is kind of offensive somehow. I actually feel it would be less offensive if he would've used it against someone who was annoying in an effeminate way, though that doesn't self evidently make sense. What is also interesting is how 'prick' is more pc than 'c*nt'.

Edited September 10, 2016 by Eutyphro

[GTA_stu 8,400]

I think when most people call someone else a fa**ot it isn't used in a hateful way. Which is what should be the main issue. It's like getting upset when guys call each other females in a disparaging way, "Come on just do it, stop being a woman/girl/pussy!" there's no ill malice towards women even though they're sort of disparaged. It's the same with gays. When guys call each other fa**ots they're not hating on gays.

 

I think generally, the more an insult gets used it develops a more general and less literal meaning. And fa**ot is well on the way. Retard is already there so I have no idea why people get upset with that. It's just like idiot or fool now which were originally also slurs against handicapped people. People give it too much power by trying to curtail fa**ot and censor it. If everyone back in the day made a fuss over bastard and said "you mustn't use it, it's offensive towards illegitimate children" it'd maybe have retained it's power longer. Words change as society changes. People no longer hate literal bastards, and very few people now actually hate gays. It's rarely used in a hateful way so why pretend it is, and we must *gasp* even asterisk it out! It's ridiculous.

[El Dildo 14,384]

How is it even used in a different context though? When you call someone a fa**ot meaning 'jerk' half the people listening think you are insulting their masculinity. You don't typically call women fa**ots.

 

Also how is repurposing a slur for a group so that it's a general insult not bigoted? If I used 'ni**er' as an insult but insisted I just use it to mean 'the worst c*nt possible' surely that is racist?

 

I don't understand the reference to 'context' either. If someone calls me a fa**ot it wouldn't be immediately clear how they were using it, should I clarify if they meant 'effeminate man' or 'twat' before dragging them outside?

ugh.

 

it's like you guys have no friends that you ever went out drinking with.

we sit around and get in debates about all manner of sensitive issues, and I'll call them a fag*ot, and they'll call me a dyke, and we'll all laugh and - guess what - still be friends afterwards. when I was growing up the word fag*ot was never associated with homosexuality. retard was never associated with mental disability. I could go on...

 

I don't understand this arbitrary oppression of language.

it's Paint By Numbers Political Correctness. SEE NAUGHTY WORD, PUNISH NAUGHTY WORD. it accomplishes nothing. it protects no one. it only makes the enforcer of the political correction feel good about themselves. and where exactly should it end?

 

But yeah, Diablo using fag/ot in stead of 'prick' is kind of offensive somehow. I actually feel it would be less offensive if he would've used it against someone who was annoying in an effeminate way, though that doesn't self evidently make sense.

but where does it end?

if we're following PC logic down the rabbit hole, then we gotta' stop using "stupid" because it offends ignorant people. or "cünt" because it offends women. or "dick" because it offends men. or "asshole" because it offends every living creature with a digestive tract.

 

look, I used harsh language to call out a guy who was propagating real hate with real anti-immigrant and anti-homosexual agenda rhetoric. the modern bigot can just do their thing so long as they avoid any magical trigger words. but I'm the bad guy for using the magical naughty word which must not be repeated... nonsense.

Edited September 10, 2016 by El Diablo

[Clem Fandango 5,174]

I think when most people call someone else a fa**ot it isn't used in a hateful way. Which is what should be the main issue. It's like getting upset when guys call each other females in a disparaging way, "Come on just do it, stop being a woman/girl/pussy!" there's no ill malice towards women even though they're sort of disparaged. It's the same with gays. When guys call each other fa**ots they're not hating on gays.

What? Saying 'stop being a woman' is incredibly misogynistic and anyone who does definitely has problems with women.

 

 

 

People give it too much power by trying to curtail fa**ot and censor it. If everyone back in the day made a fuss over bastard and said "you mustn't use it, it's offensive towards illegitimate children" it'd maybe have retained it's power longer.

Well yes words are often reclaimed like in Australia 'wog' is now a neutral descriptor, so is 'fob' (it means Pacific islanders it's a long story) but generally it's not up to random individual people. The culture isn't re-appropriating fa**ot.

 

I don't know if you guys have noticed but people aren't generally going around calling each other fa**ots. Maybe if you spend all day lighting your farts on fire at the frat house wearing 'salmon' coloured shirts you can get away with it but it's considered to be categorically different to calling someone a twat. If you use the word you should be embarrassed.

[Eutyphro 3,104]

 

What? Saying 'stop being a woman' is incredibly misogynistic and anyone who does definitely has problems with women.

 

It's not 'stop being a woman'. It is more 'stop being annoying in a feminine way as a man'. Just like c*nt is 'stop being annoying in a feminine way as a woman', and prick or asshole are 'stop being annoying in a male way'. Notice how the last two are not taboo and the first two are.

 

But apart from that, Diablo's argument in response to me is a slippery slope fallacy. Because saying c*nt or fa**ot is not the same as saying ni**er. You can't just say 'pc bullsh*t' and then give yourself a free pass to use every word as a pejorative. You need to be reasonable about it for your own best interest. Generally you're most likely to get away with using these words if you are part of certain groups, or if what you are saying is absolutely hilarious. You are also more likely to get away with it if you use it in actual in stead of written speech, or if you use it surrounded by people who know that you are not bigoted.

[Triple Vacuum Seal 858]

There are regional differences too. In the US, "c*nt" and the asshole variant of "bitch" are almost exclusively used for females (unlike in other English-speaking nations where men are c*nts too). "Fag", "douche", "asshole", "prick", "pussy", and "dick" are almost exclusively used for males. Of course you can make these insults gender neutral. But it's a little strange at first. I've started calling women douches/dicks/assholes/etc. and men c*nts just to be politically correct in certain informal circles tbh.

 

 

fa**ot is not categorically a slur. On a forum with ads and so forth, it's completely reasonable to crowd out the term. We are all people of our time, and for males born circa 1985-2000, the use of "fa**ot" was brought about long before we even knew of it's other meaning. With age, as we became more mindful and/or subservient with our language, the alternative use of "fa**ot" as a slur became the more resonant meaning and people stopped using it just to be cautious. The slur is more resonant because the banter/insult form of fa**ot has so many alternatives (jackass for instance). So people figure that anyone who insists on using fa**ot specifically is trying to convey some sort of discriminatory undertone. Now does it have discriminatory historical origins? Certainly. If I remember correctly, "gaywad", "gaylord", and "gay" were interchangeable insults in the same innocent context as "fa**ot" back in grade school. In fact, gay typically preceded the use of the word fa**ot in American school yard banter (i.e. "Digimon is gay bruh" - circa 1999 grade school banter).

 

For what it's worth, "fa**ot" is now going out of style because is carries a lot of political baggage for a being an insult without much teeth. Can't say I'll miss it either. On the flip side, any US male who claims to have never used the word is either virtue signalling, full of sh*t, or was just a brown-nosing goody two shoes as a kid. When we were coming up, even my gay niggas said fag. Instead of unpacking the word in context to determine if its intent is discriminatory, it's easier to just shame and demonize its use nowadays.

Edited September 10, 2016 by Triple Vacuum Seal

[Tampa 273]

For the word ni**er, just go to YouTube and look up Louis CK. He literally talks about a white guy making him a coffee and then thinking "that ni**er make the sh*t out of my coffee"!

[make total destroy 20,253]

 

 

 

fa**ot is not categorically a slur.

Sorry, but it is. It isn't one of those words you can take and apply whatever meaning you want to it. It's a homophobic slur, and there never was a time when it wasn't a homophobic slur, even if you can recall a time you simply weren't aware that it's a homophobic slur.

For the word ni**er, just go to YouTube and look up Louis CK. He literally talks about a white guy making him a coffee and then thinking "that ni**er make the sh*t out of my coffee"!

"louis ck said it, therefore it's okay"

 

the f*ck is with you people? do you derive all of your social views from comedy central?

[make total destroy 20,253]

Also, I'm not going to sit here and pretend I've never used the word. There was a period in my life--like 7-8 years ago--where I thought it was super funny and edgy to call people "fgts". At the time, I wasn't intending to be homophobic, but it doesn't matter what my intent was, it's a word with a lot of baggage that serves nothing other than to reinforce the oppression of LGBT people. It's easy to pretend that--as heterosexual, cisgendered males--no one should be offended by it, but that's only because it doesn't affect you in the slightest.

[Eutyphro 3,104]

That comedians know how to get away with using those words just proves there is nothing intrinsically wrong with any word whatsoever. They are just words. The issue can be the intention behind it. And with some of these words it is very hard to use them and at the same time convince you are not being hateful. So it is a problem when people who have no sense of humor copy South Park or Louis CK and use these words, because they'll end up coming accross as bigots, even when they aren't. But then again many mainstream liberal pc crowd and feminists hate humor, so in any case they won't care whether it's funny.

Apart from that, you think it empowers people that they can keep others from calling them something? It probably does the opposite. I'm a white heterosexual male. You can call me anything, and you'll never be able to insult me. The fact that I can't be offended is super empowering to me.

Edited September 10, 2016 by Eutyphro

[make total destroy 20,253]

Cis-gendered, white, heterosexual male reminds the world that slurs are 'just words'.

 

More at eleven.

 

 

I'm a white heterosexual male. You can call me anything, and you'll never be able to insult me.

 

No way!?

[Tampa 273]

 

 

 

 

fa**ot is not categorically a slur.

Sorry, but it is. It isn't one of those words you can take and apply whatever meaning you want to it. It's a homophobic slur, and there never was a time when it wasn't a homophobic slur, even if you can recall a time you simply weren't aware that it's a homophobic slur.

For the word ni**er, just go to YouTube and look up Louis CK. He literally talks about a white guy making him a coffee and then thinking "that ni**er make the sh*t out of my coffee"!

"louis ck said it, therefore it's okay"

 

the f*ck is with you people? do you derive all of your social views from comedy central?

I don't remember saying I said it was okay... In your social circle you should be able to say whatever you want, but you shouldn't run down the street yelling ni**er at the top of your lungs...

The f*ck is wrong with YOU? You triggered or something?

[RedDagger 27,756]

Your point wasn't very clear to be honst, and I'm not sure stuff that your social circle being fine with something has much bearing on political correctness since it's confined to your social circle.

 

Also "you triggered" is a p sh*t insult

[make total destroy 20,253]

 

I don't remember saying I said it was okay... In your social circle you should be able to say whatever you want, but you shouldn't run down the street yelling ni**er at the top of your lungs...

The f*ck is wrong with YOU? You triggered or something?

 

 

Fair enough. I don't care if people use slurs in their social circle as long as everyone within that circle understands why they should keep it contained to that circle, and understands that, outside of their circle, that sh*t simply isn't going to fly--and for good reason. As long as everyone's clear on that, I don't really give a sh*t. I do think though that it's important to think--and talk--about how the language we use relates to others, how it can alienate others, and how it reinforces oppression. I don't think that everyone who uses the word "fa**ot"--for example--is necessarily a homophobe, just that the word itself has homophobic connotations that simply cannot be shed.

Edited September 11, 2016 by BurgerKingpeaceRingpie

[Clem Fandango 5,174]

But then again many mainstream liberal pc crowd and feminists hate humor, so in any case they won't care whether it's funny.

Yeah silly women their feminine brains just can't understand the subtle brilliance of South Park and Joe Rogan.

[Triple Vacuum Seal 858]

It isn't one of those words you can take and apply whatever meaning you want to it. It's a homophobic slur, and there never was a time when it wasn't a homophobic slur, even if you can recall a time you simply weren't aware that it's a homophobic slur.

Well I can't disagree with that. I also can't pretend that all uses of the word are homophobic. Such an assertion contradicts the fluid nature of language. "fa**ot" is a homophobic slur to the extent that homosexuals find it offensive. More so than the origins and intent, it's the impact that really determines whether or not something is offensive. It's status as a slur is thus contingent on the environment in which it is used. As of now, the word continues to have a generally negative impact on homosexuals. So it remains a homophobic slur in a general sense...hence my aversion to the word.

 

I was responding to the popular misguided notion that words can be indefinite slurs once they're "tainted". This idea that hateful words cannot be re-purposed is ridiculous. Language is fluid and "fa**ot" will be re-purposed whether we like it or not. In fact, not using a word is exactly how it gets re-purposed and attains new meanings. Old usages fall out of favor and new meanings take shape. That's exactly what happened to the word "fagot" when people started using it as a slur. The issue mainly arises when those outside of the oppressed party try to re-purpose the word because who re-purposes a symbol is incredibly important. Those who have actually endured the pain behind the word should maintain influence over its use.

 

 

So in essence, we shouldn't be carelessly using the term in a public space. It's just as important to investigate why....as opposed to self-censoring merely in response to social pressure from an easily-manipulated public...that's where the real fear (albeit an overblown one) of "political correctness" seems to brew.

Edited September 11, 2016 by Triple Vacuum Seal

[Eutyphro 3,104]

 

But then again many mainstream liberal pc crowd and feminists hate humor, so in any case they won't care whether it's funny.

Yeah silly women their feminine brains just can't understand the subtle brilliance of South Park and Joe Rogan.

 

Lol, feminists ≠ women you silly.

[Clem Fandango 5,174]

 

 

But then again many mainstream liberal pc crowd and feminists hate humor, so in any case they won't care whether it's funny.

Yeah silly women their feminine brains just can't understand the subtle brilliance of South Park and Joe Rogan.

 

Lol, feminists ≠ women you silly.

 

Right well considering that this 'humourless feminist' stereotype grew from the idea that women are inherently unfunny (and that a lot of 'comedy' in our society is just men winging about women), the implication is pretty clear. Or what, you're saying women are just as funny as men until they read feminist literature and somehow lose their ability to laugh?

Edited September 11, 2016 by Melchior

[Eutyphro 3,104]

I don't see how what I said is about whether women in general are funny at all. It's completely besides the point. Only a minority of women identify as feminists anyway.

 

you're saying women are just as funny as men until they read feminist literature and somehow lose their ability to laugh?

It does have a big influence, yes. When they learn about certain social justice themes they'll be more inclined to accept the idea that some jokes are off limits. And considering humor has social power, they have an incentive to be opposed to it. People who consider themselves figures of authority often don't like them or their opinions being ridiculed, which is exactly why it should be done. Humor levels the playing field and destroys illegitemate authority.

[make total destroy 20,253]

I was responding to the popular misguided notion that words can be indefinite slurs once they're "tainted". This idea that hateful words cannot be re-purposed is ridiculous. Language is fluid and "fa**ot" will be re-purposed whether we like it or not. In fact, not using a word is exactly how it gets re-purposed and attains new meanings. Old usages fall out of favor and new meanings take shape.

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying words can't be reclaimed or re-purposed, "nigga" and "queer" are good examples of slurs being appropriated by the oppressed groups they were designed to denigrate, it's just Trey Stone and Matt Parker--two heterosexual cis males--are not going to be the ones leading the charge to reclaim the word "fa**ot". It's entirely up to LGBT folks as a community.

 

 

 

The issue mainly arises when those outside of the oppressed party try to re-purpose the word because who re-purposes a symbol is incredibly important. Those who have actually endured the pain behind the word should maintain influence over its use.

 

 

 

I think we're mostly in agreement here.

[Clem Fandango 5,174]

I don't see how what I said is about whether women in general are funny at all. It's completely besides the point.

'Humourless feminist' is a sexist stereotype. If you want to argue that it has nothing to do with women being seen as less funny than men then fine, but you'd be wrong.

 

 

 

When they learn about certain social justice themes they'll be more inclined to accept the idea that some jokes are off limits. And considering humor has social power, they have an incentive to be opposed to it.

Right, so it's not that they 'hate humour' it's that they find misogynist garbage like Bill Burr to be insufferable. I tend to agree with them.

 

Feminist women are hilarious; all the articles I read are full of jokes. They're jokes about men watching porn and stuff though and would probably give you a f*cking aneurysm.

 

If we're going to have another of these discussions, tell me you've at least moved on from saying Chinese women make great subs and that men are better educators or I might have an aneurysm myself.

[Eutyphro 3,104]

So, feminists supposedly joking about men doing silly sh*t is oke, but joking about feminists isn't, right? Feminists are all angels and nobody should say anything to ridicule them in their holiness, I guess. Furthermore feminists = women, and anything criticizing feminists is a critique of females as an entire category of humanity. Yes, these ideas are obviously true and completely legit.

Apart from that, I'm not sure wtf you mean with 'Chinese women being subs', and I also thinks it's pretty lame if you are going to reference something vaguely resembling something I posted months ago. Keep to the topic at hand, your idea that certain people can't be ridiculed because you think they are holy, and everyone else can be, and how it affects your mediocre sense of humor.

[Clem Fandango 5,174]

So, feminists supposedly joking about men doing silly sh*t is oke, but joking about feminists isn't, right?

I don't know what this means. You implied feminist women are opposed to or incapable of humour as a general concept.

 

 

 

Furthermore feminists = women, and anything criticizing feminists is a critique of females as an entire category of humanity.

As if scathing stereotypes about feminist women being joyless didn't stem from misogyny.

 

 

 

Apart from that, I'm not sure wtf you mean with 'Chinese women being subs', and I also thinks it's pretty lame if you are going to reference something vaguely resembling something I posted months ago.

I think your track record with anti-feminism is relevant here.

[Smith John 4,959]

Today I learned that an episode of Fireman Sam (an innocent, British animation for children) had a scene of Sam slipping on a 'document' with Arabic writings. The PC babies forwarded complaints to our media watchdog, as obviously this was a blatant attempt at making "Islamophobes" of our kids...

[DEALUX 2,576]

Would this obsession with cultural appropriation be considered a form of political correctness? This style of argument against cultural appropriation is quite common on the left right now and I see articles like this pop up once in a while: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-terrell/white-people-should-be-ba_b_10231840.html

 

I don't get it. Whenever I see someone argue that I immediately smell a scent of white guilt. So let me get this straight: leftists think that cultural diversity is good but when white people do stuff that other groups of people do it's all of a sudden racist? Not to mention that virtually all of them are in favor interracial marriage. What the f*ck do you do then? Suppose you are a white man and you marry a black woman or someone of eastern origin? Can you not practice their traditions or whatever in that situation either? It seems unfair to me and there's no way in hell you will ever get rid of racism if you police what people are allowed to borrow from.

 

 

 

 

I don't see how what I said is about whether women in general are funny at all. It's completely besides the point.

'Humourless feminist' is a sexist stereotype. If you want to argue that it has nothing to do with women being seen as less funny than men then fine, but you'd be wrong.

 

When they learn about certain social justice themes they'll be more inclined to accept the idea that some jokes are off limits. And considering humor has social power, they have an incentive to be opposed to it.[/size]

Right, so it's not that they 'hate humour' it's that they find misogynist garbage like Bill Burr to be insufferable. I tend to agree with them.

Feminist women are hilarious; all the articles I read are full of jokes. They're jokes about men watching porn and stuff though and would probably give you a f*cking aneurysm.

It depends on the intention behind it. It's true that a lot of anti-feminists (even women) seem to think that women are less funny for biological reasons but I always thought that explanation was stupid or at the very least incomplete. It seems to me that humor only requires a certain level of intelligence, and women already possess that. This claim that "women aren't funny" is also used to express the fact that there are less female comedians than men. Saying that a feminist is humorless is not a sexist remark in and of itself. That could very well be the case. I don't like jokes that make fun of women in general but occasionally there's one that I laugh at. Humor is really a matter of how sensitive you are as a person.

 

That's the thing though. Feminist comedians tend to make the same sexist jokes about men, and that really doesn't make them better than the male comedians joking about women. I don't find jokes about women funny so I don't see why I would particularly like jokes about men, but sometimes they can be funny as well. I'd like to see an example of a hilarious feminist article. Please don't link anything from the cancer that is BuzzFeed.

Edited September 14, 2016 by Kristian.

[Tchuck 3,454]

Taking things here to declutter the UK Politics topic.

 

 

I don't think that we should arrest individuals for saying anything unless they specifically threaten someone.

 

Define threaten someone. Does saying they are of an inferior race constitute threatening? Does flying a nazi flag constitute threatening? Does giving speech that certain people should be exterminated, or extolling the virtues of a very dangerous ideology constitute threatening? Cause as far as I'm concerned, and the law in many countries, it sort of does. Hence hate speech. Which is threatening. So people should be arrested for doing so.

 

 

What you're suggesting begins to sound like North Korea.

 

Uh no? Laws on hate speech exist in nearly every democracy out there. You being spewing hate, the law can come after you.

 

 

Also your arguments are absolutely ridiculous.

 

That's rich coming from you.

 

 

None of the examples I gave resulted in someone getting hurt as far as I am aware.

 

What examples? The Nazi grandma, who had founded and had been funding an organization for the spread of hate speech? sh*t, if you don't see how that will result in hurting someone, that's your own nazism speaking.

 

 

If one individual speaks out their mind, publicly or not, and causes no tangible harm to others then they shouldn't be arrested.

 

I get it that you are against laws against hate speech. You said it so yourself. "A little bit of hate speech should be allowed". That is such a ridiculously appalling notion. Again, you are free to speak whatever the f*ck you wish. If you break the law, you can get prosecuted and arrested. It's not that hard. It's been this way for decades. Allowing people a "right to hate speech", which you seem intent on, is such an asinine idea that it doesn't even merit any discussion.

 

 

You can't f*cking police what people say. Jesus. It only becomes a problem when speech results into harmful action.

 

Yes you can. That's why there are laws against hate speech. You are free to say whatever you wish. If you are offensive to people, you can get prosecuted for it. It's up to the person, the district attorney, the court, the police. You can't let people spread hate and only act when "it results into harmful action". That's a ridiculous notion. Might as well stop any sort of projects watching over what people and nations do, and just take action when sh*t happens, right? Why keep track of terrorists? Let's wait until harmful actions happen! f*ck that. Prevention is the best medicine, and people are notoriously sh*ts. Given free reign, it will be sh*t. Having the littlest standards for what you want to say is the minimum of human decency. You don't need to spread bigotry, but you can, and you will also be held accountable. It's a beautiful system.

[Mister Pink 12,349]

I'm particularly baffled about people wanting their speech to be controlled purely on the basis it might offend someone. That's some really scary authoritarian stuff right there. I'm all for freedom of any speech. Ideas need to be able to be expressed in a public forum. Bad ideas can be deconstructed with logic, reason and debate. Policing and censoring people before those ideas are expressed is bizarre. I'm all for freedom of speech even if that speech is offending to me, even bad ideas or "hate speech." So long as it's just speech and we can talk to each other, that's the fundamental fabric of society, to be able to challenge each other, probe each other, have opposing views and diverse ideas.

 

The issue I have as well is this and I don't mean to single you out Tchuck, as I really respect and like you.

If you are offensive to people, you can get prosecuted for it.

 

Whoah.. that thought is deeply disturbing to me. And offensive! Seriously though, how do you measure what people are going to be offended by? How do you gauge that? How is going to police what is and what isn't offensive? If I speak out against extreme fundamental Islamism or Sharia law lets just say for its subjugation of women, conservative values, honour killings and anti-homosexual societal views, I risk offending a lot of people for those views. Or if I criticize Scientology and their views. I risk offending a lot of people by expressing myself with free speech. So how do you suppose we regulate what's offensive and what isn't? I think it's a very dangerous path to even consider punishing people for expressing themselves, even if they're expressing something you don't like to hear. It's one step away from all-out authoritarianism. Control the speech, then what?

 

I think you are taking the "right to hate speech" too literally. Right to offend should be more accurate. Because even if I expressed mild anti-religious views, that could be taken as "hate-speech." So, we should have the right to offend because someone is always going to be offended. And that's what we mean by "right to hate speech" because the "hate" part is usually subjective on the person who's being offended and why should the whole of society be gagged based on subjective "hate?"

 

Instead, ideas should be expressed freely in the public domain. Also, people should feel free to do so. If people with bad and dangerous, hateful, ideology cant express themselves in the public domain, how are we going to refute them?

 

Imagine a law was passed that said because my distaste of Islam was considered "Islamophobic" whatever that means, basically it was considered hate speech and I was locked up or punished somehow. It's not that far-fetched. You know people would agree with my getting punished. So will this law then punish me for being anti-Scientology? Or Anti-Flat-Earth or anti-Mormon? Where do you draw the line?

 

You can't let people spread hate and only act when "it results into harmful action

 

 

That's essentially thought-police stuff right there man. "Harmful action" is the key here. This reminds of the woman that beat her husband to death because he was having a dream of being with another woman. I get it though. There is a need to monitor threats and neutralize them before they happen, I'm just worried that once laws are in place controlling speech, the goal posts can be moved to suit a government or tyrannical leader and next thing you know people can be locked up for "hate speech" unduly so.

Edited February 10, 2018 by Mister Pink