It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Right to Offend

page: 2
42
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Astrocyte
I'll just add my opinion quickly and leave.

People have the right to speak - but to offend, to and SEEK to offend, is just plain idiocy, arrogance, and narcissism.



[snip] Not only do we have the RIGHT to offend, but there are perfectly legitimate reasons to SEEK to offend.

We find ourselves in a situation where our reluctance to offend changes the way we act, and changes policies, and changes the execution of laws, and even causes harm and even death to innocents.

We have no problem of speaking about 'white guilt' but acknowledging and speaking of black violence is offensive....so we don't speak of it, and do nothing about it, therefore allowing more black violence.

We can ostracize Christians for not wanting to participate in a gay wedding, but speak of Muslim intolerance...that is offensive...and meanwhile gays are not only denied their wedding cake over there, they are tortured and killed.

In just those two examples, we would get a lot farther in identifying and solving the problems by first dropping our 'politeness' and dare to offend by speaking the truth.

It is offensive to some to deny that man-made climate change is destroying the planet....yet history shows that climates change dramatically thru forces of Earth and the forces from outside the Earth...and further, this denial of 'offensive speech' allows our government to enact unilateral policies that do little to make any 'change' except to increase poverty levels.

In all of the above cases, and there are more I could create (but won't....for fear of 'offending' the moderators) HARM IS DOME when the speech is silenced. In these cases, when truth is spoken, people take offense. But if we fear to offend, we don't solve ANY problems. So, speak freely, and not only offend, but INTEND TO OFFEND......

This push for the right not to be offended is NOTHING MORE than a veiled attempt to control ALL SPEECH. Marxism at its finest.

Did I offend anyone??? GOOD. That was my intention.



edit on 14-11-2015 by lakesidepark because: (no reason given)

edit on 15/11/15 by masqua because: Removed political sniping




posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: eletheia

Indeed.



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 08:56 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 10:14 PM
link   
No tolerance for intolerance.


(post by lakesidepark removed for political trolling and baiting)

posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: lakesidepark
Never mind MODS are doing their job..

edit on 14-11-2015 by lucifershiningone because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Where would some of us be without the right to offend?

How empty and joyless life would be.

How would we gratify our idle hours?

How would we even be the same?

Eh?



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 11:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: lucifershiningone
a reply to: lakesidepark
Never mind MODS are doing their job..


As expected. Unlike college, this is not a free speech zone. You are not free to offend on a message board that is moderated; political trolling, baiting, calling names, etc. Therefore I expected to lose the post and 500 points. Point made.

I would also be censored for speaking about certain subjects at the workplace. There are places that speech is limited. However, we are getting to the point that free speech, even speech on factual matters, is being limited, in the scientific community, in politics, and on college campuses; and these limits are going way BEYOND limits I crossed in my previous example that incurred action by the moderators.

(not sorry either, it did bump the thread, and I feel this is a very important discussion to have in light of the recent protests attempting to limit free speech on college campuses)

So...a better way to say it without crossing the line of troll, or political baiting....is that I was seeking counter-argument to the points of the OP from those that support the concept of the 'safe zones', and believe that people do not have the right to offend others when speaking of factual matters.

Bump (again).



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 12:32 AM
link   
speaking the truth should be the main concern.
Truth from relative point is about honesty. If I say something with pure intentions and that offended someone, there is no wrong in that. This was the right thing to do because the person is speaking his mind with pure intention and this should be encouraged. No matter how the recipient will take it. But truth is in the eye of the beholder. What counts even more is maybe intent or motivation for speaking out and the words used to make your point.

But if you want to offend someone for any other reason than the truth mentioned above this is wrong and at that moment you should rather think about what you even want from the offence to get out of. There are just egoistic reasons for doing that and that just shows your childish side. Which you should work on to iron it out if you take yourself for adult mature person!

Free speech is great, but free action must be also considered before speaking out offensively. If your speech will offend someone you must be prepared for response, even physical and even if it is honest truth. So rather think thrice before speaking out something offensive, if it is even necessary? and if it is, than try to deliver it without personal remarks and with words which are not hurtful.

there is always some way to speak about even the most offensive stuff, but in such way that it will not hurt the addressed person. But our lack of thought about communication often brings conflict because of the wrong words we use. A lot of thought should be given into how you will deliver offence in a respectful manner.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 12:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Breakthestreak people get offended if I call them facists and bigots, but I don't get offended, when people call me a loonie lefty or a bleeding heart. Having been on ATS for over 6 years it's water off a ducks back for me. I don't understand why the bigots get so offended? Surely they should be proud they are not being PC and standing up to their beliefs. Not getting offended by some PC liberal?



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 01:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
which I base purely on the notion that freedom of speech and taking offense to speech, has not injured, maimed or killed anyone in the history the world.

the very state of being offended has never caused harm to any human being since the beginning of time and space

In fact, the notion that offensive expression has any ill-effect on a living being is wholly unwarranted and without merit.

Obviously to any awake and aware (and Honest!) person that is;
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.

That you needed to so 'overcompensate' in such dramatic emphasis indicates that you already know that they are wrong!
edit on 15-11-2015 by namelesss because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 03:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: lakesidepark



We find ourselves in a situation where our reluctance to offend changes the way we act, and changes policies, and changes the execution of laws, and even causes harm and even death to innocents.

We have no problem of speaking about 'white guilt' but acknowledging and speaking of black violence is offensive....so we don't speak of it, and do nothing about it, therefore allowing more black violence.



That is something, try as I may I cannot get my head around ... like two sides
of any coin IF there is such a thing as 'white guilt' there must surely be
the counter part 'black guilt'. I find it very strange that to use the prefix 'black'
is offensive whereas 'white' is not?
And to take that further 'white' people can be racist ... where 'black' people
with the same attitude towards white people cannot be racist??




We can ostracize Christians for not wanting to participate in a gay wedding, but speak of Muslim intolerance...that is offensive...and meanwhile gays are not only denied their wedding cake over there, they are tortured and killed.

In just those two examples, we would get a lot farther in identifying and solving the problems by first dropping our 'politeness' and dare to offend by speaking the truth.


We should always require *politeness* as me being old school I believe in
"Manners maketh the man" is there ever a reason for rudeness?
But I do think its time to get rid of *political correctness* .... those egg shells
we all have to 'pussy foot around'




It is offensive to some to deny that man-made climate change is destroying the planet....yet history shows that climates change dramatically thru forces of Earth and the forces from outside the Earth...and further, this denial of 'offensive speech' allows our government to enact unilateral policies that do little to make any 'change' except to increase poverty levels.



I wouldn't call that offensive I would call that outright lying or bending the
truth to achieve their objective as a body, and there should be a system in
place where they could be called out on that.



edit on 15-11-2015 by eletheia because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-11-2015 by eletheia because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 04:47 AM
link   
First off- I am not for the PC ridiculousness that has become popular in the US, and I am in agreement when it comes to that.

Though I hold no firm position yet on the issue, I think I am so far feeling some leaning towards the view that there should be some limits upon freedom of speech.
Like when it comes to hate filled propaganda and such which prones violent action things like genocide. My arguments are such:




The stories of De Sade- how much did they have to do with your life at the time of reading?
I'm willing to bet there was a strong contrast between the environments, events and characters. The distancing from the books words, and your reality, was probably not that challenging.
It is a bigger challenge when one is reading something which is reflective of their familiar environment, times and characters.
I like reading Dean Koontz because he places his stories usually in my home, Orange County Calif. I know the locations he describes, I can more easily "enter" his narration.

I think people have a harder time being indifferent emotionally when the subject matter is closer to them. And some people are more reactional then others, they do not have the same types of abilities. Some lack information or experience which would temper the emotional button pushing and manipulation. Some are vulnerable to being pushed towards certain behaviors with words.

The pen may not be mightier than the sword in literal sense, but we know what we're talking about, don't we? Language has power. Power to influence, to manipulate, to move others.... So that they carry out what we don't. So we can sit back show our palms and say, "hey! I didn't do anything! Did you see me get out of this chair? I just said/wrote something. I am innocent!" You can always do that- enjoy the power, and decline the responsibility.




What this says is that the victim of the incoming punch in the nose is in fact the cause of it, which seems to me an attempt to extirpate a whole link in the chain of causation, something like me blaming the Marquis De Sade for me throwing his book out


I disagree. I think it means that when a person is aware that what he/she is going to say or write is controversial, and will probably cause a certain type of disruption and emotions by others, then their choice to put it out there is also a choice for those reactions. If the Marquis was worried about people throwing his book out, if it bothered him, he probably wouldn't have done it.


Hell, whenever I go to participate in a thread, I look for the angle that is not being represented by anyone yet- the empty chair. Problems arise as a result because if that chair was empty, is usually because it is the angle that most are not comfortable looking at, hearing about, or thinking about! To take it on means agreeing beforehand to take a lot of flack and resentful blame afterwards. I can't blame them for reacting as they do when I make that choice! THAT would be denying the chain of causation and responsibility!

(Though I prefer getting in a discussion early on, so that I can take one of the less undesirable positions , when possible
But sometimes you just get to a party late )
edit on 15-11-2015 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 06:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: Breakthestreak people get offended if I call them facists and bigots, but I don't get offended, when people call me a loonie lefty or a bleeding heart. Having been on ATS for over 6 years it's water off a ducks back for me. I don't understand why the bigots get so offended? Surely they should be proud they are not being PC and standing up to their beliefs. Not getting offended by some PC liberal?

Because being a "loonie lefty" or "bleeding heart" does not make you a social outcast in the sense that being "racist" or "bigoted" does. It doesn't carry the same potency and or the same extreme negative connotations. You will find that the latter two often get used to silence debate on a subject that has become too touchy. More accurately, they attempt to silence the individual who dares to question the status quo.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 06:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost so calling someone a loonie lefty PC nut ag isn't an attempt to shut someone up? Interesting



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 06:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
so calling someone a loonie lefty PC nut ag isn't an attempt to shut someone up? Interesting

It is in many cases, but it does not carry the same level of smear as the other labels do.

For example: the popular perception of a "loonie lefty PC nut" is that of a progressive do-gooder who wants the world to come together and sing songs and hold hands. They are pro-feminism, animal rights etc.

Compare that image to the following:
A neo-Nazi, pro-segrregation, homophobic, anti-immigration/refugee intolerant prick.

Both labels, but the first one kind of sounds better than the first, don't you think? If you cared about your social standing and position in the community, which one do you think acts more as a threat to the status quo?


edit on 15/11/2015 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 07:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope


Orwell was right as always—“if liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear”.


And you could add :

If there are things you don't want to hear, it's up to you to make sure no one ever has the opportunity to mention those things to you.




posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 07:04 AM
link   
Hearing happens - no one can choose to not hear - but believing what is heard.......well that is a different matter.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost

I very rarely use the term racist or bigot on ATS. I try to understand people's perspectives and remain civil, but if I do use it, it's probably because I mean it. If someone gets offended it's their problem, not mine. It's only my problem if I break TAC, which I rarely do. I think you'll find most people even the ones who don't like me would agree I'm always pretty polite, even if we strongly disagree on a subject.



posted on Nov, 15 2015 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: woodwardjnr

Let's not get off topic.

You asked a question and I answered.

ETA: Are you sure you are not mistaking other people's actual irritation with an imagined causing offence?


edit on 15/11/2015 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join